this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2023
267 points (99.3% liked)

politics

19089 readers
5804 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Biden Administration today launched a civilian Climate Corps program intended to employ 20,000 Americans to build and restore public lands. The idea is to create jobs while also working toward the Biden Administration's promise to reach net zero emissions by 2050, deploying corps members to work in wind and solar production as well as environmental conservation projects. Created in the image of a Great Depression-era civilian climate corps program incorporated by former President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Biden's program aims to "mobilize the next generation of conservation and resilience workers and maximize the creation of accessible training opportunities and good jobs." However, the program will employ far less than the more than 3 million men in Roosevelt's era.

The program was initially outlined in an executive order Biden issued during his first month in office. Originally, $30 billion was set aside for the program as a part of the Inflation Reduction Act, but this was ultimately removed. Administrative officials declined to tell the Washington Post how much or from where funding will come from instead, the outlet reported.

On Monday, House Democrats called on Biden to move forward with the program, citing the urgency of the climate crisis as demonstrated by recent flooding, extreme heat and devastating wildfires like those that ravaged Maui in August. "By leveraging the historic climate funding secured during your Administration, using existing authorities and coordinating across AmeriCorps and other relevant federal agencies, your Administration can create a federal Civilian Climate Corps that unites its members in an effort to fight climate change, build community resilience, support environmental justice and develop career pathways to good-paying union jobs focused on climate resilience and a clean economy," they wrote.

On Sunday, tens of thousands of protestors marched in New York City urging Biden to declare a climate emergency, which he still has not done in spite of experts warning of an ongoing "biological holocaust" while humanity dangerously pushes our planet to its extreme limits. Meanwhile, record-shattering heatwaves made summer 2023 the hottest in humanity's history and the U.S. experienced a record-breaking 23 natural disasters exceeding $1 billion in damages.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

It's nice to see the CCC brought back, but frankly the Roosevelt-era CCC was as much about feeding (unemployed) malnourished men in the Depression era as it was about making any difference with their labor.

Today, there's a lot of need for the kind of labor-intensive land management they can do; there's so much woodland out there that could benefit from cutting firebreaks into it or from planting millions of trees, etc.

I kind of suspect that the Roosevelt-era CCC paid dividends by the time WWII rolled around (just a decade later)- here the USA was, with a pretty large population of people with lots of experience working in groups, building camps, more-or-less soldiering- alongside having all of the logistics train around keeping large groups of working men in camps or on the move worked out.

[–] Wilziac@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is incredible news! While 20,000 is fewer jobs than I would have liked, it's still 20,000 more people that are fighting to save our planet than we had before. Plus all those jobs will provide income to all those people and families, and they'll be able to recirculate those funds to their local economies. I bet this program will generate more income than it's cost over the long run, and that's not even counting all the monetary savings that a more stable (or at least slower changing) climate will bring.

[–] Amazed@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There’s an age limit btw: 30. 35 if you’re a veteran.

Millennials get shafted yet again.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Are they actually paying jobs or volunteer work like Americorps?

Also, I just see people in the photo doing trail work. Climate corps should be focused almost 100% on clean energy, mass transit projects, carbon capture technology, or planting trees.

There are a million trailwork volunteer opportunities. It’s a cool thing to do, but making existing parks better for visitors is doing nothing to fight climate change. I say this as someone who volunteers in my nearby parks and has volunteered on trail crews.

It was annoying not to have opportunities available to do more.

[–] Wilziac@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

It was right in the first paragraph of the article.

"...deploying corps members to work in wind and solar production as well as environmental conservation projects."

So yes, it (should be) more than just trail work.

[–] rastilin@kbin.social -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think some kind of drought and heat tolerant bamboo might be needed it we want to grow plants fast enough to actually make a dent in carbon levels.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

growing plants is actually the worst way to go about that. the oceans hold the largest amount of carbon sequestration. oceanic algae is actually the top oxygen producer (which directly relates to carbon being removed.)

It's important, though to get off fossil fuels ASAP. which makes me annoyed at this. Because... we know this. We've known this since I was in higshchool. And yet... he's still approving oil projects like the willow project, and subsidizing oil.

[–] rastilin@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe, but the thing about plants is that they grow themselves. Which means they'll still be contributing after funding gets cut and the project scrapped.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

right up until they get slashed and burned to make room for the farmland.

[–] rastilin@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's loads of flaws in it, but it's a method that could push back on global warming on a wide scale fairly cheaply.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

There’s much better ways. For example, stoping subsidies on oil. All of them. There’s an easy 6trillion right there.

You create change with economics. People are switching to EVs because long term they’re more affordable, people will say it’s because they’re green, but really, it’s the affordability.

Remove the subsidies and suddenly you create a level playing field and increased demand gives economies of scale for green alternatives like wind, solar and such like. Also grid scale energy storage, we have the technology but it’s “expensive” because there’s not enough to justify mass production. (Nickel hydrogen batteries, for example are extremely reliable, and extremely cheap- made from nickel and hydrogen placed in a pressure vessel. They’re used in space for their reliability and lack of charge/discharge cycle lifespan)