Your stance on climate change

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

✅#1-4
"Believe"? There's pretty solid evidence for 1, 3 and 4. 2 depends on how you interpret it (I think the observed rate of temperature increase over the last 50-100 years is unprecedented as far as human history is concerned).


❌#5-7  It's too late for us to fix this; our solutions now have to focus on mitigating the severity of climate change  which would need to be done regardless of whether you can "fix" climate change or treat it as an issue to be fixed. My disagreement is with the fatalism, not the need for urgent action

✅#8 This problem cannot be solved solely through innovation; we need to reduce our personal consumption
✅#9 We need carbon taxes and caps on emissions
✅#10 We need subsidies to renewable energies like wind and solar
✅/❌#11 Nuclear energy should be our prime focus, as it is the energy source of the future
Very loaded statement that I don't entirely agree with, but any sensible energy plan moving forward must include ramping up nuclear.

✅#12 Small changes aren't enough; we need to completely reform our economy from the ground up
this should not be taken as an endorsement of actual socialism or an attack on private property

✅#13 Limiting population growth in western countries is an important part of the path forward
✅#14 Limiting population growth in developing nations is an important part of the path forward
We're already heading to a world population of 10-11 billion by 2100 as it is, let's definitely make sure we don't shoot past that

✅/❌#15 I support the Green New Deal and would like to see it implemented as policy
I don't care what such a policy looks like or what it's called as long as it 1) can actually be implemented, 2) achieves significant reductions in carbon emissions, and 3) improves the economic and social well-being of individuals and families

✅#16 We should be depopulating areas at sea level and establishing funds to help people in these regions relocate
on some level, yes

❌#17 We need to cease oil production immediately
we also use oil for non-fuel purposes
❌#18 We need to cease coal production immediately
would like to see this happen soon but it isn't realistic on a national or worldwide level

✅/❌#19 Plane travel should become far less common
conflicted. there should be serious effort to reduce plane travel but there aren't as many alternatives. we should also invest in alternative forms of plane travel that don't involve combustion- not sure how feasible this is if at all

✅#20 To decrease agricultural emissions, we should encourage vegetarian diets
or just eat less meat and animal products in general. no need to shame people for not giving them up entirely

✅#21 Insects are the food of the future; they provide protein and harvesting them is cheap and energy efficient
at some point the economics of feeding 10 billion people will incentivize this. not sure when, how, and what the world would look like when this becomes mainstream

✅#22 We should be developing technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere
this shouldn't come at the expense of reducing carbon emissions

✅/❌#23 Personal automobiles should be phased out in favor of cleaner public transport
over the very long-term, yes. in continent-sized countries like the US without robust train systems, cars are a reality we must live with

✅#24 Oil companies should be held legally culpable for the damage they've done to the planet

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

Can someone who voted for the 30/12/0 years options please make their case in the comments? I hate being an "anti-science" guy, but I genuinely don't understand what the science is telling us here. You've got people like Biden saying we've got until 2050, Cortez is saying we have until 2030, and Andrew Yang is telling everyone that it's already too late and we need to head for the hills. I've studied climate change at my university but we only really delved into the causes (and how we know it's caused by us), not the timetable it's operating on. I have to say, it looks pretty stupid when multiple candidates say "I believe the science" and then they all offer up completely different interpretations for what the science is telling us.

I think the underlying idea here is "if we do X, then there's a Y% chance Z happens". I haven't paid too close attention to the debates or who's been saying what, but it sounds like Biden is saying that we need to accomplish ABC and XYZ by 2050 in order to stay within 2 C of warming, while Ocasio-Cortez is like "we have until 2030 to get to zero emissions or else we have no chance of staying within 2 C".

Yang seems to be focusing more on adapting to a changing climate, partly because the structural changes we would need to make in order to reach a +2 C world are at best mildly unrealistic, but more importantly because we've already locked in a certain amount of long-term climate change with the amount of greenhouse gases we've already put into the atmosphere. Even if we were to magically stop all CO2 emissions tomorrow, and atmospheric CO2 levels stayed constant for the next several hundred years- we would still be experiencing more heat waves, floods, droughts, and extreme weather than we did in the past. So there would still be some level of change to adapt to.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4vjGSiRGKY
2018 TEDtalk- "100 solutions to reverse global warming | Chad Frischmann"

8 of the top 20 proposed solutions to man-made climate change have to do with food production. Eating a "plant-rich diet" has the 4th largest impact on greenhouse gas emissions. In comparison, only 4 of the highlighted solutions have to do with energy and electricity.