silence7

US emissions peaked back in 2007

This leads me to believe that you're making an appeal to ignorance.

The Democrats have actually passed major new policies, with Harris casting the tiebreaking vote for the Inflation Reduction Act:

It's not yet enough, but they've made over a hundred policy changes in addition

By contrast, the Trump administration went out of their way to roll back as many environmental protections as possible.

Given that choice, it's worth looking at how Stein can operate as a spoiler:

Scenario 1:

Harris: 1001 votes

Trump: 1000 votes

Stein: 0 votes

Harris wins

Scenario 2:

Harris: 1000 votes

Trump: 1000 votes

Stein: 1 vote

Tied vote, which goes to the courts and Congress, putting Trump in power

Scenario 3:

Harris: 999 votes

Trump: 1000 votes

Stein: 2 votes

Trump wins outright

This spoiler effect makes it really imperative to actively vote for Harris if you want to see any kind of climate action going forward. Republicans know this, which is why they're the ones funding the Green Party.

It's bad enough that the European green parties have asked her to step down.

The reality is that the Democrats are investing huge amounts in green energy

The Biden administration initially expected the law to provide some $370 billion in spending and tax credits for clean energy projects, but other groups expect the figure to be far higher as more companies and households take advantage of the law’s tax credits. The Brookings Institution estimated the I.R.A. could be worth $780 billion through 2031, while Goldman Sachs set a potential total cost of $1.2 trillion.

Thanks for pointing that out; I clearly made a cut-and-paste error. Fixed now.

It can certainly happen when things are close, as they are now. Even if all you do is change it from "close" to "not close" the impact is to keep it out of the courts.

In the US, right now, who holds power is still decided by who gets the most votes in elections. Even non-swing-states have congressional races, races for state legislature, and elections for local government.

If you're in a spot where you think your local vote won't be close, you can volunteer to turn others out to vote

You're seriously underestimating the kinds of things that academia generates

Edit: and yes, the whole thing is meant as a joke. If you're actually using sabotage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, turning around and selling social permission to pollute is just plain silly.

Private school with an endowment.

Meanwhile, actual pop stars

To the contrary, when I've been doing phonebanks calling climate activists asking them to be involved in actions supporting Harris, I'm finding that I actually know people on the list, and they're showing up.

They're recognizing that a first-past-the-post system gives us effectively a choice between two candidates, and are choosing to support the one willing to do more. This is what the Biden/Harris administration got us:

Trump wants to roll everything back.

You could do something like that, and run local and legislative candidates in states like Alaska and Maine which have ranked-choice voting for their general election, or California which uses top-two primaries. Would probably be easier if there was some way to redirect the existing US Green Party towards a path that might actually gain some amount of power, instead of serving as a spoiler.