1. Sadly, America forgot to teach its children how to think, but it’s too late now. The ignorance, it grows fat feeding off its own fears and lies.

  2. I remember what she said during Obama’s terms, so i’m skeptical.

    Also, listen to the scientists, not politicians

    1. What did she say? I never had a reason to watch CNN or any other news network until Benedict Donald forced me to start paying attention.

    2. @Michael Whitted she was in lock step with republicans until Trump, including her disdain of his aloofness, the affordable care act, and she continues to insist that Mitt Romney was taken down due to some plot by Obama and the left, not because of the things he did and said were out of step with many Americans. There’s more… including her rant that republican atheists are better than other atheists because they aspire towards faith

    3. @Adam Rosenfield Yes, I knew that much, that she agreed with Trump over the last 4 years.

    4. @Michael Whitted that’s actually not true. She very much disliked trump in everything he did from almost the start of his candidacy.

  3. So the ungodly “heat dome” and nationwide droughts and floods aren’t important? And its not a problem that can’t be fixxed retroactively. Its Science, not political posturing.

    1. ​@Ryan Rogers My friend, I think you are looking deeply into this matter, but ignoring some basic facts. The more CO2 we have sitting around in the atmosphere the more reflected heat is insulated. As we mow down forests we decrease the capacity of our best carbon sink, and clearing the land in such a manner ensures that less of the reflected heat is absorbed via transpiration, and it increases erosion as well as compounding other climate-affecting factors. Be assured that the problem that has been presented to us is backed up by mountains of scientific evidence. You speak about history, when is it in history, prior to the industrial revolution, that we have absorbed carbon from under the earth and shot it out into the atmosphere at the rate that we have in the last ~150 years? There have always been natural disasters, volcanic eruptions that induce a period of climactic dysfunctionality, as is postulated by historians in the 500s AD and in prior instances, but never have we been the catalyst for such a change in the atmospheric composition surrounding us as we are today. If you want to understand the science, I would begin by studying the structure and properties of CO2 that lead it to absorb radiation, this may be a starting point for you to better understand how this process takes place. Atmospheric records of CO2 are very well kept so you can be sure that levels have increased markedly in recent years, but if you question the accuracy of the data you can also investigate the methods used by the scientists who collected it, and per your evaluation determine whether or not their practices yielded accurate results. You do not have to “trust the science”, that is only for those who don’t have the time or desire to investigate the legitimacy of the claims being put forward, but you seem like someone who is deeply invested in this issue, so I hope this helps in some capacity!

    2. @Andrew Clark I’m more likely to believe science that doesn’t align with those paying for. If I give you a million dollars to studying something knowing you may get another million to study it next year. You have a financial interest to provide the finding that I’m looking for. This is just human nature and part of our weakness. Unfortunately there isn’t a lot a data that wasn’t funded by one side or the other. Pollution is where we need to start and it will eventually end with climate. I just think we’re trying to solve a problem backwards by shooting for unrealistic goals.

    3. @J Groovy Only one side made this political? The whole topic is solely political and for profit. Neither side cares about the outcome or anyone in impacts.

  4. Sorry, giving up the rare chance to cause improvements, significant improvement, the dems must act like the GOP did – pass by majority Dem action after advising Joe that he is not the King

    1. Only 48 dems in the senate want what you’re saying. If all dems were on board we wouldn’t have such a discussion. So, take what you have and then go back introduce other bills to fight more. It feels good to have something than not having at all.

  5. The time to get on board with sustainable infrastructure and energy solutions is passing. We are entering an era of environmental calamity. We must brace ourselves as best we can and that means as Biden has said that “we must go big.” We are going to face some serious consequences as a people if we don’t. Our current infrastructures is totally unprepared for what’s coming.

  6. So are your Masters at Exxon okay with the skinny bill, Joe Machin? I guess they would.be.

  7. Yeah I’m pretty sure people are feeling like they’re being forced to do something they don’t want to do

  8. The “compromise” in this bill appears to be, the GOP wins again, and the Democrats get rolled again.

    1. Oh, Puh-Lease! You didn’t ACTUALLY BELIEVE the world was going to change just because Biden got elected, did you? Where have you been for the past 10,000 years?

  9. If you are a junior journalist or staffer at CNN, and you’re seeing this:
    Ratings. The writing is on the wall. Jump ship and get a head start on finding some gainful employment.

  10. Incrementalism is fine, but sometimes you gotta aim for the sky in order just to hit the fencepost.

  11. “Channeling Obama” would lead to a lot of dead Yemeni school children and double-tapped first responders

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.