apparently you're very excited about this partisan victory. at some point we do need to actually think about how to effectively manage the country. there should be a back and forth about the appropriate degree of environmental regulation since it is a tradeoff between economic constraint and qualify of life.

I grew up in the 70s, and my father was a Nixon supporting environmental engineer. At the time the amount of nitrogen and sulfur being emitted into the air in the northeast was turning surface water into acid. a ph of 6 was getting quite common, 4 wasn't unusual, and if you were in a bad spot it was approaching 1. Not only would that water not support life, or be unsafe to drink, but it was actually unsafe to touch.

So if we were reasonable people we would look at the economic activity and the upside of burning these gasses, and add up the numbers and based on past experience make a very reasonable estimate of the impact, and make a decision.

but we fired all those people, and we're very much not interested in having this discussion. I fail to see how that's a win for anyone except the polluter.

> apparently you're very excited about this partisan victory.

Labor unions are lobbying for it. Most of the AI leaders vote Democratic. Users of these tools (corporate and consumer) are all over the political spectrum.

Tell us more why you think this is a partisan victory?