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
    3·
    10 months ago

    I think focusing on climate change directly is not the right approach with Republicans. To them it’s a culture war discussion, so they’ll always point to the most extreme view to strawman their arguments.

    I think it’s far more interesting to discuss practical solutions that would help improve GPD generally, such as:

    • invest in high speed rail - trains are way more efficient than airplanes, both from a cost and emissions perspective; which of these would be interested in an effort to connect busy metro areas with high speed rail? (e.g. Miami <-> Atlanta via Orlando and Jacksonville, SF <-> LA, large metros in Texas, etc)
    • invest in nuclear power - we need more energy production, we have a ton of space for disposal of nuclear waste, and it’s a cost effective solution
    • implement a carbon tax and refund it to Americans as a credit - this merely increases the costs of polluting products to encourage purchase of greener products

    These target the biggest sources of pollution, transportation, energy, and industry, but without directly changing regulations or restricting anyone’s freedom, it just makes some choices more expensive.