In Kamala Harris’s recent appearances, environmental issues have been mentioned only briefly and she seems to be avoiding diving into specifics. The ambiguity is more than likely intentional.
Because the answer is “corporate profits in the short-term are more important to us than the functional survival of humans as a species in the long-term.”
That’s not a really nice answer to be saying now that most people are keenly aware that our planet is on fucking fire.
Candidates aren’t vague when they want corporations to succeed. They literally campaign about how they’re going to invest billions in X and billions in Y. That means more profits for the companies that sell X and Y.
On the other hand, smart candidates don’t talk quite so much about which companies will suffer if they are elected. Especially if those companies are involved in fossil fuel extraction in Pennsylvania, a must-win swing state.
Because the answer is “corporate profits in the short-term are more important to us than the functional survival of humans as a species in the long-term.”
That’s not a really nice answer to be saying now that most people are keenly aware that our planet is on fucking fire.
Status quo Democrats, same as they ever were.
Candidates aren’t vague when they want corporations to succeed. They literally campaign about how they’re going to invest billions in X and billions in Y. That means more profits for the companies that sell X and Y.
On the other hand, smart candidates don’t talk quite so much about which companies will suffer if they are elected. Especially if those companies are involved in fossil fuel extraction in Pennsylvania, a must-win swing state.