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

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

5394 readers
149 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The US Green party is fully captured. Their presence in any state-level offices has fully waned under Stein. They have no power to affect change anywhere anymore and exist only to spoil.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I agree and would add that they didn't really have much power to begin with. If they cared about the environment, they would've stepped back for this election on principle of what's at stake.

The fact that they don't care who wins means they don't actually care about the ideals the party is supposed to be about. If you don't live to fight another day, then you've ultimately lost.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Or just run in deep blue districts to challenge sure-thing Democratic moderates who slow walk progressive stuff. You'd think that'd be where their best chances are while also being the places where the impact would be strictly beneficial.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Someone else suggested running in places like Alaska, which has RCV, or focus upon local races. The reason Conservatives are having a moment is because they focused on races they could win.

Green Party, meanwhile, seems content to lose and be a spoiler.

[–] darthelmet@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Conservatives do well because their ideology is compatible with the interests of capital. No party that is a serious challenge to those interests can win any notable power through elections in the US.

As far as the idea of focusing on local races: If your main concern is immediate and substantial action on climate, what good would winning a local race do for you? Yeah maybe it would be easier to get a left wing candidate on a school board or whatever, but that's because it holds no meaningful power.

Not that I think they have any particular chance of success at the national level. I've just found that "local races" argument... most charitably put, confusing, less charitably: bad faith or willfully missing the point.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 2 points 1 month ago

It's too complicated to go into a lot of detail here, but the "local" argument is relying upon the effects of local influence and effects over time. Sure, it won't move the global needle, but it would affect the local population in a positive way, and many politicians get their start at the local level first. Local laws and ordinances affect your day to day, and that's why it matters.

However, it's too late for them to get in locally. They should have been trying 20 years ago, at least. They could still try, but they will have missed the opportunity to actually do anything about climate via the levers of government. It's essentially up to Democrats and independents who caucus with them, now.

[–] AnarchistsForKamala@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

they do care who wins. they want to be the ones to win

[–] orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I’m a hard lefty and even I will tell people not to give any votes to Stein. She rubs shoulders with Putin and a bunch of his cabinet members. There was also the time she called for a recount, took a bunch of donations to get the recount going, and then when it inevitably failed, she vanished with the money.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Furball@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago

Maybe if the Russian Green Party asked, she would

[–] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I guess the US Green party got kicked out of the international federation of Greens? Somehow that's not surprising...

But then, shouldn't someone make a "New Green Party" that is a member of the federation? And can claim legitimacy as the true Green party with international support? Pointing out that the other Green party in the US lacks recognition and is thus a sham?

And then .. this new Green party - could endorse the Dem candidate for President. Most folks who'd follow the greens would probably follow that endorsement...

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 month ago

You could do something like that, and run local and legislative candidates in states like Alaska and Maine which have ranked-choice voting for their general election, or California which uses top-two primaries. Would probably be easier if there was some way to redirect the existing US Green Party towards a path that might actually gain some amount of power, instead of serving as a spoiler.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Where o where is UniversalMonk when you want to shove something in his smarmy, trollish face...?

[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

On tons of block lists, probably.

[–] borari@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

Definitely on mine.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›