might be a stupid question, but the problem seems to be congress is trying to spend a couple trillion dollars we don't have on top of the two or three trillion we also probably don't have but are nonetheless spending. what if we simply didn't spend that extra couple tril?
-
-
Looks like $450B for early childhood education and
@axios reported last night we’ve got $500B for climate. I could do $1T and call it a day for both of those.https://edsource.org/2021/will-bidens-reconciliation-bill-transform-early-childhood-education/661668 … -
i could do $1T for *just* carbon sequestration tbh, but this bill isn’t about climate, nor will it move the needle on global warming, which we both know
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
We can’t push China to decarbonize if we’re unable to advance climate change legislation in our own country.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
*screams in Porkbarrel*
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
The stats showing China’s share in the world’s contribution to global warming make me think that many countries in the west could literally not care about this and the overall impact would be negligible. The gained productivity for small biz’s would likely be much more valuable
-
Right now organizations like the EU are making running a business extremely difficult, especially in manufacturing or agriculture type industries. Small businesses suffer, gigacorps can afford compliance. All for a very minor effect on the global environmental issues
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
No it’s not worth it. You’re being sold a bill of goods.
-
Is there something else on the table?
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
