Honestly probably not. At least not in a big enough way, as to actually meet somewhat reasonable climate targets. However Biden actually passed some pretty decent laws and just keeping them on the book is going to help a lot. Trump already promised to remove all of them. According to an analysis of CarbonBrief just keeping Bidens laws, compared to Trump would look like this:
If Harris can be brought to pass some decent climate laws, which given her record is certainly possible, then the US might actually reach its way too low climate targets. Obviously state and municipality level changes also can improve it too. However that work has to be done by activists. With Trump there will be no pro climate policy on a federal level at all.
Fuck that graph is depressing.
Wish I had received billions in voting power when I was born. But alas, if I had my brain would be broken and I would be incapable of empathy. Such is the way of inevitable destruction for humans.
Two things:
- This is the future and that means we can change it today. In this case with new better laws
- Falling emissions means weaker fossil fuel industry and stronger green industry. Hence lobbying can be turned around.
Also the global impact would likely be much greater, due to the co-operation factor.
On the other hand, there is a time-lag to policy impact, also exogenous surprises (superimposing past presidents on that plot may be revealing).
Looked at from the outside, it seems that the role of the Republican party is to be so extremist that the Democratic party can avoid being specific about their political program and just pitch themselves as “not extremist”. Basically, the Republicans have moved the Overton window in a way that would entirely empower the Democrats to govern from the right.
Not the case right now. Looking at the poles it is nearly 50:50 between Trump and Harris right now, with the momentum on Harris site.
Unfortunately so far it’s been a losing issue to run on.
I think it’s more palatable and fruitful during the run and in office to open doors ahead of you for solar, wind, EVs, and maybe CAFE standards. She might go after contamination.
Thermal coal is the one that we really need to get rid of. But boy oh boy everyone gets weirdly upset about those jobs.
No.
not every oil co is american but some are.
At this point, I’m reading her caginess on a variety of topics as an unfortunate but necessary tactic to combat the fact that big corporate and specific special interest groups (coughAIPACcough) will immediately deploy shitloads of campaign money against her if she says anything more than “wishywashy” about them in an effort to sink her campaign. In the context of Citizens United being effectively the law of the land, this is one of the few pragmatic and effective ways to not run afoul of that whole dynamic. It’s is definitely shitty, but an own-goal in that sense - leading perhaps to a Trump win - is worse. It’d be great if she gets into office, and then drops a TON of detail on these matters, with commentary in the statement indicating that this whole line of reasoning was why she didn’t provide these details before. Something like that might ultimately motivate Congress to do something about that (assuming Democratic (and democratic - small “d”) control after the election, of course).
