183
submitted 1 week ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

Here's the problem: Trump is out to maximize environmental damage and the US Green Party runs as spoilers. Let's look at three scenarios:

Scenario 1:

Harris: 1001 votes

Trump: 1000 votes

Stein: 0 votes

Harris wins


Scenario 2:

Harris: 1000 votes

Trump: 1000 votes

Stein: 1 vote

Tied vote, which goes to the courts and Congress, putting Trump in power


Scenario 3:

Harris: 999 votes

Trump: 1000 votes

Stein: 2 votes

Trump wins outright


This spoiler effect makes it really imperative to actively vote for Harris if you want to see any kind of climate action going forward. Republicans know this, which is why they're the ones funding the Green Party.

And that's why the European Greens want Jill Stein to step down now — they get that what she's doing is making it easier to elect a fascist bent on environmental destruction.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] index@sh.itjust.works -5 points 1 week ago

Name any realistic scenario where voting for red or blue would affect positive change

[-] JGcEowt4YXuUtkBUGHoN@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 week ago

I chose to vote for Blue last presidential election and Biden made a real difference with the IRA. Much to my surprise. It isn’t enough, but it is a step.

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

The Democrats are very very far from ideal but they are trying to make the life of the average American better and they're trying (to little, to late, admittedly) to do something about climate change. The other side actively wants to kill as many Americans as they can and generally fuck up the world in every way possible. If you don't have your head stuck up your own arse really far, the difference is very clear to see.

[-] index@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Both sides are responsible for the climate crisis we are in right now. Instead of advocating for one of them use your energies to advocate for someone better that would actually do something for climate and not just green washing

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago
[-] index@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Anyone who isn't responsible for the climate crisis or involved in it.

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago
[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Because people like this have no platform. They have no plan. They screech and wail, as if caterwauling is panacea.

"Fix the climate!"

"End homelessness!"

"Stop the genocide!"

But when pressed as to how to effect these changes, they almost invariably resort to maligning your morals, denigrating your doubts, and calumniating your civility.

[-] nictophilia@fedia.io 3 points 1 week ago
[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

But Biden made some inappropriate remarks! Both sides are the same!

[-] index@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

Look at the emission charts, both parties for the past decades haven't really do shit about climate. They have actually helped creating the crisis we are in by backing corporations and consumerism. Also look at what both parties are doing now.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/8/death-sentence-asbestos-released-by-israels-bombs-will-kill-generations

[-] nictophilia@fedia.io 0 points 1 week ago

Emissions are going down.

[-] index@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

All the charts posted in this thread show that current emissions are pretty much as high as they were in 1990. The current government is fueling a war in gaza, in ukraine and yemen among other places. The US army is one of the biggest polluter in the world, instead of cutting military budget and operations the government is increasing these year by year, regardless of who is in power.

The "most ambitious program addressing climate change in the history of the world" still doesn't consider something as simple as banning private jets and yachts.

If you want any real change and reduce emissions significantly stop advocating for parties that for the past decades have created the crisis we are in.

this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
183 points (91.4% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5237 readers
471 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS