First look at how their campaigns are funded. You will not find any meaningful action from politicians who are dependent on support from billionaires or powerful corporations. Then I would look at whether they are committed to supporting the Green New Deal and how their policies are rated by climate groups like the Sunrise Movement. This has helped me learn more about climate policy in general, and has made me more able to distinguish platitudes from serious proposals to address this crisis.

My favorite writer on the subject is Naomi Klein. I think her work is a good resource for learning more about the politics of the climate crisis.

Check out Citizens Climate Lobby. citizensclimatelobby.org

Non-partisan group attempting to get a carbon tax and dividend law passed, and they are making progress. They continue to get new co-sponsors on their bill, they do a lot of training on how to get involved, how you can speak to your Congressperson etc.

Thank you! I'll dig into this. This sounds like exactly the thing I've been looking for!

> meaningful, evidence-based policies as opposed to vapid virtue signalling

You would need to define what set of policies you consider which first.

I'm not really sure how to break down "evidence-based" any more for you. It's pretty self-explanatory. Virtue signalling refers to actions that indicate you care about a topic (the environment in this case) but without any real commitment to the cause. For example, politicians who want to appear to care for the environment might promote a ban on plastic straws because it generates lots of good publicity, is only most mildly inconvenient, and is transparently negligible with respect to saving the planet ("better than nothing" unless one accounts for the squandered political will).

Joe Biden's climate plan would not keep us below 1.5C of warming so if climate is your #1 issue (it is mine), then third party is the only option.