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.
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.
It would certainly work, but hasn't had the support to get through Congress. So the Democrats passed an almost-all-carrots approach in the Inflation Reduction Act
It's scientifically and physically possible but it's not economically possible.
Throwing money into a hole isn't going to make it the solution. We need to fund it because it is a need solution for the future. But at them moment we are far better fixing other problems.
Basically we got a hole in the ship and water is pouring in. Some oil CEO fuckwit wants to design a pump to get the water out and tells everyone that letting water in isn't a bad thing. In fact it's a good thing because if we ignore it we have more resources to go towards this pump.
About 1% of Inflation Reduction Act goes to removal like that. Most of it is spent on decarbonization of electric generation and electrification of homes