The laws have been passed, it is just that they will start 2026.
If you actually read the article, instead of just complained about what you presume the article contains, you would have found that it agrees with you on pretty much everything. It even gives some examples on laws and actions by different governments, which try to solve or at least help with those problems. Not perfect, but certainly a good place to start.
Exports also profit benefits to the country exporting. It is very much part of how a country operates. That is why China is calling the EU to stop the carbon tariff CBAM, as it would hurt Chinese exports.
Who do you think is a viable politician, who can win the presidential election next Tuesday and bans private jets and yachts?
The difference is that the Biden line keeps all of Biden's climate laws and the Trump line kills them. So this is not including any climate laws Harris might introduce, however the difference until 2030 between both scenarios is about the annual emissions of the EU and Japan combined! Biden has a lot of flaws, but he has done some actually large scale positive climate action.
Because production based emissions also have value. Countries can exports products, which have been made with cleaner or less energy and that in total reduces emissions. If they import products from other dirtier countries though, it can look like they are much worse.
Also it is much easier to calculate. You only need data from a single country and do not have to look at supply chains. For energy it is pretty much (fossil fuel production + fossil fuel imports - fossil fuel exports) * emissions factor. It also is a pretty decent proxy, as a lot of emissions are local. Electricity production, transport and most products are made within the country in most cases.
When the war started pretty much every European military placed some massive orders. So new production mostly did not go to Ukraine. But a lot of weapons are domestic and built in a large quantity. Also not everything from the stockpiles was send to Ukraine. That is just too risky.
So long enough to scale up production and use the EUs large economy.
Europe has quite a bit in place to defend itself without the US. Something like a million soldiers with some pretty good equipment and training. There are issues, but the EU could defend itself fairly well without the US. It is just that having the most powerfull military behind you makes things a lot easier. The problem is that this makes things easier and the US has a massive intresst in looking strong(Taiwan for example).
Under Obama Row v. Wade was still standing. Biden needs to pass a law to make Roe v. Wade an actual law. Executive orders are just that orders to the executive. They would be struck down by a temporary ruling right away, as it is just outside the power of an executive order.
The supreme court ruled, that abortion is protected by the consitution with Roe v Wade. So there was no need to pass protection for it. Biden was unable since Congress is Republican.
That they will be used as standard infantry. If they would be guards or non combat they would get worse gear. As specialized soldiers, they would get tanks, artillery or whatever. Also it is Russian gear and not North Korean.
In other words they will be used for human wave attacks.