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

5053 readers

461 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:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Democrats express no urgency, offer no clear plan, on the climate crisis at DNC (therealnews.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

Here’s a high level summary of the plan. Stuff like:

To reach net-zero emissions as rapidly as possible, Democrats commit to eliminating carbon pollution from power plants by 2035 through technology-neutral standards for clean energy and energy efficiency. We will dramatically expand solar and wind energy deployment through community-based and utility-scale systems, including in rural areas. Within five years, we will install 500 million solar panels, including eight million solar roofs and community solar energy systems, and 60,000 wind turbines

And so on

The implementation of the last plan was to spend about a trillion dollars of corporate-tax-increase money on climate change, resulting in about half a billion tons of CO2e per year reduction by the year 2030. Here’s an overview.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

We will take immediate action to reverse the Trump Administration’s dangerous and destructive rollbacks of critical climate and environmental protections. We will rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement

Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement in early 2021. Have they not updated their climate platform in 3 years?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

4 years 🧐

You are 100% correct; I just checked the platform via archive.org and it seems like it's exactly the same climate platform as last election's. I mean they did great stuff (relatively speaking for Washington 😢) the last time around but maybe the criticism that she hasn't laid out a specific plan is fair.

However

Why is this "therealnews.com" linking to someone who has a whole show about how Maduro won the election?

Why does this story include this stuff:

I was a former Democrat voter. That’s not the case for this election. I’m going to be voting for Gaza this election. And I was really disappointed by the Biden administration’s stance towards Gaza, and that’s going to reflect in my vote this time.

I feel like a big issue is definitely the southern border. A lot of people don’t care enough about it or don’t talk about it enough, but I grew up in Chicago, and every day, it’s definitely different seeing all the migrants being here. And I think it’s great, that we need to help people and all that, but we’re not even helping our own people that have been here their entire lives and born and raised here. So, I think the immigration issue is probably the biggest issue that I would have with it, and I would hope other people care to think about it as well.

Emphasis on "Democrat voter" is mine.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I wish you wouldn't try to derail the conversation.

Merely being better than Trump was 4 years ago is not going to stop climate change. This criticism of Biden and Harris needs to be amplified, not sidetracked.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I wish you wouldn't try to derail the conversation.

Examining the source of the claim is not derailing. If it's a climate news agency that's saying hey we need this or this from the Democrats because it's a fuckin emergency, then fair play.

If however it's a "news" agency that is saying, the Democrats are bad on the climate and Gaza and I can't vote for them in good conscience and they're bad on immigration (seen through a very particular lens, where the issue is, is it okay that we're spending money on "migrants" instead of helping our own people) and bad on crime (seen through a very particular lens of hey I don't feel safe in my community and I feel like the Democrats aren't doing enough and don't care about that issue), and also Maduro won the election and "they" are trying to steal it from him... that is relevant. That is not derailing. That is relevant to how seriously I want to take this claim that therealnews.com is super concerned about the climate and that is the source of this proposed strategy on how we make the climate better.

Merely being better than Trump was 4 years ago is not going to stop climate change.

100% agreed

This criticism of Biden and Harris needs to be amplified, not sidetracked.

Fuckin what? What needs to happen is government action on climate. If that involves putting pressure on the Democrats then let's rock and roll with that; it sounds great. I realize what I'm putting up sounds somewhat defensive of them, but that is only because this past time around they took the issue almost 10 times more seriously than any other US administration in history and took hugely significant action on it, and that's relevant to this conversation.

If it was "that's not nearly enough, they need to do X Y and Z now and here's how to pressure them to do it" then, like I said, fuckin great. I actually agree with a decent amount of the substantive points in this article. Since the overall thesis is "Kamala Harris is bad on climate change," however, and since the source seems clearly oriented towards defeating positive change instead of creating it, I will and plan to continue to regard it with suspicion.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

since the source seems clearly oriented towards defeating positive change instead of creating it, I will and plan to continue to regard it with suspicion.

Fuck, it's always this with you.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Dude I love posting about stuff that's not accusations of propaganda bullshit. Check the profile. I like comparing the US army to the Nazis and talking about video games and the inequities in the global health system and how Boeing sucks. It's very weird that the last few years have made me into this supporter of the Democrats, because for about the first decade of my political life I wanted absolutely nothing to do with them.

My perfect world would be all the Lemmy people getting together like the sandersforpresident days, like hey the Democrats are kinda shitty how can we get them to take X Y and Z seriously or maybe replace them with someone better. It is not at all by my decision that a lot of suspiciously polished and consistent arguments keep popping up out of the woodwork and into the discourse for why "don't support the Democrats in November" is a good strategy for getting that done (IT IS NOT), and why it doesn't seem to go any further than that, into something that would produce positive action, but just "let Trump win because I feel betrayed on Gaza" or w/e.

But yes if I see something that looks like bullshit I tend to try to call it out. Maybe I have too much of a hair trigger because I have run across multiple multiple examples today and I just regard everything with suspicion. But it's definitely not for no reason.

load more comments (5 replies)