Passing climate legislation in the US is an attritional business. Clinton tried and failed. Obama tried and failed. Until the last week of July it seemed that Biden was doomed to fail too. The House had signaled its clear support for big legislation last year, including a raft of climate measures in a
Nice to see a true compromise that probably reflects where the “average” American is on these issues. Common sense suggest a transition period from fossil fuels to green energy and that seems to be what this bill provides.
As to whether it was a deliberate ploy to sucker the GOP or the result of the usual chaotic approach to certain legislation, I vote for the latter. While the temptation is always to find intentionality in certain actions, because that reassures us that someone is in control, most often life just works opportunistically and you jump on what suddenly materializes before you.
No one has yet explained the carried interest tax treatment for the compensation of equity managers who don’t share in the investment risk. It always seemed a giveaway.
As a final observation, it’s nice to see that the Black Lung Fund is permanently funded. Now how about doing that for our veterans who are casualties to the burn pits. Even the current proposal lasts but ten years.
The Democratic Party is a deeply conservative organization when it comes to political economy, as against the political theatre of woke causes (and an abortion issue that it could have legislated on numerous times but decided not to), and functions to slowly smother any real left economic radicalism. The fact that this turned out as a "bribe business to cut emissions a little" process is therefore not surprising - lets remember that Obama was proud of helping the fracking industry. Manchin was just an excuse for the DNC to do what it always wanted to do, with a President who has been deeply corrupted to big business the whole of his political career.
The statistics in your article about US emissions are incorrect, as they grossly underestimate actual methane leaks (all official US GHG data does) which are twice the reported amounts given independent measurements - at which rate natural gas is a worse emitter than coal.
I would be curious to hear what Adam and others think about this, but I think a lot of those commenting on this saga (including Adam himself, as he admits in the piece) were too pessimistic after the 2nd death of BBB. This pessimism seems puzzling to me, as I was certain after the second death of BBB that Manchin was just killing it again to increase his bargaining power (as shown by him coming around with the IRA). This is how legislative politics works: if you're the hinge vote (as Manchin is, given the razor-thin Dem majority in the Senate), you are incentivized to broadcast to everyone that you don't care about a bill as much as possible. That way, they all come running to you and you get to load as much of your pork into it as possible. Thus Adam notes that the new version of BBB, the Inflation Reduction Act, is "larded with concessions to fossil fuel interests." And if you're Manchin, you are incentivized to keep on killing BBB (one, even two times if need be) to maximize this leverage ad infinitum, until you lose your privileged Hinge Seat. Manchin likely loses the seat in just a few months, which explains why he's starting to cooperate now. After November midterm elections, it is likely that the Senate and/or the House will be GOP-held. Even on the off chance that the same Dem razor-thin majority holds -- and thus Manchin gets to hold his Hinge Seat -- the House may be lost to the GOP, and thus the Congress will be split (ie, cannot pass any climate bill). So Manchin's golden goose dies in November. The saga as it has unfolded was therefore predictable (and, similarly, the rise of Sinema to the "Hinge Seat" once Manchin begins cooperating with Dem leadership is also predictable). I could have just gotten lucky in guessing this, though, so I'm curious if anyone has anything else to add.
The IFA may be one of the shrewdest pieces of legislation. The label is a redirection. The content is pragmatic and has real chance to accelerate the move toward green energies. There are many brilliant ideas, but if they don't work in practice they stop at the level of fierce debate that produces nothing. This post covers all sorts of angle, showing how difficult it is to reach a workable consensus.
Read the book "A Convenient Lie - common sense talk about climate change". When your done you won't be so interested in supporting the inflationary spending spree on 1/4 degree of warmth.
I'd believe Democrats' climate change policies were about fighting climate change when Democrats close the borders to the southern invasion. Growing our population by a million a year is hardly a green policy.
Nice to see a true compromise that probably reflects where the “average” American is on these issues. Common sense suggest a transition period from fossil fuels to green energy and that seems to be what this bill provides.
As to whether it was a deliberate ploy to sucker the GOP or the result of the usual chaotic approach to certain legislation, I vote for the latter. While the temptation is always to find intentionality in certain actions, because that reassures us that someone is in control, most often life just works opportunistically and you jump on what suddenly materializes before you.
No one has yet explained the carried interest tax treatment for the compensation of equity managers who don’t share in the investment risk. It always seemed a giveaway.
As a final observation, it’s nice to see that the Black Lung Fund is permanently funded. Now how about doing that for our veterans who are casualties to the burn pits. Even the current proposal lasts but ten years.
The Democratic Party is a deeply conservative organization when it comes to political economy, as against the political theatre of woke causes (and an abortion issue that it could have legislated on numerous times but decided not to), and functions to slowly smother any real left economic radicalism. The fact that this turned out as a "bribe business to cut emissions a little" process is therefore not surprising - lets remember that Obama was proud of helping the fracking industry. Manchin was just an excuse for the DNC to do what it always wanted to do, with a President who has been deeply corrupted to big business the whole of his political career.
The statistics in your article about US emissions are incorrect, as they grossly underestimate actual methane leaks (all official US GHG data does) which are twice the reported amounts given independent measurements - at which rate natural gas is a worse emitter than coal.
I would be curious to hear what Adam and others think about this, but I think a lot of those commenting on this saga (including Adam himself, as he admits in the piece) were too pessimistic after the 2nd death of BBB. This pessimism seems puzzling to me, as I was certain after the second death of BBB that Manchin was just killing it again to increase his bargaining power (as shown by him coming around with the IRA). This is how legislative politics works: if you're the hinge vote (as Manchin is, given the razor-thin Dem majority in the Senate), you are incentivized to broadcast to everyone that you don't care about a bill as much as possible. That way, they all come running to you and you get to load as much of your pork into it as possible. Thus Adam notes that the new version of BBB, the Inflation Reduction Act, is "larded with concessions to fossil fuel interests." And if you're Manchin, you are incentivized to keep on killing BBB (one, even two times if need be) to maximize this leverage ad infinitum, until you lose your privileged Hinge Seat. Manchin likely loses the seat in just a few months, which explains why he's starting to cooperate now. After November midterm elections, it is likely that the Senate and/or the House will be GOP-held. Even on the off chance that the same Dem razor-thin majority holds -- and thus Manchin gets to hold his Hinge Seat -- the House may be lost to the GOP, and thus the Congress will be split (ie, cannot pass any climate bill). So Manchin's golden goose dies in November. The saga as it has unfolded was therefore predictable (and, similarly, the rise of Sinema to the "Hinge Seat" once Manchin begins cooperating with Dem leadership is also predictable). I could have just gotten lucky in guessing this, though, so I'm curious if anyone has anything else to add.
Thanks for this - it's a fantastic piece of political economy writing and something I've not really seen elsewhere.
The IFA may be one of the shrewdest pieces of legislation. The label is a redirection. The content is pragmatic and has real chance to accelerate the move toward green energies. There are many brilliant ideas, but if they don't work in practice they stop at the level of fierce debate that produces nothing. This post covers all sorts of angle, showing how difficult it is to reach a workable consensus.
Read the book "A Convenient Lie - common sense talk about climate change". When your done you won't be so interested in supporting the inflationary spending spree on 1/4 degree of warmth.
I'd believe Democrats' climate change policies were about fighting climate change when Democrats close the borders to the southern invasion. Growing our population by a million a year is hardly a green policy.