How the hell can the presidential candidate of the Green Party own a MILLION DOLLARS OF OIL AND GAS SHARES? How can you complain about Israel murdering children in Gaza, when you own shares in Raytheon, which sells and produces weapons for and in Israel?
Just look index@sh.itjust.works post history. It is not worth it.
Who do you think is a viable politician, who can win the presidential election next Tuesday and bans private jets and yachts?
The difference is that the Biden line keeps all of Biden’s climate laws and the Trump line kills them. So this is not including any climate laws Harris might introduce, however the difference until 2030 between both scenarios is about the annual emissions of the EU and Japan combined! Biden has a lot of flaws, but he has done some actually large scale positive climate action.
Owning your home outright nearly gurantees you have the basic need of housing meet and that is by far the most expensive to meet in developed countries. Food, water, heating and electricity are not that expensive. That gives you quite a bit of security especially when you get older. The big problem is obviously to be able to afford buying a property in the first place, which is hard.
Portugal has very low energy consumption per household and it looks like most cooking is done on oil or gas stoves, which are relativly wastefull.
https://www.odyssee-mure.eu/publications/efficiency-by-sector/households/household-eu.pdf
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Energy_consumption_in_households
The goal is to bankrupt fossil fuel companies. If some C suite exec takes a bunch of money from the company into his pockets, then that is great, as it kills the company faster.
Are you saying the Australian government can not even be bought to do something?
You can look at the thread. The initial one got a lot of replies from a “Vladimir Putin” saying “You should kill yourself NOW!”. The Git commit is even worse, with the a lot of insults. Not what usually happens on that kind of places, not that they are always kind and lovely.
Like not risking his lifelyhood to fight US and EU sanctions against a genocidal regime?
Because there are both US and EU laws preventing code from countries deemed a threat. Torvalds is paid by the Ameircan Linux Foundation, which has to work under US law and he himself is an EU citizen. Also a lot of other developers are from those countries and if they do not comply, they could get into some pretty bad legal trouble.
So it pretty much boils down to kick out the Russians or kick out all US and EU citizens and well we see Linus choice.
Easy ban sale of fossil fuel based heating systems.
So basically they are betting that Trump wins the election and hurts the energy transition, war in the Middle East hits the oil supply, which increases oil prices, EV factory production being too high, due to overinvestment and well solar being a problem in trade wars.
Trump might be solved in a month, the Middle East situation is temporary and a war would accelerate the energy transition as well helping EV manufcaturers thanks to high oil prices or well oil prices fall, which hurts the oil industries profit margin, but is great for the climate. Solar being mostly Chinese is a real problem though.
There are some. Plaid Cymru has net zero until 2035 in the manifesto for example. The Finnish Greens even go for carbon neutral by 2030. There are probably more, which in effect would end up in a similar situation. After all the current EU emission target would be a 41% reduction by 2030(55% reduction by 2030) compared to 2022.
This current one is very much including countries outside of the US and Green Parties have been and actually are in government in a number of countries. Also those parties are mostly not Russia friendly at all.
That is pretty much the agenda of every Green party anywhere. With the last point usually taking a decade or so, but still.
What would make a “bold climate agenda”?
There is an easy fix for that: Blaim the rich
They are planning to buy or maybe just electricity from a new reactor type, which has never been built, starting 2030, when conventional nuclear power plants, with known technology take twice as long to built.
So if they stop the project in 18months, it has just been a waste of money.
And everybody knows that total market includes fossil fuel and arms companies. That is why there are ESG funds, which do exclude the really nasty companies. Those are pretty easy to buy and can also cover a large field of investments. She has lobbied for divestement from fossil fuels, so she should very much be aware that those options are around, while this has been pointed out for nearly a decade. So really no excuse for that.