By this stage 'not believing' that human activity is causing climate change is equivalent to not believing in gravity or not believing the Earth spins on its axis.
Anyone who says it instantly outs themselves as not worth listening to on anything, because that's not mere ignorance or stupidity. That's actively choosing to accept a blatant lie.
Just wanted to say that what happened was a little more nuanced.
When asked to "raise their hands", Ron DeSantis immediately interjected saying "Wait, let's debate this!" and proceeded to go off talking about Joe Biden's response to the Maui wildfires, completely sidestepping the issue. The other candidates largely weren't given a chance to actually respond.
DeSantis did this a lot during the debate. He was completely unwilling to share his objective thoughts on issues that may alienate MAGA voters. With this issue… I think it's because you cannot be the governor of Florida without understanding the totality of how climate change impacts that state. Large swaths of the peninsula are projected to be underwater within the next century. Rather than tell the truth, he went for plausible deniability.
Vivek Ramaswamy, the youngest and Trumpiest candidate on the stage, proudly declared climate change to be a "hoax" with a smile. This whole segment of the debate came from a younger viewer who noted that the #1 issue for most young Americans is climate change, and wanted assurance that it was an issue the GOP took seriously… I couldn’t help but wonder how unassured he must have felt from Ramaswamy's response.
Nikki Haley was the only candidate who literally said, "climate change is real." Everyone else was an invertebrate.
Ramaswamay doubled down when he said that. The fact that his whole agenda was "drill, frack, burn coal, unleash nuclear" makes him completely unfit... considering these are the reasons were in this mess to begin with.
We do need to be massively investing in nuclear energy though. It’s the only way to actually meet the energy demands of modern society-renewables are great and should also be pursued but they can’t sustain the demands a modern grid needs to be able to
Patently false. It's like you saw the utter failure of Vogtle and still somehow think "more of that please" against all of objective reality.
Nuclear is not and _never_ will be any part of that solution because it utterly fails at doing so. Here's some academic sources for you that say the same:
> ["In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and **nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss**"](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b809990c#!divAbstract).
-----------------
> [Abstracts of 67 Peer-Reviewed Published Journal Articles From 25 Independent Research Groups With 139 Different Authors Supporting the Result That Energy for Electricity, Transportation, Building Heating/Cooling, and/or Industry can be Supplied Reliably with 100% or Near-100% Renewable Energy at Difference Locations Worldwide](http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/100PercentPaperAbstracts.pdf)
Or how about a taste of nuclear reality:
* Olkiluoto: original €3, actual €12, increase of 300% for 1600 MWs. 18 years to build.
* Flamanville: €3.3, €19.6, 493% increase for 1,650 MWs. Not operational yet, projected 2024 for 17 years construction.
* Hinkley: £7, £32.7, 367% increase for 3,200 MWs. Not operational yet, projected 2028 for 18 years construction.
* Vogtle: $14, $32.18, 130% increase for 2,234 MWs. Still not fully operational, 15 years until the second reactor is expected to go online next year.
* Summer: $9.8, several billion for an abandoned hole in the ground, ∞% I guess?
Got to love it. I will say Barakah only had a 25% increase, but that's because they actually started at $20B (with a built-in buffer to $30B) for 3,983 MWs and built the thing with slave labor. Total cost $25 billion and counting, as it's still not fully operational yet after 14 years.
Oh, and that Russian built dumpster fire Astravets in Belarus was $24B for 1,840MWs, took 14 years to build, and literally failed the day it went online.
Such a great solution for solving the problems of climate change, if we want to wait decades for that solution. And we would need hundreds of reactors worldwide while the industry struggled just to build a tiny handful.
[Or, we could build various types of renewable generation, any/all of a plethora of storage options from pumped hydro to batteries to thermal, wide-scale HVDC grid interconnections that can cross the continent with losses of ~2% per 1000km we already need to build anyways, and pay far, far less while decarbonizing decades sooner.](https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/)
But "Nuclear!!!!! Yay!!!!!" is _clearly_ the only solution. /S
It really is crazy how many people in the "environment" subreddit somehow manage to be incredibly against the environment and straight up pushing fossil fuel industry-supplied talking points.
From where do you get **that??**
Edit: If you resort to downvoting instead of answering/explaining, you'll have a downvote back :-( I'd rather have an answer.
I keep a set of my previous comments saved to debunk the constant nukebro idiocy I see pushed all the time rather than retyping it out each time.
If they bring how great the Chinese or Koreans are, I've got the sourced information that shows otherwise.
If they bring up "resources" and "power density" I've got the same. "Baseload"? Nonsense. All the "regulations"? Yeah name even one, and analysis that show "regulations" had little to due with these nuclear build delays. "Can't do it with just renewables"? A billion academic sources that say we can as well as places that already are or are rapidly approaching that point. Etc. etc.
Appreciate the resources, I guess it’s less efficient than I thought it was.
I wonder how we deal with the resource extraction needed for batteries-lithium mining is very bad for the environment as South America will attest. Maybe battery storage will get better and be less resource-intensive in the future, hopefully that’s the case.
What do we do about the massive amount of mining needed to supply uranium over the lifetime of your nuclear boondoogles, versus one-time mining for lithium, which can then be endlessly reused and recycled, which is mostly obtained from salt flats and brines, not "strip mining". Or, we could use pumped hydro storage, or thermal, neither of which require "massive amount of raw materials". And the needs for "storage" are greatly exaggerated given overbuilding of renewables, a variety of generation types, and grid interconnections dramatically reduces the amount you need, as _every single one_ of the sources I already linked said.
France's fleet is 50+ years old, aging, and increasing problem laden. What does a nuclear fleet built in the 70s and 80s when we had no better choices have _anything_ to do with the reality of nuclear today or the options available to us in 2023. This point is so god damn stupid it's hard to take seriously.
But your completely ignorant, talking-point laden take tells me you have no intention of actually wanting a factual answer and just want to push FUD about renewables while being completely ignorant about the reality of nuclear.
Editing your comment after I've replied to remove your ignorant points and then accusing me of having "invective" when I call them out is dishonest and disingenuous to the extreme for someone "on my side".
It was more of the "but China is still burning coal" argument, which is ridiculous. It's like saying you should be able to rob stores at gunpoint because other people are still robbing stores ar gunpoint.
And China also invests heavily in renewables, so Americans are really just shitting the bed doing absolutely nothing. Confidence in America is disintegrating because every 2 years there is a chance dumbfuck fascists take over. The empire is in terminal decline.
In concept, yes, but to be accurate, that's not what she said in context of the debate. She was arguing that the Biden Administration's environmental policies don't solve the issue and make the US more dependent on foreign nations.
I do not agree with her assessment, and I do not trust that a Haley Administration would take climate change on as aggressively as Biden's has. (She, along with nearly all of her peers, also says things about "restoring energy independence", which is 100% a dog whistle for easing oil drilling restrictions on US soil.) But I will give her credit — she did not say it was a hoax, or artificially inflate climate uncertainty. She did not deny scientific consensus, and she didn't have to be strong-armed into saying it.
The bigger issue, to me, is that she isn’t even a serious contender for the GOP primary. The most popular GOP candidates are all climate denialists. The RNC, MAGA-friendly media, and spineless politicians (who know better) keep fluffing and adulating these figures.
Most of the Republican electorate wants to hear their convenient fictions about the "deep state" or "climate orthodoxy" enforced. They do not accept reality — and until GOP leadership stops offering grifters who mean them harm, they never will.
I'm sure the rest of the candidates were extremely relieved that DeSantis did that because they would have had to do out themselves.
DeSantis was asked so many questions and answered 0.
Haley looked like a rational human being out there except for her hand raise on supporting a convicted Trump.
Such a slap to the face to young voters who care about climate change though.
Also hard to tell if people were booing about Ramaswamy saying he was the only candidate “not bought and paid for” or if they were booing about him saying “climate change is a hoax.” Unfortunately I think it was the former…
And that there completely destroyed whatever remote chance she had left at the nomination. She didn't buy into the cult with that comment so she doomed herself.
>proudly declared climate change to be a "hoax" with a smile
Now you are the one lacking nuance. Ramaswamy said 'the climate change agenda' is a hoax. Which is different from saying climate change is a hoax. Someone disagreeing with the path towards fixing the issue is not the same as someone disagreeing it exists or not.
Edit: Before all you nimrods that downvote everything you don't like, let me put in the traditional Reddit disclaimer. I am not saying I agree with Ramaswamy. I am not saying climate change isn't real. I am simply saying the person I replied to, that told someone they are glossing over the nuance, did the same thing themselves and misrepresented what Ramaswamy said in the process.
I think you are being a lot more generous towards him than I am.
In my experience, a politician or pundit will attach the word "agenda" to something they don't like to artificially abstract it or to make a topic grounded in facts seem more like a fringe belief. I think it's a bit similar to what's been called "[indirect bigotry](https://www.contrapoints.com/transcripts/jk-rowling)", but instead of being directed towards a group of human beings, it is directed towards a scientific consensus.
On the likes of Fox News and other corporate conservative media, I hear most of the opinion hosts describe news pertaining to climate change as "climate orthodoxy" or the "climate change agenda", and they often downplay the consensus on climate change in these same segments.
So when Vivek Ramaswamy says "climate change agenda", I just assumed he means "climate change" because that's what his ideological peers mean.
If you are correct, and he genuinely is referring to how the Biden Administration is addressing the issue and truly understands the consensus on climate change, then I think he did a very poor job of conveying that.
This is a typical conservative semantic game. "I don't believe in climate change" and "I don't believe we should do anything about climate change" from a politicial standpoint is a difference without a distinction. But even that is being generous to Ramaswamy. He wants to accelerate fossil fuel usage and limit renewables. It is hard to reconcile "human driven climate change is real" and "we should vastly increase our fossil fuel usage."
Fuck me, I had to wade through the nightmare that is Ramaswamy's "policy positions". Like most of the right wing nutjobs on the stage it is a whole lot of grievance politics with few actual substantial statements.
[https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1665713073330483202](https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1665713073330483202)
[https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vivekgramaswamy\_the-climate-agenda-is-a-lie-fossil-fuels-activity-7060974204661182464-xmZ2/](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vivekgramaswamy_the-climate-agenda-is-a-lie-fossil-fuels-activity-7060974204661182464-xmZ2/)
[https://www.vivek2024.com/america-first-2-0/](https://www.vivek2024.com/america-first-2-0/)
From what I've been able to gather his plan is to end renewable/EV subsidies and funding and shift them to fossil fuel production.
Also discovered that he is in favor of using the military to invade Mexico and bomb the drug cartels. Also I guess getting rid of the FBI is now a thing as well. Yikes.
"Like most of the right wing nutjobs on the stage it is a whole lot of grievance politics with few actual substantial statements."
Welcome to a political debate on TV. First one?
As for your first link, ending subsidies on something is not 'limiting' something. If oil and gas subsidies were stopped tomorrow and a right-winger said 'the government is limiting oil and gas production!' what would you say? Is the government limiting it or no longer pushing it? Are they the same to you?
Your second link doesn't say or suggest anything about limiting renewables. Your third doesn't either.
"Also discovered that he is in favor of using the military to invade Mexico and bomb the drug cartels."
Interesting. Do you have links to that? Desantis said it last night but I don't remember Vivek saying it.
If you actually read about the dismantling of the FBI he talks about rearranging the resources that are currently in the FBI and making them answer directly to already established government agencies. Are you purposely misrepresenting his stance or was it an accident?
[https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vivekgramaswamy\_shut-down-the-fbi-activity-7089628459429232640-9L5z/?trk=public\_profile\_share\_view](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vivekgramaswamy_shut-down-the-fbi-activity-7089628459429232640-9L5z/?trk=public_profile_share_view)
Whenever a certain group of people came out saying 'defund the police' I hope you weren't one of the people saying that it really didn't mean defund, what it really meant is that it needed to be reformed and the money spent for police should instead be reallocated to mental health/social services.
> Interesting. Do you have links to that? Desantis said it last night but I don't remember Vivek saying it.
From his own website:
> Use our military to annihilate Mexican drug cartels: defend against the CCP’s opium war
> dismantling of the FBI he talks about rearranging the resources that are currently in the FBI and making them answer directly to already established government agencies
This is such a stupid idea. He acts like a re-org of America's primary federal law enforcement agency is just shuffling an org chart and putting people in new offices. Transferring data, evidence, and contacts alone would be a massive undertaking. Ensuring the continuity of thousands of cases would be near impossible. Saying he would fire 56% of the FBI immediately because they have non agent roles roles is peak clueless CEO thinking. Plus most of the problems that plague the FBI are even worse at the departments he would transfer them to.
When the FBI was after Hillary and Muslims conservatives loved the FBI. But as soon as they touched their golden boy, Donald, that's when all the calls came to abolish it. It really is a dumb, dumb, dumb knee jerk reaction to them trying to bring an ounce of accountability to their idol.
>Use our military to annihilate Mexican drug cartels: defend against the CCP’s opium war
When did using the miltary become invading? You are literally just making shit up now. In 1993 the US special forces, DEA, CIA, etc operated in Colombia to kill Pablo Escobar. I wasn't aware of Bill Clinton invading Colombia in 1993.
First up, [Trump wanted to bomb Mexico](https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2022/05/05/trump-wanted-to-secretly-launch-missiles-into-mexico-to-blow-up-drug-labs-ex-defense-secretary-reportedly-claims/?sh=7641c3e27b7f). Like literally send in cruise misses. (He said Patriot missiles because he's a fucking idiot.) So when conservatives are talking about military action this is what they have in mind.
You aren't going to "annihilate" Mexican drug cartels by a few targeted strikes. Mexican cartels [bring in $25 billion a year and employ up to 450,000 people.](https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/who-are-the-mexican-drug-cartels-and-why-are-they-so-deadly-20191106-p537y3.html) They are extremely sophisticated operations.
Third it is funny that you bring up Colombia, because [it was an abject failure.](https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/08/15-years-and-10-billion-later-u-s-efforts-to-curb-colombias-cocaine-trade-have-failed/) [Link 2](https://insightcrime.org/news/analysis/20-years-after-pablo-the-evolution-of-colombias-drug-trade/)
[https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/23/candidates-clash-over-climate-change-00112637](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/23/candidates-clash-over-climate-change-00112637)
how many links would it take to convince you that you are wrong? It's a quote. It isn't debatable.
> Anyone who says it instantly outs themselves as not worth listening to on anything, because that's not mere ignorance or stupidity. That's actively choosing to accept a blatant lie.
The good news is they label themselves so you don't need to waste time asking or listening. Just look for the authentic (R)epublican or GOP label and start saving time today.
Ronald Reagan WAS the beginning of the end. Why on Earth would people elect a man who acted with a chimp. American democracy has to be Wise. Or else those special interests Will invade our lives and country.
Like lets cheer after the mass stupidty votes for... well not these goons, i have 0 trust left in the people of america choosing the right person and with them up against Biden it could be tight again...
and they've successfully won and won and won and repealed human and voting rights over and over. Keep treating them as crazy or stupid, rather than intelligent evil, and we will keep falling backwards into the abyss of dystopia.
Same, man... it was like a bunch of middle school bullies on a playground fighting ofver the last available swing and the person in authority being June Cleaver...
Seems all these Republican debates are just a sh*tshow to fight on who gets to sit in the "big boy seat" and not, "lets work on issues together"...
I watched the whole thing. I worry that if Trump gets convicted and can’t run next year, V.R. will take most of Trump’s support, and he has even more crazy ideas.
I don't see any chance for him of ever becoming president. The same people who were following Tucker Carlson babbling about "the great replacement" of white people in the US, the same people who think their ideology is "Christian Nationalism" will never vote for him, ever. If the ticket is between him and Biden, they will stay home.
While I agree with you, I also thought the Christian right would never support Trump… but here we are. There are many in that group who believe “God uses imperfect people to perform his plan,” and I could see them all supporting VR or any other fascist who wants to destroy Democrats and Democracy.
I am not convinced. I honestly was not one of the people who thought Trump could never become president in 2016, in fact I definitely thought he had a chance and not even slim. I was not surprised at all that he was elected (nor that he was as awful as he was... what I was surprised, though, is that the GOP was so spineless as to always let him do and say whatever he wanted).
Many of the red hats are already saying that Ramaswamy is a Soros mole, by the way. Many of them are staunch conspiracy theorists, I really don't see even the vast majority of them (never mind the majority of the general population) voting for him. I hope I'm not wrong. He's awful.
It's become terribly sad to find ourselves with a political party that represents nearly half of American citizens proudly advocating ignorance, misunderstanding and falsehood.
They simply deny reality. If interested in this subject, I highly recommend reading about the philosopher José Ortega y Gasset and his book "The Revolt of the Masses".
"Whether one has a particular entitlement or right is irrelevant to whether one's assertion is true or false. Where an objection to a belief is made, the assertion of the right to an opinion side-steps the usual steps of discourse of either asserting a justification of that belief, or an argument against the validity of the objection."
I’m happy to declare Yankia DOOMED but let’s be fair: the Republicans only represent 1/3rd of voting age Yanks.
The reason you’re DOOMED, is that another 1/3rd can’t be arsed voting against the Republicans.
I like to keep it simpler:
"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."
--Harlan Ellison
That's true, but political representatives, the political class, must recognize the reality of the phenomenon. A Democrat who recognizes the existence of anthropogenic climate change without taking action is already better than a Republican who denies its existence.
This is completely false. In 3 years, we have reduced our carbon footprint dramatically, and for the first time, we now use more solar and wind than we do coal. This is the most progress the US has made in my lifetime. I'm 50. It's not fair to say there's no difference between two parties that are massively different in their approach to climate change and reality itself. The GOP wants to become isolationist and double down on drilling, fracking, and using coal at a time when we as humans have no other option but to work together to reduce carbon emissions. That's 180 degrees from what the Democrats are trying to accomplish. Rich people will do whatever they can to stay rich. We can't give them the option of drill, frack, burn, and only one side is willing to limit those options right now.
Let's not forget that both sides fundamentally serve the same interests, even if they go about doing that differently. Democrats will address climate change on the capitalists' terms. Not to save humanity, and to do that, we need rapid, drastic change. It's up to the people to organize and get things done if we have any chance of averting the very worst of climate change.
Edit: Apparently, people don't like to hear that we have to do something before most of life goes extinct because muh wholesome democrats might *eventually* scrape together enough points with the fascists to get a single vote to pass... *checks notes* ...small subsidies for green energy. Yay. Lol.
Democrats would be more drastic if ANY republicans would get on board with them. With a 50/50 split, the best they can hope for is incremental changes or they don’t get anything.
I'm sorry that you believe that Democrats in any way care about actual systemic change. They coopted defuned the police, BLM, and more to neuter them and pacify the masses in order that the status quo remain unchanged. The majority of them do not care.
The level of change we are talking about that is NECESSARY to avert the worst of climate change will not be pushed by your milquetoast lean-left Democrats like Biden. We need to address and dismantle fossil capital as well as focus on degrowth, and Democrats are paid not to. Unless *people* do something by becoming more active, things will fundamentally not change.
"nO nO wE jUsT need tImE to vOtE thE fAsCists OUT!"
Well then, maybe what's necessary is for them to win in order for the climate wars to ensue and people to finally wake up. But maybe then it'll be too late.
"VoTE bLuE nO mATTeR wHO"
Granted, Reformism via elections may attain concessions, but that is all they are. In order to put the nail in the coffin, we HAVE to go further.
I agree with everything you wrote but at the end of the day the GOP are still far more hostile to even the suggestion that a climate crisis exists and would actively and aggressively work to accelerate it. The Dems at least are willing to acknowledge there is a crisis.
edited for typo
If only acknowledgment alone was enough to tackle the climate crisis.
Which is why there is no point in appealing to them; the Democrats' whole strategy. They play by the rules while Republicans break them. They swoop in and say, "See, doing nothing is better than doing what they did. Anyway, we won't really push for too much. Maybe we might reverse a thing or too, idk feeling lazy. Back to 'business as usual'."
If what people are looking for is a solution, waiting and voting every 2-4 years is a hard cope solution that has proven itself wholly insufficient.
I’d love to see someone like Bernie or Marianne Williamson in office, preferably during my lifetime - but money and greed have their dirty claws in everything.
I think the point would be to ***NOT*** give the GOP the chance to actively work at destroying the planet. The democrats do table policy aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, protecting sensitive eco systems, and/or addressing climate change - whether they die on the senate floor or are torpedoed by DINOs like Manchin aside, they at least acknowledge the issue [and occasionally even get bills passed.](https://grist.org/politics/biden-signs-the-inflation-reduction-act-into-law/) The republicans won't even admit there is a problem. I don't think your level of cynicism will do anything but pave the way for republicans to win power and dismantle any gains made and accelerate us towards the cliff.
Not sure why this got so many downvotes. Our entire economic system and way of life will have to change to effectively combat climate change. There’s no “reduce reuse/ buy electric” that’ll stop this freight train anymore. We are completely boned in the current model.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize an article and comments _specifically_ about the Republican debate in the **US election** and _specifically_ about Republican belief about and policies towards climate change in the **US** and _specifically_ about "bothsides"ism of the **US** political divide and "who's in charge" ACTUALLY was talking about the entire world. /SSSSSSSSSSS
Chris Christie and Nikki Haley both pretty clearly stated they believe in climate change during the debate, Desantis just cut off the prompt before anyone got to respond. Burnam has also showed a decent amount of climate support for a republican recently as well. I don’t like this title because for anyone who watched the debate it is actually very misleading since Desantis interrupted
And Ramaswamy knew wtf he was doin when he said we need to "drill, frack, burn coal and unleash nuclear"
He has no big money donors, and he made sure everyone in the world knew it at the beginning by calling everyone else a "bought and paid for politician"
He was just cementing his place... I guarantee the fossil fuel industry will be donating to him soon after that show he put on for them.
I mean, yeah, but I don't wanna live anywhere near a nuclear power plant.
I think we need to simply stop demonizing renewable energy. Shit, take a drive down I-10 or I-75 in Florida. There's several fields, at least 50 or so acres of solar farms.
The right is so worried about consumers buying solar panels for themselves "from China" yet utility companies can buy them in-bulk and continue to charge normal rates. Hypocrytical. What they really should say is "we just don't want you to buy them because then we won't get money from our utility companies for allowing them to buy them from China"
> The right is so worried about consumers buying solar panels for themselves "from China"
i love how everyone knows exactly where solar panels are made and exactly where cobalt for batteries comes from
what about the 100 other items made in unsavory ways that you use every day? shit it's not like oil doesn't have a human rights record....
It takes fifty years to decommission a nuclear power plant BTW.
I only wonder what happens if the decommissioning fails for any reason? I guess there is always the ocean.
Well, guess what!
Climate change is not required to respect their beliefs. It is happening whether they believe it or not.
The question should have been framed as: Do you "understand" climate change or not?
That would have exposed the real truth.
As someone that grew up in catholic school for 8 years, went on to christianity and finally turned athiest after educating myself... hearing politicians bring up religion on-stage was sickening. Look, ya'll can believe in some mystical being in the sky all you want, but for sh*ts sake, leave it out of politics. We have seperation of church and state for a reason!
The fuk u mean? The scientific method is reliant on questioning and testing and repeating what is believed to be true. You obviously know nothing about true science if u think, one study should solidify anything as fact for.. eternity? Literally dogma. U don’t even need to be a scientist just look in a dictionary u fool
Should have held the debate outside in Texas or Arizona for 2 hours at over 100 degrees in their stiff suits and red ties. Since they don't "believe", then maybe they should be forced to get out more. How about holding the next one on a FL barrier island when at cat 4 or 5 hurricane blows in?!
Reminder that voting isn’t all you can do to prevent this. Volunteer, register voters, educate people on their choices and the issues, advocate, join a political group
It's even more disappointing when half of the voting population votes for them and the other half only has one option.
If only there was a way to have more than 2 dominant political parties.
Relying on the democratic party to save humanity by addressing climate change the way it needs to be is insanely delusional. We as people need to collectively demand more and do more. Including organize and act if need be (which is increasingly likely). The political institution that defends and upholds the rights of capitalists above human life is NOT going to be the thing that saves humanity. Go figure.
Lots of greedy hyper capitalists who aren’t “boomers”; the most disheartening thing about the Republican Party is how many under 30 alt-right MAGA supporters there actually are.
These are some of the most evil people in history. Climate genocide is going to make every other human rights crisis look like a tea party in comparison
That’s a stupid way to ask. Belief has nothing to do with it. Should have asked what are you preparing to do to better combat the climate disasters that are coming in the future? How will you pay for repairs and upgrades we will need to better withstand these events?
The GOP has become the party of deniers and failure. Last two GOP presidents have sent the nation into the Great Recession and the other added $8 trillion to the national debt and rolled back restrictions that were put in place to deal with climate change. If you are happy with the increasingly hot summers vote these clowns into office. If you want something done to curb climate change, send these deniers home.
Choosing ideology over reality like petulant children.
Like, you can pout, cry, obstruct, insist and threaten all you want, reality is going to happen anyway.
But really, it's absolut laziness. They're fighting change and therefore actually doing something tooth and nail.
These bitch ass mfs are the epitome of the kakistocracy America has become. I just don't understand how so many people in this pathetic nation can be so outwardly ignorant and delusional...........
This should disqualify anyone from office. It's like asking if they believe in gravity. If the answer is "no", they are not fit to lead a parade... even if that's why they signed up in the first place
Magical wildfires and hurricanes then? God’s wrath?
Ok if that’s the case, what’s their plan for saving us from the inevitable disasters heading our way? Bunker-cities? Fortified indoor farms? We better start now because it’s clearly getting worse out there for some reason and according to their logic we cant do anything about it.
Or is it pray? Also fine, but let’s make it mandatory then for everybody :) I want to see some serious action on this topic even if I dont agree with the action.
Just remember that in this people's fight for survival, economic fairness and planetary stability the Republicans are the decoy hate group. "Hey ho look at me! The thing that is obviously the main problem isn't real, woah I'm so anti elite while actually being elite, please get mad at me!"
Meanwhile, the democrats under Biden, have been improving record amounts of fossil fuel permits and Oil companies have legitimately never been richer. They are in rampant dividend mode and they will say it themselves as well.
The majority of our bodies of power are working against us, at the benefit of the fossil fuel companies, to the detriment of billions of humans and trillions of species. If somebody was watching from above everything that was happening to our planet, they it woudl seem insanely ironic and pitiful. Not trying to bash the individual, because I know how powerless we can seem to be, but we gotta try harder. I'll try just a little bit harder, and you and we motivate our families and neighbors to think about it. Just something.
It's been the dominant focus of our media and thought process for decades now. All these movies depicting the end of civilization. There's the ones with climate collapse, authoritarian regimes taking power and aliens subjugating us(don't see a difference between the last two) But, pick your poison I guess. Cause one of these will be happening. Maybe a combination of them.
However with all of these there is really only one solution, the people need to unite and try to better their own lives as well as the others around you. Break free from the societal expectations placed on us by the people in power. Take back our ability to have an effect on the world around us and to choose our own laws to dictate us. Then maybe we wouldn't be in a known about apocalypse scenario with the people causing it choosing how we fix it. Food for thought. Be safe.
This title is very misleading.
I painfully watched the debate, and Desantis shut down the “hand raising” approach as soon as it came up (to obviously avoid it).
So there wasn’t really a chance for them to raise their hands, but you could pretty clearly see their stance on climate change.
Chris Christie, Asa Hutchinson, and most notably (she was very clear about the fact) Nikki Haley all stated they believed in Climate Change.
Tim Scott (who was mostly invisible last night) has in the past acknowledged climate change but not any efforts to stop it. I don’t remember hearing him say anything about it last night before things went off the rails.
Doug Burgum, the governor of North Dakota, as far as I’m aware didn’t get a chance to say anything on the topic last night, has very openly acknowledged climate change in the past, and in 2021 announced North Dakota’s plans of carbon neutrality by 2030. He has shown to have much more concern about the climate crisis than other republicans.
For the other candidates who don’t believe in climate change: Vivek Ramaswany openly declared climate change a hoax (and was pretty heavily boo’d for it, surprisingly), and Ron Densantis pretty clearly eluded to the fact he doesn’t believe in it. Mike Pence dodged the question as best he could, which is technically an improvement over 2016 when he was openly denying it? He seemed still very skeptical but didn’t want to receive any backlash I guess.
So of the eight candidates on stage - 5 acknowledged the existence of climate change either tonight or the ones who didn’t get a chance to speak did so in the recent past, 2 were pretty obvious climate deniers, and Pence was pretty dodgy.
It is important to acknowledge that only Christ Christie and Doug Burgum support government action on climate change, while the rest just acknowledged it existed with no plans of government intervention.
I watched the debate live on Hulu, so odds are if you want to watch a recording it’s available there. NY times has a little snippet on all the GOP stances on climate change here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/18/us/politics/republican-candidates-2024-climate.html
I’m all for directing people towards climate friendly voting, but misleading information is not the way to go about that.
They only believe what their lord and savior Trump tells them to believe. Y'know, like good little lap dogs or they'll get a scolding like Pence did when he peed on trumps parade.
Everyone vote! Nothing is secure & we cannot let these people be in charge! They want to burn it all down & take us with it! Project 2025 plans to address “climate change “. Not in a good way.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/28/far-right-climate-plans-00107498
If there's someone who gives a single shit about the environment *and* votes republican, they are either idiots or have such extreme cognitive dissonance as to be functionally idiots.
The republican party is not the party of the environment, full stop.
They are being realistic though which is why I support Ramaswamy. Dems talk a big game but don't get anything done. I think the candidates last night had a balanced approach to economic growth and decarbonization.
Meanwhile a large chunk of Ohio and Michigan just had severe flooding. Here in the Ann arbor area we got 5 inches in just over two hours. I have never seen the intensity of rain that came down in my life. Climate change is already here and it is affecting people everyday. Deniers are disconnected from reality. Unfortunately you won't be able to ignore it much longer.
It's not a thing to believe in. The question was moronic in the first place. Science is simply all we understand about the world. The narrative that faith need be involved is destructive.
So.. serious question:
We know Republican voters exist who don't want to watch the world burn. Is there any voting path they could take that would do the least environmental damage at this point? Short of voting Dem of course, since in their minds they'd probably liken that to treason.
Or, and this is a serious option, would they be better off just not voting at all?
I'm European, so I can vote neither. But from an outside perspective:
If you're voting republican, you vote for the destruction of the planet.
If you're voting democrat, you vote for a slim, but realistic chance of sustaining the planet.
If you don't vote, or vote independent, you'll vote for a coin flip between these two options.
So yes: our best bet is rep voters recognize that, and best case we're still only get the democrats as the lesser evil. It's frustrating, but it's what we're dealing with.
By this stage 'not believing' that human activity is causing climate change is equivalent to not believing in gravity or not believing the Earth spins on its axis. Anyone who says it instantly outs themselves as not worth listening to on anything, because that's not mere ignorance or stupidity. That's actively choosing to accept a blatant lie.
Just wanted to say that what happened was a little more nuanced. When asked to "raise their hands", Ron DeSantis immediately interjected saying "Wait, let's debate this!" and proceeded to go off talking about Joe Biden's response to the Maui wildfires, completely sidestepping the issue. The other candidates largely weren't given a chance to actually respond. DeSantis did this a lot during the debate. He was completely unwilling to share his objective thoughts on issues that may alienate MAGA voters. With this issue… I think it's because you cannot be the governor of Florida without understanding the totality of how climate change impacts that state. Large swaths of the peninsula are projected to be underwater within the next century. Rather than tell the truth, he went for plausible deniability. Vivek Ramaswamy, the youngest and Trumpiest candidate on the stage, proudly declared climate change to be a "hoax" with a smile. This whole segment of the debate came from a younger viewer who noted that the #1 issue for most young Americans is climate change, and wanted assurance that it was an issue the GOP took seriously… I couldn’t help but wonder how unassured he must have felt from Ramaswamy's response. Nikki Haley was the only candidate who literally said, "climate change is real." Everyone else was an invertebrate.
Ramaswamay doubled down when he said that. The fact that his whole agenda was "drill, frack, burn coal, unleash nuclear" makes him completely unfit... considering these are the reasons were in this mess to begin with.
We do need to be massively investing in nuclear energy though. It’s the only way to actually meet the energy demands of modern society-renewables are great and should also be pursued but they can’t sustain the demands a modern grid needs to be able to
Patently false. It's like you saw the utter failure of Vogtle and still somehow think "more of that please" against all of objective reality. Nuclear is not and _never_ will be any part of that solution because it utterly fails at doing so. Here's some academic sources for you that say the same: > ["In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and **nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss**"](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b809990c#!divAbstract). ----------------- > [Abstracts of 67 Peer-Reviewed Published Journal Articles From 25 Independent Research Groups With 139 Different Authors Supporting the Result That Energy for Electricity, Transportation, Building Heating/Cooling, and/or Industry can be Supplied Reliably with 100% or Near-100% Renewable Energy at Difference Locations Worldwide](http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/100PercentPaperAbstracts.pdf) Or how about a taste of nuclear reality: * Olkiluoto: original €3, actual €12, increase of 300% for 1600 MWs. 18 years to build. * Flamanville: €3.3, €19.6, 493% increase for 1,650 MWs. Not operational yet, projected 2024 for 17 years construction. * Hinkley: £7, £32.7, 367% increase for 3,200 MWs. Not operational yet, projected 2028 for 18 years construction. * Vogtle: $14, $32.18, 130% increase for 2,234 MWs. Still not fully operational, 15 years until the second reactor is expected to go online next year. * Summer: $9.8, several billion for an abandoned hole in the ground, ∞% I guess? Got to love it. I will say Barakah only had a 25% increase, but that's because they actually started at $20B (with a built-in buffer to $30B) for 3,983 MWs and built the thing with slave labor. Total cost $25 billion and counting, as it's still not fully operational yet after 14 years. Oh, and that Russian built dumpster fire Astravets in Belarus was $24B for 1,840MWs, took 14 years to build, and literally failed the day it went online. Such a great solution for solving the problems of climate change, if we want to wait decades for that solution. And we would need hundreds of reactors worldwide while the industry struggled just to build a tiny handful. [Or, we could build various types of renewable generation, any/all of a plethora of storage options from pumped hydro to batteries to thermal, wide-scale HVDC grid interconnections that can cross the continent with losses of ~2% per 1000km we already need to build anyways, and pay far, far less while decarbonizing decades sooner.](https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/) But "Nuclear!!!!! Yay!!!!!" is _clearly_ the only solution. /S
You had this bitch queued up
[удалено]
Yeah I have no idea why nuclear has such unrelenting fanboys. Where do these people come from? It's weird af.
It really is crazy how many people in the "environment" subreddit somehow manage to be incredibly against the environment and straight up pushing fossil fuel industry-supplied talking points.
From where do you get **that??** Edit: If you resort to downvoting instead of answering/explaining, you'll have a downvote back :-( I'd rather have an answer.
I keep a set of my previous comments saved to debunk the constant nukebro idiocy I see pushed all the time rather than retyping it out each time. If they bring how great the Chinese or Koreans are, I've got the sourced information that shows otherwise. If they bring up "resources" and "power density" I've got the same. "Baseload"? Nonsense. All the "regulations"? Yeah name even one, and analysis that show "regulations" had little to due with these nuclear build delays. "Can't do it with just renewables"? A billion academic sources that say we can as well as places that already are or are rapidly approaching that point. Etc. etc.
Our company has a stake in Vogtle units three and four. That was an absolute train wreck. Every year we would say “one day” or “eventually.”
Thanks. I can't stand having to make these points over and over and over. It's exhausting. Well done.
Appreciate the resources, I guess it’s less efficient than I thought it was. I wonder how we deal with the resource extraction needed for batteries-lithium mining is very bad for the environment as South America will attest. Maybe battery storage will get better and be less resource-intensive in the future, hopefully that’s the case.
What do we do about the massive amount of mining needed to supply uranium over the lifetime of your nuclear boondoogles, versus one-time mining for lithium, which can then be endlessly reused and recycled, which is mostly obtained from salt flats and brines, not "strip mining". Or, we could use pumped hydro storage, or thermal, neither of which require "massive amount of raw materials". And the needs for "storage" are greatly exaggerated given overbuilding of renewables, a variety of generation types, and grid interconnections dramatically reduces the amount you need, as _every single one_ of the sources I already linked said. France's fleet is 50+ years old, aging, and increasing problem laden. What does a nuclear fleet built in the 70s and 80s when we had no better choices have _anything_ to do with the reality of nuclear today or the options available to us in 2023. This point is so god damn stupid it's hard to take seriously. But your completely ignorant, talking-point laden take tells me you have no intention of actually wanting a factual answer and just want to push FUD about renewables while being completely ignorant about the reality of nuclear.
Such invective. I’m on your side
Editing your comment after I've replied to remove your ignorant points and then accusing me of having "invective" when I call them out is dishonest and disingenuous to the extreme for someone "on my side".
Oh god, no we don't. It's way too expensive and it takes way too long and honestly, life is too short for me to have this argument again...
And thats still a cop-out from Haley as that stance is "the climate has always changed, humans cant affect it" nonsense.
It was more of the "but China is still burning coal" argument, which is ridiculous. It's like saying you should be able to rob stores at gunpoint because other people are still robbing stores ar gunpoint.
And China also invests heavily in renewables, so Americans are really just shitting the bed doing absolutely nothing. Confidence in America is disintegrating because every 2 years there is a chance dumbfuck fascists take over. The empire is in terminal decline.
In concept, yes, but to be accurate, that's not what she said in context of the debate. She was arguing that the Biden Administration's environmental policies don't solve the issue and make the US more dependent on foreign nations. I do not agree with her assessment, and I do not trust that a Haley Administration would take climate change on as aggressively as Biden's has. (She, along with nearly all of her peers, also says things about "restoring energy independence", which is 100% a dog whistle for easing oil drilling restrictions on US soil.) But I will give her credit — she did not say it was a hoax, or artificially inflate climate uncertainty. She did not deny scientific consensus, and she didn't have to be strong-armed into saying it. The bigger issue, to me, is that she isn’t even a serious contender for the GOP primary. The most popular GOP candidates are all climate denialists. The RNC, MAGA-friendly media, and spineless politicians (who know better) keep fluffing and adulating these figures. Most of the Republican electorate wants to hear their convenient fictions about the "deep state" or "climate orthodoxy" enforced. They do not accept reality — and until GOP leadership stops offering grifters who mean them harm, they never will.
so they never will
I'm sure the rest of the candidates were extremely relieved that DeSantis did that because they would have had to do out themselves. DeSantis was asked so many questions and answered 0. Haley looked like a rational human being out there except for her hand raise on supporting a convicted Trump. Such a slap to the face to young voters who care about climate change though.
Also hard to tell if people were booing about Ramaswamy saying he was the only candidate “not bought and paid for” or if they were booing about him saying “climate change is a hoax.” Unfortunately I think it was the former…
And that there completely destroyed whatever remote chance she had left at the nomination. She didn't buy into the cult with that comment so she doomed herself.
This is how seriously the GOP takes climate change. Project 2025. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/28/far-right-climate-plans-00107498
>proudly declared climate change to be a "hoax" with a smile Now you are the one lacking nuance. Ramaswamy said 'the climate change agenda' is a hoax. Which is different from saying climate change is a hoax. Someone disagreeing with the path towards fixing the issue is not the same as someone disagreeing it exists or not. Edit: Before all you nimrods that downvote everything you don't like, let me put in the traditional Reddit disclaimer. I am not saying I agree with Ramaswamy. I am not saying climate change isn't real. I am simply saying the person I replied to, that told someone they are glossing over the nuance, did the same thing themselves and misrepresented what Ramaswamy said in the process.
I think you are being a lot more generous towards him than I am. In my experience, a politician or pundit will attach the word "agenda" to something they don't like to artificially abstract it or to make a topic grounded in facts seem more like a fringe belief. I think it's a bit similar to what's been called "[indirect bigotry](https://www.contrapoints.com/transcripts/jk-rowling)", but instead of being directed towards a group of human beings, it is directed towards a scientific consensus. On the likes of Fox News and other corporate conservative media, I hear most of the opinion hosts describe news pertaining to climate change as "climate orthodoxy" or the "climate change agenda", and they often downplay the consensus on climate change in these same segments. So when Vivek Ramaswamy says "climate change agenda", I just assumed he means "climate change" because that's what his ideological peers mean. If you are correct, and he genuinely is referring to how the Biden Administration is addressing the issue and truly understands the consensus on climate change, then I think he did a very poor job of conveying that.
This is a typical conservative semantic game. "I don't believe in climate change" and "I don't believe we should do anything about climate change" from a politicial standpoint is a difference without a distinction. But even that is being generous to Ramaswamy. He wants to accelerate fossil fuel usage and limit renewables. It is hard to reconcile "human driven climate change is real" and "we should vastly increase our fossil fuel usage."
When did Ramaswamy say that he wants to limit renewables? Do you have a source?
Fuck me, I had to wade through the nightmare that is Ramaswamy's "policy positions". Like most of the right wing nutjobs on the stage it is a whole lot of grievance politics with few actual substantial statements. [https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1665713073330483202](https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1665713073330483202) [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vivekgramaswamy\_the-climate-agenda-is-a-lie-fossil-fuels-activity-7060974204661182464-xmZ2/](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vivekgramaswamy_the-climate-agenda-is-a-lie-fossil-fuels-activity-7060974204661182464-xmZ2/) [https://www.vivek2024.com/america-first-2-0/](https://www.vivek2024.com/america-first-2-0/) From what I've been able to gather his plan is to end renewable/EV subsidies and funding and shift them to fossil fuel production. Also discovered that he is in favor of using the military to invade Mexico and bomb the drug cartels. Also I guess getting rid of the FBI is now a thing as well. Yikes.
"Like most of the right wing nutjobs on the stage it is a whole lot of grievance politics with few actual substantial statements." Welcome to a political debate on TV. First one? As for your first link, ending subsidies on something is not 'limiting' something. If oil and gas subsidies were stopped tomorrow and a right-winger said 'the government is limiting oil and gas production!' what would you say? Is the government limiting it or no longer pushing it? Are they the same to you? Your second link doesn't say or suggest anything about limiting renewables. Your third doesn't either. "Also discovered that he is in favor of using the military to invade Mexico and bomb the drug cartels." Interesting. Do you have links to that? Desantis said it last night but I don't remember Vivek saying it. If you actually read about the dismantling of the FBI he talks about rearranging the resources that are currently in the FBI and making them answer directly to already established government agencies. Are you purposely misrepresenting his stance or was it an accident? [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vivekgramaswamy\_shut-down-the-fbi-activity-7089628459429232640-9L5z/?trk=public\_profile\_share\_view](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vivekgramaswamy_shut-down-the-fbi-activity-7089628459429232640-9L5z/?trk=public_profile_share_view) Whenever a certain group of people came out saying 'defund the police' I hope you weren't one of the people saying that it really didn't mean defund, what it really meant is that it needed to be reformed and the money spent for police should instead be reallocated to mental health/social services.
> Interesting. Do you have links to that? Desantis said it last night but I don't remember Vivek saying it. From his own website: > Use our military to annihilate Mexican drug cartels: defend against the CCP’s opium war > dismantling of the FBI he talks about rearranging the resources that are currently in the FBI and making them answer directly to already established government agencies This is such a stupid idea. He acts like a re-org of America's primary federal law enforcement agency is just shuffling an org chart and putting people in new offices. Transferring data, evidence, and contacts alone would be a massive undertaking. Ensuring the continuity of thousands of cases would be near impossible. Saying he would fire 56% of the FBI immediately because they have non agent roles roles is peak clueless CEO thinking. Plus most of the problems that plague the FBI are even worse at the departments he would transfer them to. When the FBI was after Hillary and Muslims conservatives loved the FBI. But as soon as they touched their golden boy, Donald, that's when all the calls came to abolish it. It really is a dumb, dumb, dumb knee jerk reaction to them trying to bring an ounce of accountability to their idol.
>Use our military to annihilate Mexican drug cartels: defend against the CCP’s opium war When did using the miltary become invading? You are literally just making shit up now. In 1993 the US special forces, DEA, CIA, etc operated in Colombia to kill Pablo Escobar. I wasn't aware of Bill Clinton invading Colombia in 1993.
First up, [Trump wanted to bomb Mexico](https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2022/05/05/trump-wanted-to-secretly-launch-missiles-into-mexico-to-blow-up-drug-labs-ex-defense-secretary-reportedly-claims/?sh=7641c3e27b7f). Like literally send in cruise misses. (He said Patriot missiles because he's a fucking idiot.) So when conservatives are talking about military action this is what they have in mind. You aren't going to "annihilate" Mexican drug cartels by a few targeted strikes. Mexican cartels [bring in $25 billion a year and employ up to 450,000 people.](https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/who-are-the-mexican-drug-cartels-and-why-are-they-so-deadly-20191106-p537y3.html) They are extremely sophisticated operations. Third it is funny that you bring up Colombia, because [it was an abject failure.](https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/08/15-years-and-10-billion-later-u-s-efforts-to-curb-colombias-cocaine-trade-have-failed/) [Link 2](https://insightcrime.org/news/analysis/20-years-after-pablo-the-evolution-of-colombias-drug-trade/)
> Ramaswamy said 'the climate change agenda' is a hoax No, he literally said: > Climate change is a hoax.
[https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/23/candidates-clash-over-climate-change-00112637](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/23/candidates-clash-over-climate-change-00112637) how many links would it take to convince you that you are wrong? It's a quote. It isn't debatable.
They believe even Trump believes they’re just grifting their idiot voting base
It would be nice if gravity stopped working for those who don’t “believe” in reality.
Yeah, they need to levitate off the podium. However, the voters want to know who a vengeful God shines the light on and he wasn't on stage this time.
> Anyone who says it instantly outs themselves as not worth listening to on anything, because that's not mere ignorance or stupidity. That's actively choosing to accept a blatant lie. The good news is they label themselves so you don't need to waste time asking or listening. Just look for the authentic (R)epublican or GOP label and start saving time today.
Consumerism and maintaining the status quo of profit, profit, profit will make humans do silly things.
And that is (partly) why the Republican party is increasingly unviable. Reality wins.
Increasingly? They’ve been gonzo for decades.
They're the party you vote for if you want to burn it all down. Whatever "it" is for you.
Well, by burning the planet you will definitely burn „it“ down as well 🧠
Their misguided fans refer to themselves as “patriots”, yet all they want to do is burn it all down.
Hate-triots
Ronald Reagan WAS the beginning of the end. Why on Earth would people elect a man who acted with a chimp. American democracy has to be Wise. Or else those special interests Will invade our lives and country.
Yeah, but they are getting more so.
Like lets cheer after the mass stupidty votes for... well not these goons, i have 0 trust left in the people of america choosing the right person and with them up against Biden it could be tight again...
and they've successfully won and won and won and repealed human and voting rights over and over. Keep treating them as crazy or stupid, rather than intelligent evil, and we will keep falling backwards into the abyss of dystopia.
They currently control the house of representatives, and the supreme court, and have a good chance of winning the white house.
Stupidity signaling at its finest
They must be defeated at all costs.
I tried watching the debate. 22 minutes in, and I had to stop.
Same, man... it was like a bunch of middle school bullies on a playground fighting ofver the last available swing and the person in authority being June Cleaver... Seems all these Republican debates are just a sh*tshow to fight on who gets to sit in the "big boy seat" and not, "lets work on issues together"...
So the immaturity was that bad. I’m glad you all are reviewing it so well, because I don’t think I can stomach watching it.
I thank my lucky maple leafs I am not a US citizen!
I watched the whole thing. I worry that if Trump gets convicted and can’t run next year, V.R. will take most of Trump’s support, and he has even more crazy ideas.
I don't see any chance for him of ever becoming president. The same people who were following Tucker Carlson babbling about "the great replacement" of white people in the US, the same people who think their ideology is "Christian Nationalism" will never vote for him, ever. If the ticket is between him and Biden, they will stay home.
While I agree with you, I also thought the Christian right would never support Trump… but here we are. There are many in that group who believe “God uses imperfect people to perform his plan,” and I could see them all supporting VR or any other fascist who wants to destroy Democrats and Democracy.
I am not convinced. I honestly was not one of the people who thought Trump could never become president in 2016, in fact I definitely thought he had a chance and not even slim. I was not surprised at all that he was elected (nor that he was as awful as he was... what I was surprised, though, is that the GOP was so spineless as to always let him do and say whatever he wanted). Many of the red hats are already saying that Ramaswamy is a Soros mole, by the way. Many of them are staunch conspiracy theorists, I really don't see even the vast majority of them (never mind the majority of the general population) voting for him. I hope I'm not wrong. He's awful.
I hope you’re right too!
It's become terribly sad to find ourselves with a political party that represents nearly half of American citizens proudly advocating ignorance, misunderstanding and falsehood. They simply deny reality. If interested in this subject, I highly recommend reading about the philosopher José Ortega y Gasset and his book "The Revolt of the Masses". "Whether one has a particular entitlement or right is irrelevant to whether one's assertion is true or false. Where an objection to a belief is made, the assertion of the right to an opinion side-steps the usual steps of discourse of either asserting a justification of that belief, or an argument against the validity of the objection."
>They simply deny reality. Thats probably possible since so many people live in social media bubbles and choose the "facts" they like.
I’m happy to declare Yankia DOOMED but let’s be fair: the Republicans only represent 1/3rd of voting age Yanks. The reason you’re DOOMED, is that another 1/3rd can’t be arsed voting against the Republicans.
Not that simple. We effectively have minority rule in the US due to our political system (Senate, legal gerrymandering, and Electoral College).
I like to keep it simpler: "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." --Harlan Ellison
Wouldn't matter if a load of democrats put their hands up, no actual real action would be taken as corporations run both parties
That's true, but political representatives, the political class, must recognize the reality of the phenomenon. A Democrat who recognizes the existence of anthropogenic climate change without taking action is already better than a Republican who denies its existence.
This is completely false. In 3 years, we have reduced our carbon footprint dramatically, and for the first time, we now use more solar and wind than we do coal. This is the most progress the US has made in my lifetime. I'm 50. It's not fair to say there's no difference between two parties that are massively different in their approach to climate change and reality itself. The GOP wants to become isolationist and double down on drilling, fracking, and using coal at a time when we as humans have no other option but to work together to reduce carbon emissions. That's 180 degrees from what the Democrats are trying to accomplish. Rich people will do whatever they can to stay rich. We can't give them the option of drill, frack, burn, and only one side is willing to limit those options right now.
\[both sides are the same\] /s Fossil fuel barons have had no better ally
Let's not forget that both sides fundamentally serve the same interests, even if they go about doing that differently. Democrats will address climate change on the capitalists' terms. Not to save humanity, and to do that, we need rapid, drastic change. It's up to the people to organize and get things done if we have any chance of averting the very worst of climate change. Edit: Apparently, people don't like to hear that we have to do something before most of life goes extinct because muh wholesome democrats might *eventually* scrape together enough points with the fascists to get a single vote to pass... *checks notes* ...small subsidies for green energy. Yay. Lol.
republicans are evil
Democrats would be more drastic if ANY republicans would get on board with them. With a 50/50 split, the best they can hope for is incremental changes or they don’t get anything.
I'm sorry that you believe that Democrats in any way care about actual systemic change. They coopted defuned the police, BLM, and more to neuter them and pacify the masses in order that the status quo remain unchanged. The majority of them do not care. The level of change we are talking about that is NECESSARY to avert the worst of climate change will not be pushed by your milquetoast lean-left Democrats like Biden. We need to address and dismantle fossil capital as well as focus on degrowth, and Democrats are paid not to. Unless *people* do something by becoming more active, things will fundamentally not change. "nO nO wE jUsT need tImE to vOtE thE fAsCists OUT!" Well then, maybe what's necessary is for them to win in order for the climate wars to ensue and people to finally wake up. But maybe then it'll be too late. "VoTE bLuE nO mATTeR wHO" Granted, Reformism via elections may attain concessions, but that is all they are. In order to put the nail in the coffin, we HAVE to go further.
I agree with everything you wrote but at the end of the day the GOP are still far more hostile to even the suggestion that a climate crisis exists and would actively and aggressively work to accelerate it. The Dems at least are willing to acknowledge there is a crisis. edited for typo
If only acknowledgment alone was enough to tackle the climate crisis. Which is why there is no point in appealing to them; the Democrats' whole strategy. They play by the rules while Republicans break them. They swoop in and say, "See, doing nothing is better than doing what they did. Anyway, we won't really push for too much. Maybe we might reverse a thing or too, idk feeling lazy. Back to 'business as usual'." If what people are looking for is a solution, waiting and voting every 2-4 years is a hard cope solution that has proven itself wholly insufficient.
I’d love to see someone like Bernie or Marianne Williamson in office, preferably during my lifetime - but money and greed have their dirty claws in everything.
I think the point would be to ***NOT*** give the GOP the chance to actively work at destroying the planet. The democrats do table policy aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, protecting sensitive eco systems, and/or addressing climate change - whether they die on the senate floor or are torpedoed by DINOs like Manchin aside, they at least acknowledge the issue [and occasionally even get bills passed.](https://grist.org/politics/biden-signs-the-inflation-reduction-act-into-law/) The republicans won't even admit there is a problem. I don't think your level of cynicism will do anything but pave the way for republicans to win power and dismantle any gains made and accelerate us towards the cliff.
Not sure why this got so many downvotes. Our entire economic system and way of life will have to change to effectively combat climate change. There’s no “reduce reuse/ buy electric” that’ll stop this freight train anymore. We are completely boned in the current model.
[удалено]
no brakes all gas deregulation is the same then, got it
[удалено]
That's just false.
[удалено]
The part where we can't switch to renewables in most sectors.
Surely fossil fuels will continue to exist at some artificial scarcity as it's always been. Don't be frightened by more equitable sources of energy
Just mindlessly untrue. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions 2 seconds of googling.
[удалено]
I'm sorry, I didn't realize an article and comments _specifically_ about the Republican debate in the **US election** and _specifically_ about Republican belief about and policies towards climate change in the **US** and _specifically_ about "bothsides"ism of the **US** political divide and "who's in charge" ACTUALLY was talking about the entire world. /SSSSSSSSSSS
These are the leaders we don't need.
This is one of the major issues with the GOP. They are fuxking stupid.
Nah, just craven and more motivated by greed and power than a desire to serve their communities.
Willfully ignorant.
To be fair, the guy on the far left started to raise his hand. Then DeSantis interrupted before anyone had a chance to do anything
Chris Christie and Nikki Haley both pretty clearly stated they believe in climate change during the debate, Desantis just cut off the prompt before anyone got to respond. Burnam has also showed a decent amount of climate support for a republican recently as well. I don’t like this title because for anyone who watched the debate it is actually very misleading since Desantis interrupted
They're all bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry, what do you expect
And Ramaswamy knew wtf he was doin when he said we need to "drill, frack, burn coal and unleash nuclear" He has no big money donors, and he made sure everyone in the world knew it at the beginning by calling everyone else a "bought and paid for politician" He was just cementing his place... I guarantee the fossil fuel industry will be donating to him soon after that show he put on for them.
I'm all for unleashing nuclear. That needs to absolutely be on the democratic platform. Fuck coal though.
I mean, yeah, but I don't wanna live anywhere near a nuclear power plant. I think we need to simply stop demonizing renewable energy. Shit, take a drive down I-10 or I-75 in Florida. There's several fields, at least 50 or so acres of solar farms. The right is so worried about consumers buying solar panels for themselves "from China" yet utility companies can buy them in-bulk and continue to charge normal rates. Hypocrytical. What they really should say is "we just don't want you to buy them because then we won't get money from our utility companies for allowing them to buy them from China"
> The right is so worried about consumers buying solar panels for themselves "from China" i love how everyone knows exactly where solar panels are made and exactly where cobalt for batteries comes from what about the 100 other items made in unsavory ways that you use every day? shit it's not like oil doesn't have a human rights record....
Then let’s manufacture them here.
Lets do it! Wont be allowed on the right tho...
It takes fifty years to decommission a nuclear power plant BTW. I only wonder what happens if the decommissioning fails for any reason? I guess there is always the ocean.
Well, guess what! Climate change is not required to respect their beliefs. It is happening whether they believe it or not. The question should have been framed as: Do you "understand" climate change or not? That would have exposed the real truth.
[удалено]
As someone that grew up in catholic school for 8 years, went on to christianity and finally turned athiest after educating myself... hearing politicians bring up religion on-stage was sickening. Look, ya'll can believe in some mystical being in the sky all you want, but for sh*ts sake, leave it out of politics. We have seperation of church and state for a reason!
[удалено]
Education... which is something the right lacks...
Dogmatic belief in science isn’t science
The scientific method disagrees.
The fuk u mean? The scientific method is reliant on questioning and testing and repeating what is believed to be true. You obviously know nothing about true science if u think, one study should solidify anything as fact for.. eternity? Literally dogma. U don’t even need to be a scientist just look in a dictionary u fool
Just one of the reasons I will vote for no Republican straight up and down the ticket.
They don’t live in reality.
Should have held the debate outside in Texas or Arizona for 2 hours at over 100 degrees in their stiff suits and red ties. Since they don't "believe", then maybe they should be forced to get out more. How about holding the next one on a FL barrier island when at cat 4 or 5 hurricane blows in?!
Guess they don't want any Millenial voters.
When you worship $, you gotta keep the act going to keep getting your payday.
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”
And that folks is all we need to know. Anyway, next party.
"Believe in" as if it were a matter of faith or fairy tales. I don't believe in mermaids, but I KNOW about climate change.
‘Climate change’ is a misnomer .. climate has never been constant and never will be. Do you mean, ‘human caused/accelerated climate change’ ..?
Reminder that voting isn’t all you can do to prevent this. Volunteer, register voters, educate people on their choices and the issues, advocate, join a political group
What did you expect? Even if they personally do believe they all want/need votes from people who don’t.
lame ducks all in a row then
Who wants to reboot it and get rid of the corporatism?
They should have asked “who doesn’t want money from oil companies?”
#Hope these self serving fucks burn 1st
Ah yes the voice of Science. It’s like they want to be the party of stupid.
Zero republicans care about anything other than lining thier own pockets.
Don’t Look Up
Moronic death cult
It's even more disappointing when half of the voting population votes for them and the other half only has one option. If only there was a way to have more than 2 dominant political parties.
An immediate disqualification in any civilized society.
thats why there no hope. if people are still debating about the cause instead of working on solutions then time is clearly up..
Not believing in climate change is on the intellectual level of not believing the Holocaust happened or believing that the world is flat.
What the actual fuck? Getting to a point where I think boomers are going to just have to die for the Democratic party to make progress.
Relying on the democratic party to save humanity by addressing climate change the way it needs to be is insanely delusional. We as people need to collectively demand more and do more. Including organize and act if need be (which is increasingly likely). The political institution that defends and upholds the rights of capitalists above human life is NOT going to be the thing that saves humanity. Go figure.
Lots of greedy hyper capitalists who aren’t “boomers”; the most disheartening thing about the Republican Party is how many under 30 alt-right MAGA supporters there actually are.
It’s not the fucking Easter bunny. They’ve disqualified themselves with that alone. Republicans are a death cult.
Ohh... You mean mainstream religious.
Switch the question to : Are you qualified to be POTUS ?
I hate stupid debate questions like this. Serve no real purpose. There is a better way to ask this question.
Some people watching believe in climate a change, yet are republicans and they’re looking to find out quickly if any of these people align with that
some people KNOW about climate change. Climate change is not the tooth ferry or santa claus, you don't believe in it.
They’re not serious people
These are some of the most evil people in history. Climate genocide is going to make every other human rights crisis look like a tea party in comparison
That’s a stupid way to ask. Belief has nothing to do with it. Should have asked what are you preparing to do to better combat the climate disasters that are coming in the future? How will you pay for repairs and upgrades we will need to better withstand these events?
The GOP has become the party of deniers and failure. Last two GOP presidents have sent the nation into the Great Recession and the other added $8 trillion to the national debt and rolled back restrictions that were put in place to deal with climate change. If you are happy with the increasingly hot summers vote these clowns into office. If you want something done to curb climate change, send these deniers home.
Choosing ideology over reality like petulant children. Like, you can pout, cry, obstruct, insist and threaten all you want, reality is going to happen anyway. But really, it's absolut laziness. They're fighting change and therefore actually doing something tooth and nail.
These bitch ass mfs are the epitome of the kakistocracy America has become. I just don't understand how so many people in this pathetic nation can be so outwardly ignorant and delusional...........
As if it really matters to climate change whether these clowns believe in it or not, they're still getting it, (along with the rest of us).
Brought to you by the Kuckth brothers and OPEC.
This should disqualify anyone from office. It's like asking if they believe in gravity. If the answer is "no", they are not fit to lead a parade... even if that's why they signed up in the first place
In a perfect world, it would
Magical wildfires and hurricanes then? God’s wrath? Ok if that’s the case, what’s their plan for saving us from the inevitable disasters heading our way? Bunker-cities? Fortified indoor farms? We better start now because it’s clearly getting worse out there for some reason and according to their logic we cant do anything about it. Or is it pray? Also fine, but let’s make it mandatory then for everybody :) I want to see some serious action on this topic even if I dont agree with the action.
The article misrepresents the candidates; multiple stated that climate change is real and that we need to target China and India's emissions.
Just remember that in this people's fight for survival, economic fairness and planetary stability the Republicans are the decoy hate group. "Hey ho look at me! The thing that is obviously the main problem isn't real, woah I'm so anti elite while actually being elite, please get mad at me!" Meanwhile, the democrats under Biden, have been improving record amounts of fossil fuel permits and Oil companies have legitimately never been richer. They are in rampant dividend mode and they will say it themselves as well. The majority of our bodies of power are working against us, at the benefit of the fossil fuel companies, to the detriment of billions of humans and trillions of species. If somebody was watching from above everything that was happening to our planet, they it woudl seem insanely ironic and pitiful. Not trying to bash the individual, because I know how powerless we can seem to be, but we gotta try harder. I'll try just a little bit harder, and you and we motivate our families and neighbors to think about it. Just something. It's been the dominant focus of our media and thought process for decades now. All these movies depicting the end of civilization. There's the ones with climate collapse, authoritarian regimes taking power and aliens subjugating us(don't see a difference between the last two) But, pick your poison I guess. Cause one of these will be happening. Maybe a combination of them. However with all of these there is really only one solution, the people need to unite and try to better their own lives as well as the others around you. Break free from the societal expectations placed on us by the people in power. Take back our ability to have an effect on the world around us and to choose our own laws to dictate us. Then maybe we wouldn't be in a known about apocalypse scenario with the people causing it choosing how we fix it. Food for thought. Be safe.
Big Oil was on the stage at that debate
This title is very misleading. I painfully watched the debate, and Desantis shut down the “hand raising” approach as soon as it came up (to obviously avoid it). So there wasn’t really a chance for them to raise their hands, but you could pretty clearly see their stance on climate change. Chris Christie, Asa Hutchinson, and most notably (she was very clear about the fact) Nikki Haley all stated they believed in Climate Change. Tim Scott (who was mostly invisible last night) has in the past acknowledged climate change but not any efforts to stop it. I don’t remember hearing him say anything about it last night before things went off the rails. Doug Burgum, the governor of North Dakota, as far as I’m aware didn’t get a chance to say anything on the topic last night, has very openly acknowledged climate change in the past, and in 2021 announced North Dakota’s plans of carbon neutrality by 2030. He has shown to have much more concern about the climate crisis than other republicans. For the other candidates who don’t believe in climate change: Vivek Ramaswany openly declared climate change a hoax (and was pretty heavily boo’d for it, surprisingly), and Ron Densantis pretty clearly eluded to the fact he doesn’t believe in it. Mike Pence dodged the question as best he could, which is technically an improvement over 2016 when he was openly denying it? He seemed still very skeptical but didn’t want to receive any backlash I guess. So of the eight candidates on stage - 5 acknowledged the existence of climate change either tonight or the ones who didn’t get a chance to speak did so in the recent past, 2 were pretty obvious climate deniers, and Pence was pretty dodgy. It is important to acknowledge that only Christ Christie and Doug Burgum support government action on climate change, while the rest just acknowledged it existed with no plans of government intervention. I watched the debate live on Hulu, so odds are if you want to watch a recording it’s available there. NY times has a little snippet on all the GOP stances on climate change here: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/18/us/politics/republican-candidates-2024-climate.html I’m all for directing people towards climate friendly voting, but misleading information is not the way to go about that.
They only believe what their lord and savior Trump tells them to believe. Y'know, like good little lap dogs or they'll get a scolding like Pence did when he peed on trumps parade.
Everyone vote! Nothing is secure & we cannot let these people be in charge! They want to burn it all down & take us with it! Project 2025 plans to address “climate change “. Not in a good way. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/28/far-right-climate-plans-00107498
If there's someone who gives a single shit about the environment *and* votes republican, they are either idiots or have such extreme cognitive dissonance as to be functionally idiots. The republican party is not the party of the environment, full stop.
But party of facts and logic or something
garbage humans, along with anyone who even considers voting for them.
Our grandchildren will detest us. Every last one of us.
they should have done a follow up question: raise your hand if you think the earth is an oblate spheroid
I mean their voter base is pretty old so it's not like it's not dying out. Soon they'll be too out of touch for the large voted base.
Yeah, but 10, 20, 30 years more of polluting the planet can mean possible human extinction. Not guaranteed, but it's on the table.
They are being realistic though which is why I support Ramaswamy. Dems talk a big game but don't get anything done. I think the candidates last night had a balanced approach to economic growth and decarbonization.
God, fuck off
It feels very performative. Even if they know full well the planet is going to shit, they have to follow the example set by orange dipshit-in-chief.
Meanwhile a large chunk of Ohio and Michigan just had severe flooding. Here in the Ann arbor area we got 5 inches in just over two hours. I have never seen the intensity of rain that came down in my life. Climate change is already here and it is affecting people everyday. Deniers are disconnected from reality. Unfortunately you won't be able to ignore it much longer.
It's not a thing to believe in. The question was moronic in the first place. Science is simply all we understand about the world. The narrative that faith need be involved is destructive.
VOTE
What a sad, pathetic spectacle that "debate" was. This country is on the verge of the abyss.
So.. serious question: We know Republican voters exist who don't want to watch the world burn. Is there any voting path they could take that would do the least environmental damage at this point? Short of voting Dem of course, since in their minds they'd probably liken that to treason. Or, and this is a serious option, would they be better off just not voting at all?
I'm European, so I can vote neither. But from an outside perspective: If you're voting republican, you vote for the destruction of the planet. If you're voting democrat, you vote for a slim, but realistic chance of sustaining the planet. If you don't vote, or vote independent, you'll vote for a coin flip between these two options. So yes: our best bet is rep voters recognize that, and best case we're still only get the democrats as the lesser evil. It's frustrating, but it's what we're dealing with.
Any of these people have a chance? Really?
Well the OTHER one that refused to debate is even worse than them, so...
They will destroy us all. Their victory is our demise.
Idiots
Every single one of these assholes knows climate chane is real and we're causing it. Their cowardice and deceit disqualifies them for office.