Though the Republicans will never support action to prevent the effects of climate change, HRC can be expected to follow in the foot steps of her predecessor which amount s to nothing more than weak lip service. Since the Democratic party has been co-opted by corporate interests, neither party can be expected to do anything meaningful towards reducing green house gases. Clinton's aggressive policies in the Middle East and towards Russia is only additional proof that she is joined at the hip to the fossil fuel industry.
I would rather have people vote third party or not at all because any other vote represents the status quo.
We're running out of time and that's why everyone during the next few weeks should be urging everyone they know to vote for anyone... just not a Democrat or Republican!
First of all, it is important to realize that much of the action to address climate change takes place at the state level not the federal level. It is a misunderstanding of the problem to believe the fault all lies in Washington. Also, it is important to realize that even in the most blue states addressing climate change is proving to be very difficult. A major obstacle is that the states need the local communities to do more but most of these communities have very tight budgets, often because of mandates from the state. Perhaps the biggest obstacle, however, is that about 30 states have Republican governors. These are governor who have gone to court to stop Obama's Clean Power Plan. This is where the climate deniers really have a big effect. I don't have the answer. We saw the same thing with denial about the ozone hole. I think what we are faced with is a pathological ideology that embraces unfettered capitalism to such an extent that even when government regulation is essential for survival itself as in the case of climate change the preference is to reject the findings of scientists and stick with the ideology.
Both major parties are in bed with the fossil fuel industry. A choice between a climate denier like Trump and a lip service, continue an all of the above energy policy climate changer like Clinton is no choice at all when drastic and significant changes need to be made, immediately. The only vote for the environment is a Green vote. Go Green.
Please learn something about your federal government. The measures taken by the government under a democratic president so far to address climate change include CAFE increases, EV, wind, solar subsidies and tax credits, many new regulations - notably the clean power plan (currently under attack by right--wing courts) which would close most coal power plants. Many coal mines and coal power plants are already closing in my area.
And of course, as Lrx mentioned, most action takes place at the state level. The Obama-EPA authored Clean Power Plan will compel every state to commit to specific CO2 emission cuts which can be deepened over time like the long-standing CAFE rules are.
Is all the screaming about the Democrat's "war on coal" from the Republicans something fabricated out of thin air? You assertion that Republicans and Democrats are the same on this issue is complete self-delusional fabricated bullshit.
Much tougher action is needed going forward, but the US is certainly doing more to address CO2 emissions at the federal level than any other country in the hemisphere (including Canada) and many countries in Europe.
One the US Military is exempt from Climate Change treaties. The amount they pollute is not even included in measurements and the US MIlitary is the single largest Polluter on the globe. This was by a specific act of Congress.
Two in spite of all of those laws passed the US still remains one of the highest per Capita emitters of GHG on the globe this EXCLUDING that military. The per capita emissions are much higher then Countries like Germany and Japan and in fact higher then Canada according to this source.
Claiming greater success because of percentage changes is disingenous. If one starts at a much higher level it easier to get a higher percentage drop. Further to that a lot of the drops in the USA just as with Russia occurred because of the recession and Industry moving to places like China.
The EU as a whole emits 6.7 tons per capita as opposed to the USA at 16.5. That is a significant lower amount in Europe.
Three. Canada has an atrocious record regarding Climate Change. That said even with The denialist Harper being defeated it full steam ahead with the new Liberal Government. They too are passing more regulations and providing more subsidies for alternate sources of power , but they also promote fracking and expansion of the tarsands. They discourage with one hand and encourage with the other, just as your Democrats do as they push more fracking in the USA and more off shore drilling. Your Democrats also promote more Militarism .
Nationalize the fossil fuel industry for national security reasons.
Must CD persist in publishing what is essentially Democratic Party propaganda?
What is the "liberal vision for the world" pray tell?
Yunzer is right, and the Space-cadet is spaced out. There are a number of environmental and climate policies and PROGRAMS that Clinton is vowing to increase and continue that are light years away from the GOPs nefarious plans. Yet the Stein-Left people do nothing but yell. I considered joining the local Green chapter and attended two meetings. But I could not deal with the fact that three of the 7 or 8 (!!) people present clinged to shrill conspiracy theories. I just looked up the attendee numbers for the chapter; they never got beyond 12, even now before the election. Tells you something.
I am aware of the comparative carbon emissions with Europe. But, one look at the SUV clogged Toronto expressways and the worse-than-Amtrak state of Canadian intercity rail suggests that, save for the fortuitous abundance of hydro-electric power, and in Ontario, nuclear, Canadians would have higher carbon footprints than USAns. We certainly are installing a lot more wind power here in Pennsylvania and soon (if Trump is not elected - i.e. if Hillary wins), our side of Lake Erie, than in Ontario where wind is vehemently opposed by the rich in their Muskoka lake-country cottages. They think the wind turbines cause illness and cancer!
The question is, which of the two candidates is going to kill us first, the global warming one or the nuclear war one?
There isn't really much difference in per capita emissions between Europe and the US is you use New York State as the US standard. New York is around 8 tons per capita. And New York has colder winters than most of Europe which might account for the slightly higher number in New York. So what is your point? Americans have a similar lifestyle as Europeans and the emissions are about the same. The higher emissions in the US as a whole are probably due to increased coal burning and more suburban sprawl, particularly in the southern portions of the US. New York, New England, and California are fairly similar to Europe in per capita energy-related carbon dioxide emissions.,
he TTC rates as one of the best in North America. Toronto and Montreals ridership is 3rd and 4th in all North America behing the much larger Cities of Mexico City and New York City.
Walk Score, an independent organization in Seattle that measures how pedestrian and transit Friendly Cities are in North Anerica has Toronto at number 3.
Unlike the USA which has a hughe concentration of people in the North East and many cities within easy driving distance of one another, Canada's major Cities are seperated by much greater distances. Canadians also tend to drive smaller cars and more fuel efficient vehicles and the Cities in Canada tend to have a larger population of peoples living in downtown cores rather then commuting in from Suburbs. Toronto is likely the closest city in Canada to the US model wehrein very few people live in the downtown core and many travel in from suburbs. It no coincedence it also has the worst air quality.
Those higher fuel prices in Canada tend to force Canadians into more fuel efficient vehicles and the major portion of those higher prices are from taxes levied on the same. If the USA did the same they would see a dramatic increase in fuel efficient vehicles.