I get what the article is trying to say, but the planetary crisis isn’t “awaiting” a damn thing. It’s already here, and has been for some time now.
The meat of the matter is summed up nicely in the following paragraph:
Mr. Trump is at heart a billionaire doing favors for other billionaires by cutting their taxes and eliminating or not enforcing rules that protect the rest of us from asthma and cancer. During his four years in office, he managed to dismantle or degrade over 100 environmental rules, which brought real-world death and suffering. The medical journal The Lancet estimated that in the year 2019 alone these policies led to 22,000 excess deaths from heart disease, asthma and lung cancer, among other causes.
Biden turned green tech laws into favors for rich friends. This isn’t a point on which they’re different.
Could you give some examples of this?
The IRA reduced rebates on foreign EV models. Leaving 2 American manufacturers with a massive price advantage in the market. They proceeded to give us EV trucks and now are throttling back the production of all EVs.
So the climate took a back seat to making rich Americans more rich.
It’s possible it could goad other companies to use the batteries and frames of the American companies. Except part of the reason their EVs don’t sell well is their batteries and frames actually kind of suck. And it will take a decade for new battery and assembly plants to come online.
So he’s effectively set back EV adoption in the US by at least a decade because of the market power he granted Ford and GM.
not to mention how he taxed the shit out of the only cheap and readily available EVs right now, just because daddy elon still needs coddling to actually be able to compete.
I just like to pretend Elon doesn’t exist.
It’s awaited the last few presidents too
So the NYT has endorsed Trump for President? Douchebags.
What part of the article says that?
The pic at the top.
It’s an opinion article. Those are meant to break down groupthink/publish pieces that typically the editorial board wouldn’t publish to make people think/consider other perspectives.
The article itself is pretty harshly anti-Trump; I think the picture is intended as more of a caricature than an endorsement in any case.
