- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
To be clear: there’s a night-and-day difference between Biden and Trump, with the former having actually taking significant action, and being likely to take more if reelected. Trump will look to maximize both extraction and consumption of fossil fuels in a way that Biden simply didn’t and won’t.
You’re correct. Anyone spinning the “lesser of two evils” about climate change does not understand the risks. Inaction today will kill millions. Biden’s half-measures are fundamentally inadequate, and as you said, pretending otherwise is delusion or malice.
Climate change is the most severe threat to the safety of everyone everywhere. To treat it with anything other than total urgency is to promote harm. If you cannot find it in you to call out the short fall of the Democratic party on this issue you are part of the problem.
Voting for the lesser of two evils can still be part of a strategy that acknowledges the inadequacy of mainstream political solutions. But it needs to be combined with other, more activist political activities.
I don’t disagree but was responding to the use of the phrase “significant action”
As well as “night and day” when it’s more like “midnight and sunset”
I agree. The phrasing of this “largest in history” narrative depends strongly on the fact that the US has done almost nothing to address climate change historically. This should be thoughtfully criticized but I worry this will discourage people into thinking that nothing can be done.