Documentary Explores How Big Oil Stalled Climate Action for Decades
source link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/22/04/30/1632201/documentary-explores-how-big-oil-stalled-climate-action-for-decades
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Documentary Explores How Big Oil Stalled Climate Action for Decades
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated descriptive typodupeerror
Slashdot reader XXongo brings word of a new three-part documentary — streaming free now — that tries to understand America's early inaction on climate change. Looking back over the last few decades, The Power of Big Oil explores how the fuel industry "successfully set up a campaign to discredit climate science and targetting individual politicians to vote against measures to curb climate change."
The Guardian notes that the series includes an interview with a U.S. senator who they say "blames the oil industry for malignly claiming the science of climate change was not proved when companies such as Exxon and Shell already knew otherwise from their own research."
As far back as 25 years ago, the senator says, "they had evidence in their own institutions that countered what they were saying publicly. I mean — they lied."
The documentary's makers have dug out a parade of former oil company scientists, lobbyists and public relations strategists who lay bare how the US's biggest petroleum firm, Exxon, and then the broader petroleum industry, moved from attempting to understand the causes of a global heating to a concerted campaign to hide the making of an environmental catastrophe. Over three episodes — called Denial, Doubt, Delay — the series charts corporate manipulation of science, public opinion and politicians that mirrors conduct by other industries, from big tobacco to the pharmaceutical companies responsible for America's opioid epidemic.
Some of those interviewed shamefacedly admit their part in the decades-long campaign to hide the evidence of climate change, discredit scientists and delay action that threatened big oil's profits.
Others almost boast about how easy it was to dupe the American public and politicians, with consequences not just for the US but every country on the planet.
In one video clip an aide to a climate-conscious senator remembers that "You had reams of material coming out of the government. They were at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, at NASA — this expanding network of people, working on this day in and day out, saying that this was a legitimate issue, and that we needed to do something about it. And on the other hand, you had two or three guys who went around to conferences and said, 'Oh, I'm not sure. Oh, maybe there's clouds....' It quickly became apparent that these were private interests who had a stake in the status quo." He refers to it as "emerging industry of nay-sayers."
There's also a discouraged assessment from climate activist looking back over a lack of progress in the early decades. "You want to make an assumption that it's a meritocracy — a good argument will prevail, and it will displace a bad argument. But, what the geniuses at the PR firms who work for these big fossil-fuel companies know is that truth has nothing to do with who wins the argument. If you say something enough times, people will begin to believe it."
-
›
... Denial, Doubt, Delay...
Corporations can claim the cost of manipulation and dishonesty as a cost of doing business: They, indirectly, are charging the government for the cost of lying to the government.
... boast about how easy it was...
There's profit in manipulation and dishonesty, there isn't in telling the truth. Worse, idiots choose the manipulation and dishonesty over the truth.
Let's not forget Bush jr with his 'balanced reporting' propaganda: Demanding honest people spread the dishonesty themselves.
-
People should have learned the lesson when we all were discussing the tobacco industry.
-
I think it was even the same people behind them both.
-
Yes, the oil and tobacco industries used many of the same lobbyists, and the strategy was the same. They knew they couldn't win a scientific debate, so instead, they attacked the credibility and objectivity of science itself.
If your goal is inaction, you don't need to convince the public. You just need to sow doubt. Stalemate is victory.
-
The anti-nuclear crowd is using the same anti-science FUD to keep people from using nuclear power.
I get the same bullshit from the anti-nuclear morons.
What about Chernobyl? Yes, what about it? That was a dual-use (capable of being used to produce weapon grade material) reactor built by half drunk Soviet politicians then handed over to half drunk operators that were hired more for their loyalty to the Party than for their technical skill. The reactor was built with a known flaw of a "positive void coeffic
-
That's because the anti-nuclear morons are often the exact same groups that are pro-fossil fuel (aka pro-global warming).
-
-
-
How much did Trump increase the deficit to achieve that laudable goal? Was that after he inherited a healthy economy from Obama?
-
-
-
-
People should have learned the lesson when we all were discussing the tobacco industry.
No, they didn't. Whether we're talking about tobacco, or oil, or sugar [youtube.com], or PFAS [youtube.com], or tetraethyl-lead [youtube.com], or war [youtube.com], or pick any other poison at your leisure, big industry wants money, no matter the expense, not even human lives, and the sheeple have not stopped them.
-
Politics doesn't seem to work well when huge commercial interests are involved. So (in a capitalist society like ours) the fix is the same as it was before: stop buying their product. Works for big oil as well as tobacco.
-
If all the tobacco goes away tomorrow, all of the effects are positive.
If all the oil goes away tomorrow, society collapses.
The two can't be directly compared in that way.
-
-
What I actually said is absolutely true.
Respond to what I actually said, or fuck off.
-
It's Slashdot.
-
Your hypothetical comment might be true but in reality, what are the chances of all the oil going away overnight? Your comment mimics the scare stories from the oil industry where it has a glimmer of truth. The main issue with oil is burning it and that will takes ages to go away.
-
None. But that's not the point.
The point is that tobacco is something we've been conned into thinking we want, by creating want for it. But oil is something we've been conned into thinking we need, by creating need for it. The solutions which don't use it have been continually attacked by Big Oil with the result that Big Oil is now an integral part of our society. It can and should be excised, but that doesn't change the fact that most people simply can't afford to switch. The total cost to humanity of burn
-
-
-
I just bought a new car last year and fully expect to be fueling it for many years to come. I also heat my home with natural gas, and that is unlikely to change in my lifetime. So no shift happening here.
-
-
-
That argument doesn't apply to something like oil. The US economy is built on it, you can't "stop buying" oil. Even if you ignore that tens of thousands of products use plastic, what was the option in the 1980s for transportation? Ride bikes? Electric cars are not "not buying" oil either, they are filled with plastic to curb weight. If you're trying to say, we needed early government action to start to wean us off oil so that, eventually, we could stop buying oil, well, that's what the entire documentary is
-
I would guess that he means stopping buying it to burn as burning it is the issue.
-
And you can ignore the tens of thousands of products made from plastic, because oil that is used to make plastic is not oil that's burned producing carbon dioxide that contributes to the greenhouse effect.
Use all the oil you want to make plastic; there may be other problems with plastic, but contributing to the greenhouse effect isn't one.
-
-
-
Or the lead industry.
-
-
Although Coolidge is quoted as saying the business of government is business, and this has been denied he said it, it is far too close to reality to be discarded since the only real crime business accepts is to be unprofitable. My favorite quote about Coolidge was made by Dorothy Parker at the notice if his death. She remarked "How could they tell?"
-
-
It's just another part of marketing, and keeping the public onboard with harmful and destructive practices. Sow doubt in the public's mind and then you can keep on making money without interference from the masses.
-
A lot of the people involved with tobacco at the time are now making their living in promoting the fossil fuel industry.
Odd that..
-
Which makes you wonder... what's the current big industry disinformation scam? Could we get ahead of the curve on the next go-round?
-
-
So, they committed fraud and deliberately damaged other people's interests for their own profit. It's not enough that the companies pay up but their investors too. How much? Where from? How to find these people?
-
It's not hard to picture a dystopian future where these people and their offspring are doxxed and hunted down for sport.
-
Yeah right. Your comment reminds me of a cartoon during the time Reagan was elected and the time he took office. He's riding a horse in a corral filled with cattle, Jimmy Carter is on another horse. Reagan asks Carter, "how can you tell which ones are sacred cows?". Carter answers, "Well Ron, you just have to ask them."
It also reminds me of that yokel in a West Coast rally for the Big Lie, "when do we get to use the guns?".
Gunning down people for sport, eh? Now we know what kind of people a decent America i
-
GP said "It's not hard to picture a dystopian future" (emphasis mine).
There have been lots of fictional depictions of such dystopias; so pray tell, what part of that sentence suggested to you that GP is in favour of hunting people for sport?
-
-
Now you're being silly.
The perpetrators should be identified, trialled in a legal and just manner, and given punishments relative to the crimes committed.
Doxing and hunting them for sport would be letting them off too easy.
-
-
Shareholders are shielded from claims in most countries. And rightly so: individual shareholders have very limited influence on company policy or who sits on the board. In some places, a major shareholder with a significant influence on the company beyond simply voting at the shareholders' meetings may be deemed a "director" and be held liable.
Also consider: these investors might have been duped by the same misinformation. How can you morally hold them responsible? The real question is: were these co-
That's true. The point of corporatism is to separate the people making the profit from their responsibility for the harm done in the process. That's why they should not exist.
Easily. Very, very easily. If you don't know enough about a corporation to know if it's doing evil, you cannot morally invest in it. Failing to find out is being willing to aid evil so long as you don't know it's occurring.
-
I agree with everything you said before this - especially that corporations as they are currently configured and held non-accountable need to be dismantled and outlawed. But given all the pension fund investments and other third- and fourth-party investments there are, it's unreasonable to expect all of the smaller investors to know what's going on with corporations. And they shouldn't have to - that's why we have governments. They are the ones failing - mostly because government "by the people" has devolve
-
Even if the world were to stop burning fossils fuels (which is unlikely anytime soon because they are still quite necessary), they will still be needed to make plastics, fertilizers, lubricants, chemical feedstocks, and many other things that it is in no way immoral to invest in.
If you personally don't like the business, by all means don't invest in it. But don't pretend to be some arbiter of morality based on your own personal fears. It is not at all immoral for people to not share those.
-
-
-
-
Going to the leguitors and saying: "Look, this big industry that employs millions and is a huge chunk of the stock market, pension funds and so on is killing the planet. We want to get funds and tax brakes to invent and discover some alternative, that could take years in the making and tens of years more in applying locally and world wide" Which politician thinks in decades and which company or a hole industry makes plans for so long? We, just after corporate greed, all of us are a part of the problem. Over
-
-
With the implication that somehow one has to give up going from point A to B, or the benefits of petrochemicals in order to not have out of control climate change. And no for you it's not going to be shaming, blaming, or whatever but the simpler, suffering which will do the job.
-
-
Maybe stop getting your proposals second hand from other people telling you whats actually in them. Is there a serious US politician who advocated for forgoing liberties and packing you in commie blocks? You cannot even imagine, or read the ocean of options and proposals between your imaginary dystopian scenario and "do nothing".
It's not the fault of the rest of us that some politicians got so dug into the anti-climate change position that they feel they have to stick by it at every turn, facts be damned,
-
Here is part of the problem. I have tried to read some of the proposals. I should say, I have read the proposals but they difficult to understand when you have to consider the implications of their implementation.
For example, the 2015 Climate Accords (Paris Agreement.) That is 32 pages long of legal speak. I understand some of it but I don't understand it all. I also know that language had to be changed so it wasn't legally binding before the President (President Obama) would sign it. Yes, he (really
-
Driving: Adjust zoning laws in major cities to allow more densification and affordable housing in city centers, using that minicipal power to slow down suburbanization which is overall bad for the environment. Use federal budgets to spur more public transport options. Use congestion taxes to change behaviour of commuters and give them other options. Have a federal plan for EV chargers across the national highway system and major roadways. All new construction has to include EV charging. We already ha
-
Most of what you said regarding preexisting economic incentives for efficiency I agree with.
But: deliberately sabotaging suburbs and densifying them *is* destroying liberty and is a form of theft. Many people (most Americans, in fact) prefer the suburban lifestyle to the dense urban alternative.
Letting the suburbs cost what they cost sans subsidies is one thing, but deliberately deconstructing them because of your own subjective opinions about how others should live is just plain immoral.
-
That's probably a bit fair but why that is an important question and one that changes over a persons life, and we can agree that suburbs are in fact subsidized. In reality suburbs cost more tax money than they take in as they require more spread out infrastructure.
Also this is not just opinion, there is a lot of data around how the suburbs and american sprawl style living is bad for us, economically [youtube.com], environmentally, [youtube.com] socially [youtube.com] and are even negative to our own health. [youtube.com]
Seriously, the suburban sacred cow is not
-
That really sounds like it's a narrow utilitarian argument trying its hardest to sound like univeral wisdom.
As a point of fact, not all suburbs are subsidized from the outside. In my little corner or Massachusetts, for example, suburban towns collect their own revenue in the form of property taxes that pay for local infrastructure and schools and the state collects an income tax that pays for statewide infrastructure with some redistribution from wealthy areas (suburbs) to poorer ones (some dense cities). S
-
Not trying to discount your life here but anecdotes do not counter the data which is a majority of suburbs do not collect enough tax and end up in the opposite end of relying on the dense economic centers they surround. Not to mention all the very real environmental, social and health concerns they bring. All those have to be addressed.
Also all the zoning we do now is forcing single family homes with special carve outs for sprawling developments and their developer owners. Some of that is municipal and so
-
Perhaps these people living in a sea of ignorance and waiting to be shown the light do exist, but I doubt there are many of them.
The mentality that these people are a silent majority waiting to rise up and claim what's theirs finds currency among the socialist left, but for some reason the majority never rises and socialism and class revolution never seem to take here.
I suspect most people who live in suburbs prefer them with their eyes open. Contrary to your near little morality tale, there are plenty of a
-
No offense but that's a lot of conjecture, emotions and accusations but little data, solutions or improvements. Nobody claimed conspiracy or coersion but historical circumstances and economic conditions that cause emergent behaviours. You are the one writing morality tales here. People are products of their environment, we make one style of living the one that is "normal" or preferred" through policy, media and economic conditions then use that built in preference to say it's good when all other data poi
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tell that to the yahoos who've got a hard-on over any and all petrochemical products (plastic bags, petrochemical derived construction materials like automotive foam, etc) because in their heads, any and all oil and gas products are bad no matter what.
-
-
-
-
Well, if everyone does it, then it's okay. You should turn your sig into LeftwingNutjob. You must be very proud of yourself not standing for anything honorable.
-
You mean, no amount of anything is going to make you start thinking. We knew that from your posting history.
-
If that's what you believe it would take then you've fallen for Big Oil's propaganda.
Hook, line, and sinker.
-
I don't fall for propaganda; I can do math beyond a 7th grade level and I do so for a living.
-
"I can do math beyond a 7th grade level and I do so for a living." - that doesn't stop anyone falling for conspiracy theories and promoting myths
-
No, but it is a tool for analytical skepticism, as opposed to mindless skepticism.
An example of the former would be, "I don't believe you because your evidence does not support your quantitative claims/your conclusions hinge on flawed assumptions/you fail to consider compelling contrary evidence."
An example of the latter would be, "I don't believe you because you are not of my tribe."
-
-
-
Is the following links a result of "Big Oil" propaganda?
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
https://www.fearofanuclearplan... [fearofanuclearplanet.com]
http://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
https://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
https://www.ted.com/talks/davi... [ted.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]These links go through the math on what it would take to provide the energy we need without fossil fuels.
We choose to burn fossil fuels because of the high energy return on energy invested. Solar power can't compete with fossil fuels on EROEI. Wind, hydro, and ge
-
-
-
Now let's hear about how they organized and funded the antinuclear campaign.
-
Right after they acknowledge the Oil Wars as corporate subsidies?
Or USDA as subsidies for Big Sugar and Big Healthcare?
Or Remdesivir being approved for infants for no reason but minor Pharma profit on a kidney killer?
We got 99 problems and they all alongside the Potomac.
-
Rather brilliant if they are behind that. What anti-nuclear protesters are really screaming is "it is not an emergency".
-
-
From the Guardian:
"...In 1997, Hagel joined with the Democratic senator Robert Byrd to promote a resolution opposing the international agreement to limit greenhouse gases, on the grounds that it was unfair to Americans. The measure passed the US Senate without a single dissenting vote, after a vigorous campaign by big oil to mischaracterise the Kyoto protocol as a threat to jobs and the economy while falsely claiming that China and India could go on polluting to their heartâ(TM)s content...."Mischaracterize?
The Kyoto protocol asked developing nations to comply but specifically exempted 100+ developing countries, INCLUDING CHINA AND INDIA.
So when we are talking about an industry busily spinning numbers and misrepresenting facts, are we looking in the right direction?
-
I kind of want to watch the movie, but I'm afraid it will be filled with that kind of nonsense. And it's three hours long and doesn't have a transcript.
-
You don't seem to have parsed the sentence correctly.
Part 1: "mischaracterise the Kyoto protocol as a threat to jobs and the economy"
Part 2: "falsely claiming that China and India could go on polluting to their heartÃ(TM)s content...."
Both of those are true.
The oil companies were portraying any action to reduce emissions as bad for the US, and as a scheme by other countries to weaken the US while they used emissions to get ahead. That was nonsense.
-
Lots of impoverished countries still wanting and trying to use emissions to get ahead, and many are trying to crush those aspirations. Nothing at all moral about that.
-
I suppose you think it has nothing to do with those same countries
A) being likely to be worst hit my climate change, and least able to deal with it
B) realizing that if they proceed on the same basis that developed nations did, emitting vast amounts of CO2 as they industrialize, the whole world is screwed.
-
Because they don't have the modern amenities needed to adapt, like a reliable electrical grid.
History is littered with predictions of the end of the world. It is traditionally used to justify some mighty immoral things.
-
Interesting that you have not tried to defend your position that it's an attack on developed nations, trying to induce them to stifle themselves.
Never play defence, right?
-
People in developed nations are not going to give up their standard of living easily, regardless of if the attack is from without or within.
I'd prefer to work to bring others up to our standards than to drag us down to theirs. This goes for pretty much any subject actually.-
Most of the country has already given up its standard of living. They seem pretty excited about it, they have rallies and stuff.
-
That's just more misinformation. We can have a better standard of living.
-
Of course our kids will have a better standard of living than us, and their kids even more so. Even the ones inculcated with fear. That goes without saying. Can't be stopped even if you want to.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Kyoto protocol was first started in 2005 from an extension of a proposal in 1992.
In those past 17 or so years has a shift to renewable energy hurt the US economy? The sector for the US is up to over $600 billion last year, is one of the largest job growth sectors and that is without any major climate legislation in the US for probably decades. Imagine if we had actually made a real effort.
People are quick to say climate denial and misinformation is oil company propaganda because otherwise it makes a me
-
-
This crap is as old as time itself. People will lie to achieve a self-serving objective. It's just the scale and scope of the lie, and the recipients desire to accept those lies.
For example, I'm certain that all the altruistic moralists on/. never lied to get laid, a job, etc.; and don't weasel by saying you "embellished" - just lies written using calligraphy!
-
Even if the news was published fully, do you think people would have reacted?
How many people who read this have actually taken any steps to reduce their footprint? Have you bought a smaller more efficient car? Increased the temp in your home in the summer and cooler in the winter?
It's out there now. Have you changed?-
Even if the news was published fully, do you think people would have reacted?
Trump gave them a name for their dissonance: "Fake news"
-
> Even if the news was published fully, do you think people would have reacted?
Yes. Specifically, the politicians who opposed meaningful changes because special interest groups had their ears (and their purses) would likely not have been as easily swayed... or at least have had a constituency that was genuinely motivated to pressure them into doing the right thing.
Don't try to push responsibility of all this onto the public individuals - put it on the shoulders of the corporations who fought so hard to resist change, where it belongs.
=Smidge= -
Have you? If most people believe in AGW and buy a smaller, more efficient car, then the few of us who don't and continue to drive old inefficient shit-boxes will have a smaller impact on the climate. You don't have to wait for me to trade in my bro-truck. You can squeeze into that Prius today.
-
WTF would I do that? Being comfortable all the time is a wonderful perk of living in the first world. I'll not be giving that up thanks. If you plan to solve climate change by dragging down people's standards of living, you are doomed to fail.
-
That is my point. Even if the news was published you wouldn't have adapted.
-
-
-
Is the existence of deniers supposed to be some kind of excuse for inaction? Is the influence of big money supposed to be some kind of excuse for corruption?
Shills are gonna shill.. that's what they do. Blaming shills for inaction is like blaming a hot stove for burning your hand.
-
When discussing a democracy, where the deniers are in the majority, it isn't just an excuse but is the expected outcome.
That's the root of the entire problem. Not that democracy worked as intended, but that it is this stupidly easy to convince the majority to do the wrong thing against their own interests.
No it is not an excuse. It is an explanation.
Is the influence of big money supposed to be some kind of explanation for corruption?
Yes, yes it is. Again, this is the entire problem.
-
-
Congressmen are allowed to take money and outright lie during "debate" on any bill. The solution is simple, make the oath of office also an oath to tell the truth for the duration of their service under penalty of perjury, immediate loss of office and cancellation of all votes between the time of a proven falsehood and loss of office. Any constituent should be allowed to file in any local court that intersects the district for the determination of falsehood. This will also effectively give us term limits since telling the truth in the US is effectively career ending at this dysfunctional point we have reached.
-
The only people who can change it are the ones who would be negatively affected by it. So yeah, not going to happen.
-
Congresscritters are already held to the requirement to be honest by the voters and other Congresscritters. Anyone that gets too far out of line can be removed from office by an election or a vote of no confidence by other Congresscritters. Since it is quite a process to remove someone from Congress, and it should be a process that is taken with care, this rarely happens.
I believe we need term limits as people that serve in Congress for life get so far removed from reality that they are no longer represen
-
Come on man like they won’t even enjoy their jobs after that!
-
-
Or, how big oil prevented religious fanatics from ruining their business and the lives of millions of Americans.
-
-
Right, because we remove evil from the world by rounding up the stupid people and killing them. I seem to recall that tried once. That wasn't considered "a good thing" by most of the world. In fact the rounding up of people to have them killed is considered the greatest evil ever brought on humanity.
-
-
-
Virtually all industries oppose costly laws and regulations. There is absolutely nothing unique about Big Oil in this regard. It's the responsibility of the legislative bodies to do the right thing and it's the responsibility of the voters to replace them if they don't.
-
They used the same tactics with lead in gasoline, and if they hadn't been forced, we'd still have lead in gasoline and we'd be even more fucked right now than we already are.
-
I have a different theory. This wasn't Big Oil versus the world. It was Big Oil, Big Wind, and Big Solar versus Tiny Nuclear.
With new nuclear power plants being built at a rate of one gigawatt of new capacity to the grid per month this had to get all other energy suppliers scared shirtless about their future. This was an energy source that produced no smog, no CO2, could run in any weather, day or night, and was free from influence by foreign nations on supply. They all needed to kill nuclear power or t
-
Nope.
per KW/hr every system BUT solar thermal has degradation of performance followed by reconstruction costs.
No fuel solar thermal with thermal direct storage (Thus avoiding Carnot losses) will beat the band in all categories.
Want to get richer? Figure out how to put this on the roof.
-
-
You have to dump this into the "lying with facts" category.
Oil is just trying to recoup every single stranded dollar before shifting to Nuclear Waste Guarding as socialist 9600 year experiments. -
Meaning ignoring Africa, India, Asia and taxing the rest? Or does that mean strip mining the earth for lithium and rare earth metals? Or does that mean the stopping of expanding electricity generation? Because those actions seem to be about it. Well, other than the folk who want to exterminate maybe a third of the human population.
-
-
Fucking liar
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/... [greenpeace.org.uk]
Gosh only one of the most well known orgs talks explicitly about it.
Sure you could have taken ten seconds to check your claims, but instead why not just blatantly lie instead.
Why not just be honest about whatever agenda you are pushing.
-
-
-
The speaker of Russian lower Duma (Duma means "think" in Russian as in "Think about what would happen to your family if you disagree with Putin") Volodin just urged "hostile" countries to "act in a civilized manner and respect international law."
-
You know a lot of people are dishonest when talking about how they really "just want balanced media" because they will shit all over PBS and NPR as soon as they hear something they don't like despite them being a couple of the most balanced outlets in the US almost always showing both sides of a story.
That 0.012% of the budget we give PBS sure is breaking the bank. Fuck those kids and puppets right?
-
"just want balanced media" because they will shit all over PBS and NPR"" PBS and NPR are balanced media haha lol right! got it!
-
If you really think PBS and NPR are "left wing shills" your Overton window is absolutely knackered to hell, maybe just embrace that.
-
If you think NPR and PBS are balanced OK fine. I just see things differently. Let me see which one was it that gave Juan Williams the boot?
-
I think they are because I listen to them and can easily take away that opinion. I have never heard so many Trump admin officials giving their take on a story anywhere as much as NPR, I never even knew they had so many assistant press secretaries.
Every news organization might make a controversial staffing call, conservative outlets have done the same. Doesn't mean you can write the whole thing off.
Most people don't listen to either org because they do it dry and boring which we all say we want but deep d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Biden infrastructure plan had billions of dollars earmarked for nuclear power.
Biden has been openly hostile to nuclear power for something like 50 years. Now he has been forced to fund keeping nuclear power plants open or see energy prices go up even higher, and see CO2 emissions from the USA go up for the first time in years.
It's a bit difficult to claim to be the leader of the party that wants to save the planet when it is your party in power as CO2 emissions rise.
Biden is going to have to get more n
-
-
Recommend
-
42
See README for more infos. Only a bugfix maintenance will be done if bugs are important enough, bugs like #2079 or #2082 will be ignored.
-
18
470Chrome OS has stalled out
-
25
Helm development is now stopped, please don't send bug reports or feature request, you will have no answers.
-
7
Sandy Hook Parents Say Remington Stalled Lawsuit With Emojis, MemesLawyers asked the gun company for corporate emails, what they got was tens of thousands of memes, go-kart videos, and gender reveal party films...
-
5
The PC market jumped 17% in Q2, but tablet shipments stalled The work-from-home effect continues to be felt By
-
2
How Working in a Big Silicon Valley Company Stalled My Career GrowthHow Working in a Big Silicon Valley Company Stalled My Career GrowthSeptember 25th 2021 36...
-
7
October 2, 2021
-
5
The Leader Of Facebook's Stalled Cryptocurrency Project Is Leaving The Company 6165 members Technology The latest news, reviews and fea...
-
3
HBO Documentary Filmed In VR Explores VRChat Communities...
-
6
Deepfake porn documentary explores its 'life-shattering' impactPublished3 days ago
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK