 I'll be honest. I hesitated on whether or not I wanted to talk about the deal struck between Joe Manchin and Chuck Schumer in the Senate Because by the time you see this video the bill could already be dead by the time you see this video There could be additional provisions that make it even worse By the time you see this video, um, you know a lot could change and we've been here before I've talked about so many deals potential deals that Joe Manchin has struck with Democrats only to find that weeks later He comes up with some excuse or he got offended by Democrats and he decided to tank it unilaterally So to talk about this is a little bit irritating to me But I had to do it because this tacit assumption in the media that we're seeing that Manchin is now all of a sudden some sort of a hero I Can't let that stand. So what's in the bill? Well, ultimately, this is a mixed bag if you're a leftist It has undeniably good provisions within this bill But there are a lot of poison pills that might make it more harmful than anything But first of all, let's get to the good in this bill And these are surprising details here that Manchin at least temporarily agreed to as HuffPost explains the proposal would raise $740 billion by instituting a 15% minimum corporate tax rate beefing up the internal revenue services enforcement of tax laws on the ultra wealthy narrowing the carried interest loophole which allows hedge fund managers and other wealthy investors to pay lower taxes and Requiring Medicare to negotiate the prices of some drugs directly with manufacturers leveraging the social insurance programs Massive buying power to ring savings from drug makers. It then spends a historic 369 billion on energy security and climate change which Democrats say will be enough to cut carbon emissions in the United States by 40% before 2030 and put 64 billion dollars toward extending subsidies for the Affordable Care Act for three years The remaining 300 billion will go toward reducing the deficit a priority for Manchin The new proposal would also cap a Medicare patients out of pocket expenses at $2,000 per year now Keep in mind. That's the more rosy portrayal of this legislation. These are very very incrementalist steps Towards addressing climate change towards addressing, you know, the Pharmaceutical price gouging issue in this country, but nonetheless, these are undoubtedly good things But even if we were to get this and Manchin held strong There's an almost Overwhelming certainty that Kirsten cinema is going to be the one that tanks it because there's one provision that has previously been a non-starter for her as the prospects Alex Salmon argues There's absolutely no way cinema is on board with ending the carried interest loophole Barring some profound change in her personality on the level of divine intervention So this just seems like a nice diary entry from Manchin about things. He likes. Yeah So cinema at the time that I record this video She has not commented on whether or not she'd support this her staffers are saying that she wants to read into it And we still don't know if corporate Democrats in the house such as you know, Josh gotheimer, for example are going to support this so It seems it seems up in the air and it's not out of the realm of Possibility that Manchin himself could step away. We just we don't know there's so many uncertainties that it seems like This is doomed to fail. So basically, I'll believe it when I see it But assuming this was able to pass Let's talk about the poison pills because these are very very harmful provisions now This bill is being labeled as a bill that would you know expand our investments in clean green renewable technology solar wind hydro But overall media probably won't report on these provisions So the Center for Biological Diversity They went through the bill and they found two really really bad provisions in particular as common dreams reports those sections 50264 and 50265 Mandate oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska and bar the federal government from authorizing new wind or solar energy Development quote unless an onshore oil and gas lease sale has been held during the 120-day period Ending on the date of the issuance of the right of way for wind or solar Holy shit CBD stressed that section 50265 would require the interior department to offer at least two million acres of public lands and 60 million acres of offshore waters for oil and gas leasing each year for a decade as a Pre-requisite to installing any new solar or wind energy Brett Hartle CBD's government affairs director warned Thursday that those poison pills risk Canceling out the upsides of the measure including the legislation tens of billions of dollars and proposed green energy investments So let's be really clear about what this is. This is not Joe Manchin having a sudden change of heart This is Joe Manchin finally agreeing to the terms of a climate change bill because it sufficiently delivers for his donors in the fossil fuel industry What a joke This shows you that our government is fundamentally incapable of taking climate change seriously because when they finally choose to invest in climate change and Mitigating the damage that it will cause Well, they have to simultaneously do more damage because that's how corrupt our public officials are It's genuinely Disturbing and now to have this shitty bill and Joe Manchin being paraded by media as a fucking hero is Absurd to me and to make matters worse Joe Manchin is now bemoaning how he was Ostracized and victimized for killing build back better now that people view him as a hero So perhaps they'll be more sympathetic towards his victim complex. I mean, what a fucking joke But don't worry Manchin if this passes even if this bill is destructive We don't know if it's more destructive overall or more good overall We don't necessarily know it'll take time for you know watchdogs to assess the damage that this Bill will cause and whether or not, you know, it's a wash or if it's more harm than good But Manchin's career will be rehabilitated and he'll be praised as some sort of a hero for all of eternity because He finally agreed to do something and that's assuming this gets passed again. Cinema might take it Now I think that whether or not this bill should be supported by the left requires a lot of nuance Right the question that we have to ask ourselves that we're unfortunately forced to ask ourselves is Will this bill yield more good than harm? Are we in the situation where this is? the best that we can get before Democrats potentially lose power in the fall or Is this potentially going to be counterproductive because we get climate legislation and investment in clean technology and then They'll think that oh well, we did it. We're done So they'll use this as an excuse to not take further action when it comes to climate change Which will unquestionably be necessary. So overall, what's the takeaway and I? Think the answer is I don't know Overall, I'm leaning towards fuck this bill It's just there's too many poison pills and to do more environmental damage Even if you're investing in clean green technology to do that much more drilling It shows you they're not taking this seriously and it could do more harm than good But I do want to share Ryan Grimm's perspective because even if he acknowledges the poison pills with this legislation He has a pretty Complex and detailed approach to this as to why this might be more good than harm So let's let's get his take here He writes climate hawks will criticize the bill for its energy neutral approach the kinds of subsidies made available for clean energy Are supposed to be available to projects that clean up dirty energy to and cleaning coal is seen by many as a ruse Actively deployed to stall the transition to clean renewable energy However, looking at the reality of our energy infrastructure fossil fuels are going to be with us for a very long time Reducing and or sequestering their carbon emissions during the transition is essential It's the unfortunate reality We've been dealt if this money can spark some exponential technological development in that direction will all be better off Secondly if all that fails and the carbon tech stuff is all fluff Subsidizing it was still worth the payoff to mansion to get the clean energy money because there was no other way at this point If Republicans take Congress next term There's no telling when the window might open again and third it seems like mansion extracted concessions that could make permitting future fossil fuel Projects easier that's bad, but those are fights to be had in the future against the win today So I think that Ryan Grimm raises some really good points But overall, you know, there's a lot of ifs a line from, you know, Ryan Grimm's writing stood out to me If this money can spark some exponential technological development in that direction will all be better off But that's a big if so at this point in time This ultimately is something that he's agreeing to because it benefits his corporate donors He would not agree to this bill if it didn't sufficiently benefit his corporate donors. Keep that in mind. So I'm against this I'll just be honest. I don't support this But I will wait and I'll be open-minded about what environmental groups have to say about this We haven't heard from all of them But I want to hear their assessments their assessments because they know they know more than all of us But at the same time trying to determine whether or not this bill is good could be boot Because cinema could come in and crush it or mansion could crush it himself So that's where we're at in the United States where the best that we can get so far a historic investment in clean Green renewable technology means we have to also further destroy the planet Now if you put aside the climate considerations, then the other good things like, you know negotiating some pharmaceutical prices Expanding Obamacare subsidies. I guess you could you know consider that in your process as well It's all incremental, but still it's objectively good better than what we've got but I mean This isn't what is going to save the planet unfortunately, so I've just overall feel really Exasperated about this and feel like this whole video is probably a waste of time because this bill is going to die So that's where I'm at, you know You could hear a little bit of ambivalence uncertainty and overall hesitation in my voice And that's because you know some some things are complex and require nuance But ultimately I think there's just there's so many uncertainties too many variables to where I can't support this And if I were a progressive senator, I personally would vote against this But I wouldn't fault individuals like Bernie Sanders for voting for this affirmative affirmatively because you know if this is the only chance to invest in some renewables You know you wouldn't be Insane to take it despite the flaws and poison pills But still it's just a bitter pill to swallow and I don't know genuinely if this does more harm than good So that's where I'm at. I just I don't know so I'm gonna have to side against it