On one of the most consequential nights in the 2024 presidential race, the fate of our entire planet received all of 120 seconds. In fact, Harris several times praised the expansion of oil and gas development under President Joe Biden’s administration and doubled down on her promise not to ban fracking. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump were each allotted one minute to discuss their plans for fighting the climate crisis during the September 10 presidential debate.

  • Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
    71·
    2 months ago

    It’s not an issue because out of both parties it’s clear which side you need to vote for if you’re an environmentalist. I know the Democrats will never be good enough for environmentalists, but they know that Trump is not an option and will do the things that are designed to destroy the environment.

    • Verdant Banana@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      19·
      2 months ago

      are you trying to marginalize environmentalists and at the same time trying to make the current climate crisis out to be just a small issue that only some environmentalists want when in reality it is an issue all life on this planet faces

      Democrats and Republicans make it hard to tell the two apart

      • Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world
        5·
        2 months ago

        Is that what your poor reading comprehension picked up? Let me simplify. Who is gonna help you more if you’re trying to g help the environment, Harris or Trump? Does anyone with a brain cell think Trump?? Anyone?

        It’s not a big election issue because we know who is on what side of this issue.

        • Verdant Banana@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          16·
          2 months ago

          obviously not Trump but what does Harris bring to the table, Walz?

          Resistance to the Line 3 pipeline expansion is led by Indigenous women and two-spirit people.[35] Ojibwe-led groups including Giniw Collective, Camp Migizi, Red Lake Treaty Camp, RISE Coalition, and Honor the Earth among others have been at the center of resistance.[36] Demonstrators and protesters organizing in opposition to the pipeline refer to themselves as “water protectors”[37] and follow a campaign of non-violent civil disobedience that includes direct actions.[38] Organizers aim to convince the Biden administration to revoke or suspend the pipeline project’s federal clean water permit.[23] Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has not taken a firm stance on the pipeline expansion, which received federal approval under the Trump administration.[18][23]

          Opposition to the pipeline persisted throughout the years-long permit process and continued as legal challenges to the project were mounted.[39][18] Opponents of the pipeline organized protests, at one point making an encampment outside of the offices of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.[17]

          After the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers gave final approval for the project, it was granted a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency construction storm water permit on November 30, 2020.[40] Construction of the pipeline immediately commenced.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Line_3_protests

          • chryan@lemmy.world
            7·
            2 months ago

            obviously not Trump but what does Harris bring to the table, Walz?

            As @Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world has succinctly pointed out, your choices are: vote for Trump, or vote for Harris.

            Asking inane questions like “what does Harris bring to the table?” is both-siding bullshit that detracts from this simple fact: If you care about the environment, Trump is the absolute worst choice. Vote Harris.

            There is no resolution to your straw man argument worth having and quoting a Wikipedia article doesn’t change the reality of your choice.

            • Verdant Banana@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
              16·
              2 months ago

              obviously no it does not change the reality that would take citizens actively standing against the two-party sham