111
Environmental activists urge Kamala Harris to go big on climate: ‘She’s got to seize the moment’
(www.theguardian.com)
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:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
She does not want to talk about it. However she has actually a pretty good record of supporting climate action like sponsoring the Green New Deal, which she mostly got passed in form of the inflation reduction act. Action is worth so much more then words.
The reason she does not want to do it, is that it is better to run on women's rights and workers rights. Trump has an awful record on it as well and a lot more people care about it.
Do you also want to score her some points by claiming that she’s pro-Single Payer because she made the strategic decision to sponsor Bernie’s bill when she and her handlers were 100% positive that it wouldn’t pass?
These corrupt Democrats have been ignoring their constituents for decades and you want to pretend that we should give them the benefit of the doubt.
“I know she has never even run for office with anything even remotely resembling Single Payer on her platform but let’s pretend that she was just being shy and she doesn’t need to even though it would allow her to easily score points with constituents and coast into office.”
I’m guessing your 401K is invested in everything you are against.
Only 43% of Americans are for a government run health care system according to the Gallup polls you just provided. That basically excludes single payer health care. What Democrats believe does not matter, as it does not win elections.
Politicans try to judge public sentiment and what it could turn into and only do act, when something is populare. Even then they are more likely to not do it, but for the most part they try to be reelected. Hence trying to appease donors and the public. The simple dumb truth is that climate activists in the US have failed to lay the groundwork for a strong climate policy. Most only just agree that something should be done. Actually doing something, which requires some sort of sacrifice is not going to happen.
The advantage of having somebody like Harris is that they are more likely to actually enact left leaning policies, if they are populare enough. Never expect them to do anything even when necessary, if it destroys their chance of reelection. This also includes all other politicans and last time I checked a president needs the approval of the House to enact laws.
So what you’re saying is it is genuinely damage reduction to work towards the destruction of the US because Americans are so selfish they will overconsume the planet into massive environmental degradation.
More that the US media and politicians are controlled by capitalism and they are not going to do anything hurting that, unless they face a large enough movement, which could actually hurt them. So the best course is to elect the least corrupt politician(and they all are corrupt), who might have some morals in them, to then force them to take action.
Also the US desperately needs stronger and more left leaning institutions.