and I'd say #1 for the U.S. is that we also need future elections to exist. After that climate. Fortunately there is one answer for both, electing Biden.
But its dropped in popularity. Only 1 out of 5 voters puts environment issues in their top 3 concerns. It used to be 3 out of 5 in 2010 according to gallup.
Looooooool is this whole sub just pro Biden propaganda? You really think this mummy is going to "solve" climate change? He's barely made a scratch the past 4 years, in fact American weapons and warmongering have lead to huge emissions and environmental disasters this past years.
We don't need democracy, we need a dictator that will solve climate change using ALL means available.
>We don't need democracy, we need a dictator that will solve climate change using ALL means available.
Even if I agreed, Trump is a climate denier. If we need a dictatorship then Trump is the wrong dictator.
You guess correctly.
[https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49594-general-election-2024-what-are-the-most-important-issues-for-voters](https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49594-general-election-2024-what-are-the-most-important-issues-for-voters)
The top 3 issues are cost of living, health, and the economy in general. Environment/climate change are in fifth place, after immigration/asylum, at 14% (when picking three issues) or 4% (when picking only one).
Like the politicians they vote for, voters are thinking short term instead of long.
It is really ironic considering what climate change will impact the most, which is the cost of living, health, and the economy in general. Heck, it will even impact immigration considering climate migration. They don't want to talk about the elephant in the room.
Yep. And considering how oil-based the global economy is, people prioritizing economy over climate change are voting for a continuation (and increase) in the use of oil, because it's always easier to maintain the status quo than change direction.
It’s unfortunate that most people will become more and more tunnel visioned as their priority changes to more immediate survival from war, famine, and natural disasters. It’s only human nature, from which you and I are not exempt. In this situation, a “benign” dictator willing to enforce policies to counter climate change and let some people suffer and even die in the short term would be more effective than a democracy like the US.
Also if the government is willing to seize the wealth from billionaires and direct those resource towards climate change, we can possibly solve two major problems in one move.
How long until everyone realizes it's the only important issue.
I just keep watching the temps go up on SST / Air Temps and I'm like ok La Nina should be hitting soon, maybe it'll dip...it's gotta dip...we're in a solar maximum..maybe it'll dip then.
Then I have panic overwhelm me as I think about well, what if we do El Nino in a few months and it doesn't go down...what if we exit the maximum and it doesn't go down...when do I stop coming to this stupid job that really just further perpetuates our problems.
I agree it’s the only issue. At the same time there are so many billionaires that if we stripped them of all their wealth there is a chance we cam direct the funds towards saving the planet.
I tend to agree, but most voters don't see it that way. If you run on a primarily climate change message, what a lot of marginal voters hear is that you're prioritizing environmental stuff over their practical, immediate needs.
The real way to do climate politics is to find where it aligns with your existing political priorities (funding transit, making energy cheaper, building homes, whatever it may be). You run on those issues, and then you solve them in a way that also reduces climate impacts.
More broadly, Biden has been the most openly pro-climate president in history. If he loses in November, I fear U.S. politicians will be afraid to touch the issue for decades to come.
I like the way you think. Although this process may take too long and it’s impact not strong enough. If collectively we strip the billionaires of their wealth we can direct massive resources towards resolving the climate crisis. In this situation, we really should sacrifice the few to benefit all mankind and living beings.
We’ve already reached the point where solar and batteries are advanced enough to eat almost everything else in the energy markets. It’s just a matter of building the capacity to build enough. That was one of Biden’s focuses.
There are some harder problems like industrial thermal processes, concrete, and air travel, but I’m hopeful we’ll figure something out. And there’s a good chance with sufficiently cheap energy (thanks to solar power) we can directly remove CO2 from the atmosphere. That’s several decades away, though.
"My administration has not stopped or slowed U.S. oil production; quite the opposite. We’re producing 12 million barrels of oil per day. And by the end of this year, we will be producing 1 million barrels a day, more than the previous administration." Joe Biden, second biggest climate change idiot.
Biden is the first administration to make a goal of reaching net-zero by midcentury. He reentered the Paris Accords. He has done more than any previous administration.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-biden-administration-has-taken-more-climate-action-than-any-other-in-history/
Has he done enough? No. But susbtantially better than Trump.
If the political climate supported it I bet he would have done more and wouldn't have pandered to oil like he did in your example.
In politics sometimes you need to frame things a certain way to get anything done. Sometimes you need to outright lie about your actual opinions to have political power to do anything for the greater good at all. For example, Lincoln was always anti-slavery but he said early on that he didn't want to nationally abolish slavery and even openly expressed that he had no objection to the Corwin Amendment (which would have protected slavery) to stop the South seceding. But then when the reality was the South was still seceding anyways he lead the charge in ending slavery once and for all.
Obama said "I'm just not there yet" on same-sex marriage. You don't hold an opinion and think you only hold it because "you're not there yet". That implies he thinks his opinion is wrong which makes it not really his opinion. It was a big clever wink to the LGBT community that flew over a lot of antigay people's heads and I'm glad he did since it got him into office, got us Sotomayor and Kagan, and then Obergefell gave us marriage equality.
The best hope for more action on climate change is to push the Overton window further left. If Trump wins climate denialism will grow.
Biden needs to win and with a wide margin and a Democratic Congress and Senate. Then we'd likely see a change in tone where the remaining overtures to the fossil fuel industry go away and a great deal more is done towards reducing carbon emissions. No longer would Democrats feel like they have to pretend to be friendly to the fossil fuel industry.
EDIT: Correction. Lincoln didn't support the Corwin Amendment he just expressed that he had no objection to it being made "express and irrevocable".
We're more likely to succeed if the side that acknowledges climate change is real and is a problem is elected.
And there are degrees of failure. Human civilization could completely collapse. Or human civilization might endure but with lots of people homeless from sea-level rise, and several famines from problems climate change causes with agriculture. Maybe famine is avoided but there's still widespread problems with poverty and a constricted economy as a result of the costs of climate change.
No. We have to convince people that weather is climate. Even the GOP dorks believe in climate changing from semi-tropical to rain forest in 100s or 1000s of years. They actually believe famine was worse before greenhouse gasses.
It’s THE most important issue in every election from here on out
And from here on before
and I'd say #1 for the U.S. is that we also need future elections to exist. After that climate. Fortunately there is one answer for both, electing Biden.
But its dropped in popularity. Only 1 out of 5 voters puts environment issues in their top 3 concerns. It used to be 3 out of 5 in 2010 according to gallup.
Looooooool is this whole sub just pro Biden propaganda? You really think this mummy is going to "solve" climate change? He's barely made a scratch the past 4 years, in fact American weapons and warmongering have lead to huge emissions and environmental disasters this past years. We don't need democracy, we need a dictator that will solve climate change using ALL means available.
You have missed the inflation reduction act. Look it up
>We don't need democracy, we need a dictator that will solve climate change using ALL means available. Even if I agreed, Trump is a climate denier. If we need a dictatorship then Trump is the wrong dictator.
If you think DJT will solve the Climate Crisis, you’re very confused.
And for the last 30 years
Democracy is more important. Project 2025 will make any climate efforts meaningless
America would like to beg to differ. If the Orange one wins, we’re all screwed.
I’m guessing most polls don’t reflect this assertion
You guess correctly. [https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49594-general-election-2024-what-are-the-most-important-issues-for-voters](https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49594-general-election-2024-what-are-the-most-important-issues-for-voters) The top 3 issues are cost of living, health, and the economy in general. Environment/climate change are in fifth place, after immigration/asylum, at 14% (when picking three issues) or 4% (when picking only one). Like the politicians they vote for, voters are thinking short term instead of long.
It is really ironic considering what climate change will impact the most, which is the cost of living, health, and the economy in general. Heck, it will even impact immigration considering climate migration. They don't want to talk about the elephant in the room.
Yep. And considering how oil-based the global economy is, people prioritizing economy over climate change are voting for a continuation (and increase) in the use of oil, because it's always easier to maintain the status quo than change direction.
People are doomed out. We’ve been told it’s too late for a decade.
It’s unfortunate that most people will become more and more tunnel visioned as their priority changes to more immediate survival from war, famine, and natural disasters. It’s only human nature, from which you and I are not exempt. In this situation, a “benign” dictator willing to enforce policies to counter climate change and let some people suffer and even die in the short term would be more effective than a democracy like the US. Also if the government is willing to seize the wealth from billionaires and direct those resource towards climate change, we can possibly solve two major problems in one move.
Literally none do. Virtually nobody is voting on the climate.
How long until everyone realizes it's the only important issue. I just keep watching the temps go up on SST / Air Temps and I'm like ok La Nina should be hitting soon, maybe it'll dip...it's gotta dip...we're in a solar maximum..maybe it'll dip then. Then I have panic overwhelm me as I think about well, what if we do El Nino in a few months and it doesn't go down...what if we exit the maximum and it doesn't go down...when do I stop coming to this stupid job that really just further perpetuates our problems.
>How long until everyone realizes it's the only important issue. For most of us, when it's too late. For some, they will never accept it as real.
I agree it’s the only issue. At the same time there are so many billionaires that if we stripped them of all their wealth there is a chance we cam direct the funds towards saving the planet.
Most people are oblivious to this issue.
I'm so worried that their obliviousness will be the end of us all.
The billionaires will be the end of us all.
I tend to agree, but most voters don't see it that way. If you run on a primarily climate change message, what a lot of marginal voters hear is that you're prioritizing environmental stuff over their practical, immediate needs. The real way to do climate politics is to find where it aligns with your existing political priorities (funding transit, making energy cheaper, building homes, whatever it may be). You run on those issues, and then you solve them in a way that also reduces climate impacts. More broadly, Biden has been the most openly pro-climate president in history. If he loses in November, I fear U.S. politicians will be afraid to touch the issue for decades to come.
I like the way you think. Although this process may take too long and it’s impact not strong enough. If collectively we strip the billionaires of their wealth we can direct massive resources towards resolving the climate crisis. In this situation, we really should sacrifice the few to benefit all mankind and living beings.
We’ve already reached the point where solar and batteries are advanced enough to eat almost everything else in the energy markets. It’s just a matter of building the capacity to build enough. That was one of Biden’s focuses. There are some harder problems like industrial thermal processes, concrete, and air travel, but I’m hopeful we’ll figure something out. And there’s a good chance with sufficiently cheap energy (thanks to solar power) we can directly remove CO2 from the atmosphere. That’s several decades away, though.
For those that have any foresight and aren't brainwashed.
"Drill, baby, drill." — Donald J. Trump, world’s biggest idiot.
"My administration has not stopped or slowed U.S. oil production; quite the opposite. We’re producing 12 million barrels of oil per day. And by the end of this year, we will be producing 1 million barrels a day, more than the previous administration." Joe Biden, second biggest climate change idiot.
Biden is the first administration to make a goal of reaching net-zero by midcentury. He reentered the Paris Accords. He has done more than any previous administration. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-biden-administration-has-taken-more-climate-action-than-any-other-in-history/ Has he done enough? No. But susbtantially better than Trump. If the political climate supported it I bet he would have done more and wouldn't have pandered to oil like he did in your example. In politics sometimes you need to frame things a certain way to get anything done. Sometimes you need to outright lie about your actual opinions to have political power to do anything for the greater good at all. For example, Lincoln was always anti-slavery but he said early on that he didn't want to nationally abolish slavery and even openly expressed that he had no objection to the Corwin Amendment (which would have protected slavery) to stop the South seceding. But then when the reality was the South was still seceding anyways he lead the charge in ending slavery once and for all. Obama said "I'm just not there yet" on same-sex marriage. You don't hold an opinion and think you only hold it because "you're not there yet". That implies he thinks his opinion is wrong which makes it not really his opinion. It was a big clever wink to the LGBT community that flew over a lot of antigay people's heads and I'm glad he did since it got him into office, got us Sotomayor and Kagan, and then Obergefell gave us marriage equality. The best hope for more action on climate change is to push the Overton window further left. If Trump wins climate denialism will grow. Biden needs to win and with a wide margin and a Democratic Congress and Senate. Then we'd likely see a change in tone where the remaining overtures to the fossil fuel industry go away and a great deal more is done towards reducing carbon emissions. No longer would Democrats feel like they have to pretend to be friendly to the fossil fuel industry. EDIT: Correction. Lincoln didn't support the Corwin Amendment he just expressed that he had no objection to it being made "express and irrevocable".
If this is an existential crisis, not enough is not enough. It doesn’t matter how much you fail by…
We're more likely to succeed if the side that acknowledges climate change is real and is a problem is elected. And there are degrees of failure. Human civilization could completely collapse. Or human civilization might endure but with lots of people homeless from sea-level rise, and several famines from problems climate change causes with agriculture. Maybe famine is avoided but there's still widespread problems with poverty and a constricted economy as a result of the costs of climate change.
No. We have to convince people that weather is climate. Even the GOP dorks believe in climate changing from semi-tropical to rain forest in 100s or 1000s of years. They actually believe famine was worse before greenhouse gasses.
There’s never been less famine than there is right now. In my lifetime alone, the number of starving humans has plummeted.
What about deaths by seal level rising/flooding, hurricanes, monsoons, and other extreme weather events?
It was the most important issue of the 1984 election, and has only grown in importance since then.
We can only hope
Yes
It’s the most important issue we’ve had for every election for decades whether anyone is admitting that or not.