[lapcat]

> the other would very much like to take action on the issue if they had the political power.

They had political power! During the Biden administration, during the Obama administration, during the Clinton administration.

Al Gore is a famous environmentalist... for making a movie after he was out of power. What the hell did he do for the environment when he was literally in the Oval Office, at the side of the President?

[ceejayoz]

> What the hell did he do for the environment when he was literally in the Oval Office, at the side of the President?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_activism_of_Al_G...

Guy tried.

[lapcat]

> Guy tried.

Give him a sticker.

[ceejayoz]

That's more perks than the job Constitutionally awards. It was created as a powerless placeholder role.

[lapcat]

You're missing the point, which is that by all accounts, Al Gore was a close advisor to Bill Clinton.

[ceejayoz]

And by all accounts, he pushed for action on climate change.

As it turns out, close advisors still don't get to set policy.

[lapcat]

Another interpretation is that Gore engaged primarily in symbolism.

The Kyoto Protocol itself was primarily symbolic, with little or no enforcement mechanism.

[specialist]

Are you familiar with the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics?

https://gwern.net/doc/philosophy/ethics/2015-06-24-jai-theco...

And Murc's Law?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murc%27s_law

[volkl48]

The Biden admin did try to make large-scale investments in renewables and policy changes to encourage the energy transition in the US. The situation at the end of the admin was far better than when it started.

Why are you using a tone that implies that's not the case?

[mrguyorama]

>During the Biden administration, during the Obama administration, during the Clinton administration

The president doesn't actually control much in the USA, despite the nonsensical shit republican congresses let them get away with. Obama, Biden, and Clinton could not do anything that wasn't approved by congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_Stat...

Democrats have not really held enough power to do anything at all in like 40 years. A 1 or 2 vote "majority" in a chamber is not really meant to allow you to do anything.

Hell, that very first graph makes it pretty clear why shit is so bad in the US, we used to actually fire congress and replace them with different people.

[lapcat]

> A 1 or 2 vote "majority" in a chamber is not really meant to allow you to do anything.

1) Democrats had a filibuster-proof super-majority during Obama's first term.

2) The filibuster is not in the Constitution. It can be abolished at any time by a simple majority vote.

The Democrats don't do anything because they don't want to do anything. There's always a convenient excuse. You can blame Manchin or Sinema or whomever, but they're Democrats too.

[specialist]

Correct. We're in a vetocracy. h/t Francis Fukuyama

Both our Senate and SCOTUS are anti-democratic. I daresay they've proven reactionary, with a few notable exceptions.

[chucksta]

There was democratic control of the presidency and congress during Biden's term

[knowaveragejoe]

There really wasn't. The person you replied to covered as much. They had the opportunity for a few big bills, which they did - much of it ultimately stemming from concerns around climate change.

[knowaveragejoe]

I'm sorry but if you are trying to both-sides this issue then you are either woefully uninformed or just being contrarian for the sake of it.