So Congress has quietly reached a big energy deal that, among other things, would reduce HFC's by 85% over 10 years, a major climate win. But environmental groups are upset that it would include funding for nuclear and carbon capture. https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2020/12/15/stories/1063720703

I honestly just don't understand the logic. Direct air capture could play some role in getting to net zero. If Joe Manchin and Republicans are willing to put money toward it, why oppose that? Do activists really think that money would flow instead to other solutions they prefer?

Correction: The HFC drawdown is over 15 years. Apologies.

Anyway, @yayitsrob had a good column recently about how the U.S. doesn't have climate groups so much as "environmental" groups that are often tied up in old, counterproductive eco-battles like the fight against nuclear. Not the only factor here, but part of it.

I've actually been thinking about that in tandem with the @Noahpinion / @mattyglesias take that part of the socialist-aligned climate movement is more interested in shoehorning anti-capitalism into a climate framework than reducing emissions...

(I don't entirely agree with their perspective on groups like Sunrise, but there's clearly a lot of that that going on).

Anyway, it sometimes feels like we don't have a climate movement in this country so much as a bunch of interest groups that have circled around climate.