The Democrats have functionally done nothing about global warming in the last thirty years except released even more CO2 in hot air paying lip service

Yes, one is worse than the other. But in terms of real environmental policy, they are functionally the same.

▲

lovich 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

They’ve functionally done a fuck ton while not knee capping the economy at the same time. The IRA injected a massive amount of funds into environmentally friendly technology and infrastructure. Half my street put up solar in the past 2 years because of these subsidies.

The state of California passed the 2/3rds powered by renewables mark https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/07/14/in-historic-first-californ...

The Republicans are looking at bringing back coal mining. You’re just completely incorrect in your classification of both parties being as bad on the environment unless your bucket is so broad as to be meaningless for use in comparing two organizations

▲

dchftcs 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Democrats brought EV credits and renewable energy subsidies, this government ended them.

▲

intermerda 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm really puzzled how you claim to this conclusion. The positions and policies of the last two Democratic administrations are pretty well-known. They are trivially googlable. Or you can ask AI to summarize them for you. Off the top of my head, without going to Google I can think of Obama's CAFE standards and Biden's Inflation Reduction Act.

When multiple independent research groups show that the impact of implementing these policies show significant reduction in projected greenhouse gas emissions and rolling them back shows the opposite effect, how do you make the claim that they are "functionally the same"? And I don't even count the soft power - one side consistently claims that climate change is a hoax and the other side consistently takes it seriously.

I don't understand this at all. I could get behind an "enlightened centrist" position when it comes to foreign policy in the Middle East. But environmental policy?

	▲	AtlasBarfed 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Who is the preeminent manufacturer of solar PV and electric vehicles in the world? How is our charging infrastructure compared to say Europe's? Considering we've had the technology for almost 30 years now, why isn't practically every consumer vehicle a phev? I'm not going to believe any projected carbon emissions. I'm going to believe real carbon emissions that get measured. Hey, guess what? They are still going up. I get that they were solar subsidies, but it's my strong opinion that there should have been unrefusable subsidies for home solar. I get so sick of the utility people complaining about how hard it's going to be to adapt the grid to alternative energy. Yet in the same time they bad mouth home solar which basically alleviates grid load. There still is no effective policy implementations on reducing sprawl, except that which simply resists building housing in general. And while I generally think nuclear energy isn't really an effective solution for clean energy, it should still be aggressively researched, although I think they should be chasing lftrs like China is. You can say a lot of these are simply politically infeasible. That speaks more to the nature of the Democrats being a corporatist party than anything. a lot of these policies, especially ones around alternative energy and transport electrification which would functionally drop the price of energy and transportation, a key driver to economic growth in the long term, should have been a strong sell overall to the business lobby in general. I'm not going to disagree that the only place that you're going to get some environmental progress is the Democratic party. My point is that progress is mostly for show.