On one of the most consequential nights in the 2024 presidential race, the fate of our entire planet received all of 120 seconds. In fact, Harris several times praised the expansion of oil and gas development under President Joe Biden’s administration and doubled down on her promise not to ban fracking. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump were each allotted one minute to discuss their plans for fighting the climate crisis during the September 10 presidential debate.
However, she did cast the deciding vote for the largest climate bill in world history, but let’s forget about that.
The article is more of a critique on the political landscape surrounding climate change in America for the past 20 years. It mentions all the presidents since Bush and how the talk has changed but the fact that it’s still not enough. Despite it being a big issue for voters.
But for more than 20 years, the networks running the presidential debates — and the candidates on the debate stages — have decided that climate change is simply not critical enough to voters to warrant substantial attention. Never mind that more than a third of voters in the U.S. say that global warming is “very important” to their vote, or that an additional 25 percent say they would prefer a candidate who supports climate action — to pundits, climate change is an ancillary issue. Very soon, however, this will have to change. Polls show that climate change is a top issue for young voters in particular, and that 85 percent of young voters can be moved to vote based on climate issues.
It does critique her stance on fracking but I consider that fair game since she did vote for it and advocate for it in the debates.
As Kate Aronoff wrote for The New Republic, Harris could have put forward a number of facts about fracking’s failures, rather than wholeheartedly embracing it. Oil and gas companies depend on billions of dollars in annual tax subsidies, for instance, including a massive bailout during the pandemic in 2020. “Fossil fuel companies thought [fracking] was too expensive to be worth doing until the federal government poured billions of dollars’ worth of funding into basic research and tax breaks,” Aronoff wrote. “But leading Democrats, including Harris, seem incapable of talking about the downsides of fossil fuel production.”
This is not a situation in which everyone, including oil and gas companies, can get a slice of the climate solutions pie. Science shows that fossil fuels must be phased out expeditiously for the health of the planet. But the severity of this crisis — and the aggressive action necessary to abate it — is not adequately captured in Harris’s debate response. In fact, her embrace of fracking and her focus on boosting oil and gas development alongside clean energy production is emblematic of one way in which Democrats and past Republicans have historically overlapped on the climate issue.
First, climate was actually brought up during the recent debate, which is a damn sight more than what has happened in the past. Why? Because, although the issue has gained importance it still isn’t as important as some think it should be.
Second, Harris is trying to win an election and if she doesn’t the subject is mute.
.
Both actually, but indeed.
It’s been brought up in previous debates as well. Again, the article mentions that. The message of the article is how little it gets addressed given how much of an important topic it is for voters. Even if it does get brought up in the debate saying “The amount of time for it as well as the points made were not enough” is still a very valid thing to say and that’s what the article is about.
Before and during campaigns the electorate is polled to understand the importance and priority of issues. Media does the same before debates. If the topic appears.in those polls it is addressed. It may be not enough for some, but that doesn’t mean it’s important for all.
Completely missed that part where it talks about climate change is a big issue for the majority of voters according to polls, did you? I even quoted it in my comment for you, and you seemed to ignore it again.
Completely missed the point that polls happen all the time in campaigns, did you? Sorry if you think the issue is important, I do as well. But, there are other issues I think have more immediate importance.
You know, instead of going from “Harris did address it” to “Climate change isn’t important”, you could have just said “I didn’t read the article so thanks for pointing out the actual message of the article, here is why I agree/disagree with it”. You know that’s a completely ok thing to say, right?
Gore ran on it and lost the election. So Obama learned to stay the fuck away from it. Hillary said she’d have a map room to fight it and lost the election. So Biden learned to stay the fuck away from it. But in office Biden did green energy anyway, and polls said he was going to lose the election. So Kamala learned to stay the fuck away from it. It’s a losing issue because the voters never show up for it. I think it’s important, but voters never show up.
Plus, there’s so much disinformation from the other side that you’re apt to lose voters that consume any amount of that crap.
If something doesn’t energize your base and it makes you lose votes from outside your base, it’s a net loss to campaign on. It seems that climate change is currently one of those issues.
Both to campaign on and to act on, unfortunately. If people want this to be acted on, then Dems need to win.
If people want this to be acted on, then Dems need to win.
Oh, absolutely.
Both to campaign on and to act on, unfortunately.
I think there’s a big difference between them making the small (but good) progress with legislation they’ve done this term compared to making climate a part of their campaign and bringing it up all the time. Idiots on the right will attack opponents on anything, but currently, I imagine most of the population is put off by the “she’s gonna ban ur meat and stove!!1” weirdos. Sometimes not engaging is the most effective way to keep bad arguments out of the public sphere.
It’s an issue that young voters want to talk about but they don’t show up to vote no matter how much politicians cater to them (look at other countries to prove it) and the changes necessary to protect the environment aren’t popular with the people that actually vote…
The youth seem to generally have the best moral compass vs other demographics. If they backed it up with actually turning out to vote, countries might stop slipping on the wrong direction.
Climate change might kill you in a couple decades.
Wealth inequality might kill you in a couple years.
Fascists might kill you in a couple months.
Lack of health care can kill you at any time
Well put
It’s not an issue because out of both parties it’s clear which side you need to vote for if you’re an environmentalist. I know the Democrats will never be good enough for environmentalists, but they know that Trump is not an option and will do the things that are designed to destroy the environment.
are you trying to marginalize environmentalists and at the same time trying to make the current climate crisis out to be just a small issue that only some environmentalists want when in reality it is an issue all life on this planet faces
Democrats and Republicans make it hard to tell the two apart
Is that what your poor reading comprehension picked up? Let me simplify. Who is gonna help you more if you’re trying to g help the environment, Harris or Trump? Does anyone with a brain cell think Trump?? Anyone?
It’s not a big election issue because we know who is on what side of this issue.
obviously not Trump but what does Harris bring to the table, Walz?
Resistance to the Line 3 pipeline expansion is led by Indigenous women and two-spirit people.[35] Ojibwe-led groups including Giniw Collective, Camp Migizi, Red Lake Treaty Camp, RISE Coalition, and Honor the Earth among others have been at the center of resistance.[36] Demonstrators and protesters organizing in opposition to the pipeline refer to themselves as “water protectors”[37] and follow a campaign of non-violent civil disobedience that includes direct actions.[38] Organizers aim to convince the Biden administration to revoke or suspend the pipeline project’s federal clean water permit.[23] Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has not taken a firm stance on the pipeline expansion, which received federal approval under the Trump administration.[18][23]
Opposition to the pipeline persisted throughout the years-long permit process and continued as legal challenges to the project were mounted.[39][18] Opponents of the pipeline organized protests, at one point making an encampment outside of the offices of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.[17]
After the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave final approval for the project, it was granted a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency construction storm water permit on November 30, 2020.[40] Construction of the pipeline immediately commenced.
obviously not Trump but what does Harris bring to the table, Walz?
As @[email protected] has succinctly pointed out, your choices are: vote for Trump, or vote for Harris.
Asking inane questions like “what does Harris bring to the table?” is both-siding bullshit that detracts from this simple fact: If you care about the environment, Trump is the absolute worst choice. Vote Harris.
There is no resolution to your straw man argument worth having and quoting a Wikipedia article doesn’t change the reality of your choice.
obviously no it does not change the reality that would take citizens actively standing against the two-party sham
Theyre targeting the largest voter base. Majority of new vehicles sold are big ass SUVs. Americans dont give a damn about the climate, or others safety and well being in general.
You can’t win with it as a primary issue, that’s why.
deleted by creator
Voters’ revealed preferences demonstrate time and again they do not cast ballots based on foreign policy, climate policy, education, inequality, gun control, etc. It’s basically just the economy, violent crime, and immigration that decide elections. As such, climate discussions were properly left out of discussions at the most recent debate.
Sorry, only AIPAC sponsored ass kissing and Genocide only.
It wasn’t included, because, just as the replies here show, elections are not about improving society, but instead are nothing but a popularity contest designed and orchestrated to keep the public distracted while those who exploit and oppress us continue to do so uninterrupted.
The public’s continued participation is the continued legitimisation of the process. Getting you riled up to vote “team ____ no matter who”, making you feel like you’re part of a team, that’s just part of the cult indoctrination, and the harder you deny it works on your “team” just as much as it does on the other, the stronger it’s obviously working on you.
Their rules are made up by them to keep themselves at the top, stop obeying their self appointed authority, they don’t care about you, nor the planet.
TruthOut - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for TruthOut:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
the fate of our entire planet
No.
Climate change is real. We’re currently causing changes that otherwise wouldn’t have happened/wouldn’t have happened as quickly.
But neither are we going extinct nor is the planet in any danger.
Let’s keep to the science.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-ii/
