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

5278 readers

901 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

silence7

Where did all the climate voters go? (grist.org)

submitted 12 hours ago by Joker@sh.itjust.works to c/climate

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Michigan and other battleground states might have swung for Trump, but they elected environmentalists to U.S. Senate seats, too.

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

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 12 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The article clearly states that voters who prioritized climate doubled this year. It was just not enough to overcome economic headwinds at the presidential level.

Pair this with the article regarding bullet voters who only vote for the President and not down ballot races, and you start to paint a picture of what happened here.

The economy and Trump’s rabid fan base won the presidency, but past that, the electorate still cares about more complex issues like climate change, likely more than ever.

We’re a bit screwed at the national level for now, but this highlights that the states need to take charge until we can get our federal house in order.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

if they only voted for president then how did republicans take the house and senate?

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I'm going to answer your question as if you are being serious and are genuinely curious.

House Gerrymandering. Over the last few years - the GOP has gotten rid of multiple D-leaning house seats in Florida, Wisconsin, Texas and North Carolina (they tried in Alabama too). Even with that, they are just barely going to win the house on what should have been a decent election year for them.
Senate - 2018 was a bad year for the GOP and a good year for the Dems. Due to that, them Dems picked up some seats that are less likely (Montana, Ohio, Ruby Red WV). This cycle, there are multiple states that picked an R president but a D senate member, albeit by smallish margins. This time around, the winds were more in the R favor, so Rs recouped those redder states, but didn't so much in the purple states. The exception is Pennsylvania, which often elects one Senator from each party.

Heads up - 2026 Purple NC is also one of those states that often elects a senator from each party, so expect lots of ads during the race there. The beatings will continue until the color improves.

Double heads up - 2030 will be 2 years after the president who is elected after Trump (if that remains a thing). I'd say there's a decent chance that the president will be a Dem unless someone can capture the same energy that DT rouses in certain demographics. That election cycle is usually one where the party in power gets trounced (though there are some exceptions), it also happens to be the year that the census occurs and redistricting takes place thereafter. The Rs won that fight last time. Following the trajectory I outlined, it's likely the R's will win it, again.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 1 hour ago

I still think folks may ignore judicial retention and the waste commissioner but I think most who vote for president also will vote on senate and house seats. I don't think they do president and president only. Things were pretty gerrymandered in 2022, 2020, 2018, and so on.