Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#101

Post by fdschoeneman » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 10:14 AM UTC

There are lots of reasons to oppose this bill; why assume climate change is the only reason? And if it's fair to assume the opposition is to the portion of these taxes and regulations meant to address climate change, why assume the opposition is to efforts to remediate climate change writ large when the opposition might just be to these specific measures?

Also, why is explicitly political stuff, let alone badly written political stuff, of particular interest to the people who read hacker news? Is it a pun on hack journalism? If so, well. I get it. Kinda.

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#102

Post by shkkmo » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 10:14 AM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #62

Mirioron wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the funny part, isn't it? The article talks about opposition to a bill but doesn't clearly name the bill or even explain its actual contents. The closest it gets is a link to another article that talks about two bills - a social policy bill and an infrastructure bill. One would think that an article in 2021 of a bill or a proposed bill could have a direct reference (preferably a link) to the document in quest…

And the reason why they are bulked into a single bill is to utilise the budget reconciliation procedure which bypasses the filibuster. I think the filibuster has some merit. If you want to do something controversial (to the point that the opponents are willing to do the physical effort of making speeches 24h a day to stop it), there must be a strong majority of 60%, not just 50%. But there must be some sort of cost t…

> to the point that the opponents are willing to do the physical effort of making speeches 24h a day to stop it

That is a common misconception. The modern filibuster doesn't actually require legislators to work that hard and is now generally purely procedural.

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#103

Post by fighterpilot » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 10:15 AM UTC

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #91

fighterpilot wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxing carbon has justification. Subsidizing EVs does not. If I walk and bike everywhere, I shouldn't be funding someone's EV, which has its own externalities above and beyond my bike related to lithium mining and manufacturing and the grid not being fully renewable and taking up more space on public roads. They should be giving me money instead.

Because we all, including you, still live on this planet. We need more people, lots more, to switch their purchase to electric vehicles. We all need this.

We need everyone to stop using ICE vehicles, which is distinct to needing everyone to switch to EVs. That distinction is the reason why EV subsidies are so much worse than a carbon or ICE tax. A subsidy leads to pathologies like bike owners giving money to EV owners when that arrow should be flipped. I don't need an EV (or any car), but now I'm artificially incentivized to get one and will actually increase pollution when I otherwise wouldn't have.

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#104

Post by simion314 » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 10:15 AM UTC

Mirioron wrote: post #49

aerosmile wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never heard this particular angle on this bill, and would hope that it's wrong. Can someone confirm/deny with some references?

This is the funny part, isn't it? The article talks about opposition to a bill but doesn't clearly name the bill or even explain its actual contents. The closest it gets is a link to another article that talks about two bills - a social policy bill and an infrastructure bill. One would think that an article in 2021 of a bill or a proposed bill could have a direct reference (preferably a link) to the document in quest…

>Maybe Apple and Disney are against the apparently myriad other things in the bill rather than the programs to fight climate change?

They have enough billions so if this bad PR had an effect they would have released a cool designed webpage and a cool video explaining why their move is correct and how they are very green, maybe next week on their strategist thinks is the most effective time this will happen. Anyway I would not waste a keyboard press to try to defend this giants, there are people very well paid to do this job.

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#105

Post by shkkmo » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 10:18 AM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #55

zimpenfish wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/571724-democrats-make-ca... It doesn't "grant citizenship", just provides a pathway for "Dreamers, temporary protected status holders, agricultural and other essential workers" to "getting permanent legal status or a green card". Which may then lead to citizenship if they meet the requirements.

I feel like the distinction you’re making is not particularly interesting. It grants a pathway to citizenship to likely-Democrat voters who currently don’t have a pathway to citizenship. So sure there is a process, but it doesn’t change the impact of such a policy.

I wish more people found being truthful and acurate interesting.

Instead hyperbole and outright falsehood abounds and nobody is held accountable for what they say.

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#106

Post by fdschoeneman » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 10:18 AM UTC

hannob wrote: post #25

Guthur wrote: post #2

This article, per usual, is creating a completely false narrative. Just by opposing a particular bill that is ostensibly aimed at controlling the climate does not mean you are opposed to all actions aligned with that bills outward goals.

"We're not in principle against stopping climate change, we're just against every specific measure proposed to counter climate change." Sorry, I'm really tired of hearing these arguments.

If you're tired of hearing these arguments, you may wish to consider not making them to yourself and then putting quotes around them as if someone else said them.

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#107

Post by refurb » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 10:18 AM UTC

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #6

The Build Back Better bill (or reconciliation bill) is the only real climate legislation that will plausibly be signed into law in the United States in the 2020s. It offers a meaningful path forward for the US to curb its carbon emissions. Opposing it means you oppose doing anything about mitigating the climate crisis within the United States from a federal legislative perspective within a timeframe where we can reas…

Nope. That’s just playing politics.

“Yeah the bill has a lot of terrible parts to it, but if you don’t support it you just don’t care about the earth”.

Nonsense.

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#108

Post by sofixa » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 10:19 AM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #62

Mirioron wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the funny part, isn't it? The article talks about opposition to a bill but doesn't clearly name the bill or even explain its actual contents. The closest it gets is a link to another article that talks about two bills - a social policy bill and an infrastructure bill. One would think that an article in 2021 of a bill or a proposed bill could have a direct reference (preferably a link) to the document in quest…

And the reason why they are bulked into a single bill is to utilise the budget reconciliation procedure which bypasses the filibuster. I think the filibuster has some merit. If you want to do something controversial (to the point that the opponents are willing to do the physical effort of making speeches 24h a day to stop it), there must be a strong majority of 60%, not just 50%. But there must be some sort of cost t…

> I think the filibuster has some merit. If you want to do something controversial (to the point that the opponents are willing to do the physical effort of making speeches 24h a day to stop it), there must be a strong majority of 60%, not just 50%. But there must be some sort of cost to filibusting.

In theory, yes. But in practice the US is a two party state, and parliamentarians usually vote along party lines ( because, at the very least, that party controls if they can run for re-election or not).

The US needs proportional representation like.. a few decades ago.

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#109

Post by fdschoeneman » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 10:21 AM UTC

opheliate wrote: post #18

chillacy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just that, but the article doesn't even mention until halfway in that this bill is a 3.5TN budget bill, very much full of other non-climate proposals. Most people will read and comment on the title.

Literally in the second paragraph: > oppose the proposed $3.5tn budget bill put forward by Democrats That makes it pretty clear to me that it's a $3.5TN budget bill. Also, that sentence is a link, so it's underlined. Difficult to miss.

The title of the piece leaves little room for nuance.

Re: Apple and Disney among companies backing groups against US climate bill

#110

Post by pbourke » Sat, Oct 02, 2021, 10:22 AM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #59

jay_kyburz wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans (and Australians) will never accept any changes that negatively impact their lives or wallets. Especially when the consequences of climate change are not clear and present. As democracies, we will simply vote out any government that asks us to change our ways. I think Covid19 demonstrates how resistant people are to change, and that they are not willing to make sacrifices for the greater good. Nearly 700,00…

And there lies the difference that made my grandparents generation, albeit on the Allied side of WW2, the greatest generation. Not the willingness to go to war, that was enforced by drafts all over the globe back then. It was rather the total revamping of the economy, industry and society to support the war against the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. The UK went to rationing, and still people carried on in global strugg…

> And there lies the difference that made my grandparents generation, albeit on the Allied side of WW2, the greatest generation.

The US was pushed into the war by Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was in favor of joining the war effort directly but faced isolationist opposition at home. The best he could do was the lend-lease agreement with the UK, which was a hard bargain in the US’s favor.

After the war was joined it was sustained by a massive domestic propaganda campaign (all those iconic WW2 posters? Propaganda)

WW2 and the cold-war era space program represent the zenith of technocratic government in the west. What we have seen since is in many ways 50+ years of failure: social unrest, Vietnam war, inflation, terrorism, more war, financial crisis, pandemic. The government has seemed to be unprepared for all of those. While it’s not what I believe personally, I can understand if someone thinks that government will fail to meet the complex challenge of climate change.

The legislative branch of the US government is so thoroughly disordered that it can effectively pass one single piece of legislation per year through the budget reconciliation process. We trust this group of people and this process to solve climate change, when it will not even take up the more targeted and effective proposals such as a carbon tax?