Here’s the problem: Trump is out to maximize environmental damage and the US Green Party runs as spoilers. Let’s look at three scenarios:

Scenario 1:

Harris: 1001 votes

Trump: 1000 votes

Stein: 0 votes

Harris wins


Scenario 2:

Harris: 1000 votes

Trump: 1000 votes

Stein: 1 vote

Tied vote, which goes to the courts and Congress, putting Trump in power


Scenario 3:

Harris: 999 votes

Trump: 1000 votes

Stein: 2 votes

Trump wins outright


This spoiler effect makes it really imperative to actively vote for Harris if you want to see any kind of climate action going forward. Republicans know this, which is why they’re the ones funding the Green Party.

And that’s why the European Greens want Jill Stein to step down now — they get that what she’s doing is making it easier to elect a fascist bent on environmental destruction.

  • index
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    20 days ago

    Name any realistic scenario where voting for red or blue would affect positive change

    • JGcEowt4YXuUtkBUGHoN@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      20 days ago

      I chose to vote for Blue last presidential election and Biden made a real difference with the IRA. Much to my surprise. It isn’t enough, but it is a step.

    • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      20 days ago

      The Democrats are very very far from ideal but they are trying to make the life of the average American better and they’re trying (to little, to late, admittedly) to do something about climate change. The other side actively wants to kill as many Americans as they can and generally fuck up the world in every way possible. If you don’t have your head stuck up your own arse really far, the difference is very clear to see.

      • index
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        20 days ago

        Both sides are responsible for the climate crisis we are in right now. Instead of advocating for one of them use your energies to advocate for someone better that would actually do something for climate and not just green washing

          • index
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            19 days ago

            Anyone who isn’t responsible for the climate crisis or involved in it.

              • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                19 days ago

                Because people like this have no platform. They have no plan. They screech and wail, as if caterwauling is panacea.

                “Fix the climate!”

                “End homelessness!”

                “Stop the genocide!”

                But when pressed as to how to effect these changes, they almost invariably resort to maligning your morals, denigrating your doubts, and calumniating your civility.

      • index
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        20 days ago

        All the charts posted in this thread show that current emissions are pretty much as high as they were in 1990. The current government is fueling a war in gaza, in ukraine and yemen among other places. The US army is one of the biggest polluter in the world, instead of cutting military budget and operations the government is increasing these year by year, regardless of who is in power.

        The “most ambitious program addressing climate change in the history of the world” still doesn’t consider something as simple as banning private jets and yachts.

        If you want any real change and reduce emissions significantly stop advocating for parties that for the past decades have created the crisis we are in.