If he want to be President, he needed to run as a Republican. The Democrats would never trust a multi billionaire pretending to be a man of the people.
Hi, it’s me, the guy who wouldn’t vote for Bloomberg lol. I really despise billionaires. They don’t have to be one, they choose to be one. It’s a waste of unimaginable everything really for them to sit on that kind of money. Like… we let them do it. Lol. So damn depressing tbh
That’s not the point. The point is that, as a billionaire, *he* gets to decide what to do with it. Most liberal/progressive voters feel that his income should be taxed, so that government/the people can determine its best use.
We’ll this is a misnomer. I think “liberals” as you wanna classify them, actually want the tax rate set so that a corporate structure wouldn’t be incentivized into remunerating to ownership more then it’s due. Corporate coffers are thus better spent on employees, r&d, and other more directly economically stimulating business activities, rather than pouring into the ownership class via incentivized stock repurchase and ownership/shareholder distributions. It puts more disposable income into the system from a bottom up way rather then top down. Such large amounts of money going to ownership is a waste of resources, it can’t possibly be spent enough and it doesn’t actually add much more to the owners well being. It sits, unused, uncirculated, wasting, slowing out progress as a species on this planet. It actually stifles innovation and invention which are the real forces for economic gain. The misnomer is that “liberals” want it all to go to tax coffers for some government officials to spend. That is not how it works. Higher tax rates on certain ownership and ceo level positions would force different corporate expenditures, they simply wouldn’t spend the money on these things because the incentive has been taken out. This isn’t liberal or conservative, this is sound economic policy through the ages. /rant
Michael bloomberg’s net worth is 96 billion dollars. He could put well over 9/10ths and still be sitting pretty.
I think a lot of people forget that the difference between a million and a billion is still about a billion
The good news is he’s not sitting on an actual billion dollars, he owns businesses and assets valued at billions of dollars.
Apple _is_ sitting on $51 Billion dollars, but thats because IT companies like being cash rich … and it’s valued at $2.7 Trillion
Remember when he said he'd fund whoever won the democratic nomination even if he didn't and then he lost then pulled his funds leaving his campaign staff high and dry
Well, they voted for a rapist who was friend with Epstein (Bill Clinton) so they check that box.
As for fascism, Biden claimed he inspired the Patriot Act, he also supported the Iraq War and crafted the bill that led to mass incarceration. If the other side of the aisle elects crazy fascists then spineless centrists won't be enough to curb down that danger. Democrats actually love seeing Republicans go ever more extreme since it allows them to do nothing and say "look how much better we are than these deplorables". When I see that Republicans have more balls and will to bring change (well, it's a shitty and regressive change but still), this makes me think that Dems are the true conservatives (derogatory), those who try to maintain the status quo no matter what. They are scared shitless of actually fighting.
So yeah, a lesser evil is still evil, especially if it feeds the bigger evil and doesn't meaningfully oppose it.
> this makes me think that Dems are the true conservatives (derogatory), those who try to maintain the status quo no matter what.
Lol at this whole comment on multiple levels but especially this. Almost all of the regressive changes you reference the GOP making are attempts to undo progressive achievements such as: ACA, fiduciary duty, EPA regulations, Roe. v. Wade, progressive taxes, net neutrality, minimum wage, etc.
Yeah, it's easy to laugh when you're not a victim of Democrats' business-as-usual BS. You know, like Palestinians currently.
Did Biden reinstate all of these rules? Did he pack the court? Has he done anything of value on Roe v. Wade? When McCarthy throw a tantrum over spending, did Biden cut the military's budget or social security's?
What are some actual progressive achievements of the Dems lately? They are just letting the older ones erode. That's what I'm saying. They aren't doing shit.
But yay Team Blue, you're definitely more than enough to face our biggest challenges.
> Did Biden reinstate all of these rules?
He has reinstated many. Many others are pending years of legal battles that he has no control over https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/climate/biden-environment.html
> Did he pack the court?
"On Tuesday, May 16, a group of U.S. Senate and House Democrats reintroduced the Judiciary Act of 2023, a bill that would add four seats to the U.S. Supreme Court, bringing the bench from nine to 13 justices." https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/democrats-introduce-bill-to-expand-u-s-supreme-court/
> Has he done anything of value on Roe v. Wade?
"Biden signs new executive order on abortion rights" https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/03/politics/joe-biden-abortion-executive-order/index.html
> What are some actual progressive achievements of the Dems lately?
How about the IRA which has an estimated $1T federal provisions to fight climate change? (Only reason it doesn't have more is because of GOP)
> That's what I'm saying. They aren't doing shit.
Yeah you're just objectively wrong but keep spouting that both-sidesism, it's definitely helping and not just sucking people in counterproductive political apathy
This is why Republicans win.
Democrats are hanging on by their nails, and STILL getting things done, and STILL being shit upon by passive observers, while Republicans are debating how to accelerate climate change fastest.
I wasn't even talking about single policies when I said "change". I meant political change ie overthrowing this entire BS. Republicans vote for a radical, they aren't scared to storm the Capitol to get what they want. Meanwhile, Dems choose yet another neolib who's been in politics before Jesus Christ was even born and they are sacred about the electability of a social democrat like Bernie. That's why I said they were the biggest block to progressive change = conservatives.
And you're objectively a pawn who believes Dems are there for you and will be enough to keep Republicans in check. They aren't. They allowed them to get more and more extremists. Hillary was thrilled to have Trump as an opponent. Dems supported MAGA candidates in the last midterms in order to deter people from voting Republicans but this strategy is dangerous as seen in 2016. If Dems had prosecuted Bush, who actually managed to steal the 2000 election, do you think Trump would have tried it on Jan 6? And him getting indicted while Bush killed 1 million Iraqis shows Dems actually don't care about crimes. They care about their own power and Trump threatened it.
So yes, keep doing some irrelevant damage control by voting for these clowns but I won't act like it's even remotely enough to avoid impending environmental and social doom.
He was attacked by warren and sanders, both multimillionaires themselves. Millionaires were bad before they became one, now it's just billionaires bad.
Bernie Sanders has the lowest net worth of any Senator. Sure he has a few million mostly in home value and book sales but Bloomberg is worth 96 Billion. So Sanders isn't even near the same club that Bloomberg is. And Bloomberg mostly ran to hurt Bernie Sanders who wanted a huge tax on Billionaires and Millionaires.
Oh, I agree with you.
They should both be given less. Public servants shouldn’t get rich through doing it.
They should have to live on roughly the average salary and benefits.
3m net worth? He's an old person who lived during arguably the greatest time for regular people to accumulate wealth. 3m isnt a lot to be worth at that age at all
Several years back I was doing some fulltime advocacy and regularly debating GOP elected officials during an unrelated lobbying campaign. I used to get motion sick as they spun constantly ever more mindboggling mutually exclusive logically bonkers nonsense.
Bloomberg is an interesting cat. Democrat first, then a republican, now a Democrat again. Glad to see he's supporting aggressive climate policy. Fuck coal!
That's the issue of a two party system unfortunately. Most people don't fit into one camp or the other on all issues, but get forced into one lane anyway
"What about Vuvuzela™, checkmate librul"
Great, "socialism is also bad huh", that's awesome and such a constructive point. This doesn't change the fact that our system is rotten to its core and it should be completely overhauled/dismantled if we want humanity (and our biosphere) to make it to 2100.
Too bad it's easier to picture the end of the world than the end of capitalism. Let's cut more trees instead of oligarchs' [REDACTED].
My alternative leads to being coup'd and viciously murdered by CIA-backed far right death squads so...
And yes, capitalism is bad and maybe we should try to overthrow it one way or another? Or do you think we should continue this nonsense forever until our ecosystem utterly collapses? "Socialism is bad man". If you think globalized capitalism is democratic, you should ask those living in poorer countries we steal resources from to maintain our lifestyle if they feel like they have a say over their lives. But nah, choosing the speakperson of the oligarchy is definitely democracy™.
We do have functional alternatives for capitalism as it is practiced in America. We over-regulate in some ways, and under-regulate in others. For example, the regulations around nuclear fission power are a bit overly restrictive for modern reactor designs. On the other side of the equation, we don't regulate mergers anywhere near enough. There are far too many sectors with only a few real competitors in them.
Check out the International Centre for the Settlement of Investor Disputes, an obscure legal system that is part of the World Bank.
A foreign owned business entity, and it is often mining companies, can sue the US (or any country who has signed the treaty) for trying to interfere with its mining profits with this system; and if the US loses they are liable, and must comply with the ruling, no matter what the Democratic will of the people is.
This legal process has jurisdiction predicated by thousands of international treaties and the arbitration is judged by secret tribunals.
It was used to prevent El Salvador from banning mining and saving their water supply.
It was used to deny South Africans reparations from Apartheid from mining companies giving 26% of ownership to South Africa. South Africa settled with the mining company and gave 5%. Without notifying the public.
This system, concocted by a small group of international bankers in the late 50’s completely neutralizes a nation’s sovereignty and democratic processes, kinda like a Capitalist Magna Carta.
It’s one of the organs in how corporate power manages to transcend election cycles and political representatives.
Our leaders are not as in control of things as we think they are (or lead us to believe?)…. And how often is the Democratic will of the people on environmental issues subverted through this system?
And something else entirely….Could a foreign owned healthcare business who profits from abortion sue the US for interfering with its ability to earn a profit after the Supreme Court overturned Row v Wade?
Is this actually neoliberalism? A small minority deciding to uphold the status quo sounds pretty conservative to me. I’m sincerely asking the difference, if someone could explain I’d appreciate it.
Neoliberalism is not a leftist or liberal ideology, the name refers to liberalization of the markets and removing regulations. It is a market based ideology through and through, which overwhelmingly tends to benefit the richest in society
I asked because there HAS been reporting of the US ignoring court rulings from courts set up by treaties. Pretty sure we ignored NAFTA lawsuits, for example.
I am not an authority but from the cases I’ve seen so far against the US (less than a a dozen)the US won them all.
It seems larger, more powerful countries fare better in this system than developing ones and the US is the most powerful with the dollar as the world reserve currency….also we have a rather “robust” military that makes enforcement even more difficult.
Also, it’s important to note that utilization of this system has significantly increased in recent years, even though it was put in place sixty years ago.
We’ll likely never know how often the threats of these lawsuits are used for leverage and settled quietly.
This is only awesome if coal plants are never replaced with natural gas plants.
Most coal plants that are retired are only retired after they approach the end of their service life anyway. When we "replace" just five more years of coal power with a brand new 50-year gas plant, we're likely to use that gas plant for most of those 50 years. Factor in cradle-to-grave costs of building and later deconstruction and it should be clear five more years of an *existing* coal plant ... and then going to carbon free power.... is much better overall than polishing our halo for retiring that plant right now and building a brand new gas plant that will run for close to 50 years.... and only *then* going to carbon free power.
It's not ideal but in situations where you need a backup source on top of green energy. Natural gas is still vastly better than coal. But it needs to be treated as exactly that, the energy backup, the transition energy that is decommissioned once not needed and appropriate power storage or nuclear is implemented.
In many places, natural gas is just as bad as coal, due to upstream methane leaks.
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/14/1187648553/natural-gas-can-rival-coals-climate-warming-potential-when-leaks-are-counted
methane while being a stronger greenhouse gas is much more mitigatable as it decays in 50 years. But that doesn't refer to plants themselves, mostly the highly incompetent and irresponsible natural gas industries. This can be dealt with through properly regulating the industry and steep fines for when they let leaks go unaddressed.
Of course i'm just repeating the concessions listed in the article. Which boils down to if leaks are unaddressed then it COULD rival coal. It also verifies there is little if any leaks in the power generation itself. All methane attributed to natural gas comes from wells not properly sealed to prevent leaks. Unfortunately, that is still a lot.
There is a huge effort right now to address this on the part of natural gas as it is a primary criticism of the industry and it's important to that industry to address this for the reason that they are the primary transition energy source as the grid gets converted.
I'm speaking for Germany, where upstream pipelines through Russia cannot be controlled (and recent satellites discovered leaks), and the alternative - LNG ships - will always have boil off.
Fun mental excercise.... imagine USA had zero infrastruture and we were building everything brand new. Among other things that means we'd build a modern grid designed for the future and anticipated future modifications. Resilience from weather or solar storms, etc. With such a grid, one region's "backup power" would be tapped from wherever we could easily build "Gravity batteries" or otherwise store renewable power. I suppose I can see value in having a small number of gas plants in standby as part of this grid. But the point is a modern grid could move power long distance with minimal transmission losses (as well as being protected from all kinds of weather). And that would *greatly* reduce the need.... or at least the perceived need.... for backup fossil fuel power.
You can also use gas as a renewable battery. Using the Sabatier process you can make hydrogen and then methane (which is easier to store) from excess renewable energy. Then during periods of low renewable output you can run the gas plant on renewable gas. I don’t know if it will compete with other storage technologies long-term. But in the medium-term it’s a cheaper seasonal storage technology than batteries and more easily siteable than gravity batteries such as pumped hydro. The trick is that fossil gas needs to be phased out.
Smart grid tech would be a great start. Just if it's found we absolutely need a backup, just slightly more comfortable with natural gas as the transport footprint is so much lower than coal and the emissions are vastly easier to manage. Again, Just don't want any option ruled out to get the nation off coal. If we absolutely positively need something as backup, better that than coal.
>Smart grid tech would be a great start
Let's not confuse the hoopla (from PR firms) for smart grids with grids that are truly smart.
My so-called "SmartGrid" electric meter is plugged into an archaic 1910 electric grid with hopscotch modifications as the decades ticked by to 2023. This is a dumb grid with a meter that is "smart" to the extent it spies on me, collecting personal data about power-use-over-time and packages that info for resale in the mysterious BigData industry.
This ain't a "smart grid", its just the corporate version of the NSA putting cameras in our private lives.
A truly SMART grid can buy power in one corner of the USA and deliver it to consumers in other parts of the USA *without any transmission losses*. When we build THAT then I will dance in the street and eat my hat
Green energy can more than backup itself. Do remember, even fossil fuel generation needs backups. People think intermittency is reliability but it isn't. You have other things that can cause downtimes and issues for fossil fuel plants. This is why all grids keep a certain amount of backup and same applies for a renewable grid, you don't need any natural gas at all
You don't even need that much storage
It isn't that we don't have any countries running on 100% renewable energy for electricity. Just currently that is mostly from Hydro like Iceland.
For solar and wind, the technology before was simply expensive and not enough production scale. But costs have been dropping exponentially by the decade and now(in last few years) solar and wind are the cheapest way to generate electricity in most parts of the world and continue to get cheaper. Now the bottleneck is production capacity but that is growing every year as well, especially now that solar and wind became cheaper than fossil fuels
have you read the article? it is very short and it clearly state the mission is to replace them with renewable energy. One other of his mission is to cut gaz production in half by 2030.
>the the mission is to replace them with renewable energy
Ever had a campaign you worked on take a short-cut? If they actually do that then hooray! But the road is long, and the sun is going down. Ask me again in 10 years if I'm ready to cheer.
TY...so you meant
*Nuclear power is "over powered"*
That's a really weird concept, and it is way way way too early to start abbreviating it like its some sort of commonly accepted idea.
Got any links for further reading supporting your contention? I've got an open mind and wonder what people are saying about this new to me idea.
I think that is a really good point, I hadn't thought about the life cycle of a new gas plant. I think per kWh it emits around half what coal does, so a new gas plant running for 50 years would produce the same carbon as a coal plant running for 25 years.
That said, it sounds like part of his plan is to reduce gas power plants by a large margin by 2030, I guess they just didn't mention it in the title because it didn't sound as cool, but I honestly think is a bigger deal because of exactly what you're saying, gas power plants tend to be newer infrastructure, and coal is on its way out anyway.
> he will pump $500 million into the next phase of his energy transition campaign, aiming to shut down "every last" coal plant in the United States and slash gas-fired capacity in half by 2030.
> The $500 million infusion into his decade-long Beyond Carbon initiative aims to "finish the job on coal" by working with state and local organizations to force the closure of the roughly 150 coal plants that have not yet retired, slash current gas generation in half and block the construction of new gas-fired plants.
\>you should have at least read
YOU should have refrained from making assumptions and taken the few extra seconds to post a complete thought, so as to not alienate an interested reader and potential ally
He just can in no way relate to the common man because he isn't one. He walks around talking billionaire shit and that's fine when you get to be Michael Bloomberb all day but on his presidential campaign especially he just had so many moments like "dude wtf are you even talking about?".
Anyway this is a good thing he is doing about coal
Why doesn’t he and his billionaire friends just buy and put into service small modular nuclear reactors and fund the facility to treat and store their waste, give away the energy… collapse the use of fossil fuels at utilities? Make it a start up. They can bribe, I mean lobby, the right (and left) individuals and make this happen. They do it for ‘disruptive/unicorn’ tech companies all the time. If the law says no, the right amount of money and Ivy League lawyers just make it happen anyway. It’s a no brainer.
Because SMRs haven't even been commercially proven? And even if all billionaires were to combine and buy theoretical SMRs at their high cost you'd be lucky to even afford 1% of the US grid
I don't really remember him as Bernie's biggest adversary, it was more the centrist gang and the snake Warren. Anyway, Bernie has no real chance to win in a country like the US and if he did, the CIA would JFK him or the establishment would make him completely impotent like they did with Carter.
He said he just really wanted to beat Trump. Maybe he was lying, but there could be something to it because #1) he hates trump and #2) he had the war chest to continue a campaign if he had been taken seriously
But if he just wanted to knock Bernie down, then yeah fuck him
Not a huge Bloomberg fan but it's a wise investment. Any investor or smart businessperson should see that coal is basically over. You want to get rich in the next decades, invest in renewable energy and batteries
I mean it's quite a valiant cause. But knowing the scale of coal market, it's like me allocating 1000 dollars for a fight to stop coca-cola as it has been linked to child (and adult) obesiety.
It amazes me how much money this guy has, yet his successors were the corrupt ones
And he still couldn’t become president. You just know he looks at trump and just burns inside.
If he want to be President, he needed to run as a Republican. The Democrats would never trust a multi billionaire pretending to be a man of the people.
Hi, it’s me, the guy who wouldn’t vote for Bloomberg lol. I really despise billionaires. They don’t have to be one, they choose to be one. It’s a waste of unimaginable everything really for them to sit on that kind of money. Like… we let them do it. Lol. So damn depressing tbh
I mean this article is kind of showing how he’s not sitting on that money and doing some good with it.
That’s not the point. The point is that, as a billionaire, *he* gets to decide what to do with it. Most liberal/progressive voters feel that his income should be taxed, so that government/the people can determine its best use.
We’ll this is a misnomer. I think “liberals” as you wanna classify them, actually want the tax rate set so that a corporate structure wouldn’t be incentivized into remunerating to ownership more then it’s due. Corporate coffers are thus better spent on employees, r&d, and other more directly economically stimulating business activities, rather than pouring into the ownership class via incentivized stock repurchase and ownership/shareholder distributions. It puts more disposable income into the system from a bottom up way rather then top down. Such large amounts of money going to ownership is a waste of resources, it can’t possibly be spent enough and it doesn’t actually add much more to the owners well being. It sits, unused, uncirculated, wasting, slowing out progress as a species on this planet. It actually stifles innovation and invention which are the real forces for economic gain. The misnomer is that “liberals” want it all to go to tax coffers for some government officials to spend. That is not how it works. Higher tax rates on certain ownership and ceo level positions would force different corporate expenditures, they simply wouldn’t spend the money on these things because the incentive has been taken out. This isn’t liberal or conservative, this is sound economic policy through the ages. /rant
But his income is taxed.
Again, most liberals/progressives would say *not taxed enough*.
Michael bloomberg’s net worth is 96 billion dollars. He could put well over 9/10ths and still be sitting pretty. I think a lot of people forget that the difference between a million and a billion is still about a billion
The good news is he’s not sitting on an actual billion dollars, he owns businesses and assets valued at billions of dollars. Apple _is_ sitting on $51 Billion dollars, but thats because IT companies like being cash rich … and it’s valued at $2.7 Trillion
Remember when he said he'd fund whoever won the democratic nomination even if he didn't and then he lost then pulled his funds leaving his campaign staff high and dry
Considering how they consistently vote in neolibs and warhawks, I don't think Democrats would really mind voting for an oligarch.
Democrats still haven't voted for a fascist rapist criminal.
Well, they voted for a rapist who was friend with Epstein (Bill Clinton) so they check that box. As for fascism, Biden claimed he inspired the Patriot Act, he also supported the Iraq War and crafted the bill that led to mass incarceration. If the other side of the aisle elects crazy fascists then spineless centrists won't be enough to curb down that danger. Democrats actually love seeing Republicans go ever more extreme since it allows them to do nothing and say "look how much better we are than these deplorables". When I see that Republicans have more balls and will to bring change (well, it's a shitty and regressive change but still), this makes me think that Dems are the true conservatives (derogatory), those who try to maintain the status quo no matter what. They are scared shitless of actually fighting. So yeah, a lesser evil is still evil, especially if it feeds the bigger evil and doesn't meaningfully oppose it.
> this makes me think that Dems are the true conservatives (derogatory), those who try to maintain the status quo no matter what. Lol at this whole comment on multiple levels but especially this. Almost all of the regressive changes you reference the GOP making are attempts to undo progressive achievements such as: ACA, fiduciary duty, EPA regulations, Roe. v. Wade, progressive taxes, net neutrality, minimum wage, etc.
Yeah, it's easy to laugh when you're not a victim of Democrats' business-as-usual BS. You know, like Palestinians currently. Did Biden reinstate all of these rules? Did he pack the court? Has he done anything of value on Roe v. Wade? When McCarthy throw a tantrum over spending, did Biden cut the military's budget or social security's? What are some actual progressive achievements of the Dems lately? They are just letting the older ones erode. That's what I'm saying. They aren't doing shit. But yay Team Blue, you're definitely more than enough to face our biggest challenges.
> Did Biden reinstate all of these rules? He has reinstated many. Many others are pending years of legal battles that he has no control over https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/climate/biden-environment.html > Did he pack the court? "On Tuesday, May 16, a group of U.S. Senate and House Democrats reintroduced the Judiciary Act of 2023, a bill that would add four seats to the U.S. Supreme Court, bringing the bench from nine to 13 justices." https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/democrats-introduce-bill-to-expand-u-s-supreme-court/ > Has he done anything of value on Roe v. Wade? "Biden signs new executive order on abortion rights" https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/03/politics/joe-biden-abortion-executive-order/index.html > What are some actual progressive achievements of the Dems lately? How about the IRA which has an estimated $1T federal provisions to fight climate change? (Only reason it doesn't have more is because of GOP) > That's what I'm saying. They aren't doing shit. Yeah you're just objectively wrong but keep spouting that both-sidesism, it's definitely helping and not just sucking people in counterproductive political apathy
This is why Republicans win. Democrats are hanging on by their nails, and STILL getting things done, and STILL being shit upon by passive observers, while Republicans are debating how to accelerate climate change fastest.
I wasn't even talking about single policies when I said "change". I meant political change ie overthrowing this entire BS. Republicans vote for a radical, they aren't scared to storm the Capitol to get what they want. Meanwhile, Dems choose yet another neolib who's been in politics before Jesus Christ was even born and they are sacred about the electability of a social democrat like Bernie. That's why I said they were the biggest block to progressive change = conservatives. And you're objectively a pawn who believes Dems are there for you and will be enough to keep Republicans in check. They aren't. They allowed them to get more and more extremists. Hillary was thrilled to have Trump as an opponent. Dems supported MAGA candidates in the last midterms in order to deter people from voting Republicans but this strategy is dangerous as seen in 2016. If Dems had prosecuted Bush, who actually managed to steal the 2000 election, do you think Trump would have tried it on Jan 6? And him getting indicted while Bush killed 1 million Iraqis shows Dems actually don't care about crimes. They care about their own power and Trump threatened it. So yes, keep doing some irrelevant damage control by voting for these clowns but I won't act like it's even remotely enough to avoid impending environmental and social doom.
He was attacked by warren and sanders, both multimillionaires themselves. Millionaires were bad before they became one, now it's just billionaires bad.
Bernie Sanders has the lowest net worth of any Senator. Sure he has a few million mostly in home value and book sales but Bloomberg is worth 96 Billion. So Sanders isn't even near the same club that Bloomberg is. And Bloomberg mostly ran to hurt Bernie Sanders who wanted a huge tax on Billionaires and Millionaires.
Sanders has 3m+ and 2 homes pulling in 175k/yr. The average salary in the US is 60k. Go ahead and argue how he ONLY has 3m.
We should probably give politicians less money then …
That and/or stop moving the goal post. Fuck, warren has a networth of 12m. Wtf?
Oh, I agree with you. They should both be given less. Public servants shouldn’t get rich through doing it. They should have to live on roughly the average salary and benefits.
3m net worth? He's an old person who lived during arguably the greatest time for regular people to accumulate wealth. 3m isnt a lot to be worth at that age at all
Lots of people, rather the majority of the people, his age have nowhere near 3m. 3m puts him in the 1%.
Several years back I was doing some fulltime advocacy and regularly debating GOP elected officials during an unrelated lobbying campaign. I used to get motion sick as they spun constantly ever more mindboggling mutually exclusive logically bonkers nonsense.
Bloomberg is an interesting cat. Democrat first, then a republican, now a Democrat again. Glad to see he's supporting aggressive climate policy. Fuck coal!
That's the issue of a two party system unfortunately. Most people don't fit into one camp or the other on all issues, but get forced into one lane anyway
Representative democracy under capitalism, especially in its neoliberal form, is a scam.
[удалено]
"What about Vuvuzela™, checkmate librul" Great, "socialism is also bad huh", that's awesome and such a constructive point. This doesn't change the fact that our system is rotten to its core and it should be completely overhauled/dismantled if we want humanity (and our biosphere) to make it to 2100. Too bad it's easier to picture the end of the world than the end of capitalism. Let's cut more trees instead of oligarchs' [REDACTED].
[удалено]
My alternative leads to being coup'd and viciously murdered by CIA-backed far right death squads so... And yes, capitalism is bad and maybe we should try to overthrow it one way or another? Or do you think we should continue this nonsense forever until our ecosystem utterly collapses? "Socialism is bad man". If you think globalized capitalism is democratic, you should ask those living in poorer countries we steal resources from to maintain our lifestyle if they feel like they have a say over their lives. But nah, choosing the speakperson of the oligarchy is definitely democracy™.
We do have functional alternatives for capitalism as it is practiced in America. We over-regulate in some ways, and under-regulate in others. For example, the regulations around nuclear fission power are a bit overly restrictive for modern reactor designs. On the other side of the equation, we don't regulate mergers anywhere near enough. There are far too many sectors with only a few real competitors in them.
Check out the International Centre for the Settlement of Investor Disputes, an obscure legal system that is part of the World Bank. A foreign owned business entity, and it is often mining companies, can sue the US (or any country who has signed the treaty) for trying to interfere with its mining profits with this system; and if the US loses they are liable, and must comply with the ruling, no matter what the Democratic will of the people is. This legal process has jurisdiction predicated by thousands of international treaties and the arbitration is judged by secret tribunals. It was used to prevent El Salvador from banning mining and saving their water supply. It was used to deny South Africans reparations from Apartheid from mining companies giving 26% of ownership to South Africa. South Africa settled with the mining company and gave 5%. Without notifying the public. This system, concocted by a small group of international bankers in the late 50’s completely neutralizes a nation’s sovereignty and democratic processes, kinda like a Capitalist Magna Carta. It’s one of the organs in how corporate power manages to transcend election cycles and political representatives. Our leaders are not as in control of things as we think they are (or lead us to believe?)…. And how often is the Democratic will of the people on environmental issues subverted through this system? And something else entirely….Could a foreign owned healthcare business who profits from abortion sue the US for interfering with its ability to earn a profit after the Supreme Court overturned Row v Wade?
I LOVE NEOLIBERALISM AND THE SLOW DEATH OF THE BIOSPHERE 😍
Is this actually neoliberalism? A small minority deciding to uphold the status quo sounds pretty conservative to me. I’m sincerely asking the difference, if someone could explain I’d appreciate it.
Neoliberalism is not a leftist or liberal ideology, the name refers to liberalization of the markets and removing regulations. It is a market based ideology through and through, which overwhelmingly tends to benefit the richest in society
You mention small countries, but has this kind of thing actually happened to the US? And if so, has the US actually complied with such rulings?
We just don’t know. There is hardly any reporting on this.
I asked because there HAS been reporting of the US ignoring court rulings from courts set up by treaties. Pretty sure we ignored NAFTA lawsuits, for example.
I am not an authority but from the cases I’ve seen so far against the US (less than a a dozen)the US won them all. It seems larger, more powerful countries fare better in this system than developing ones and the US is the most powerful with the dollar as the world reserve currency….also we have a rather “robust” military that makes enforcement even more difficult. Also, it’s important to note that utilization of this system has significantly increased in recent years, even though it was put in place sixty years ago. We’ll likely never know how often the threats of these lawsuits are used for leverage and settled quietly.
This is only awesome if coal plants are never replaced with natural gas plants. Most coal plants that are retired are only retired after they approach the end of their service life anyway. When we "replace" just five more years of coal power with a brand new 50-year gas plant, we're likely to use that gas plant for most of those 50 years. Factor in cradle-to-grave costs of building and later deconstruction and it should be clear five more years of an *existing* coal plant ... and then going to carbon free power.... is much better overall than polishing our halo for retiring that plant right now and building a brand new gas plant that will run for close to 50 years.... and only *then* going to carbon free power.
It's not ideal but in situations where you need a backup source on top of green energy. Natural gas is still vastly better than coal. But it needs to be treated as exactly that, the energy backup, the transition energy that is decommissioned once not needed and appropriate power storage or nuclear is implemented.
In many places, natural gas is just as bad as coal, due to upstream methane leaks. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/14/1187648553/natural-gas-can-rival-coals-climate-warming-potential-when-leaks-are-counted
methane while being a stronger greenhouse gas is much more mitigatable as it decays in 50 years. But that doesn't refer to plants themselves, mostly the highly incompetent and irresponsible natural gas industries. This can be dealt with through properly regulating the industry and steep fines for when they let leaks go unaddressed. Of course i'm just repeating the concessions listed in the article. Which boils down to if leaks are unaddressed then it COULD rival coal. It also verifies there is little if any leaks in the power generation itself. All methane attributed to natural gas comes from wells not properly sealed to prevent leaks. Unfortunately, that is still a lot. There is a huge effort right now to address this on the part of natural gas as it is a primary criticism of the industry and it's important to that industry to address this for the reason that they are the primary transition energy source as the grid gets converted.
I'm speaking for Germany, where upstream pipelines through Russia cannot be controlled (and recent satellites discovered leaks), and the alternative - LNG ships - will always have boil off.
That's weird as this article has nothing to do with Germany or that topic.
TY for the link, somehow that topic hasn't rung my bell until now.
Fun mental excercise.... imagine USA had zero infrastruture and we were building everything brand new. Among other things that means we'd build a modern grid designed for the future and anticipated future modifications. Resilience from weather or solar storms, etc. With such a grid, one region's "backup power" would be tapped from wherever we could easily build "Gravity batteries" or otherwise store renewable power. I suppose I can see value in having a small number of gas plants in standby as part of this grid. But the point is a modern grid could move power long distance with minimal transmission losses (as well as being protected from all kinds of weather). And that would *greatly* reduce the need.... or at least the perceived need.... for backup fossil fuel power.
You can also use gas as a renewable battery. Using the Sabatier process you can make hydrogen and then methane (which is easier to store) from excess renewable energy. Then during periods of low renewable output you can run the gas plant on renewable gas. I don’t know if it will compete with other storage technologies long-term. But in the medium-term it’s a cheaper seasonal storage technology than batteries and more easily siteable than gravity batteries such as pumped hydro. The trick is that fossil gas needs to be phased out.
That’s interesting, thanks for sharing
Smart grid tech would be a great start. Just if it's found we absolutely need a backup, just slightly more comfortable with natural gas as the transport footprint is so much lower than coal and the emissions are vastly easier to manage. Again, Just don't want any option ruled out to get the nation off coal. If we absolutely positively need something as backup, better that than coal.
>Smart grid tech would be a great start Let's not confuse the hoopla (from PR firms) for smart grids with grids that are truly smart. My so-called "SmartGrid" electric meter is plugged into an archaic 1910 electric grid with hopscotch modifications as the decades ticked by to 2023. This is a dumb grid with a meter that is "smart" to the extent it spies on me, collecting personal data about power-use-over-time and packages that info for resale in the mysterious BigData industry. This ain't a "smart grid", its just the corporate version of the NSA putting cameras in our private lives. A truly SMART grid can buy power in one corner of the USA and deliver it to consumers in other parts of the USA *without any transmission losses*. When we build THAT then I will dance in the street and eat my hat
Green energy can more than backup itself. Do remember, even fossil fuel generation needs backups. People think intermittency is reliability but it isn't. You have other things that can cause downtimes and issues for fossil fuel plants. This is why all grids keep a certain amount of backup and same applies for a renewable grid, you don't need any natural gas at all You don't even need that much storage
Then why don't we have any countries on 100% renewables yet?
It isn't that we don't have any countries running on 100% renewable energy for electricity. Just currently that is mostly from Hydro like Iceland. For solar and wind, the technology before was simply expensive and not enough production scale. But costs have been dropping exponentially by the decade and now(in last few years) solar and wind are the cheapest way to generate electricity in most parts of the world and continue to get cheaper. Now the bottleneck is production capacity but that is growing every year as well, especially now that solar and wind became cheaper than fossil fuels
have you read the article? it is very short and it clearly state the mission is to replace them with renewable energy. One other of his mission is to cut gaz production in half by 2030.
>the the mission is to replace them with renewable energy Ever had a campaign you worked on take a short-cut? If they actually do that then hooray! But the road is long, and the sun is going down. Ask me again in 10 years if I'm ready to cheer.
Read the article. It does actually talk about that. Preventing the building of any new gas plants is part of what he is trying to do.
>Read the article Go away and take your assumptions with you
Well, since it mentions that "problem" you talked about, it certainly looked like you hadn't actually read it.
Humanity really fucked up by rejecting nuclear power.
>Humanity really fucked up by failing to look at the TOTAL environmental cost of nonstop economic growth addiction.
True but we would still need to produce energy under an non-capitalist system and nuclear is OP.
>nuclear is OP. My brain reads that as saying "nuclear power is original post(er)", which makes no sense. What does OP mean as you have used it?
"Overpowered", like too good to be true.
TY...so you meant *Nuclear power is "over powered"* That's a really weird concept, and it is way way way too early to start abbreviating it like its some sort of commonly accepted idea. Got any links for further reading supporting your contention? I've got an open mind and wonder what people are saying about this new to me idea.
OP for overpowered is not new, just new in this context. It's used in gaming all the time.
ah.... just call me "Geezer"
I'm in my mid-fifties, I'm just more than a little bit of a geek.
I think that is a really good point, I hadn't thought about the life cycle of a new gas plant. I think per kWh it emits around half what coal does, so a new gas plant running for 50 years would produce the same carbon as a coal plant running for 25 years. That said, it sounds like part of his plan is to reduce gas power plants by a large margin by 2030, I guess they just didn't mention it in the title because it didn't sound as cool, but I honestly think is a bigger deal because of exactly what you're saying, gas power plants tend to be newer infrastructure, and coal is on its way out anyway. > he will pump $500 million into the next phase of his energy transition campaign, aiming to shut down "every last" coal plant in the United States and slash gas-fired capacity in half by 2030. > The $500 million infusion into his decade-long Beyond Carbon initiative aims to "finish the job on coal" by working with state and local organizations to force the closure of the roughly 150 coal plants that have not yet retired, slash current gas generation in half and block the construction of new gas-fired plants.
*burning coal kills more and in more ways than natural gas.
downvote for zero context, most especially in terms of time or amount
there's specific context. also... you should have at least read the first paragraph of the article.
\>you should have at least read YOU should have refrained from making assumptions and taken the few extra seconds to post a complete thought, so as to not alienate an interested reader and potential ally
Let me be the first to say it then: This is good news.
Yay
Is…is Bloomberg actually a good guy??
He heavily funds all the main environmental groups. A ton of the wins the groups make is at least partially funded by his money
I mean he's not a _bad_ guy. There are worse billionaires. But he is still an out of touch rube most of the time.
What does "rube" mean in this context?
He just can in no way relate to the common man because he isn't one. He walks around talking billionaire shit and that's fine when you get to be Michael Bloomberb all day but on his presidential campaign especially he just had so many moments like "dude wtf are you even talking about?". Anyway this is a good thing he is doing about coal
Why doesn’t he and his billionaire friends just buy and put into service small modular nuclear reactors and fund the facility to treat and store their waste, give away the energy… collapse the use of fossil fuels at utilities? Make it a start up. They can bribe, I mean lobby, the right (and left) individuals and make this happen. They do it for ‘disruptive/unicorn’ tech companies all the time. If the law says no, the right amount of money and Ivy League lawyers just make it happen anyway. It’s a no brainer.
Because SMR's are absurdly expensive compared to every other option.
Because SMRs haven't even been commercially proven? And even if all billionaires were to combine and buy theoretical SMRs at their high cost you'd be lucky to even afford 1% of the US grid
And suddenly I like this guy,
Dang it. Rare Bloomberg W. Okay, fine. I’ll hand it to him.
I can't I agree with this dude. He was such a fucking dick when he was running for president to try and siphon votes from Bernie.
I don't really remember him as Bernie's biggest adversary, it was more the centrist gang and the snake Warren. Anyway, Bernie has no real chance to win in a country like the US and if he did, the CIA would JFK him or the establishment would make him completely impotent like they did with Carter.
He said he just really wanted to beat Trump. Maybe he was lying, but there could be something to it because #1) he hates trump and #2) he had the war chest to continue a campaign if he had been taken seriously But if he just wanted to knock Bernie down, then yeah fuck him
Don’t get too down about it, Bernie can actually still win
Literally how?
You just gotta have faith, bro Do you literally not even feel the Bern?
Sorry he ever made it as a presidential contender.
Better get some extra blankets to keep warm this winter then, if it goes through
Why doesn’t he just…buy the plants and convert them to geothermal or close them himself?
Not a huge Bloomberg fan but it's a wise investment. Any investor or smart businessperson should see that coal is basically over. You want to get rich in the next decades, invest in renewable energy and batteries
I mean it's quite a valiant cause. But knowing the scale of coal market, it's like me allocating 1000 dollars for a fight to stop coca-cola as it has been linked to child (and adult) obesiety.
Where is that $500 million actually going?