this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
49 points (96.2% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7220 readers
280 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] shitescalates@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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).

[–] shitescalates@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I refuse to believe that someone's stove fuel is part of their personality.

I said nothing about personality, I said lifestyle. Cooking with gas is nice.