Home | About | Donate

'Days Numbered' for Fossil Fuels: Sanders Backs Demand for Rapid Energy Transformation


#1

'Days Numbered' for Fossil Fuels: Sanders Backs Demand for Rapid Energy Transformation

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

"Drought, wildfires, heat waves, extreme storms, mudslides, rising sea levels, and much, much more. In terms of climate change, the debate is over," declared Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at the climate movement's state of the union on Wednesday. "The issue in front of us is not a scientific debate. It has everything to do political will."


#2

I am with you senator Sander 100%.


#3

Is that really a direct quote?

CD need take the time to edit these articles.


#4

That’s a direct quote from his twitter feed. CD is not responsible for this one.


#6

I think that Senator Sanders endorsed Hillary Clinton as the “lesser of evils” not as a true supporter of her principles (or lack thereof).


#8

He is far from perfect but it is a damn sight better than some of those in elected office. One step at a time. Going “all in” is why we have trump.


#9

Has anyone figured out what “political will” is yet?
What does that look like?

While we are trying to figure out “political will” the arctic continues in the human induced death spiral. https://robertscribbler.com/

Soon we will no longer have the luxury of time to explore how/why humans are destroying the biosphere and how to move to a rapid energy transformation.

I do appreciate Sanders continuing to declare the obvious----(obvious for those who can think).


#10

Yes, Bernie is 100% correct we need to get off our fossil fuel addiction NOW, but only if we want to pass an inhabitable planet onto future generations.


#11

Of course anyone with half a brain would agree with Bernie about fossil fuels, but in my view, Bernie was used by the democratic party to elect HRC for POTUS, but of course that plan backfired!


#12

"CD need take the time to…"
That door swings both ways, bubba.
I understood the gist.
Let’s stop the grammar policing and effing converse, ok? I’m getting fed up with nitpicking here over minor errors.
Do I NEED to spell out “effing” for you?
Damn.


#13

Going ‘all in’ is not why we have Trump.

We have Trump because the D-Party stands for nothing, and their former base notices in increasing numbers.


#14

That is the question. The political system in the US was hijacked decades ago (if not since the beginning) by the corporate oligarchs. There is no such thing as political will in the US as the political puppets only do the bidding of their oligarch owners. I can never quite understand if Bernie is so blind to reality or just another puppet keeping the “progressives” tethered to the two-party system. If the US is ever to get politicians with “political will” then there will need to be a massive revolution with general strikes and boycotts. And all the outside funding for candidates must go once and for all. I just don’t see it happening. The US is just too far gone as the citizens keep on voting for their own demise.


#15

Sanders called for fracking ban in the US so that is where his view should be compared with Clinton’s. During the campaign Clinton did not advocate a ban but said fracking should only be carried out in a most environmentally responsible manner. So why wouldn’t Clinton support a complete ban on fracking? It doesn’t take too much thought to realize that such a ban would result in an increase in coal burning. Even the national Sierra Club does not support a total ban on fracking probably because it would have negative effects on its Beyond Coal campaign. The national Sierra Club’s policy now is to leave it up to the state chapters. Some chapters have supported a ban in their states and I believe some have not. In typical fashion Sanders never addresses possible negative consequences of his policies. The same goes for the $15 minimum wage where he doesn’t mention possible losses of jobs and possible price increases. The key to Sanders popularity I think is that he skillfully avoids talking about the possible downside of what he is proposing which makes his proposals sound truly great.


#17

Your intentions are transparent! Your agenda clearly designed to sow dissent among people who want to destroy the loathsome trump regime as fast as possible! You are working as a divisive repetitive troll, NOT a person really intent on defeating the truly evil destructive trump regime! The enemy is the trump regime, not Bernie Sanders! Building any true opposition is clearly not your intent as you never promote any alternative to defeat trump.

Have you no sense of proportion or honesty? WTF? Relentlessly bashing Sanders regardless what he does or says or supports regardless his short-comings, is a weak, jive agenda!

Some might say you are the liar and fraud…a one trick troll.


#19

The enemy is the two-party system which is owned and controlled by the corporate oligarchs. Both the Democrats and Republicans need to be called out for the traitors they are to the citizens of the USA. Criticism about this fraudulent electoral system is needed first and foremost before any kind alternatives can truly be discussed. Jayne_Cullen is right on to say what she does.


#20

You can demand all you want, but until you formulate a practical solution your demands mean absolutely nothing. Yes fossil fuels generate CO2 emissions, which lead to climate change, but it is unreasonable to suggest that we eliminate all fossil fuel generation immediately to remove all emissions. Such an action would result in extreme economic downturn as energy production would drastically fall.

This is why you need a plan. Instead of yelling and screaming about climate change, how about instead you join the real discussion in which multiple parties debate the transition to different energy portfolios.


#21

Additionally people need to define real terms and methods. When you hear 100% renewable transition wtf does this mean?
Here are some facts:

  1. There is ZERO scientific consensus on the explicit characteristics of renewable energy.
  2. There is no calculated way to determine if a resource is in fact renewable
  3. Different agencies and the US federal government differ on their standards for renewability. For example according to the US Federal Renewable Portfolio Standards Hydroelectric Generation is NOT renewable, because of its large environmental cost. Yet 350.org and the Jacobson Study consider this resource to be renewable.

This is why I despise using the term renewable instead of sustainable- they do not mean the same thing. You can have renewables that are not sustainable and you can have sustainables that are not renewable. Renewability is a subjective term, that changes depending on who exactly is making the terminology.

Also when you say ban fracking wtf are you talking about? Fracking isn’t even industry correct terminology. Generally when people talk about fracking they mean hydraulic fracturing. This is important to note, because fracturing actually contains other methods besides just hydraulic fracturing. For example Plasma Pulse Fracturing does not contain any waste water injection, so this concern of water contamination largely does not exist to the degree expressed by activists. However, since you want to ban “fracking” outright, you are targeting more than just hydraulic fracturing. Due to the improper understanding of fracturing, activists are making inadequate assumptions about extraction technology.

Another example of this is the common method of " make sure fossil fuels stay in the ground." Wtf does this mean?

  1. Does it apply only to electrical generation, total energy, transportation or does it depend on industry?
  2. There are certain applications in society where non-fossil fuel substitutes literally do NOT exist. For example 99.99% of all hydrogen and Nitrogen formation processes are done by fossil fuels. We do not have any method remotely close to the scale of steam reformation that would be able to meet consumption standards for hydrogen and nitrogen. This is also not a process you can just remove as failure to produce nitrogen and hydrogen would mean a nearly complete termination of US fertilizer production for agriculture. That’s not acceptable.
  3. If this applies to all energy, every energy source on earth requires fossil fuels in some capacity, therefore YOU CANNOT create a moratorium on future fossil production, as it is literally required for all energy resources. Yes that’s right petroleum is in fact required for the manufacturing of materials for solar, wind, hydro, tidal and even biomass.
  4. Nearly every 100% transition plan I have seen suggests that we establish massive CNG storage. CNG is compressed natural gas storage for backup. If these plans literally require a backup of fossil fuel production, YOU CANNOT make claims that all fossil fuels must remain in the ground.

#22

Yeah, read this…learn and grow!..More diversion from you and Caitlin Johnstone - she does not impress supporting call for alliance between “left” and alt right, and neither do you - she has been termed a “fake leftie”, and if the shoe fits. You never answered any questions posed in my last answer to you. whats the problem? Trolls have similar MO’s and part is focus their attack on narrow issues - like you attacking sanders when he is one of very few confronting the trump regime and the corruption of the Dem establishment…more fool you.

Everyone of good conscience wants an end to for-profit wars, racism/bigotry, corporate fascist dominance, environmental exploitation and destruction, etc, etc - the problem is how to accomplish it. the “real left” thinks revolution in the streets will serve. That is BS. I don;t know how their sabotage leads to change or any victory - we are already in too deep and the enemy too entrenched. Poco a poco with a strong varied coalition - victory will not come all at once or with all enemies.
The point is who exactly IS a opposition leadership and coalition to defeat the R’Con trump regime? It seems some prefer the victory of those forces as they did sabotaging sanders campaign and attacking his “failures” - we all have “failures” but “let those without sin”…dollars to donuts all the “real left” or DINO troll Sanders attackers have never walked even a step in his shoes! I have written extensively on my contempt for the DINO sellout swine and their sabotage of Sanders - I do not support their craven complicity or any other aspect of their power and complicity! I do not support people who offer little or nothing by way of a winning strategy but simply sabotage.


#23

I agree the two party system, big-money and more are the enemy, among others, and we have a long hard slog ahead of us. I respect your many contributions Geezer and will not argue except to say I don’t think Sanders is the enemy, and attacking him repeatedly at every opportunity is at all productive or builds any base. Cullen’s single-minded attacks on Sanders and one ot two of many critical issues is high;;y suspect…marks im experience of a troll of one sort or another…certainly one who throws the baby out with the bathtub! Peace!


#24

Thanks Holygeezer---- well said!

Tossing out the term “political will” drives me crazy. As if it is something that can materialize easily (if at all?) within this system.
I very much appreciate your description of what “political will” would look like.

I am struggling with that one too :cry: