118
US elections: European Greens call for Jill Stein to step down (europeangreens.eu)
submitted 13 hours ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 1 points 11 hours ago

The people who are Republicans

The majority of people who vote red or blue are simply picking a side they are not hard core fanatics.

[-] kitnaht@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Nah. In many places of the US you're told that it's your "identity". Kentucky, Tennessee, etc -- They are told from birth that they "ARE" Republicans. That it's a physical, tangible thing that identifies them. And yes - when they pick a side, it's based on their political leanings. Who leans closer to someone who's going to pick a republican candidate? Jill Stein, or Chase Oliver? -- the answer is Chase Oliver.

I'm sorry that you can't accept that you're wrong about the Jill Stein thing, but that's just simply how it be.

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
silence7@slrpnk.net