Both is fine; legal action on its own isn't useful here.
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/13665218
Anything in court won't be resolved until years after the election. She should do a benefit concert for the Harris campaign to make her position clear and have a meaningful impact.
Unfortunately, it took him ripping off Republican donors to get him booted from Congress. They were ok with the fraud up until then.
That's utter nonsense; I've seen people have a pretty dramatic impact on a shoestring. Especially at the local level, where simply showing up to comment at municipal government meetings makes a real difference.
The end goal is to eventually constrain the impact the wealthiest have.
There are two sets of things you can do:
- Work to change the politics to favor collective action in the country you're in. In the US right now, that means getting involved to support a lot of the better Democrats.
- Take steps which reduce your impact and enable you to shift community norms around you in that direction. That can mean things like installing a heat pump, putting up solar panels, riding an ebike to work on a seasonal basis, or the likes.
About the only thing that's sure in life: it eventually ends.
But that's not a useful way of looking at stewardship problems like climate.
Sea level has been rising for decades.
The ones actually being used in California for grid storage are iron chemistries; so far as I'm aware, the sodium-ion ones are only being used in China at this point.
With ships, they're talking about sulfate aerosol emissions, rather than greenhouse gas emissions.
For a fossil fuel firm, it would look like a binding commitment to leave a large chunk of their reserves in the ground and a plan to end extraction over a couple decades while returning profits to shareholders in the meantime
If it was only blueberries, it wouldn't be a big deal. The problem is that it's going to be every crop
Now that's weird