It will help doom it, that’s for sure, but I don’t think it will help save it.
They’ll be kicking the can down the road until the road disappears under their feet.
Yeah is there a candidate that is likely to get elected that is even talking about holding corporations and the rich accountable to all the emissions they produce? Or are you saying that if we dont vote one in it wont get any worse but not move the needle towards better?
If you look at any projection online, you’ll see a huge difference in expected results for each of the major candidates. Neither is enough, but the choice matters. A lot
Edit: or if you read the article like I just did, the second line is you’re
voting to determine whether we’ll be in the top row or the bottom row.
Yeah the chart is out of date so it will be worse, but are you really going to claim the top row of the chart is identical to the bottom row?
So as I asked, is there a candidate that will do anything OR we just dont want the one that will do worse, the answer is : just not one that will do worse. I did read it, and yes it bad if we go one way, but the other isnt any better, we are still long term fucked. With out actual movement in the other direction we still have killed off alot of life on this planet, one would be possibly in your lifetime, the other, in your childrens.
Doomerism is fun and all but what’s the end game? Just making everything worse than it has to be?
There is no doomerism here. I am saying we need to have done this 40 years ago, but sure as fuck dont be milktoast about the subjects now. Its not me and you that will be able to reign in our CO2 levels and save anything, its corps and the super rich, and with out someone standing up and going after that target we are kinda fucked.