Given the alternative of the guy who said to oil company executives that if they gave him a billion dollar then he would let them drill baby drill, I think Harris gets enthusiastic climate support for not being that guy. We can lobby her about permitting reform and limiting offshore drilling and such after the election.
True, if he becomes president. The Harris issue is whether to jump on her bandwagon to make sure he does not become president. If he’s not president, he can follow EPA and Florida procedure and ask for drilling permits at Mar A Lago and Bedminster if he wants to drill baby drill. (Side note- love your journalism and Fish)
This is the reality of the political climate we're now living in - when half of the population is more concerned with rising gas prices than rising global temperatures, preventing the "drill-baby-drill" candidate is the highest priority. The more Harris articulates her climate-friendly policies, the more she becomes a target of "the fossils," who will certainly do all they can to paint her as a disaster for the economy. And for those folks paying nearly $4 a gallon to fill their tanks and even more money to feed their families, that's enough to say, "to hell with the climate, I'm voting my wallet."
Let's not forget the candy-man is telling folks anything they want to hear, and millions are gobbling it up. I'm with you - I want a complete end to LNG terminals, no more drilling permits, shut down any more fossil infrastructure, end oil subsidies - all of it. Stop feeding the beast that's devouring the planet. But we can't get there by hobbling the only candidate we stand a chance with. She needs every bit of support she can get right now. Once we eliminate the orange menace we just might have a chance to choose the better of two candidates with good and better climate-saving platforms.
THAT will be the time for “a strong vision to make the economy work for everyday people and ensure a livable future for us all.” For now, it's all in to steer the Titanic away from the iceberg.
I'm firmly with Sunrise on this. Harris needs to earn endorsements. If she doesn't give young people something to work with, they aren't going to knock doors for her. They pushed Biden across the finish line in 2020 and she needs them desperately. Harris must push for arms embargo/immediate ceasefire and release her climate platform, otherwise she loses.
I truly don't understand why people don't think it's okay to push candidates for good policy. What is there to lose? Nothing. Pushing increases the potential for a better world. "But Trump..." isn't a rallying cry. Solid policy that benefits people and planet energizes voters.
Voting (and endorsing) isn’t like marriage. It’s not about finding a soulmate. Instead, it’s like taking the bus. You want to ride the one that takes you closest to where you want to go. So, in a race that is so important, one that will determine whether we have more of our rights and freedoms taken away or whether we will restore the rights and freedoms that have been taken away, why is this even up for debate? If you are looking for the perfect candidate, the one that will take you directly to your front door, then good luck! We have a lot of work to do on ALL fronts. And the Kamala bus will take us much closer to where we need to go than the backwards, hate full, grievance bus which will take us right over a cliff.
This literally does not matter - there will be time for policy fights later, it's now democracy or bust. Also, California EJ groups are irrelevant to the Presidential election - VP Harris is winning California by 30 points or more, endorsement or not. Finally, poll after poll shows climate is pretty low on the list of American's concerns in this election and it does not make sense for the VP to needlessly take specific policy positions outside of broad goals. For example, going all in on IRA 2.0 with more clean energy, more infrastructure, more transit, more housing is likely to be a winning argument. If the past 3.5 years are anything to go by, her approach to climate policy should be the least of voters' concerns.
Giving support in terms of endorsements and door to door mobilization now is a much better way to get the attention of President Harris than force candidate Harris to make politically correct statements that could result in providing food to the Republican jackals wanting to cast her as a left wing extremist. Remember folks, this is about creating an effective movement to elect Harris in the next 100 days and work on legislation and policies later.
Shameful...nothing green about genocide. Nothing green about constant wars. Nothing green about blowing up pipe gas pipelines line and shipping LNG from the USA to Europe.
Want green? than endorse the Green Party and the Jill Stein campaign.
Only to candidates running for POTUS are vanidsyes advocating Peace: Cornel West and Jill Stein. Kennedy is an advocate of our current policies of forever wars in Palestine and Ukraine and beyond.
Honestly as someone with feet in both the activist world and the Democratic world, I genuinely don't understand the endorsement or not strategy of lefty green groups. I don't get the value of treating this moment as some typical demands for endorsements strategy. Trump and Republicans are such a threat, not just defaulting to endorsing the only realistic alternative just doesn't make sense to me, even if there are disagreements on policy. Like where is the grappling of what 4 more years of Trump putting lifetime conservative judges on courts actually means for climate or anything else, from any of these groups? And if they did, they seriously struggled with weighing that against Biden's record on climate, even if one considers it mixed?
A core issue I have is the inherent implication behind a non endorsement or a debate about it. Is a debate about an endorsement telling me, or anyone else, that I am lesser on climate because I have no issue getting whatever Democrat elected to stop Trump, while it is an obstacle for some climate groups? If climate is their reason for existing, then them debating this must mean that I don't care as much right?
I think people can reasonably disagree on things but also work together against greater threats. I mean I don't agree with everyone in the climate movement on everything, but if someone ran who I disagreed with, it would be easy for me to endorse them against Republicans.
Harris' climate platform, even if not currently explicitly laid out, will be simple I imagine. She will listen to expert advice on climate and make reasonable judgements based on that. She will continue to do great things like this for example.
I don't see why exactly some super specific climate policy platform is necessary for an endorsement or why people can't go out with numerous examples like that of what Harris will do?
I guess I want to emphasize not endorsing is also a moral choice that reflects on the people who make it, and not some ethereal act of kindness bestowed singularly on the candidate, even if some of these groups do indeed endorse Harris. And that groups like Sunrise can make all the "Young people are energized and ready to organize" statements they want, but if doing the simplest easiest thing of voting to keep out Trump is too much, that seems contradictory to me.
Well I'd hardly say CBD is a "lefty" green group as it has joined forces with welfare ranchers and hunters to collect and deport wild horses to kill pens in Texas. I'd bet most of these middle of the road green groups are compromised, and they don't have a huge base of contributors but that's besides the point. She will have to have a cogent climate policy for some to vote for her, and the rest of us will vote for her and try to point out on a daily basis how we have run out of time.
I haven't tracked that case! I labeled these group "lefty" as their overall policy positions tend to be further left than the Big Greens. I'm sure there are specific cases where this doesn't apply, though.
I'd have liked an "open convention" with other choices, many of which would have been or appeared similar on "climate," but so be it.
I want her to go hug some wind turbines, take a boat out to the offshore wind farms, tour some five square mile solar farms. Not just "Oh look at this cute community solar array and this unionized battery factory." Walk around some tenement heat pump conversions with Donnel Baird.
Maybe she can get a prototype Ram Charger PHEV pickup for those countryside visits. If anyone would let her, I'd be OK if she visited some electrified and vent-sealed CH4 compressor stations with some oil patch hardhats. It's gonna be around for a while so cleaning it up is important and that's gettng better though plenty more to do.
Given the alternative of the guy who said to oil company executives that if they gave him a billion dollar then he would let them drill baby drill, I think Harris gets enthusiastic climate support for not being that guy. We can lobby her about permitting reform and limiting offshore drilling and such after the election.
To be fair, Trump's gonna let them drill baby drill no matter how much money he gets
True, if he becomes president. The Harris issue is whether to jump on her bandwagon to make sure he does not become president. If he’s not president, he can follow EPA and Florida procedure and ask for drilling permits at Mar A Lago and Bedminster if he wants to drill baby drill. (Side note- love your journalism and Fish)
Thank you! And yes, I would much prefer covering Trump's personal quest to drill at Mar-a-lago than I would prefer covering ANOTHER Trump EPA
I agree. I think the time to pressure her is after she wins. We certainly know that Trump would be an unmitigated disaster.
This is the reality of the political climate we're now living in - when half of the population is more concerned with rising gas prices than rising global temperatures, preventing the "drill-baby-drill" candidate is the highest priority. The more Harris articulates her climate-friendly policies, the more she becomes a target of "the fossils," who will certainly do all they can to paint her as a disaster for the economy. And for those folks paying nearly $4 a gallon to fill their tanks and even more money to feed their families, that's enough to say, "to hell with the climate, I'm voting my wallet."
Let's not forget the candy-man is telling folks anything they want to hear, and millions are gobbling it up. I'm with you - I want a complete end to LNG terminals, no more drilling permits, shut down any more fossil infrastructure, end oil subsidies - all of it. Stop feeding the beast that's devouring the planet. But we can't get there by hobbling the only candidate we stand a chance with. She needs every bit of support she can get right now. Once we eliminate the orange menace we just might have a chance to choose the better of two candidates with good and better climate-saving platforms.
THAT will be the time for “a strong vision to make the economy work for everyday people and ensure a livable future for us all.” For now, it's all in to steer the Titanic away from the iceberg.
Most of us don't care about the specifics of her "climate platform." We know her policies will be far, far, far better for the planet than trump's.
I'm firmly with Sunrise on this. Harris needs to earn endorsements. If she doesn't give young people something to work with, they aren't going to knock doors for her. They pushed Biden across the finish line in 2020 and she needs them desperately. Harris must push for arms embargo/immediate ceasefire and release her climate platform, otherwise she loses.
And after she loses will Trump listen to climate activists? Time to be realistic about the choice in front of us....
I truly don't understand why people don't think it's okay to push candidates for good policy. What is there to lose? Nothing. Pushing increases the potential for a better world. "But Trump..." isn't a rallying cry. Solid policy that benefits people and planet energizes voters.
I agree. She needs to feel pressure to promise good things now, or young people won't be inspired to show up for her.
Voting (and endorsing) isn’t like marriage. It’s not about finding a soulmate. Instead, it’s like taking the bus. You want to ride the one that takes you closest to where you want to go. So, in a race that is so important, one that will determine whether we have more of our rights and freedoms taken away or whether we will restore the rights and freedoms that have been taken away, why is this even up for debate? If you are looking for the perfect candidate, the one that will take you directly to your front door, then good luck! We have a lot of work to do on ALL fronts. And the Kamala bus will take us much closer to where we need to go than the backwards, hate full, grievance bus which will take us right over a cliff.
Love the bus analogy
Quick update this morning 350 Action, Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, Clean Water Action, Climate Hawks Vote, Food and Water Action, and Friends of the Earth Action just gave their endorsement of Harris: https://climatehawksvote.com/news/national-climate-groups-endorse-kamala-harris-for-president/
I missed 350 Action!
Thanks Emily. Exactly the sort of summary and links for further reading that make me glad to support your work.
Thank you Stewart!
This literally does not matter - there will be time for policy fights later, it's now democracy or bust. Also, California EJ groups are irrelevant to the Presidential election - VP Harris is winning California by 30 points or more, endorsement or not. Finally, poll after poll shows climate is pretty low on the list of American's concerns in this election and it does not make sense for the VP to needlessly take specific policy positions outside of broad goals. For example, going all in on IRA 2.0 with more clean energy, more infrastructure, more transit, more housing is likely to be a winning argument. If the past 3.5 years are anything to go by, her approach to climate policy should be the least of voters' concerns.
Giving support in terms of endorsements and door to door mobilization now is a much better way to get the attention of President Harris than force candidate Harris to make politically correct statements that could result in providing food to the Republican jackals wanting to cast her as a left wing extremist. Remember folks, this is about creating an effective movement to elect Harris in the next 100 days and work on legislation and policies later.
I do not see Food and Water Watch as a
lefty' group. F&WW is defending our right to clean water & clean food. Without this we will be poisoned by industry as was done in the past.
Shameful...nothing green about genocide. Nothing green about constant wars. Nothing green about blowing up pipe gas pipelines line and shipping LNG from the USA to Europe.
Want green? than endorse the Green Party and the Jill Stein campaign.
Or Kennedy
Only to candidates running for POTUS are vanidsyes advocating Peace: Cornel West and Jill Stein. Kennedy is an advocate of our current policies of forever wars in Palestine and Ukraine and beyond.
He will not get my vote.
Honestly as someone with feet in both the activist world and the Democratic world, I genuinely don't understand the endorsement or not strategy of lefty green groups. I don't get the value of treating this moment as some typical demands for endorsements strategy. Trump and Republicans are such a threat, not just defaulting to endorsing the only realistic alternative just doesn't make sense to me, even if there are disagreements on policy. Like where is the grappling of what 4 more years of Trump putting lifetime conservative judges on courts actually means for climate or anything else, from any of these groups? And if they did, they seriously struggled with weighing that against Biden's record on climate, even if one considers it mixed?
A core issue I have is the inherent implication behind a non endorsement or a debate about it. Is a debate about an endorsement telling me, or anyone else, that I am lesser on climate because I have no issue getting whatever Democrat elected to stop Trump, while it is an obstacle for some climate groups? If climate is their reason for existing, then them debating this must mean that I don't care as much right?
I think people can reasonably disagree on things but also work together against greater threats. I mean I don't agree with everyone in the climate movement on everything, but if someone ran who I disagreed with, it would be easy for me to endorse them against Republicans.
Harris' climate platform, even if not currently explicitly laid out, will be simple I imagine. She will listen to expert advice on climate and make reasonable judgements based on that. She will continue to do great things like this for example.
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-ohio-organizations-receive-more-312-million-deliver-residential-solar
I don't see why exactly some super specific climate policy platform is necessary for an endorsement or why people can't go out with numerous examples like that of what Harris will do?
I guess I want to emphasize not endorsing is also a moral choice that reflects on the people who make it, and not some ethereal act of kindness bestowed singularly on the candidate, even if some of these groups do indeed endorse Harris. And that groups like Sunrise can make all the "Young people are energized and ready to organize" statements they want, but if doing the simplest easiest thing of voting to keep out Trump is too much, that seems contradictory to me.
Well I'd hardly say CBD is a "lefty" green group as it has joined forces with welfare ranchers and hunters to collect and deport wild horses to kill pens in Texas. I'd bet most of these middle of the road green groups are compromised, and they don't have a huge base of contributors but that's besides the point. She will have to have a cogent climate policy for some to vote for her, and the rest of us will vote for her and try to point out on a daily basis how we have run out of time.
I haven't tracked that case! I labeled these group "lefty" as their overall policy positions tend to be further left than the Big Greens. I'm sure there are specific cases where this doesn't apply, though.
I look forward to your updates as the election nears.
I'd have liked an "open convention" with other choices, many of which would have been or appeared similar on "climate," but so be it.
I want her to go hug some wind turbines, take a boat out to the offshore wind farms, tour some five square mile solar farms. Not just "Oh look at this cute community solar array and this unionized battery factory." Walk around some tenement heat pump conversions with Donnel Baird.
Maybe she can get a prototype Ram Charger PHEV pickup for those countryside visits. If anyone would let her, I'd be OK if she visited some electrified and vent-sealed CH4 compressor stations with some oil patch hardhats. It's gonna be around for a while so cleaning it up is important and that's gettng better though plenty more to do.
Why are people overlooking Keenedy? Robert Kennedy Jr. will be the BEST environmental President EVER.
Only kind remarks welcome, please.
Thanks, lena