On January 26th, the Biden administration took an action with possibly enormous positive implications; they paused construction of new Liquid Natural Gas infrastructure to further consider its climate implications.
Yet, as far as I remember (and I can’t find a reference to it in the show descriptions) Cenk and Ana never even mentioned it. Instead, they continued to hammer Biden ad nauseam for his support for Israel, granted, deservedly so.
But if you only listen to TYT and think you’re getting a complete and unbiased summary of the most important issues and news items, you’re sadly mistaken. They have a massive blindspot when it comes to anything climate, energy, and environmental policy related. Especially when it conflicts with their narrative that this administration is uniformly awful.
Yes, it’s too late. The problem is political more than technological. James Hansen said in 2006 we had about a decade to solve the climate problem. Then in 2016, the final year of the window he identified, we experienced the most consequential election of our lifetimes. We could have turned toward progressive leadership; instead, we elected a far-right lunatic.
But it would at least be nice if the biggest left-wing news outlet from my country told their audience this. Do Francesca and John (and Cenk, etc.) know that their kids have about 20 years to enjoy a society that resembles somewhat the one we grew up in? What’s happening in Gaza is beyond awful. But do people know what we’re seeing in the Middle East now will soon be dwarfed by crisis depopulation all over the globe?
My point is, Cenk, and especially Ana, rail against the current administration for contributing to the slaughter we are all now witnessing… without noticing, or at least presenting, news of the modest attempt the same government is taking to head off the far bigger threat to billions, not just the millions in Palestine/Israel.
This is why every time Ana says, “People aren’t stupid,” it’s nails-on-a-chalkboard grating. Obliterating our habitat is beyond stupid. And people not even knowing what’s happening, to either prove or confront it, is just the stupid sprinkles on top of the idiot sundae.
The comments I’ve read to the subject of the 3 key legislative questions that we (liberals) should be addressing and stressing are certainly not encouraging.
I love much of what TYT embraces and expresses about our government officials. What greatly disturbs me is that it (TYT) offer no tangible, palpable alternative. Our country is gaining speed down the slippery slope of fascism and anti-democratic governance and there seems to be literally no one or no organization that has any political traction at all that we can latch onto. The elements for that type of leadership is there. Why can’t it be more effective in the election processes?
While TYT ignores, dismisses, or attacks anything decent done by the liberal Dem establishment in office, environmentalists are taking action, seeing results, giving credit, and encouraging more…
(If I had been sitting while listening to a recent show on which Ana said Cenk was too dismissive of the CHIPS Act, I’d have fallen out of my chair. Her coverage of the IRA has been outrageous! Both she and Cenk claim it’s nothing more than a corporate giveaway when it includes massive direct subsidies to regular Americans, including free energy efficiency upgrades to those in poverty.)
I happen to be in this an ancillary industry. I can tell you that very few workers are needed in advanced lithography. In fact even the engineers are being phased out to some degree. So I am not really sure what the CHIPS act is outside of a building a hardened supply chain.
To the extent it helps jumpstarts a ramp up in capacity that is great. As far as the economy that may have a knock on effect to some degree. Sure to some degree that will benefit us collectively.
I guess when I heard them talk about there being no jobs guarantee. I thought, yeah that checks out.
Just to give you a heads up the IRA doesn’t denote the Inflation Reduction Act to nearly anyone. My guess is that if you don’t target direct investment in the poor the money gets vampired up by corporations who prefer to feed on government largesse.
Well, that guess would be wrong. But you’d never know if TYT was your only news source.
I don’t know who else you read or listen to, so I’m not assuming anything about your news-gathering habits, but it drives me crazy how Cenk and Ana lecture us audience members about everyone being in their own info bubbles while never mentioning they too have a blinkered perspective! They seem incapable of accepting the fact that audience capture goes both ways, that ideology (not just greed) explains politics, and that emotions are a powerful driver of bias.
God, when Ana said recently that she’s now numb and can no longer care about political outcomes, I nearly blew a gasket. She is deeply influenced by her personal preferences and grievances, which is fine. All of us are to one degree or another. But most of us don’t have a giant platform to make our personal hobby horses clear, and then tell the listeners we’re actually dispassionate observers of events! Please.
Last, btw, I live in central Ohio where the new Intel plant is supposed to be built, and construction is absolutely booming. Not that the dumbasses who live here will re-elect Sherrod Brown or tip the state to Biden. Nope, they’ll keep electing Republicans and then give them credit for the jobs boom.
And yeah, I agree with the criticism that CHIPS lacks job guarantees. If I were in charge, I’d have the government nationalize chip manufacturing and give people access to advanced education and high wages to make the things. Are they a national security necessity or not?
Yes, most people don’t know the shorthand IRA. But I’d assume everyone taking the time to look at an obscure discussion board on a political talkshow’s website should. Or at least have the interest and ability to look it up. Though, given how little TYT discusses it since its passage, maybe I was mistaken.
You could say that my statement is inaccurate then provide some information but to just say it is wrong then back that up with a falsity seems to be suspect.
I outlined the status quo so I would need to understand how this isn’t the case.
You should watch more often.
They often talk about media bubbles and include that they are in fact in one of their own creation.
I follow around 15-20 news organizations 3-4 are form the US.
Greed is the source of our hysteria that is why they often bring up it as a root cause.
Imagine having this giant of a platform yet being ignored in chorus by nearly very other segment of the population except when they “need” you.
I know your god wouldn’t want you to draw a comparison from a hobby horse to the stopping a massacre of children.
This is a legacy media position that few here believe to be the case.
I have a friend that installed Intel fabs for a decade. You may not know this but Israel is a very large hub for Intel fabs as well as specialist. That fab will will be installed by coastal engineers with the corporation of Nikon precision.
Very few folks from Ohio will ever see the inside of those clean rooms, I promise.
I only bring that up because in the context I read it, for me it connoted IRA (Individual Retirement Arrangement) account. I couldn’t parse that and recalled that IRA was also used for recent legislation.
I haven’t missed an episode of TYT (at least intentionally) since 2008.
If you want to know about the direct benefits to low income folks in the IRA you can find it online. I heard all about it when the bill was passed. Not sure why it escaped Ana’s and Cenk’s notice, but I suspect it’s because of their bias against governmental measures to push energy efficiency.
If I could chime in, my understanding is that the IRA was in some ways great relative to our corporate agenda, and of not much significance to ecological reality. It is like the best we could do given the political moment, and ultimately only a pause to look over our shoulder to consider the course we need. It only nods to the needs, and is yet among the most we’ve done in terms of those needs. Optimistically, we would hope our future politics will actually turn around before the environment forces us to trailblaze a shortcut back to the course we left behind. Pessimistically, we would recognize the MO of corporate politics superficially addressing such needs in order to maintain their power, which they exercise by limiting the scope of politics to well within what is required in order to prevent their required disempowerment. In my opinion, neither the optimistic nor pessimistic is fully correct.
I think that illustrates my understanding of the IRA in context. To be clear, I understand some great policy was realized through IRA despite the political cutting block. Yet, much of the changes which are needed requires a realistic worldview which is incompatible with the status quo. We on the left wing finally had our grip on the ear of the status quo, and we twisted to get what we got. My point is that the current status quo needs to be metaphorically deposed in order to begin addressing deeper needs of the issues. That would mean the left grew to usurp the status quo. My focus is on how we do that.
And I would suspect that type of focus is in some ways underlying TYT coverage. And I also suspect there are other reasons why focusing on the ongoing genocide would be more imminently news worthy than focusing on how a previously compromised climate infrastructure policy is prolonging ecocide.
So any legislation passed that doesn’t fix the entirety of the problem is worthless? The Inflation Reduction Act is arguably inadequate to meet the enormity of the climate problem (a point with which I agree) so it’s at least meaningless and probably counterproductive?
I can imagine such legislation. And if I I had the time and inclination could find examples of such toothless message bills passing. TYT has covered them in the past, and it has sounded to me like they decided early on that the IRA fits this preconception, so it was irrelevant to their audience to examine what is actually IN the bill.
But if your’e at all aware of the size and scope of the spending and revenue enhancements in the IRA, calling it worthless sounds uninformed at best and nihilist at worst. It’s basically an unlimited pot of money whose size depends ultimately on the adoption of its energy saving measures. And the incentives are available to everyone, from the lowest of income households to the largest industrial producers. Basically, any time you replace a water heater, or a gas stove, or your car, etc., rebates are available to make the purchase of new energy-saving devices, which will save consumers money going forward, competitive with their dirtier, more costly to operate alternatives.
I get that Ana (and apparently Cenk and likely the majority of their audience) don’t want to transform our energy system entirely away from fossil fuels to renewable-sourced electricity only. (Now Ana has apparently decided nuclear must be feasible.) But this is the only solution on the table. Its success depends on widespread adoption, or you might call it a revolution in consciousness, to join the effort.
It might not work; in fact it looks unlikely to do so. But those who claim they’re engaged in real-world politics can’t claim they accept the immediacy and apocalyptic magnitude of the climate problem if they’re willing to dismiss any efforts toward progress as not good enough, and hence shit on or ignore (like the LNG pause) even modest wins.
Btw, thanks for the prompt to reply once again, Jared. My frustration is more with Ana and Cenk than with your comments.
I guess I would simply point out, as undeniably horrific as the events in Gaza are, if we are not universally focused on the threat posed by anthropogenic climate disruption and taking seriously every tool available to reverse our situation, genocidal events will be happening all across the globe as soon as the second half of this century. Nowhere will be safe. The destruction will make the horrors we are now witnessing in the Middle East a mere precursor.
To be honest, your earlier reply was at first confusing me, since it almost seemed to be directed as a reply to my comment, but if so was quite hyperbolic to the point of being not possibly representative of my comment. In other words, until I gave up on my assumption that your reply was intended for my comment, it seemed as if you were just talking past me. And then I read your later clarification about reacting to Cenk and Anna, which made much more sense.
That said, I would really like to know what you thought of my previous comment.
For instance, it seems we are in agreement that the IRA was great climate policy. Given my assumption we agree on that, then it seems to me that your focus on the climate issue, (and how it will continue causing catastrophes such as is happening in Gaza), leads you to be frustrated when we (and/or TYT) are not similarly/sufficiently focused on the climate issue.
Is this a fair summary so far? Could you go back to reply to my previous comment, perhaps more directly / thoroughly? Like, maybe you could clarify which parts of my comment you agree and disagree with?
For more context, I feel as if I’m not nearly as well versed in the IRA policy as you seem to be. And, I feel as if I’m at least as focused as you are on resolving the complex issues which are producing the symptom of climate change (among other symptoms). Yet, it seems that maybe we have some differences on how we see the problem, which leads to different preferences on solutions / focus.
I expect you might want to reply to this comment of mine as well as my previous comment. If so, please use quotes to clarify for me which parts of my writing you want to discuss. Thanks!
Thanks for the reply, Jared. Unfortunately, I don’t have enough time to respond to your points in detail. I need to get to work soon and will be away from my devices through the weekend. But quickly…
My frustration with Cenk and Ana boils down to their misleading of their audience by their refusal to keep in context the enormity and imminence of the climate emergency. When they do (rarely) cover some climate related disaster, they rightly point out how dire our situation is.
But then when there is progress made on correcting the issue, especially by the administration, their bias shows. They color the story as inadequate, counter-productive, or ignorable. So my point is, their disinterest, at best, and hostility, at worst, undermines their assurance that they comprehend the reality of the threat facing civilization.
As for solutions, I doubt at this point they’re reachable. But at the very least, we can give credit when measures are being taken to try to implement them. Dismissing even modest attempts to move away from fossil fuel is part of the dynamic making the ultimate solution look to be more and more unlikely.
Sorry! Gotta go. Have a good weekend (I’m Craig, btw)
Thanks again Maybe I can hone in on something you said:
For what you’re saying here, it sounds like for you, such progress is certainly not inadequate, counter-productive, nor ignorable; (hence, how when others imply such, then for you they are "color"ing the news with their perspective, rather than covering news how you feel it).
From what I’m seeing, while we agree on the enormity and imminence of the climate emergency, I suspect we have some disagreement: I think as great as we agree the IRA is, it still is in fact inadequate, and indeed in some ways counter-productive, and also when considering news worthiness I would say things like the ongoing Gaza genocide is more imminently newsworthy than a potential / temporary update on IRA things (especially since such pauses are often media games to gain approval without earning it, talking the talk without walking the walk). So these (the ways you see media as colored) are one area of disagreement I suspect we are experiencing. For some context, as I said earlier, I recognize climate change as a symptom and systemic, which to actually resolve first requires political power and all that entails, (which as I’ve said is how my perspective focuses on resolving the underlying complex issues which in a wider sense are producing climate issues).
That said, still, I also would have liked to hear about IRA update on TYT, but I also follow other media more dedicated to climate issues, (and am increasingly selective of which TYT clips I entertain on YT). I don’t expect TYT to be able to cover all the important news, nor for them to know / agree with what the important news is. So I kind of suspect there are some other things here for another area of disagreement I suspect we are also experiencing. To be more clear, it sounds like we agree TYT is obviously not a good singular source of news; I think the disagreement maybe a bit in how you’re expecting TYT to cover the issues which matter to you, and to cover the issues in the way you see the issues, leading to your frustrations when they don’t, (and, I would say: … when they obviously can’t and thus I don’t expect them to, and thus I’m not as frustrated as you).
I’m curious about your thoughts on both my suspicions of our areas of disagreement. (I should add, I understand I’m reaching a bit blindly since you haven’t specified the specifics for me, so forgive me if I’m misrepresenting your perspectives). What I would like to know, more clearly:
what do you think about my point on their perspective perhaps not actually over-coloring their coverage, (as I see it), contrary to how I think you seem to see it?;
what do you think about my point on our expectations of how / what TYT news covers?
Cenk and Ana’s coverage of the Inflation Reduction Act was egregiously misleading when the legislation passed in August 2022. I remember where I was when I heard their characterization of the new law on the TYT podcast because I was sputtering with disbelief. I’d already listened to some other discussions of the provisions in the bill, so I knew it was sweeping in scope with regard to the money made available to American citizens and businesses alike.
I got the feeling because it was all that was left of “Build Back Better,” and it was far less than they wanted in regard to social services, they were extremely dismissive of what we DID get. Then, whenever the legislation came up again on the show, they acted like it was nothing more than a corporate handout, completely ignoring the billions now accessible to ordinary Americans.
In the process we learned that Ana is skeptical of electric cars, apparently because her condo is in a building that would spread the cost to owners if they decided to install electric hookups. And she proposed this strange objection to discontinuing the sale of new ICE cars a decade or so from now because supposedly poor people would be forced to give up their gas cars, even though I’ve never heard anyone suggest that any gas infrastructure would be banned at the same time; so a used/secondary market would continue while gradually new EVs replaced the no-longer-being-made and aging, dirty, expensive-to-operate gas vehicles.
Around the same time, she covered multiple times the rash of catalytic converter thefts by criminal syndicates without ever making the connection to another advantage of EVs… no catalytic converters to be stolen.
The point is, I get that the effort to electrify everything is unlikely to succeed given our corrupt political system. But like it or not (Cenk and Ana don’t but haven’t laid out a feasible alternative,) this is the only attempt at a solution on the table. So if you really get how dire the stakes are, I’d think you would find time to cover the topic incessantly and to accurately rate the tangible steps in the right direction, like encouraging consumers to replace dirty products with clean ones and pausing the production of liquid natural gas sold on the global market, according to their efficacy.
It seems like we agree the quality of TYT coverage is not as good as we want it, and for you especially on the topic of climate, for which you also want TYT quality to improve given the urgency of climate. I would agree, (probably especially for Ana), skepticism may bleed out to cynicism. And again, it seems like my response to their coverage quality is to find better quality, while you seem to be perhaps more constructive in trying to provide them / us feedback based on your expectations. That said, regarding my point about the IRA in fact being actually inadequate, etc., (and not just colored so) I don’t think you addressed that point yet (and seem to keep talking past it as if you take for granted that you’re correct on that count).
For instance, we certainly need public investments in electrification, but more importantly (for climate) we also need to adapt our consumer-debt based economy such that we invert our economic-growth social-imperative to enable our alignment with the necessary economic-de-growth ecological-imperative; and obviously not by simply encouraging consumers to replace dirty tech, since this is in fact counter-productive to the climate complex, (and not to mention is in fact a “corporate handout”). A LNG pipeline pause is a start to talking the talk (if not walking the walk) of some proper solutions; it is news which I agree TYT should have made a segment about, especially to use it as an example to make the points I’ve just made.
So, I know there would be plenty to respond to, but let me ask you to please prioritize in your response: Would you agree that the priority for the climate issue is a paradigm shift in the causal complex socio-economic dynamics (including consumerism)? My focus in this conversation would be to see how far we can agree towards such a thing, because I think such an agreement is necessary for the actual climate issue, (not to mention media coverage aspects). Unless we can so agree, we will disagree on the efficacy of consumerist / corporate handout policy in general, including IRA aspects.
In summary, it is somewhat tragic that you care so much about climate policy, yet you seem to exaggerate the efficacy of such solutions which are in fact partially counter-productive in how they further enable complex causal factors of the climate crisis. I understand IRA is the best attempt on the table, and so I agree we should be accurate about it’s efficacy.
Let me make an example of what I’m trying to say. You’ve mentioned a few times about how great the increase in energy efficiency is.
However, increases in energy efficiency is not a reduction in energy consumed, because the increase in efficiency enables the energy available to be reallocated towards other profitable uses. Industrial processes have a trade off between energy efficiency and labor efficiency. The complex I’ve been pointing at, which is producing the climate issue, includes some of this dynamic where increases in energy efficiency actually leads to more energy consumed, because it enables otherwise unprofitable industrial options to be profitable with the increase in efficiency, and then malregulated market imperatives will exploit the niche the efficiency increase created, and thus force the increase in consumption in seek of profit. It also reshapes investments in industry processes to skew the balance of labor efficiency vs energy efficiency in the wrong direction, effectively forcing malinvestment in regards to what climate demands of industry process and investment.
What we need is a reduction in energy consumption, via technological increase in energy efficiency, via regulation on the market, via public investment in industry, etc. We need investment in industrial processes which are more labor intensive, if less profitable, with less total energy consumed; the otherwise malregulated free market prevents this potential outcome from increases in energy efficiency. Our economy needs to be fundamentally corrected in order to allow increases in energy efficiency to result in better climate outcomes, otherwise such efficiency increases cause increased consumption, which is counterproductive (if our goal is to address climate issue).
That is an example of my overall point. The IRA is a compromise incapable of being adequate. It is the best we got, yes. It has some great direct effects on climate, yes. Should it be portrayed as a win for climate?; no, because it is important to be accurate. In regards to the climate, the IRA is indirectly counterproductive for some causes of climate change, while it also is directly productive for some symptoms of climate change. IRA is a good start for climate activists, given the political limits. How much credit should the media grant the Biden administration for the IRA?; I think this depends on how the credit will impact the continued works on climate policy, which is beyond me, but I certainly wouldn’t want Biden to think he isn’t required to do much better.
Maybe I can hone in on something you said: