President Biden's Infrastructure Plans

[Loren Pechtel]

I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Chernobyl is what happens when you're an idiot about building and running nuke plants.

Fukushima is the worst remotely sane accident we have--and the expected death toll was less than one.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period

The latter isn't going to happen. Attempting to make it so actually makes the problems worse.

 

[Toni]

Nuclear power plants are currently and for the foreseeable future will be run by human beings. All human beings are fallible and always will be.

Nuclear power plants have the ability to kill thousands of people and make uninhabitable millions of acres of forest and killing outright all the wildlife therein contained and making the entire affected area uninhabitable. For generations. Same thing with oceans, rivers and lakes.

It’s not a question of of but when the next accident will happen.

 

[Swammerdami]

'Swallowing a toad': Progressives warm to Manchin's fossil fuel demands to clinch climate package - POLITICO - "Voters' frustration with high energy prices and the likelihood that Democrats will lose control of the House in November have made progressives more open to a deal."

For example, Khanna, Porter and other progressives have introduced legislation that would tax large oil companies for the huge profits they are reaping from surging crude prices, a policy they say would incentivize more drilling and bring down prices and resulting tax burden.

Progressives including McEachin and Porter are also pushing to provide rebates or direct payments to consumers to help offset high gas prices, an idea backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that could drive up fuel demand.

“It is unfortunate we have to do that, but the time demands action and the American people are certainly deserving of action,” McEachin said.

For several decades many Americans — including centrists like myself — have been pushing for higher prices for gasoline and other carbon-based fuels. This would encourage conservation, car-pooling, and the use of non-carbon energy. That battle is finally won! Let's be careful about how we "provide rebates or direct payments to consumers to help offset high gas prices" so as not to undo the GOOD that those high prices do.

I certainly do agree that the huge profits reaped from these high prices should not just be passed to ExxonMobile stockholders nor to the murderous Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. The money should be used for deficit reduction.

 

[bilby]

I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period

Water is radioactive even if you don't use it to cool reactors.

The water that they are storing at Fukushima is not only completely harmless to the ocean if it were dumped; It's drinkable. There's literally no medical, public health, environmental or other scientific reason not to allow it to be dumped into the ocean. But it makes an excellent way to engender fear - look, it's worked on you.

Very slightly tritiated water isn't a hazard to anyone unless they drown in it.

If a similar set of safety protocols were demanded of the chemical industry, Bhopal would still be a no-go zone. As would the entire Gulf of Mexico.

There comes a point where refusing to allow an entirely hypothetical risk is actually causing severe harm. The measures taken at Fukushima since day one have done far more harm than good. The evacuation killed dozens, to avoid a tiny risk of any fatalities at all from radiation. Fear makes people stupid.

 

[bilby]

I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Not much. The international agency isn't particularly worried.

But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period

We need to insulate to save energy for heating/cooling. But otherwise, solar/wind/thermal isn't getting us there. There just isn't enough. I want there to be. Why risk nuclear at all if an array of solar could supply us with enough energy to live in the first world. But it can't.

Nuclear is safer than Solar.

More people have died in the USA alone in the last twenty years due to solar power, than have died worldwide ever due to nuclear power (including [indeed, mostly] the fatalities at Chernobyl). Most solar power fatalities are single individuals who fall from rooftops during installation or maintenance.

The hazard from either source is tiny, but Solar is demonstrably more hazardous.

So my question is, why risk solar at all, given that nuclear power can supply all the energy we need to live in the first world?

 

[Toni]

I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Not much. The international agency isn't particularly worried.

But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period

We need to insulate to save energy for heating/cooling. But otherwise, solar/wind/thermal isn't getting us there. There just isn't enough. I want there to be. Why risk nuclear at all if an array of solar could supply us with enough energy to live in the first world. But it can't.

Nuclear is safer than Solar.

More people have died in the USA alone in the last twenty years due to solar power, than have died worldwide ever due to nuclear power (including [indeed, mostly] the fatalities at Chernobyl). Most solar power fatalities are single individuals who fall from rooftops during installation or maintenance.

The hazard from either source is tiny, but Solar is demonstrably more hazardous.

So my question is, why risk solar at all, given that nuclear power can supply all the energy we need to live in the first world?

Because solar kills one unfortunate person at a time and doesn’t keep killing people and plants abs animals and microbes for generations or cause cancer or deformities.

 

[bilby]

We need to keep trying with regard to renewables. We should have been trying for decades. We're so good at dropping the ball. We need to juggle renewables and nuclear. Generation III nuclear plants are safer than Generation II in that they have more passive safety measures in place. Measures that require no electrical, mechanical or human action for effect. I'd go into detail, but I'd murder it.
Regardless of subsidies, our Generation II plants are still old and will still need to be retired.
If France can supply seventy percent of their electricity needs through nuclear power and figure out what to do with the worst of the waste, we can too.

Germany has spent three decades now putting vast effort and insane amounts of money into making renewables work.

As a result of this huge effort, they are completely dependent on Russian gas supplies to keep the lights on. And are still emitting lots of carbon when they burn that gas.

France actually achieved ultra low carbon emissions electricity, in a third of the time and at a minuscule fraction of the cost, and now they sell electricity to Germany.

There's no need to speculate about which approach might be better; No need to do yet more research in the vain hope that asking the question for the thousandth time might get a different answer. We know what works, and we know what doesn't.

Vladimir Putin hopes that we continue to vote for people who are happy to ignore that hard earned knowledge.

 

[bilby]

I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Not much. The international agency isn't particularly worried.

But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period

We need to insulate to save energy for heating/cooling. But otherwise, solar/wind/thermal isn't getting us there. There just isn't enough. I want there to be. Why risk nuclear at all if an array of solar could supply us with enough energy to live in the first world. But it can't.

Nuclear is safer than Solar.

More people have died in the USA alone in the last twenty years due to solar power, than have died worldwide ever due to nuclear power (including [indeed, mostly] the fatalities at Chernobyl). Most solar power fatalities are single individuals who fall from rooftops during installation or maintenance.

The hazard from either source is tiny, but Solar is demonstrably more hazardous.

So my question is, why risk solar at all, given that nuclear power can supply all the energy we need to live in the first world?

Because solar kills one unfortunate person at a time and doesn’t keep killing people and plants abs animals and microbes for generations or cause cancer or deformities.

Nuclear kills nobody, unless they are doing unauthorised and stupid experiments with badly designed Soviet reactors.

The mining of rare earths used in both wind and solar facilities actually does have the problems you are imagining for nuclear power. Radiation isn't the only carcinogen by a long chalk - it's just the only one that is almost universally effectively managed.

I seriously doubt any widow ever has found consolation in her husband's death having been the only fatality that week.

 

[bilby]

Nuclear power plants are currently and for the foreseeable future will be run by human beings. All human beings are fallible and always will be.

Nuclear power plants have the ability to kill thousands of people and make uninhabitable millions of acres of forest and killing outright all the wildlife therein contained and making the entire affected area uninhabitable. For generations. Same thing with oceans, rivers and lakes.

It’s not a question of of but when the next accident will happen.

Nuclear power plants do not have the ability to kill thousands of people.

You have been deliberately and comprehensively lied to.

Chernobyl wasn't only the worst nuclear accident ever; It was damn near the worst possible. Almost the entire inventory of radionuclides was dispersed widely, with a very slow official response to start protecting the public. The total death toll was nowhere close to a thousand.

The same year, the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal, India, had an isocyanate leak that killed about twenty times as many people as Chernobyl, and contaminated a wider area, with at least half a million people seriously injured.

The difference between these two disasters is that nobody's still making HBO miniseries about Bhopal, and that non-nuclear industrial accidents on the scale of Chernobyl happen every year or two. They make the news for a day or two; Nobody's trying to use accidents from forty years ago as a reason to shut down the entire chemical industry. Because that would be taking fear way beyond any rational level.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I’m sure I saw China Syndrome soon after it came out—but honestly, 3 Mile Island made a bigger impression on me—which faded as I felt very reassured by improvements, etc. in technology. Then there was Chernobyl. Are you aware of what has been happening now, with respect to the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Not much. The international agency isn't particularly worried.

But before the current conflict: Fukushima.

It is difficult for me to ignore millions of acres of forest contaminated by radiation because of Chernobyl. Or the millions and millions of gallons of water made radioactive when used to cool reactors. Especially when discussing saving the environment.

Solar/wind/thermal is a better way to go but most of all, we need to consume much less energy, period

We need to insulate to save energy for heating/cooling. But otherwise, solar/wind/thermal isn't getting us there. There just isn't enough. I want there to be. Why risk nuclear at all if an array of solar could supply us with enough energy to live in the first world. But it can't.

We’ve barely tried it.

The Germans did and they didn't get the breakthrough we were hoping would happen. Think about it, for solar to work, we'd need to through panels up everywhere. For nuclear power to work, we need a single power plant for every x million people. The resources required, the length of duration, ability to handle hail... clouds...

Let me be clear, I'm not uber joyous over nuclear. It is just, as an engineer and growing up over the last 20 years, has shown the wind and solar didn't get there. PEI in Canada has exploded in wind power generation, 10 or 20x since I was there last. And it is still a small fraction of their power needs. If PEI, a small rural island on the skirts of the Atlantic can't make wind work as even a majority power source... it can't be done. Thermodynamics is a bitch.

The only thing that can challenge Nuclear Fission is Nuclear Fusion, and the star in a box just doesn't seem feasible. If we could ever make a transistor² like breakthrough in power storage, wires rotating in the Van Allen Belts would be the other option. Wind and solar are good power sources where distributing power via old fashioned means isn't feasible. Otherwise, we just can't transition enough of that energy into power. And solar, specifically, is wasting a boatload of resources.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nuclear power plants are currently and for the foreseeable future will be run by human beings. All human beings are fallible and always will be.

Nuclear power plants have the ability to kill thousands of people and make uninhabitable millions of acres of forest and killing outright all the wildlife therein contained and making the entire affected area uninhabitable. For generations. Same thing with oceans, rivers and lakes.

It’s not a question of of but when the next accident will happen.

That's the question with every source of power. The track record is that nuke is considerably better than any fossil fuel. It's just the fossil fuel deaths are mostly dispersed and not noticeable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because solar kills one unfortunate person at a time and doesn’t keep killing people and plants abs animals and microbes for generations or cause cancer or deformities.

But what counts is the number of deaths, not how they happen.

Note that nuke deaths make the news because they're so rare.

 

[Swammerdami]

Despite the title, this seems to be the thread for discussing the safety of nuclear reactors. How many of you have seen the Netflix docuseries Meltdown: Three Mile Island ?

I thoroughly enjoyed the documentary on Chernobyl. It shows the series of design issues and human incompetence that led to the disaster instrumental to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The problems seemed to stem more from incompetence than corruption. As I watched it, I thought "We wouldn't see this level of incompetence in the U.S.A."

I didn't find the first two episodes of Meltdown: Three Mile Island very interesting and almost didn't finish the docuseries. I'm glad I persisted. If you believe the documentary, the behavior of GPU, Bechtel and the NRC went beyond incompetence to criminal fraud. Apparently their corrupt incompetent behavior began even before the accident when they ignored reports of leaky water pipes, the eventual accident's cause.

Watch it!

Much of the story is told by Rick Parks, a reactor expert involved in the TMI cleanup. He was a proponent of nuclear power and admirer of Admiral Rickover. However he became worried that the polar crane inside the reactor might have been damaged by the core melting and that if not inspected and repaired the crane might fail during its planned usage to remove the reactor head. If that head slammed into the reactor core a major explosion or "China syndrome" might follow. Management was not interested in his advice, burgled his house for documents, and attempted to frame him as grounds for arrest or dismissal. He became a whistleblower. The NRC did vote to postpone use of that crane. When it was eventually tested results showed, according to Parks, that it might indeed have failed just as he feared.

I'd never heard of Rick Parks or these allegations. Wikipedia doesn't seem to know of Rick Parks or these allegations either. The top Google hits are to articles posted AFTER the docuseries appeared. What gives?

What does this have to do with nuclear power safety? Just that whatever the theoretical safety of a nuclear reactor, we must remember that decisions are often made by corrupt greedy businessmen and politicians.

 

[bilby]

Despite the title, this seems to be the thread for discussing the safety of nuclear reactors. How many of you have seen the Netflix docuseries Meltdown: Three Mile Island ?

I thoroughly enjoyed the documentary on Chernobyl. It shows the series of design issues and human incompetence that led to the disaster instrumental to the collapse of the Soviet Union. The problems seemed to stem more from incompetence than corruption. As I watched it, I thought "We wouldn't see this level of incompetence in the U.S.A."

I didn't find the first two episodes of Meltdown: Three Mile Island very interesting and almost didn't finish the docuseries. I'm glad I persisted. If you believe the documentary, the behavior of GPU, Bechtel and the NRC went beyond incompetence to criminal fraud. Apparently their corrupt incompetent behavior began even before the accident when they ignored reports of leaky water pipes, the eventual accident's cause.

Watch it!

Much of the story is told by Rick Parks, a reactor expert involved in the TMI cleanup. He was a proponent of nuclear power and admirer of Admiral Rickover. However he became worried that the polar crane inside the reactor might have been damaged by the core melting and that if not inspected and repaired the crane might fail during its planned usage to remove the reactor head. If that head slammed into the reactor core a major explosion or "China syndrome" might follow. Management was not interested in his advice, burgled his house for documents, and attempted to frame him as grounds for arrest or dismissal. He became a whistleblower. The NRC did vote to postpone use of that crane. When it was eventually tested results showed, according to Parks, that it might indeed have failed just as he feared.

I'd never heard of Rick Parks or these allegations. Wikipedia doesn't seem to know of Rick Parks or these allegations either. The top Google hits are to articles posted AFTER the docuseries appeared. What gives?

What does this have to do with nuclear power safety? Just that whatever the theoretical safety of a nuclear reactor, we must remember that decisions are often made by corrupt greedy businessmen and politicians.

I would be interested to know the proposed mechanism by which an object impacting upon an already damaged reactor core, that has subsequently ceased to generate heat, causes either an explosion, or sufficient new heat generation to melt through the containment.

It sounds like somebody doesn't know the difference between a lump of partially melted metals and a stack of nitroglycerin.

Nuclear reactors are really, really difficult to make explode. It's not something that happens because you give them a sharp blow; Its likely impossible to achieve for a PWR design, and is certainly not something you could achieve via a crude physical impact - you would need deliberate, Chernobyl level, incompetence while specifically manipulating the controls of a working and operational reactor, and deliberately disabling a number of separate safety systems.

These are not sensitive systems that are teetering on the edge of catastrophe. Despite the wild claims made to the contrary by (or at least for) people who haven't the slightest clue how they work.

There's no level of corruption or greed that can cause a damaged PWR to spontaneously rebuild itself into an atom bomb with a hair trigger. If making a nuclear explosion were that easy that it could happen accidentally in a damaged PWR, the Manhattan Project would have lasted a week and cost a couple of hundred bucks.

Nuclear meltdowns are a bad thing, because they cause the loss of an expensive and valuable power generation unit. They are not a threat to life or health; As Fukushima demonstrated, even in older reactor designs, multiple meltdowns don't lead to deaths, or to injuries outside the plant itself. They're expensive, but not particularly dangerous, industrial accidents of a level of seriousness that is accepted as 'business as usual' outside the nuclear and commercial aviation industries.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Biden breaks the internet.

So fiber is being run out to the rural areas around these here parts. Everyone here in town is just about all fibered up now. And the upstart municipal fiber/lit communities is spooling out the glass too.
But the corn shuckers getting it is the real story. Will this endear Biden to rural America or will it provide a conduit for high speed conspiracy theories? Stay tuned.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Biden breaks the internet.

So fiber is being run out to the rural areas around these here parts. Everyone here in town is just about all fibered up now. And the upstart municipal fiber/lit communities is spooling out the glass too.
But the corn shuckers getting it is the real story. Will this endear Biden to rural America or will it provide a conduit for high speed conspiracy theories? Stay tuned.

THAT'S IT! We need to link Fiber with 5G conspiracy theories... which would then lead these idiots to hooking up their 14.4k modems which would restrict their ability to communicate online via USENET.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Biden breaks the internet.

So fiber is being run out to the rural areas around these here parts. Everyone here in town is just about all fibered up now. And the upstart municipal fiber/lit communities is spooling out the glass too.
But the corn shuckers getting it is the real story. Will this endear Biden to rural America or will it provide a conduit for high speed conspiracy theories? Stay tuned.

THAT'S IT! We need to link Fiber with 5G conspiracy theories... which would then lead these idiots to hooking up their 14.4k modems which would restrict their ability to communicate online via USENET.

Bidenet will have liberal band-pass filters installed on the political spectrum. Conservative commentary will be rejected.

Wait for Trump fiber to be deployed. It's called, "The Light".

 

[lpetrich]

I've been reluctant to post on the continued drama llama about passing parts of Build Back Better, because some much of it has seemed a non-starter for so long, with Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and the Senate parliamentarian getting in the way.

But it's happened.

The Senate passes the Inflation Reduction Act and it moves on to the House : NPR

"After months of negotiations, Senate Democrats passed a major climate, health care and tax bill — a centerpiece of President Biden's agenda. Vice President Harris broke the 50-50 tie."

Leila Fadel and Deirdre Walsh:

WALSH: Well, this is a major win for President Biden. And it came well after a year of internal squabbles between moderates and progressives about the size and the scope of the proposal. Remember, Democrats were initially looking at a $3.5 trillion package. And this is roughly 700 billion. But Schumer and West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin secretly renewed talks about 10 days ago to put together this framework. Many Democrats were skeptical it would actually happen after Manchin had repeatedly pulled back from negotiations, citing inflation concerns - the last time, just days before the deal was announced. Democrats also needed the votes of Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema. They were able to get her on board after taking out a tax provision targeting hedge funds that she opposed.

FADEL: So what's in the bill?

WALSH: Several significant policy changes. This represents the largest federal investment in climate and energy policy. It has a roughly $370 billion for things like tax credits for electric vehicles and money for renewable energy programs. Democrats say these investments are going to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 2005 levels by the end of this decade.

Congress OKs Dems' climate, health bill, a Biden triumph | AP News

The House used a party-line 220-207 vote to pass the legislation, prompting hugs among Democrats on the House floor and cheers by White House staff watching on television. “Today, the American people won. Special interests lost,” tweeted the vacationing Biden, who was shown beaming in a White House photo as he watched the vote on TV from Kiawah Island, South Carolina. He said he would sign the legislation next week.

The measure is but a shadow of the larger, more ambitious plan to supercharge environment and social programs that Biden and his party unveiled early last year. Even so, Democrats happily declared victory on top-tier goals like providing Congress’ largest ever investment in curbing carbon emissions, reining in pharmaceutical costs and taxing large companies, hoping to show they can wring accomplishments from a routinely gridlocked Washington that often disillusions voters.

...
Republicans solidly opposed the legislation, calling it a cornucopia of wasteful liberal daydreams that would raise taxes and families’ living costs. They did the same Sunday but Senate Democrats banded together and used Vice President Kamala Harris’ tiebreaking vote to power the measure through that 50-50 chamber.

It's about 1/5 of the original $3.5 trillion, but it's still a lot.

 

[lpetrich]

Part of this bill is increasing funding for the national tax police, the IRS.

Against the backdrop of GOP attacks on the FBI for its court-empowered search of former President Donald Trump’s Florida estate for sensitive documents, Republicans repeatedly savaged the bill’s boost to the IRS budget. That’s aimed at collecting an estimated $120 billion in unpaid taxes over the coming decade, and Republicans have misleadingly claimed that the IRS will hire 87,000 agents to target average families.

Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., said Democrats would also “weaponize” the IRS with agents, “many of whom will be trained in the use of deadly force, to go after any American citizen.” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Thursday on “Fox and Friends” if there would be an IRS “strike force that goes in with AK-15s already loaded, ready to shoot some small business person.”

From people who brag about how much they love soldiers and cops.

Few IRS personnel are armed, and Democrats say the bill’s $80 billion, 10-year budget increase would be to replace waves of retirees, not just agents, and modernize equipment. They have said typical families and small businesses would not be targeted, with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen directing the IRS this week to not “increase the share of small business or households below the $400,000 threshold” that would be audited.

 

[lpetrich]

Congressional Progressive Caucus Applauds Senate Passage of Inflation Reduction Act | Press Releases | Congressional Progressive Caucus

“The Congressional Progressive Caucus was essential to ensuring that the President’s economic agenda was drafted and passed in the House. While we are heartbroken to see several essential pieces on the care economy, housing, and immigration left on the cutting room floor — as well as a successful Republican effort to remove insulin price caps for those with private insurance — we know that the Inflation Reduction Act takes real steps forward on key progressive priorities.

“The bill will cut carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030 through rapidly accelerating the adoption of renewable-energy technologies such as electric vehicles, heat pumps, and solar panels, saving the average family $1,025 a year in energy costs and creating millions of good jobs. It will immediately extend affordable health insurance coverage to 13 million people, cap seniors’ yearly drug costs at $2,000 per year, and cap insulin at $35 per month for seniors on Medicare. It takes on Big Pharma by, for the first time ever, allowing Medicare to begin negotiating prices for a small group of drugs that expands over time. The bill also imposes a 15 percent minimum tax on corporations, taxes corporations that inflate their share values through stock buybacks, and invests in the IRS to go after large corporations that evade taxes. As President Biden has promised, the bill won’t raise taxes on any family making less than $400,000 per year.

“Let us be clear: we do not support the bill’s new provisions that expand fossil fuel leasing. However, independent analyses show that their limited impact will be far outweighed by the carbon emissions cuts this legislation accomplishes.

“Progressives in Congress and in the movement held the line and demanded action on these priorities, ensuring that we got to where we are today.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Celebrates House Passage of Inflation Reduction Act | Press Releases | Congressional Progressive Caucus

WASHINGTON — Representative Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, issued the following statement upon House passage of the Inflation Reduction Act:

...
“I’m incredibly proud of the role our Progressive Caucus played in getting us here. From the very beginning, progressives have fought tooth and nail to advance the full scope of the President’s economic agenda. ...

“The Inflation Reduction Act contains a hugely important set of investments to lower prescription drug costs, extend health coverage for millions, act on climate change while creating millions of jobs, and finally start to ensure the wealthy pay their fair share in taxes. This bill will put the United States on a path to reduce our carbon pollution by 40 percent by 2030, investing in renewable energy technologies that will drive down energy costs and accelerate our transition away from fossil fuels. It will cap seniors’ annual drug costs and their cost of insulin, and institute a 15 percent minimum tax on large corporations.

“We will remain vigilant as we begin the process of implementing this bill to ensure the funding is delivered in an equitable way — particularly when it comes to investing in frontline communities and advancing environmental justice. We also look forward to ensuring that upcoming discussions around permitting reform protect communities and further the underlying goals of this bill. Progressives will not stop fighting for the pieces left on the cutting room floor: Medicare expansion, home care, Pre-K, universal child care, housing, workers’ rights, immigration justice, and for affordable insulin for all, after Republicans outrageously stripped it from the bill. With our continued commitment, engaged movements across the country, and two more Democrats in the Senate, we can ensure the full agenda the American people voted for in 2020 is enacted into law.”