The US Green party is fully captured. Their presence in any state-level offices has fully waned under Stein. They have no power to affect change anywhere anymore and exist only to spoil.
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2024
203 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6370 readers
934 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I’m a hard lefty and even I will tell people not to give any votes to Stein. She rubs shoulders with Putin and a bunch of his cabinet members. There was also the time she called for a recount, took a bunch of donations to get the recount going, and then when it inevitably failed, she vanished with the money.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Maybe if the Russian Green Party asked, she would
This spoiler effect makes it really imperative to actively vote for Harris if you want to see any kind of climate action going forward.
Anyone who call to imperatively vote for the red and blue party is an enemy of the climate cause and of humanity. If you want to see any kind of climate action do not vote or advocate for the parties and politicians that have cycled in power for the past decades and have brought humanity on the brink of extinction.
The difference is that the Biden line keeps all of Biden's climate laws and the Trump line kills them. So this is not including any climate laws Harris might introduce, however the difference until 2030 between both scenarios is about the annual emissions of the EU and Japan combined! Biden has a lot of flaws, but he has done some actually large scale positive climate action.
The target has not being reached and the government isn't even considering doing something as simple as banning private jets or yachts. If you care about the climate cause do not advocate for the parties and politicians who have brought us to this point. Instead of defending them and pointing out that one is less awful than the other use your energies to do something better.
So we're at the finish line with two choices, and you're gonna double down that there's a third option people haven't considered?
Did I get that right?
load more comments
(23 replies)
Who do you think is a viable politician, who can win the presidential election next Tuesday and bans private jets and yachts?
Name all the registered candidates
Name any realistic scenario where voting for Stein would affect positive change.
Name any realistic scenario where voting for red or blue would affect positive change
The Democrats are very very far from ideal but they are trying to make the life of the average American better and they're trying (to little, to late, admittedly) to do something about climate change. The other side actively wants to kill as many Americans as they can and generally fuck up the world in every way possible. If you don't have your head stuck up your own arse really far, the difference is very clear to see.
Both sides are responsible for the climate crisis we are in right now. Instead of advocating for one of them use your energies to advocate for someone better that would actually do something for climate and not just green washing
load more comments
(4 replies)
I chose to vote for Blue last presidential election and Biden made a real difference with the IRA. Much to my surprise. It isn’t enough, but it is a step.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I voted for blue in San Francisco and they reduced carbon emissions by 50% despite population growth of 12% and GDP growth of 226%.
I voted for blue in California and they invested $54 billion into transit.
I voted for blue in the US Government and they gave us the single greatest, most ambitious program addressing climate change in the history of the world.
All the charts posted in this thread show that current emissions are pretty much as high as they were in 1990. The current government is fueling a war in gaza, in ukraine and yemen among other places. The US army is one of the biggest polluter in the world, instead of cutting military budget and operations the government is increasing these year by year, regardless of who is in power.
The "most ambitious program addressing climate change in the history of the world" still doesn't consider something as simple as banning private jets and yachts.
If you want any real change and reduce emissions significantly stop advocating for parties that for the past decades have created the crisis we are in.
Oh fuck off.
Does it feel dirty as fuck? Of course it does, but if you genuinely think there is no difference at all in climate outlook between the two then I have a billion oil jacks to sell you.
It might be the lesser of two evils, but every tonne less we emit is one less we need to remove.
Scientists have been warning us for years that we are getting past the point of no return. Red and blue party have both led us there and not give a fuck about climate until the pressure was on losing votes because of it. Under the current climate crisis the government isn't even considering banning private jets and yachts to keep pleasing the 0.01%
Excellent, so you are in the market for premium oil jacks, where should we start the bidding?
I dunno, but the currency should be rubles
I guess the US Green party got kicked out of the international federation of Greens? Somehow that's not surprising...
But then, shouldn't someone make a "New Green Party" that is a member of the federation? And can claim legitimacy as the true Green party with international support? Pointing out that the other Green party in the US lacks recognition and is thus a sham?
And then .. this new Green party - could endorse the Dem candidate for President. Most folks who'd follow the greens would probably follow that endorsement...
You could do something like that, and run local and legislative candidates in states like Alaska and Maine which have ranked-choice voting for their general election, or California which uses top-two primaries. Would probably be easier if there was some way to redirect the existing US Green Party towards a path that might actually gain some amount of power, instead of serving as a spoiler.
Where o where is UniversalMonk when you want to shove something in his smarmy, trollish face...?
load more comments
(1 replies)
This would make sense if Stein was actually taking voters from Harris instead of Trump.
Can't say I've met the elusive DeSantis/Green voter.
It's almost like Newsweek is a rag publication and anyone who actually believes Greens pull from Trump, well, they read Newsweek.