"Cheap energy" is not the boon you think it is. You have to consider other factors - deregulating the food industry and getting rid of the FDA would save millions of taxpayer's money, would lower prices of the supply chain and let consumers pay significantly less for food, yet would have drastic side effects. Cheap energy that requires deregulation, more alarming and precarious climate effects, etc might not be a net positive.
Likewise, "not starting any new wars" can be perceived as bowing to foreign nations by anyone who wants to frame it negatively, or vice versa as an amazing success for diplomacy.
Hey, I agree with you there, but my point is that any aspect of politics can (and will) be reframed by both sides to support their preconceived beliefs.
I've edited my comment to speak in a more neutral political tone.
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I said that in any political situation, people tend to posit the evidence to support their own beliefs. It sounds like you're referring to false balance [0]. But that's not what I'm doing at all - I'm not posing any political beliefs as equally valid, I'm stating that everyone will change the parameters of an argument in order to solidify their beliefs.
Go to the gas station and tell the struggling families how good for the environment it is that they have to choose between essentials and going to work.
The current high gasoline prices have little to do with environmental regulation. They are up because the global price for crude oil is way up, due to production cuts that had nothing to do with environmental factors couple with a sharp increase in demand due to recovery from the pandemic.
First, in 2020 the US told Saudi Arabia that the US might cut weapons sales and military aid if the didn't cut production. In response to that OPEC agreed to a big cut production for 2 years.
Second, Russia invaded Ukraine which led to more disruptions in the global oil market.
Some like to try to blame it on the current US administration cancelling sales of new oil leases on Federal lands, but the oil companies already have a ton of existing oil leases on Federal lands that they can put into production but are choosing not to. They aren't choosing to because they know that the aforementioned reasons for the current high prices are temporary and putting those leases into production would just lead to a glut later and low prices, making it unlikely they would come out net positive on those leases.
I've also heard some try to blame it on cancelling Keystone XL, but Keystone XL would not have increased supply. It would have just made it cheaper for some Canadian producers to get their oil to refineries. Because the oil market is a global market, costs rising or falling for those Canadian produces wouldn't have a measurable affect on the market price of oil. It just would affect how much profit those producers could make on their oil.
To so called "war on oil" that people have been accusing anyone who tries to promote clean energy of since Obama was elected, if it even exists, is about the least effective war in the history of wars on things, as any examination of global oil production by year will show.
Yeah, that sucks. We've gotten ourselves into a bad situation where we're still dependent on a horrible form of energy for common needs. That doesn't change the fact that every gallon of gas we burn screws up the entire planet just a little bit more.
If anyone made a mess it isn't the single mom trying to feed her kids, she shouldn't be the one who is punished.
How about huge tax on international travel? On the order of say 500%, make it totally unaffordable. A trip to Europe produces far more carbon than a few years worth of trips to the grocery store and isn't at all necessary.
If you really think the war on fossil fuels in the West is in the citizen's best interests, you are delusional.
In the West everything is a scam. Our health system is a scam, the military industrial complex is a scam, our education system is a scam, our currency is a scam, our media is a scam, the president is a scam. What makes you think that ANYTHING going on in the West ISN'T a scam?
Trump is a troll, but when he was president, he did his job like all presidents before him.
I actually don't think the US president has that much power in practice. After considering the constitution, expert studies, standard procedures, state finances, and public opinion, for most decisions, the president doesn't have much choice. He will however choose how it is presented: make a show out of it or do it discreetly, take full credit or present it as somewhat forced, present a different aspect of it, etc...
In big democracies, heads of state are mostly the face of the country, but most work happen behind the scenes. Even in less democratic major countries (Russia, China,...) there is a limit on what the ruler can do. And if you are asking, I don't think that the Ukraine war is Putin's war, he played a role, but I think it is the almost unavoidable result of decades of tension and complex politics between Russia and the West.
That has nothing on Al Gore, who invented the internet! And in much the same way as any other president doing something popular and uncontroversial: it would've happened almost no matter who was at the top.
(Point is, most legislation and XOs are largely bipartisan. Policy is driven much more by the machinations of hundreds of thousands of faceless/nameless actors than by the guy at the top. In both good ways and bad. The same is true in companies. The genius of leaders is mostly in their salesmanship.)