MrMakabar

That is about the oil consumption of Hungary...

That is not even a real interview, but a FAQ.

Which is a pretty clear sign that those protests are working.

At least in Europe, there are a few big reasons. First and foremost combustion engines are more profitable. EV require a lot of R&D and factory investment, which is not needed for old school combustion engines. The other part is a shrinking car market. Covid means a lot more work from home and at least in Europe, you generally have the option of doing a lot of things on foot, bicycle or public transport. At the same time, when you drive less you do not go for a new car as quickly. Then you have cost. Due to supply chain issues battery prices have not fallen quickly enough. There was a bit of time, when they were stable. Good news is that they are falling again.

In other words, this is a difficult transition and some car makers are going to fail.

And the opposing argument is that the reduction of badges for NGOs from Western Europe et al. effectively makes it so that the governments of the countries with the largest emissions can control who gets to observe the conference from their respective countries. [

Not really the EU is at 6.2% of global greenhouse gas emissions and the UK at 0.76%. ](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-global-ghg-emissions?tab=table) The more realistic reason is that Western Europe is rich, but also has a lot of different countries. So a lot of NGOs, which have enough money to actually go to COP. Still unfair though.

Bullshit. Last year 14milllion EVs were sold globally.

Actually many European cities would be green as well. For example Munich still has a modal share of 34% cars. However none of the other options has more then that with walking and public transport being at 24% each and cycling at 18%. You could very much live without a car though.

So what you are saying is that men who ride bikes are more fertile?

Are you seriously suggesting that Gaza is the only problem the Democrats have?

This is what you do, when you want to take votes from the Democrats. If you wanted to built up real power, to challenge the Democrats from the left, you have to win local smaller elections first. That means city council, house of representatives, state level politicians, school boards and so forth. You focus on the most left leaning regions, so you can actually go first past the post. The Greens do not do that. They run in FOUR elections in California this year. That is the largest blue state, with some very left leaning areas.

Also once you sit in congress, councils or whatever, you need allies, unless they win a majority. So in most cases that would mean winning the furthest left seats and having to work with a more centrist party, to change things. In the US that would be the Democrats. In some countries there are deals made to not run candidates in certain districts, to make sure left parties win. That just happened in France for example. No reason those deals could not be made between the Democrats and the Greens.

Also Gaza can only be solved by becoming president. Jill Stein is not going to win the election and everybody with half a brain should no that. So the goal of running, should be to show what the Green Party stands for in local elections. Nobody can solve Gaza when sitting on a city council in the US, however they can built bikelanes, promote renewables, improve public transit, cheap dense green housing and so forth. Jill Stein does not mention those at all. She should, to help out the local candidates, which they are not running. It also means less issues the Democrats might copy. After all who cares, if the Greens or the Democrats pass good laws, as long as they are passed.

Attacking the Democrats from the left is just going to hurt the Democrats, which helps the Republicans. Instead the Green Party should either try to built an alternative or push them towards the left. Right now it is obvious that they just want to help the Republicans.

Just look at Jill Steins Twitter. She is basically Gaza and attacks on the Democrats. She exclusivly attacks the Democrats. No attacks at all on Trump or the Republicans in general. She also has no problem with climate change or enviromental problems. That is very intressting for a supposed Green Party.

Other countries with similar electoral systems have Green parties with seats in national parliaments. Compare that with the UK Green Party. They are perfectly able to not just talk about Gaza, but also about UBI, more renewables, public transit, 4 day workweek and so many more left issues.

They also can take power out of the system quickly, which is extremely usefull for balancing a grid.