Climate Change and the US Political Landscape
Here’s an email urging me to add my name to the #VoteClimate pledge: “I will vote only for climate champions who support a 100% clean energy future, and an end to taxpayer support of fossil fuels.”
I complied with the request, which I thought I would simply present it here, insofar as it needs no explanation or interpretation. It reads:
Dear Activist:
In last night’s debate, Donald Trump denied that he ever said climate change is a “hoax” perpetrated by the “Chinese.”
Of course, that was a lie.
Trump, along with the rest of the Republican Party leadership, have been anti-science conspiracy theorists for years. The GOP climate denial machine has been key to protecting the deadly profits of the fossil-fuel industry.
We need to put politicians — all of them — on notice that the climate crisis is the biggest crisis facing humanity, and if they don’t vote accordingly they’ll be voted out of office in 2016 and every year thereafter, from President to state legislature to school board.
Strike back against Trump’s climate denial, and become one of the first Americans to take the #VoteClimate pledge:
It’s not enough to keep Donald Trump out of office — we have to organize the nation to take on the injustice of unchecked climate pollution.
Together, we can amplify each other’s voices so the media and the politicians notice the rise of the climate voter bloc. The #VoteClimate effort isn’t just a pledge — it’s a grassroots-powered campaign. And the most important part of the pledge is signing up to volunteer — from helping to share the word, all the way to creating custom ballot guides that show which candidates are climate hawks or climate deniers.
Click here to take the #VoteClimate pledge.
Craig,
I know you’re not going the like the following, but in your fervor you may not be understanding the popularity of Trump’s message.
Trump is being a little semantic when he proclaim he never called ‘climate change’ a hoax, the tweet does say “global warming”.
The vast majority of Trump supporters and significant percentage of the population, understand not to take Trump too literally. They don’t see his lack of restraint, inaccuracies, or lack of polished public speaking as a negative. In fact, many find it candid and refreshing in contrast with his heavily tutored opponents.
Most people interpret Trump’s complaints about global warming etc, as expressing disagreement at the heavily politicized, finger wagging sanctimonious, “experts”, activists and advocates whose fanaticism and sermonizing leaves the general public distrusting and angry at being condescendingly patronized, while being ordered to pay the cost of proposal Joe Public never gave consent.
Fanatical opposition to Trump only increases the feeling among some voters that he must have some creditably, or why all the hatred?
The biggest single boost the Brixit campaign received why the condescending interference from the US President. Obama’s threats added as much as 10% to the leave campaign, while further eroding David Cameron’s credibility.
The danger of this sort of campaign is it preaches to the converted, who would vote against Trump anyway, but it may also motivate a lot of people who may not have bothered to vote to vote for Trump in protest.
The vast majority of people accept the science of climate change, but an increasingly vocal number of people are disenchanted and speaking out against the science being distorted into a sort of religious/political crusade.
Sometimes it’s a case of “We have met the enemy, and he is us! “
I will take the climate pledge only if clean energy includes nuclear power. That means that it will have to be reworded before I will accept it.
It is inappropriate for the pledge to refer only to renewable energy and exclude nuclear power.