279
Trump 2.0: The climate cannot survive another Trump term
(thehill.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
279 points (94.9% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5222 readers
548 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:
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.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Can’t survive another Biden term either. It’s the planet or capitalism and the people in charge would rather kill us all than end capitalism.
What he's been able to do has been limited by the most conservative Democrat whose vote was needed to pass legislation.
Get a better congress along with a Biden reelection, and it puts us into the we-stand-a-chance range
Correct me if I'm wrong but their military is a huge polluter, and I don't see that as being something either side would change due to the politics around fucking with the military, so it's even more of a problem on top of the already massive problem that is capitalism
Biden has started going down the road of electricifying the military. But of course, slimming down the military is the kind of holy cow neither mainstream party would touch. We are seeing a quasi-worldwide military push anyway, which is unsurprising in the wider context of missing global climate action.
I was referring to burn pits that I've vaguely heard of, feel like they'd still be a pretty large problem
There's more important issues than burn pits tbh:
Wikipedia
We don’t actually abandon our allies that often. Maybe only once a decade or so.
More of the problem comes from the US military being say the third largest consumer of desel in the US, coming in after only two railroads. While reducing fuel useage is important from a climate standpoint, it also comes with major tactical and strategic benefits given how much logistics it takes to ship fuel around the world to an active war zone where the enemy tends to like to blow up your fuel trucks and depos. Given the nature of 19year old drivers dealing with large truck fueled on someone else’s dime just hybrids that shut down the eingine when idle would probably save hundreds of millions in taxpayer money a month.
Aircraft fuel is a bit more of a trick, but while fuels make from atmospheric carbon are more expensive, compared to the cost of the planes and cost of maintaining thouse planes it’s not all that bad and could theoretically allow for some proformance benefits if they’re ever willing to give up on also being able to use traditional jet A in an emergency.
Politically while a strong military has traditionally been a bipartisan issue, and reducing fuel useage strengthens the military, nowadays the MAGA crowd is more concerned with screwing over any part of the military they perceive as “woke”. See also trying to ban trans people from it and the refusal to take care of any promotions until they ban service members from traveling to get abortions, becuse why would you not want your soldiers to be indisposed for a year or more after getting raped for a kid they don’t want.
In short, keep Republicans away from congress and the White House and things will probably sort themselves out in time. Keep Shell and BP away from DC and it will sort itself out far quicker.