At the beginning of the Joe Biden administration,
the United States re-entered the Paris Climate Accord. Under the accord, nations agreed to limit
emissions to reduce global warming this century to less than 2 degrees Celsius compared to
average global temperatures before the 19th century, a benchmark based on rising temperatures
due to the Industrial Revolution. The agreement also has a secondary target
of limiting warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius. To meet that goal, every nation signed to
the accord is required to act, but every nation gets to set their own target. Last month, at the Earth Day summit, President
Joe Biden announced his administration's plan to cut the United States' greenhouse emissions
by 50% by the year 2030. The US is the second greatest contributor
to climate change, behind only China. Any action on climate change at all was a
welcome change of pace after the previous administration backed out of the Paris Climate
Accord altogether. The administration's plan includes $174 billion
for electric vehicles and charging stations to help shift consumers away from gas vehicles,
$100 billion to update the electric grid to prevent catastrophes like the Texas blackout,
$10 billion for a Civilian Climate Corps to restore land, and more. Biden is including this climate change action
as part of a larger American Jobs Plan, selling it to the people based on the jobs it will
presumably create instead of the goal of combating an existential threat to the planet. While the plan is a step in the right direction,
it is actually a fairly small step. Experts are already sounding the alarm that
this will not be enough to combat climate change and that the real goal for 2030 should
be closer to 70%. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the
US will stay true to this commitment or see it through all the way to 2030. The previous goal made under President Barack
Obama was aimed at 2025. If the US had met its previous commitment,
it would be on track to reduce emissions by only 38% by 2030, but it is not. Worse still, the idea that this will inspire
other nations to take action may be a fantasy. Remember, the Paris Climate Accord allows
each nation to set their climate change goal however they choose, and even if they take
a cue from the United States, they, too, will only pass half measures such as this. Worst of all, there is no reason to expect
other nations to take the lead. Most nations missed the 2020 United Nations
deadline to strengthen their 2030 climate goals. The Biden's administration's climate change
proposal is a better-than-nothing mishmash of ideas that moderately addresses the problem
while still prioritizing corporate interests. It will be met with mild, unenthusiastic approval
from some experts based exclusively on the opposing party's plan of doing even less,
but will nonetheless be declared “radical” by said opposing party. In other words, any Democrat plan. Right-wing news media, such as Fox News, cannot
attack the American Jobs Plan based on how ineffective it will be in combating climate
change because their rhetoric relies on either pretending climate change does not exist and
does not need to combated in the first place, or paying lip service to the fact that it
does exist but still downplaying the danger. Therefore, right-wing news media must attack
the American Jobs Plan either by claiming it will negatively affect jobs, or through
some barely-disguised lie to throw their audiences off-track. The former is more challenging because the
plan is full of new jobs related to infrastructure – lots of construction jobs that will pay
a reasonable wage and will sit well with Middle America. Thus, right-wing media went with the latter:
a meaningless, dishonest culture war about hamburgers. The right-wing talking point came from The
Daily Mail in the United Kingdom, a fish-wrap tabloid with low credibility on its best days. The Daily Mail cited a University of Michigan
study and claimed that a push for lower emissions would result in a mandate for limitations
in meat consumption. That is not actually what the study said,
though. The researchers behind the study have gone
on record, stating that The Daily Mail's interpretation of their data is erroneous. The next day, April 23rd, America Reports
with John Roberts and Sandra Smith took bits and pieces from that article and molded them
into a narrative for the early afternoon audience of Fox News. Not long after America Reports butchered the
story, the evening hosts served it up. Sean Hannity tried to stay relevant in the
shadow of Tucker Carlson by running with this story. Jeanine Something-or-Other made a big deal
out of it. She does not matter. The point is, The Daily Mail listed some out-of-nowhere
hypotheticals like “burger rationing” and Fox News ran with it as if it were an
actual proposal. By Monday, one Fox News anchor walked it back
in a segment that lasted all of twenty seconds, but the damage had been done. By that point, Republican politicians had
already pounced and made it part of their platform. So, why hamburgers? Fox News and right-wing politicians chose burgers because of the patriotic connotation. We are the land of the free, home of the Whopper. It wouldn't work if it were a culture war
about the filet mignon. A filet mignon is an “expensive” food
for “east coast elites.” Plus, it has a French name. “One freedom steak, please!” It had to be burgers because of what burgers
make Americans think about: America itself. By positioning Biden as anti-burger, it follows
that he is un-American. Now, let's zoom out a bit. You didn't think this whole video was going
to be about burgers, right? We are only a few months into the Biden administration,
and we are beginning to see the emerging media narratives that will populate cable news for
at least the next four years. Right-wing media will invent or exaggerate
problems with the Biden administration. Mainstream media will debunk this. The audience of right-wing media will not
read the debunking or think the debunking is the real fake news. Liberal anchors and commentators, because
they feel on the defensive due to all the misinformation, will cover for the Biden administration
– defending him from criticism from the right and ignoring criticism from the left. For anyone who was late to class, “liberal”
is not left-wing. Liberalism is, at best, a centrist political
ideology. There is precious little “left-wing media”
in the United States, confined largely to alternative newspapers and zines that nobody
reads, Democracy Now, and popular online personalities. Biden will be criticized by the left on social
media, but he will not be criticized by by the left on cable news. Maybe here and there when CNN interviews Cornell
West, but left-wing criticism will not come from the anchors or endorsed by the cable
news channels. The most left-leaning host on MSNBC is Lawrence
O'Donnell, who is, at most, a social democrat, and he is confined to late night only. There is right-wing criticism of liberal politicians
on cable news, there is liberal defense of liberal politicians on cable news, and there
is no consistent left-wing criticism anywhere. The reason for this is obvious. It is not in the interest of media conglomerates
to advocate socialism or even social democracy. This exclusion of left-wing criticism in mainstream
news media has some unfortunate consequences. Because there is no widely-seen left-wing
criticism of a liberal president, any left-wing criticism against the president that people
actually see is grouped together in the same category as right-wing criticism. Every time there is a left-wing or legitimate
criticism of Biden, some liberal derails the conversation with “Better than Trump, though!” Yes. I know that. Anyone is better than Trump. That is not in dispute, and that is not the
point. See, because right-wing criticism of a liberal
president is often so ridiculous, liberals can more easily dismiss left-wing criticism
since they are so accustomed to criticism against their president being bull****. It creates a false notion of who the president
is and what the criticisms against the president really are. For example, Fox News spent every waking hour
during the Barack Obama administration manufacturing absurd lies and making mountains out of various
mole-hills. During one press conference, President Obama
wore a tan suit, and Fox News claimed it was “not presidential” and even “confirms
he's a Marxist.” Another time, Obama asked for a dijon mustard,
and Fox News claimed this made Obama an “elitist.” This is similar to the Biden burger fiasco. There is nothing “elitist” about a mustard
that is brown and not yellow, but Americans associate ordinary yellow mustard with their
plain-talking American identity. This created a narrative in right-wing media,
but it also created a narrative in media in general – the notion that Obama's “scandals”
are all made-up, goofy nonsense like the tan suit. We see it all the time. Whenever Donald Trump landed himself in yet
another scandal, the news media would respond with headlines like “At This Point In His
Presidency, Obama’s Biggest Scandal Was Using Dijon Mustard.” Among Obama's liberal supporters, the common
narrative is that the Obama administration was largely without scandal and was innocent
and harmless – that he was the best president we have ever had and subject to only the mildest
of criticism. When someone criticizes Obama or wants to
criticize Trump for comparison, the mustard and the tan suit and all the other non-troversies
come up. Right-wing media uses these culture wars to
rile up their base, and liberals use these culture wars as evidence that their side is
without sin. “Obama's biggest scandal was only a tan
suit! LOL!” In reality, the Obama administration ramped
up drone strikes, expanded the war on terror, and is responsible for untold civilian deaths
over the course of eight years. No, it was not for some greater good. No, it was not to “spread freedom.” No, it was not to liberate nations. The goals were the same as they were for the
presidents who preceded him: to advance United States global hegemony and economic interests. The Obama administration also gave a greater
mandate to ICE that resulted in mass deportations, far exceeding those in the George W. Bush
administration. Right-wing cable news media ignored all this
during the Obama administration because they approved of the war on terror and anti-immigration
policies. They would have had to praise the Obama administration,
and they couldn't do that. Liberal cable news media rarely criticized
Obama for these actions. It would not have fit within their ideology
to do so. And now, under the Biden administration, we
are seeing the same thing. Biden is already bombing Syria, and there
is no real pushback because right-wing media loves it, liberal media does not care enough,
and left-wing media barely exists. Biden's relationship with the media will almost
certainly be this way for the next four years. Absolute garbage stories and made-up nonsense
from Fox News, denial from MSNBC because they have more facts on their side, and no significant,
legitimate criticism of the President of the United States or our place in global politics. Burger accusations and burger denials to distract
the people from what is really going on.
If you're browsing breadtube looking for high quality pop culture commentary videos from a leftist perspective, binge watch this channel
Excellent analysis of the mainstream media theatrics.
We also need to keep in mind neoliberals' "climate change is a matter of national security" rhetoric. (Was it another Renegate Cut video that talked about this? Can't remember.) That dogwhistle doesn't mean they are simply going to make it a top priority; it means that their concern isn't what climate change is doing to the planet, but how it affects national interests such as exploitation of immigrant labor (climate crisis creates refugees) and the opportunities for capitalists to profit from natural disasters, new shipping lanes in the arctic, etc. It means the primary interest isn't in stopping/reversing climate crisis, but taking advantage of it.
(Also, cutting meat consumption would unironically be a very good idea and would help a great deal in addressing climate crisis. Thanks for the suggestion, you reactionary pricks.)
As an outsider it worries me greatly that this video may be an accurate description of the intelligence of the average American. Is it really that bad, is the average American some sort of Neanderthal that grunts at burger and mustard propaganda?