well under current administration, she can probably make more real impact there than in her former job...
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2025
155 points (98.7% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6794 readers
297 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You’re not wrong and she should get her money while she can but this is what people like Trump and The Heritage Foundation want. Push the government workers out of the public sector and into the private one, those private sector corporations will then get nice fat government contracts to perform the work that the government was already doing. Since it’s a private company doing the work, the bottom line and shareholders will always be more important than the work. In the end, we will have worse services that will cost more money.
Someone in my life works for FEMA and has told me that they have seen the big defense contractors posting jobs similar to the one they do, for more money.
I feel like I read years back about the Koch company hiring a bunch of top climate scientists to corner the market on accurate research and...make more money.
I think it was from an NPR podcast interview when Kochs were briefly donating to it.
i don't think it is the same problem as privatization of fema. world is not going to change because scientists publish a report and some average joe like you or me says "exactly. time to do something about it!".
this change, unfortunately, cannot come from the bottom. i could buy new electric car (if i could afford it), but since i live in a country where 75% of energy comes from fossil fuels, it doesn't really change anything, it just moves the exhaust pipe from the car to local coal power plant. this needs big structural change and that change will come when and only when the BIG MONEY(tm) finds out that doing business as usual started to hurt their bottom line and they cannot bullshit their way out of it.
and to me, the discussed news means we are at that point and they realize that. will they try to cheat and hoard as much money as possible during the process? of course they will, but they would do it anyway, so i am really glad we have at least arrived at this point.
but since i live in a country where 75% of energy comes from fossil fuels, it doesn't really change anything, it just moves the exhaust pipe from the car to local coal power plant.
Even if the enegry came 100% from fossil fuels its still better because power plants can be built with greater efficiency than cars that are limited by weight and cost.
And more power demand is will to force energy companies to invest into cheaper renewables quicker.
ok, fair point.
i still do believe that big banks finally acknowledging the problem wanting to do something is a good thing (or at least slow start of one).
JP Morgan has also eliminated hybrid/remote model and asked their employees to return to office.
That should really help climate change.
A boring dystopia.
The only problem I have with this is that the final risk models and reports for decision makers will probably be private, which is a waste and creates even more info asymmetry in the middle of an ongoing crisis and denialism.
🧐