As the Republican presidential candidates barrel toward their first debate under the shadow of a front-runner facing dozens of felony charges, The New York Times examined their stances on seven key issues.

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/1514949

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.

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    2·
    10 months ago

    Gas stoves aren’t particularly dirty, and they make a ton of sense if you use gas for heat, which is quite efficient.

    Home heating and cooking are very low on the list of carbon emissions, especially if you remove wood stoves (which should be obsolete outside of extremely remote areas).

    The focus should be on the higher contributors to emissions:

    • 28% - transportation
    • 25% - electric power
    • 23% - industry

    Transportation

    The market is already moving toward EVs, so I don’t think the government needs to do anything there. In fact, I’m in favor of removing subsidies and credits since the industry is already well established.

    The focus here should be on improving mass transit so we don’t need as many cars on the road in the first place. The last people to upgrade to EVs will be the first people to switch to mass transit if it worked for them, meaning the working class. So I think we should be expanding our rail infrastructure and building out high speed rail between popular destinations (e.g. SF <-> LA, LA <-> LV, Orlando <-> Miami, etc), light rail inside of cities, and forcing cars around busy centers serviced by mass transit (e.g. like the Dutch model that makes driving less convenient than the train/bikes, but still feasible).

    Electric Power

    We generate ~20% from coal and ~40% from natural gas, and areas that use coal generate a very high percentage (my area is >50%). So the focus should be on expanding nuclear power, especially in the middle of the country where there’s plenty of space to dispose of nuclear waste and limited risk of natural disasters risking damaging the reactors (e.g. seismic activity, tornados are a concern, but other power plants deal with it).

    We’re going to see EV demand increase, so we definitely need to be investing in infrastructure today.

    Industry

    We should create a carbon tax and return that as a tax credit to the American public. This increases the costs of polluting goods relative to greener goods in such a way that companies will be motivated to reduce emissions so their costs are lower. I don’t know that this looks like exactly, but I think it should approximate the cost to clean up those emissions. This should replace carbon credits.

    I think each of these solutions is conservative friendly and moves us in a positive direction. The main thrust here is to nudge people toward better choices, not to ban poor choices.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        10 months ago

        We’re talking about greenhouse gas emissions, not cancer risk. Here’s the relevant note from that article:

        Lebel and his team found that methane emissions from gas stoves in U.S. homes could have as much impact on the climate as half a million cars.

        I don’t know if that has been confirmed, but even if it is, that’s a relatively small amount of emissions. This article states the there are ~275M cars registered in the US. Even if only half of them are being used regularly (probably most cars are actively used), gas stoves contribute <0.2% (ok, maybe slightly higher since EVs and plugin hybrids are ~1.5% or so of total vehicles).

        So it’s a minor part of the total emissions, yet it’s a huge part of many people’s lifestyle. I think people should be free to choose whether to accept the higher cancer risks due to benzene leaks (which can be mitigated with proper ventilation). That’s their call, the government should merely inform them of the risks and only place restrictions if there are tangible risks to children in the household (there are still studies on that).