Republican Presidential Candidates on Climate

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/18/us/politics/republican-candidates-2024-climate.html?unlocked_article_code=bLfDa_X5tqHRG3_RerJShesYyLaBX-Gi2h2mKPscMPWQLSS1r_MCY1OjqC3KPK2NMtSuPsg_l1wnIvlq4q5eHLDLgSC0Rdqh2UOQeWwlnxazTdEzEjFe3LLAk2jQQWL2qQx2zxHabVFR2JvnRfEjuFY8QNRTKunnob-PwoEDdo6p-hyFd2Qb6iNDCotdByEdJ2gKlP9d1LDWR8oTQaaRCkFC98PKYgZHqOGb_K2JtH8PTMTg4ruPgnuY2i5eW_AnGW5UO3Nv3bkg-B-y-opZE_QobxxpXp1_g1gDZcOCSF2iAq0jqX22rdzbnFWPZ__Mni48PuLygaNcQjUMPPLCrPWAoYGKko6XNYCITzF1YKx6n2_y3p7WJqT4nj5iIEYw

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.

78 points · 9 comments · view on lemmy.world

9 Comments

karpintero@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 3y (3 replies)

Baffling that some still either choose to ignore the problem or outright oppose any efforts to mitigate it. Climate change shouldn't be a political issue. It will be an existential issue.

silence7@slrpnk.net · 11 pts · 3y

I wouldn't really call it baffling: the Republican party operates as a patronage machine, with people who made their money extracting fossil fuels being key patrons.

Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 3y (1 reply)

Largely anecdotal but my experience is the people I know that were soundly in the "climate change isn't real and it's just a hoax" camp are now pretty much all in the "okay it's probably real but just a natural thing that happens to the earth. Happened before and will happen again. It has nothing to do with us." So it makes sense that a person with that mindset would ignore the problem or even acknowledge it straight on but refuse to actually do anything about it.

Still baffling tho...

Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 3y
[ removed ]
wrath-sedan@kbin.social · 22 pts · 3y

A reminder that the Republican Party is the only climate-denying major political party in the world.

elephantgrenades@midwest.social · 13 pts · 3y

They're all assholes. The United States is the one country that can lead climate reformation on a global scale and they're worried about dicking their opponents. My children deserve better.

Wanderer@lemm.ee · 10 pts · 3y (3 replies)

Carbon capture is a scam.

Either say "pollute what you want into the atmosphere but then you are responsible for carbon capture to remove it" or get fucked.

Carbon tax is the best solution.

silence7@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 3y (2 replies)

It would certainly work, but hasn't had the support to get through Congress. So the Democrats passed an almost-all-carrots approach in the Inflation Reduction Act

Wanderer@lemm.ee · 3 pts · 3y (1 reply)

It's scientifically and physically possible but it's not economically possible.

Throwing money into a hole isn't going to make it the solution. We need to fund it because it is a need solution for the future. But at them moment we are far better fixing other problems.

Basically we got a hole in the ship and water is pouring in. Some oil CEO fuckwit wants to design a pump to get the water out and tells everyone that letting water in isn't a bad thing. In fact it's a good thing because if we ignore it we have more resources to go towards this pump.

silence7@slrpnk.net · 0 pts · 3y

About 1% of Inflation Reduction Act goes to removal like that. Most of it is spent on decarbonization of electric generation and electrification of homes

wrath-sedan@kbin.social · 1 pts · 3y
[ removed ]