20+ Democrats want to be president. Only 2 have a climate change plan.
22 replies, posted
Who is ahead of the pack?
The Washington governor Jay Inslee and Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke want the US to be carbon-neutral within the next three decades. Both have unveiled detailed climate policy plans. Inslee would set milestones for three sectors that could drive major reductions: power, transportation and buildings. He has earned praise for his specificity. O’Rourke would also spend$5 tn on green infrastructure.
Senator Elizabeth Warren has proposed banning new coal mining and oil drilling on public lands, which could cut US emissions but fall short of what scientists say is needed. A House climate committee will consider the idea.
Who doesn’t have a comprehensive plan?
In 2015, Bernie Sanders unveiled a plan to cut US carbon emissions 80% by 2050, but so far this campaign season he has not laid out a timeline for the broad strategies he supports.
Booker has an environmental justice plan to crack down on pollution in vulnerable communities, but he has not set a timeline for cutting carbon emissions. Harris is a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal but has otherwise said little about what she would do.
When will the others catch up?
RL Miller, chair of the California Democratic party environmental caucus and political director of Climate Hawks Vote, said the campaigns are progressing on climate but running out of time.
One poll of Democrats recently showed climate change is their top issue. A United Nations report warned this week that as the Earth absorbs rising temperatures, human society is in jeopardy.
sanders absolutely has a climate change strategy
Scorpious even quotes where the article says he does. They're just randomly assuming that not restating it means he apparently dropped that plan or some bullshit. Despite articles like this being in PD/SH: Sanders to join Ocasio
As much as I love Bernie and AOC the one really fucking angering thing I see out of their is their absolutely absurd and ignorant stance on Nuclear
Nuclear is the golden-boy of green energy. It can literally unleash our technologies true potential if mastered, and if we properly store and dispose of it. Putting a solar panel on your hut is great but that isn't going to solve problems.
Biden's plan isn't "centrist". It's just not as far out there as Sanders.
I think sanders is pragmatic enough and values scientific research enough to support nuclear, in his fox town hall he didn't take an affirmative either side of the argument offering both benefits and downsides. Nuclear needs long term national support which hasn't materialized from the conservative side either.
Biden literally called his own plan a compromise with conservatives. It's shit. It's a weak armed attempt to sway other centrists that will doom us in the long run when it simply isnt enough. Attempting to recover Obama-era regulations and agreements that Trump rolled back is weak, ineffectual, and worthless. We absolutely need stronger policies and plans.
Where did you read that? I know it wasn't from the other FP article about him because I posted in that thread pointing out it was the opinion of the journalist writing rather than what Biden explicitly said.
Nuclear doesn't sound as nice to their followers and still produces some (negligible, controllable) amounts of pollution. Can't build a platform of cutting 200% carbon emissions by whenever with such a platform. Nobody wins.
Oh sorry, it wasn't Biden. It was Heather Zichal, one of his climate change advisers.
Really would like to know what news article you're reading that from because the other thread's article also does not have Zichal quoting "middle ground" anywhere.
Perhaps you should read a bit past the headlines?
I can't believe there are people out there that actually use Trump's dumb nicknames
I still don't see how he's making a centrist environmental plan. Finding a middle ground involves stating your side, finding the opposing side, and trying to bring them together. That's not creating a policy and declaring it "centrist" from the get-go.
And judging from Biden's already discussed policies, such as staying with the Paris Agreement and promoting nuclear energy as well as carbon capture, I'm fairly sure he's as much left wing on environmentalism as any of the other candidates.
Unless sticking with the Paris Agreement is now "not good enough" and "too centrist"?
I have a word replacer that swaps text out, though sadly it does it whenever I edit, which isn't supposed to happen
His nicknames are so fucking petty and retarded its amazing
He's like an idiot child or something but its very funny to read serious articles casually calling people them those names.
There is no "middle ground"with Republicans that is good enough to save our environment as it currently stands. They don't even want to push for heavier regulations on the coal industry, which we need to be pushing to abolish at this point. Compromising with conservatives is death at this point.
The IPCC told us back in October that the Paris Agreement was not drastic enough while conservatives already think that the Paris Agreement is too radical.
Coal is going out because of the markets whether the Republicans want it or not. They can relax regulations on it all they want, it won't save that industry.
Establishment Democrats are Republicans with a blue coat of paint. They use that paint to hide their contempt for the American people and the world, as compared to the Republicans who let it fly freely.
At this point nuclear just makes me angry
Literally the only reason we haven't gone full nuclear is there's just not nearly enough of a profit margin in it. It's the only explanation I've found that makes any kind of sense
Occasionally you'll still get people trying to pretend like nuclear is still a dangerous unproven technology and fearmongering about Fukushima as though it wasn't 100% the company's fault for ignoring multiple safety concerns and being well known for cutting corners, but the big argument I've seen lately is that nuclear is just too expensive. It's not economically viable. It's not economically sustainable. Reactors just cost too much money to keep in service!
Make no mistake, running a reactor is expensive! But I'm increasingly of the opinion that the up front cost of building newer, safer, more efficient, and just generally better reactors is a cost that pales in the face of the actual costs of the petrochemical industry. It's no small secret that just a hundred large companies are responsible for the vast majority of emissions on this planet, and the absolute biggest are oil companies. Oil companies with a long and storied history of pushing bullshit to protect their profit margins
Oh, and speaking of nuclear waste, the vast majority of nuclear waste is only waste because the vast majority of operating nuclear reactors in the world today are Cold War era dinosaurs. It feels noteworthy to me that whenever the discussion of nuclear comes up, it gets glossed over is that nuclear waste is highly recycleable. Most nuclear waste is still 90% usable uranium
The more I learn about nuclear the more I feel like it just not being profitable is the only explanation. Especially considering how deep into the petrochemical industry's pockets the GOP and the fucking DNC are. You just can't make the same massive amounts of money from nuclear that you can from petrochemicals. There's no recurring revenue streams like the kind you get from gas turbine plants. There's not enough long capital growth to be had. There's not enough room for expansion. You measure the output of solar and coal and gas plants in kilowatt hours. The smallest nuclear power station in the United States measures its output in megawatt hours. One of the biggest challenges to nuclear power is that it has too much output. The amount of energy you can make is absurd. Pound for pound, it is the most efficient power source on the planet by an astronomical margin
It's the same reason I think solar and wind are so in vogue lately. It's not that solar and wind are better solutions, it's that solar and wind are profitable solutions. There's lots of room for expansion and long term capital gains there. There's millions of individual solar panels to be set up for homeowners around the country. There's thousands of wind turbines to put up. There's all kinds of room for investment and return of that sweet, sweet capital!
You build your power plant, you staff it up, and that's it. You're done. You make a lot of steam and a lot of power, and you occasionally feed the atom crushing beast with a few pounds of recycleable nuclear fuel
It's great for human benefit. It's a very socialist kind of a power source. It's terrible for making lots of money, though. And the United States is a Capitalist nation. Everything we do is judged by how much it contributes to The Economy. Every new venture is judged by the raw amount of financial gains it stands bring to the table. By how much Capital Growth this Investment will bring
There's just no room for human benefit there, so I don't think there's any room for nuclear, and that makes me just ever so slightly livid
Andrew Yang is pro-nuclear and wants it to be a key part of fighting climate change. He's also got like 100+ policies on his website while Warren has only 6
I've heard that the ban on destructive reactor testing has made nuclear development difficult. The government used to set up small scale test reactors and push them to their limits till they went critical. Sounds dangerous, but it gave us a ton of knowledge, and allowed verification of design. Now it's incredibly difficult to get a new reactor design tested in practicality.
With how little chance even Bernie has because of the DMC and Biden, Yang has even less chance. He isn't really mainstream enough.
It's great to see him promote these ideas but a Yang presidency is a dream as of now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.