[wallhack]

Vote out any policy maker who impedes the response to climate change.

This is not something we fix as individuals, with feel-good home solutions, recycling, or planting trees. Large industry is destroying our world, on purpose, because of greed.

This only gets fixed through policy and regulation. Vote.

[dgan]

You are implying there are candidates who do not impede response to climate change: even the Greens are against nuclear, which in my understanding, is totally unproductive.

They are also still debating "décroissance", that is "de-growth".

I find crazy that no one even mentionned the word "efficiency" as in "we might not need all the resources we consume to produce everything we do today. Let's set a realistic efficiency goals and try to achieve them"

[thulle]

I guess you could see de-growth as efficiency, lower useless production/necessary production for a good life-ratio.

If we just reduced the resources needed to produce todays consumption, why wouldn't the savings just go to producing more of the same stuff? Ie. growth?

[gremlinsinc]

If we reorganized our way of living to utilize tool libraries, maybe 1 large garage per x blocks, in it have power tools, cleaning supplies, outdoor tools, recreational vehicles etc.. if you don't use it 3 or more times per week do you really need to own it outright?

I think also using tiny homes and more insulated and cheaper earth bag homes could help but also would help with the housing crisis. There's a lot we could share, and if we did maybe we could also build smaller homes and lots as we wouldn't need as much storage.

[wallhack]

Great point. Finding consensus on a solution is problematic.

I was referring to people who deny that climate change is even real. I would love to get to the stage of debating how to fix things, instead of being stuck in the stage of complete denial.

[HonestOp001]

Climate change or anthropogenic climate change is a starting point for this issue.

We have had climate change since day one of earth. We can see it in the charts, data, etc. the issue is how much impact do the humans contribute?

If people were serious about carbon footprint, nuclear power plants would be built. But we are not serious, instead we have grifting policies that lead to wasted solutions: Solyndra, wind farms, solar farms, etc.

Then on top of all of this, the people in charge find ways to encourage coal, look at how Germany and the rest of the first worlds tried to bankrupt Pakistan by driving up the price of natural gas. Pakistan, China, and every country who saw that are going with coal.

The people who say climate denialism should not be tolerated are not serious about what they propose, because their solutions are not based in reality.

[mbfg]

all politicians are flawed. vote for the least flawed.

[survirtual]

Voting will do nothing. Even if you could audit the voting system and prove it wasn't fraudulent, have you met any of your fellow humans on planet Earth? You are a teeny, tiny minority. They will continue to vote to destroy this planet.

You'll have to be more clever on solving this problem. I would suggest against parroting false feel good phrases that will result in absolutely nothing changing, and start thinking outside the box you and many others seem to have found themselves in, if you actually want to see our planet survive.

We are talking about the death of this entire planet being perpetrated by a specific group of people. What sort of solutions did our ancestors come up with for significantly smaller stakes, to simply safeguard things like freedom? When speaking of saving an entire world with the potential to spread life throughout a galaxy, there are few conceivable solutions which cannot be easily morally justified if they result in safeguarding that future.

We are a species with an infinite cosmic destiny. I might suggest we all start acting like it.

[nxm]

How do I vote out Chinese and Indian policy makers where bulk of coal power plants are continuing to be built?

[belltaco]

Understand the context first instead of believing the simplistic memes pushed by climate change denialists. For example, in India the reason is that there was a shortage of natural gas which became scarce and super expensive because of world events, so they had to build more coal power plants to not have blackouts. Solar is still growing fast, 82% of new capacity in 2022 was solar, and there's a lot more in the pipeline.

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/29/solar-82-of-power-capac...

37% of new car sales in China are either full electric or plugin hybrid. 25% are full electric BEVs. The west is far behind.

[NhanH]

China is the #1 builder in all renewable (and nuclear too) by a significant margin

You are going to need to also propose a solution beyond "stay poor" for the country.

[pauldenton]

China is also building 2 Coal Power plants a week, and China is building six times more new coal plants than other countries https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-...

[renegat0x0]

Good intentions do not fix anything. China is still a problem.

[powderpig]

How is China a problem? The way of life and the energy intensity of a single individual living in the developed world is the problem. Do I have to point out the US and Europe? (I live in the UK).

[LUmBULtERA]

Building the most renewable energy is not a "good intention"... they're literally doing it. I'm not saying coal emissions are not a problem.

[tzs]

India is emitting massively under their fair share of the world's CO2 emissions under any sane allocation. So the first thing to do is not vote for policy makers who try to deflect from their country emitting way more than its fair share by bringing up India.

[PradeetPatel]

By providing education and awareness, change can only come from within those countries. The citizens of China and India are probably on the same page as you.

[fsloth]

Given this is a discussion forum with global reach your suggestion on implementing change to global industrial policy via voting may or may not be viable (not everyone gets to vote, and most of the countries lack global impac. US is really unique along with few other countries being able to influence global industry trends).

[EForEndeavour]

Good point, but I don't think it changes the validity of encouraging participation in democratic process where possible. Perfect is the enemy of good.

[solardev]

Policy won't change unless the two party gridlock does. Even when the Dems take power (like now), nothing really happens. It's just lip service at best.

[wallhack]

I think this false equivalency is damaging.

Republicans are in favor of dismantling and eliminating the EPA and clean energy initiatives, for instance. Democrats aren’t great either, but Republican policies are measurably at least an order of magnitude worse.

[solardev]

I'm just being realistic here. Two decades of flip-flopping party power, and has the climate gotten any better?

Every single election cycle we have this discussion. "Well, at least the Dems are better than the Republicans. They're the best we can get." It's not enough. Hasn't been enough for a long time.

[RandomLensman]

Large industry keeps a lot if people alive and provides abundance of a sort - nothing wrong with that. Mixing fighting climate change with some redesign of societies and creating the "new human" is an unproductive move, I think.

[sunflowerfly]

A big problem is young people do not vote. About half the voters are 50 and over.