118
submitted 13 hours 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
[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 10 points 12 hours ago

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 5 points 9 hours ago

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 5 points 9 hours ago

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 2 points 4 hours ago

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 1 points 1 hour 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.

this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
118 points (94.7% liked)

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

5181 readers
536 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