If you think there is any comparison here in terms of magnitude, you should probably go have your head checked.
this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
86 points (89.8% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5230 readers
585 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
Agreed, but magnitude doesn't matter when the climate crisis is a binary outcome. Either we stop it or we don't. Neither candidate is willing to take the action needed to treat the climate crisis like the existential threat that it is.
The climate crisis is an ongoing gradient of "this is bad" to "humans are extinct" and every tenth of a degree we can prevent is worthwhile.
We don't prevent degrees though. The temperature is steadily increasing. At best, we delay degrees.
Unless we actually stop increasing carbon emissions (which we aren't doing right now), we're fucked.
Marginal gains add up to the changes we need. All or nothing thinking will kill us all.
As opposed to the level of change Biden is willing to accomplish which... will still kill us all.
You mean like this piece of legislation he pushed through, which is basically the first major bill in the US which addresses climate change? https://earthjustice.org/brief/2022/what-the-inflation-reduction-act-means-for-climate
Pretty sure it's not a binary outcome. We already have warming at levels that is detrimental, and we're not going to stop it. All we have left is mitigating actions.
But it's not a binary "we're fucked" or "we're fine", it's an ever worsening gradient of terrible conditions. Even within that, how many people get the brunt of it depends on the extent of the damage.
there's a night-and-day difference between Biden and Trump, with the former having actually taking significant action
I would personally define the word "significant" in such a way that excludes actors who do not take action which meaningfully prevents or lowers the risks of the upcoming climate apocalypse. Biden has not done this IMO. He has done some things which are okay for the environment, but just as many that worsen the situation. At the end of the day, both candidates are content to make policy which does not stop the world from boiling. It is counterproductive to pretend otherwise.
You're correct. Anyone spinning the "lesser of two evils" about climate change does not understand the risks. Inaction today will kill millions. Biden's half-measures are fundamentally inadequate, and as you said, pretending otherwise is delusion or malice.
Climate change is the most severe threat to the safety of everyone everywhere. To treat it with anything other than total urgency is to promote harm. If you cannot find it in you to call out the short fall of the Democratic party on this issue you are part of the problem.
Voting for the lesser of two evils can still be part of a strategy that acknowledges the inadequacy of mainstream political solutions. But it needs to be combined with other, more activist political activities.
I don't disagree but was responding to the use of the phrase "significant action"
As well as "night and day" when it's more like "midnight and sunset"
I agree. The phrasing of this “largest in history” narrative depends strongly on the fact that the US has done almost nothing to address climate change historically. This should be thoughtfully criticized but I worry this will discourage people into thinking that nothing can be done.
No one government can do enough. He's shifted the emissions trajectory of the US in a meaningful way. That's enough to earn my vote when the alternative is so much worse
He's shifted the emissions trajectory of the US in a meaningful way
That's simply not true. Biden doesn't give a shit. He'll be dead before the climate apocalypse occurs, and everyone he works with is paid by big oil to not go "too far" with environmental regulations. Sure he makes it look like he's making a difference, but the fossil fuel lobby has thus far been succesful in preventing any major countries from taking significant action on climate change.
Don't believe me? Here's how world governments are doing at regulating climate change:
You really think Biden, who is fundamentally the same ideology as all previous Democrat presidents, is going to do anything different? It's worth noting Biden was present at the Paris agreement and pushed for weaker language in the agreement to weasel out of the US needing to take any significant action.
To be clear, I think obviously people should vote for him given the alternative. But only because America is a profoundly broken country and that senile old coot is the best option available. I'm just deeply suspect of anyone who says that Biden is actually doing good on the climate, since it's obvious to me that he really isn't.
That graph is a highly misleading way to evaluate a single national leader because China sharply increased their coal burning at the same time the US and EU started to cut emissions.
At the end of the day, both candidates are content to make policy which does not stop the world from boiling. It is counterproductive to pretend otherwise.
Ah, another "they're both the same" argument that ignores reality. Trump is no friend to the environment and is actively seeking to destroy it for profit. "Drill, baby, drill" is something he shouts all the time. At least Biden has done something and acknowledges climate change.
Get out of here with your bad propaganda.
They are not the same, they are both wholly inadequate positions.
If we are on a sinking ship and one person says, ill kill everyone and take the lifeboat for myself and someone else says, no lest kill 95% of everyone so that those who live wont be cramped neither is good enough. Sometimes choices should be made as a spectrum, sometimes choices should be made as a binary choice.
If you can't see how dangerous both parties actions are on climate change you do not understand the danger. If you do understand then you are writing in malice.
I would say a better analogy is if you are on a boat in the middle of the ocean that springs a leak. One guy suggests you start bailing water using your cupped hands, which will buy you a few extra minutes before you sink. The other guy suggests you jump into the water because swimming is fun. Neither guy thinks it would be a good idea to patch the hole, even though you have a patch kit with you.
That captures the insanity of the political positions very well.
Not insane. Age-related cognitive issues notwithstanding, both candidates know what they're doing. It's impossible to make someone understand something when their livelihood depends on their not understanding it. In this analogy, both guys are paid by the sharks who made the hole in the first place to pretend the patch kit doesn't exist.
the us has never made more oil than under biden
Why are you bringing up Trump when my comment is about Biden not taking "significant action"? Trump is irrelevant to my comment.
All true. But the unfortunate political realities the Democrats are facing seem to be that voters just don't care enough so it's political suicide to take strong action against climate change.
If voters actually cared about climate change, then it would be a major part of the platform. But there's a huge swath of the population that only cares insofar as it doesn't inconvenience them, or who have been brainwashed into believing it's a "Leftist Conspiracy" while completely missing that the QAnon memes they got their "facts" from is literally a conspiracy.
We're fucked. Biden doesn't have the political strength to take any political risks. We're seeing the same in Canada, with Trudeau not having the political capital for anything that could lose ground to the Canadian Conservative Party (which is currently polling as over 99% likely to get a majority government if there's no change in the next 1½ years).
I don't know how we can de-radicalize the Christofascist Right, but we're fucked until we figure it out.
My problem with the these lessor of two evils party liners is that they have no exit strategy or long term vision. It’s the same thing every two years as things steadily worsen overall. Certainly no room in their worldview to respond to climate change effectively or efficiently.
I hate reading articles like this. Sure we need to vote for the lesser of two evils. But we really need to get into more of an "emergency power dictatorship" mode. Maybe like making large parts of the economy planned economy under the rule of some radical technocrats. Massive wealth redistribution. But still maintain democracy for other areas.
And this would need to happen globally. Of course it won't because the forces arrayed against it have far more money and have far better PR and institutional and ideological support.
But maybe we'll somehow muddle through. Maybe we'll somehow learn from all the death and destruction that we can't afford to be this stupid on a global level.
I was against drilling until Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia produces 10% of the global oil supply, so we can't really sanction them without impacting the global economy. We've been draining our strategic petroleum reserves since the war started, and while we might have enough saved up to get through the current crisis, I wouldn't blame the white house for wanting to increase domestic supply as a contingency - especially if this turns out to be just the first domino in a global conflict.
Since 2020, we've been independent of Russia https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php
But I definitely agree, worldwide it's not free of Russia.
A 10% decline in global oil consumption would be awesome. However to be realistic Russia consumes a lot of oil itself and sanctions do not cut out all oil exports. They certainly did not for Iran and Venezuela. Funnily enough 10% of oil consumption are US cars. So a ban of combustion engine car sales in the US would have solved that as well. With the EU and other allies joining, that would even be fast enough to actually beat new oil drilling in the US.