Home | About | Donate

Armed With Carbon Tax, New Sen. Sanders Legislation Would 'Aggressively Reduce Climate Pollution'


Armed With Carbon Tax, New Sen. Sanders Legislation Would 'Aggressively Reduce Climate Pollution'

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

Legislation introduced by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Thursday is being heralded by a number of organizations who say it marks a needed step towards transitioning away from fossil fuels and supporting climate justice.


"Fossil Fuel Empires" --- an accurate and actionable term for non-violent Revolution against Empire.


Bernie is ( sorry Jill) the ONLY one that has a chance to turn this boat around let's give him the chance! Go Bernie!


I'm commited to the Green Party, but if Bernie wins the Democratic Primary, He would probably get my vote.


A carbon tax is the only way to get in control of the climate.
Folks in Paris should be discussing a world-wide carbon tax.
I propose that the amount be based on an equation that takes into account: historical carbon generated to date, current carbon production capability and affluence. This, of course, means that our carbon dioxide would be the most expensive in the world, but no country has the ability to change this as fast and well as we can here in the US.
Implement the tax. We engineers and scientists will figure out ways to knock it down, and then we can sell it to the rest of the world. This is the most rational way to address our situation.
Here's the rub: companies don't want it and they are currently running the US show. Our system is fixed in their favor. Sure, we vote for these folks, but they turn around and ignore our wants and needs, in favor of folks who have money to contribute to their re-elections. How do we get money out of politics? Vote for Bernie and throw out every incumbent who has ever attended an ALEC conference; or who has said that money is speech; or who supports Corps(e) United
That's why I'm voting for Bernie!


That's odd, cap and trade (northeast Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, rggi.org) seems to be working quite well in Maine, Vermont (Sander's home state), New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York (Clinton's home state), Delaware, and Maryland (O'Malley's home state). That is not to say that we don't need a carbon tax but cap and trade seems to produce positive results.


Yes! Or register as Undeclared. In my state (CA) I'm pretty sure Democrat or Undeclared can vote in the Dem primaries. Bernie winning the nomination is the real fight, the general election will be a cakewalk with this vapid, rabid GOP.


Go Bernie Go. And YES, a carbon tax, fairly applied, is a good way to go. And while we are at
it, let's drop fossil fuel subsidies as well. Also, let's keep and add to renewable energy tax credits. Beyond that, we need to rig the system in favor of sustainable alternatives.
And another thing, I'm tired of getting ripped off on alternate energy stocks investments in the stock market. Beginning in the 1980s I've participated in three major downturns in the solar and wind markets. This week alone two of my best companies(SPWR and FSRL) have been beat up like crazy for no good reason. Over the years I've watched at least fifteen good companies go bust taking my money with them.
It's interesting to me so few people put their money where their mouth is in the climate change game. So far more than two trillion dollars has been divested from fossil fuels(so they say). My feeling is, very little is going into the actual transition companies. The real money has always gone into writing books, giving seminars, starting nonprofits which mostly hard sell donations, and stuff like that.
A real change is going to involve real companies, real products and at least a level playing field instead of the mine field which is our current financial markets situation.


I suspect we are so far down the road already that both cap and trade and a carbon tax are too little, too late. We need to jump directly to renewables ASAP. The Models of climate change are already underestimating the rapidity of what is happening. We need direct government intervention.


Hey, your sullying the Chavistas or Sandanistas by linking the terms with Clinton.


Source of information backing your point?


"We have a moral obligation for our children and our grandchildren to leave them a planet that they can enjoy," Sen. Sanders said this week.

This is how a candidate EARNS my vote!


Despite the bias displayed by Howard Dean by lobbying in this poll for HRC, Bernie Sanders is asking for your endorsement at http://2016.democracyforamerica.com/?akid=7060.270485.Ea0z0_&rd=1&selected=berniesanders&t=2
Please do that! You do not have to be a DFA member or subscriber to make your voice heard


Bernnie is the Man! Only he can prevent our extinction!


It's in my post, rggi.org.

Sanders has supported cap and trade in the past. Apparently he did not think it is a false solution.


Your link includes a reference to your vote for Sanders, so it won't work.

Try this: http://2016.democracyforamerica.com/


I just re-entered the link and tried it. It should work now, please try again


Perhaps the critiques - especially presented by indigenous peoples who traditionally live in and utilize the forests targeted for the tradeables - over the past 7 years are beginning to sink in.
The Carbon Hunters 2010
IEN in 2013
Kenya in 2014
The case of Celestial Green and the Munduruku people of Brazil


This sounds super, but... someone here on CD mentioned the recent film documentary Cowspiracy some days ago, which reminded me of some impressive excerpts from it I'd heard on Pacifica radio--so I went and watched it on Netflix (which you can get free for a month and then cancel it, I discovered).

Wow, from this film, and looking further into the film's website's facts page and links to its sources, I am won over quite a bit to the urgent need for all of us climate-caring and particularly climate justice-caring people to stop thinking and talking and acting almost exclusively on fossil fuels, and to realize that a hell of a lot of global warming gases (GWG) also come from the animal agriculture industry (of both the land and oceans).

Animal agriculture now ranges from 18% to 51%--depending on the studies I looked at (linked to from the Cowspiracy website)--of GWG! At the very least, it is authoritatively admitted, although little reported, to be a bigger killer of the climate than the world's transportation sector. Plus, methane, the key GWG from the full impact of animal agriculture (including not just cow farts, but clearing rainforest for export beef production, the vast lands dedicated to crop production for animal ag consumption, etc.), is much faster-acting than carbon, so drastically reducing animal ag right now would make a very quick big impact on GWG in the atmosphere in real time.

There's energized civil society talk on wealthy, most-climate-killing-guilty nations paying climate reparations to least and less developed nations to jump frog car culture and instead move into climate-friendly transportation plans, but what about doing the same for those lands' emergent middle classes to not adopt U.S.-style carnivore-extreme diets and instead see truly healthy no- or low-meat diets as the wave of the future?

Of course, the shift in diet must happen most of all in the belly of the beast--in the U.S. I'm not just passing on this info--I have as of a few days ago begun to transition from begin vegetarian to going mostly vegan (I'll still eat some dairy sometimes when it's being offered me or when it will go to waste otherwise, as often happens where I work), and I want to spread the word on this even to my heavily meat-"loving" (actually, killing) family this holiday season.

Compassion, the climate, and the true human conscience all say: Yes, tax carbon, but also... Go vegan (or vegetarian, or at the very least eat animal products very minimally, in accord with even mainstream health advice)!!!


Oops, I was wrong to say that mainstream views emphasize eating meat only minimally (they say various things, including cutting back on red meat, but cutting back drastically isn't generally what they say), but still, for nearly everyone, if you were to eat any animal body product not more than one or two servings a week, that would have no negative impact on your immediate health, while making a potentially significant positive impact on the health of the climate, which means the health of all of us plus future generations. Going vegan or vegetarian would have an even more dramatic impact.