cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/1514949

I wouldn’t consider voting for any of these people in the general election, but I recognize that people often live in gerrymandered districts, and therefore vote in Republican primaries in order to have some influence over their local representatives. For people living in such a district, choosing a least-bad candidate is a way try and moderate the Republican party just a bit.

Candidates are listed by poll-based estimates of their support, which makes it rather clear that Republicans as a whole have sought to reject any kind of meaningful path to zero greenhouse gas emissions.

  • Trump: His actions as president may have caused irreversible damage to the global climate.

  • DeSantis: He has supported efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change, but not to prevent it.

  • Scott: He acknowledges climate change but rejects most efforts to stop it.

  • Ramaswamy: He opposes all government efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

  • Haley: She supports carbon-capture technology but has denounced efforts to reduce emissions.)

  • Pence: He claims climate change is exaggerated and would prioritize domestic energy production.

  • Christie: He supports action on climate change with some caveats.

  • Hutchinson: He denounces government mandates but supports private renewable energy development.

  • Burgum: He has supported carbon-capture as governor, but what he would do as president is unclear.

  • Hurd: He acknowledges that climate change is a major threat, but what he would do is unclear.

  • Suarez: He has pursued significant emission reductions in Miami.

  • HubertManne@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Its insane given the last few years that the staunches deniers have not faced reality. My devil. The fires, the ice thinning, the hurricanes, the tonadoes, the heat waves, the floods…

  • glacier
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nothing will change so long as capitalists hold all of the political power and put their profits over the health of the planet and of humanity.

  • holland@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you think voting for any of these ghouls will do anything to help you’ve lost the plot. Never vote for the fascists.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most of the US has a partisan primary, where each party chooses candidates. Due to gerrymandering, one party or the other is pretty much guaranteed to win the general election fir state legislative seats and the house of representatives. So people in those places who want any influence at all vote in the primary for the party which will win the general election.

      This post is for them

      • holland@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Dude, then why are you talking about PRESIDENTIAL candidates? Shouldn’t this be about congressional or state candidates?

        Gerrymandering’s only effect on presidential elections is on the rules that each state uses for the elections, not on who’s guaranteed to win the election.

        Further, none of the Republicans are going to be helpful at all in stopping or reducing the impacts of climate change. This is not helpful. Any encouragement to vote for fascists is doing the enemy’s work for them.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because people who vote in the state and congressional primaries typically also have to vote in the same presidential primary

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think focusing on climate change directly is not the right approach with Republicans. To them it’s a culture war discussion, so they’ll always point to the most extreme view to strawman their arguments.

    I think it’s far more interesting to discuss practical solutions that would help improve GPD generally, such as:

    • invest in high speed rail - trains are way more efficient than airplanes, both from a cost and emissions perspective; which of these would be interested in an effort to connect busy metro areas with high speed rail? (e.g. Miami <-> Atlanta via Orlando and Jacksonville, SF <-> LA, large metros in Texas, etc)
    • invest in nuclear power - we need more energy production, we have a ton of space for disposal of nuclear waste, and it’s a cost effective solution
    • implement a carbon tax and refund it to Americans as a credit - this merely increases the costs of polluting products to encourage purchase of greener products

    These target the biggest sources of pollution, transportation, energy, and industry, but without directly changing regulations or restricting anyone’s freedom, it just makes some choices more expensive.

  • TheMage@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Action with a lot of caveats is the best call for the average citizen. Christie has it right. The caveats must protect the American taxpayer, all levels of the middle and working classes lifestyles, maintain our current energy needs, allow us to continue to enjoy our lives and of course not raise energy costs. If they can get all that done and it’s transparent then great. Go for it. But, people that worked hard to own a moderately nice home with some property are not giving it up due to some green sales pitch. We don’t want to be forced to drive junk EVs. We don’t want to shut the AC off in the middle of summer. We like our gas stoves. Stuff like that. Hands off.

    • shitescalates@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gas stoves and vehicles are outdated, dirty technology that will die out on their own, no reason not to speed that up. Just because people are stubborn and don’t like change, isnt a good reason to keep them.

      • TheMage@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Petrol vehicles arent outdated, LOL. They are very necessary for a multitude of reasons. Recently, even the CEO of Ford struggled mightily on a recent trip with an EV pickup. EVs are fine for quick errands, for driving to work/school, etc. They suck as recreational vehicles, sports cars, larger volume transport and various other things. Evs can co-exist with ICE vehicles. Thats the best were gonna do. Oh and BTW - we can NOT supply the electricity needed to charge a full fleet of EVs anyways. Just forget it.

        Gas stoves are still preferred by many people and thats their right. They are not outdated either. While I own an electric stove, I dont have any problem with people choosing gas. What happens when the power goes out and we all have electric furnaces & stoves? Oops. That sucks.