I wouldn’t consider voting for any of these people in the general election, but I recognize that people often live in gerrymandered districts, and therefore vote in Republican primaries in order to have some influence over their local representatives. For people living in such a district, choosing a least-bad candidate is a way try and moderate the Republican party just a bit.

Candidates are listed by poll-based estimates of their support, which makes it rather clear that Republicans as a whole have sought to reject any kind of meaningful path to zero greenhouse gas emissions.

  • Trump: His actions as president may have caused irreversible damage to the global climate.

  • DeSantis: He has supported efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change, but not to prevent it.

  • Scott: He acknowledges climate change but rejects most efforts to stop it.

  • Ramaswamy: He opposes all government efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

  • Haley: She supports carbon-capture technology but has denounced efforts to reduce emissions.)

  • Pence: He claims climate change is exaggerated and would prioritize domestic energy production.

  • Christie: He supports action on climate change with some caveats.

  • Hutchinson: He denounces government mandates but supports private renewable energy development.

  • Burgum: He has supported carbon-capture as governor, but what he would do as president is unclear.

  • Hurd: He acknowledges that climate change is a major threat, but what he would do is unclear.

  • Suarez: He has pursued significant emission reductions in Miami.

  • silence7OPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    It would certainly work, but hasn’t had the support to get through Congress. So the Democrats passed an almost-all-carrots approach in the Inflation Reduction Act

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      It’s scientifically and physically possible but it’s not economically possible.

      Throwing money into a hole isn’t going to make it the solution. We need to fund it because it is a need solution for the future. But at them moment we are far better fixing other problems.

      Basically we got a hole in the ship and water is pouring in. Some oil CEO fuckwit wants to design a pump to get the water out and tells everyone that letting water in isn’t a bad thing. In fact it’s a good thing because if we ignore it we have more resources to go towards this pump.

      • silence7OPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        About 1% of Inflation Reduction Act goes to removal like that. Most of it is spent on decarbonization of electric generation and electrification of homes