[unpolloloco]

And instead of dealing with climate change (with EASY and ROI-positive approaches like incentivizing wind/solar adoption, pushing electric cars along, etc.) we focus our energy on getting rid of straws.

Or...instead of working across the aisle to peel off a moderate Republican (tell me there isn't one Republican that won't go for a bill that gives their district a new military base or national lab?), we bend over backwards to coal interests (Manchin) instead of passing a climate-oriented bill!

It's like our politicians just want to bluster and point fingers instead of actually working to pass sensible legislation...

[mikeyouse]

You need one Republican Senator who doesn't have a district to bribe - he/she represents an entire state. I'm sure if the Democrats could find one and not deal with Manchin, they absolutely would -- but the nature of a 50:50 Senate for reconciliation and the filibuster threat on stand-alone bills for a highly ideological issue means there are zero Republicans who will join them.

This demonstrates the issues with American politics very pointedly though. Even though 49/50 Democrats in the Senate want to pass the bill you describe, since 1/50 opposes it (along with 50/50 Republicans) - you blame "our politicians". The blame for inaction lies entirely on one political party but we have to pretend like it's some sort of failure by both sides to negotiate.

[eadmund]

> Even though 49/50 Democrats in the Senate want to pass the bill you describe, since 1/50 opposes it (along with 50/50 Republicans)

Yes, when 51% of the votes are opposed to a course of action it is not followed. Are you advocating that for a submajority vote to suffice? That seems like it would have interesting consequences.

[mikeyouse]

Nah, just saying that when 98% of one party's higher chamber wants to make minimal progress toward doing the right thing, and 0% of the other one does -- it's pretty dumb in an /r/enlightenedcentrism kind of way to blame "our politicians" for failing to take action.

Given the responses in this thread - it makes sense why hapless "both sides" politicians like Andrew Yang were so popular on HN.

[eadmund]

> 98% of one party's higher chamber

The parties don't have chambers; the legislative branch does (and as noted, it is not 98% of the higher chamber which is stymied but rather 49%). Moreover, the U.S. is not a parliamentary democracy, but rather a representative democracy: the politicians represent not parties but districts and states. Whereas in parliamentary systems party discipline is the norm and free voting is the exception, in the U.S. system free voting is far more common, although of course there are still party whips. While in a parliamentary system a majority of the majority party may still control the country, in the U.S. system a shorter way of saying 'a majority of the majority' may often be 'a minority.'

> progress toward doing the right thing

That's begging the question, isn't it? In this case 51% of the chamber think a proposed course of action isn't the right thing, while 49% do. N.b.: I am not taking any position on the rectitude or not of the proposed course of action, just noting that it has not gained support of a simple majority of the chamber.

[HonestOp001]

The bill in congress is a nightmare. It is not simply an environmental bill, it is a hodge podge of grift and special interests.

The climate portion includes renewable energy, nothing about base load resolutions. If we are going to electrify the nations transportation, we need dedicated base loads. Nuclear is the way. Initial talks were not including nuclear. Without this, the bill will be Solyndra’s and New York Tesla Solar all the way down.