We’re close to an international climate agreement that most agree will be both a major step forward and insufficient to avert a catastrophe. Energy will quickly turn to what should be our next steps. The rival Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders campaigns lay out two possible paths: continued incremental advancement versus ambitious goals and sweeping agendas.
If for no other reason, this issue is why we need to vote en mass for Sanders -- whether he's on the ballot or not. Let the DNC know you won't vote for anyone but Sanders and Occupy the election.
Just follow the money. - As long as Hillary Clinton is accepting funding for her campaign from the fossil fuel industry, she can't be trusted to stand up to them and take serious measures to move the US towards a clean, renewable energy system. Clinton is as much an establishment/business as usual corporate controlled political puppet as any of the republicans.
Clinton has flip-flopped on so many issues (the War in Iraq, Free Trade deals, the KXL, the TPP, etc.) that she simply can not be trusted.
Bernie Sanders is right when he says we need to "keep fossil fuels in the ground".Sanders has always been consistent in his social, economic, and environmental policies, and has refused corporate campaign funding. That is a sign of intelligence, and integrity.
An incremental approach is standard Democratic fare; it's what we got with Obama. It's more of the same.
What we will get with Obama is "incremental approach" ultimately all undone by his TTP, TTIP and TISA.
The crux of the Hillary versus Bernie analysis is not so much "incremental advancement versus sweeping goals/ambitious agendas, its Hillary front gunning for TTP, TTIP and TISA that will undo whatever token climate action might slip through, while Bernie has serially opposed those deals. Bernie's climate action would at least have a chance of surviving.
What is this guy talking about? "The choice is yours . . . " No, the choice has never been mine.
The "$500K for Chelsea's wedding flowers" was chump change compared to what it cost US taxpayers to have all of those military jets in the air enforcing the no fly zone over the wedding site and all the cops/soldiers securing the surrounding terra firma.
The most important difference is probably who can establish a better working relationship on climate with China and particularly India. Therefore, I think it is impossible to actually predict which candidate would be better on climate overall. It could actually come down to personalities or even personalities of the new Secretary of State.
great idea!!! OCCUPY THE ELECTION.
My idea of an executive directive that any one making over 200,000 or ... something along those lines.. are required by law to put renewables of some kind on their home.. and or small business... (which could be a little higher income)... this way.. the demand will create lower prices ... and we will begin to make more progress... if the directive went into place by say Jan 2016 ... then they have to have it done by say Jan 2017... they can sell off a boat of fancy car or something if they have so many toys they are strapped for cash...
I think both Clinton and Sanders are pragmatic. Clinton seems obviously to be pragmatic. Sanders rhetoric suggests that he is quite idealistic but his record as mayor of Burlington indicates that in an executive position he is a pragmatist, as he was able to work with Republicans to get things done that would not be considered to be idealistic. Whomever is president will be faced with certain scientific realities when it comes to climate. Given the present situation it seems unlikely anyone as president can really provide much hope for avoiding catastrophe. The next president will be facing basically an impossible situation.
Mainstream rhetoric on climate change, even from someone as purportedly progressive and forward-thinking as Sanders, still focuses only on cutting carbon emissions and developing alternative energy sources. These are both imperative, but they ignore the significant potential that exists to sequester carbon out of the atmosphere, particularly through farming systems.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself wrote in 2013 that large-scale removal of CO2 from the atmosphere is the only way to reverse climate change:
“A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period.”
I am the co-founder of a nonprofit called the Experimental Farm Network. We are building a grassroots, collaborative, open-source plant breeding network that is focused on developing staple perennial crop plants and agroecology systems that build soil and sequester carbon.
For a video and more info about what my organization is up to, you can google "Experimental Farm Network" to find our website, as well as "Indiegogo Experimental Farm Network: Fighting Climate Change" to find our fundraiser campaign. Let's make carbon sequestration through farming go mainstream. There is no reason why someone like Sanders shouldn't be talking about it.
US Military is the largest user of fossil fuels on the planet, period.
Sanders has discussed no plans to pull US military forces out of any of the 130 or so nations where it is conducting what we euphemistically call 'operations.' In fact, Sanders' Congressional record shows he is a willing and able servant to US military aggression and imperialism, not to mention his heroic efforts to aid Lockheed Martin in their theft of a trillion dollars from US workers via the petroleum-guzzling F35.
So this is yet another instance where all Sanders' goody-goody talk is meaningless because he is, like Hillary, Obama, and the Republicans, just another errand-boy for the Military Industrial Complex.
Voting for a Democrat because you want progress is like switching to a 'low tar' cigarette because you think you should quit smoking.
Wow. You're still considering HRC, Mr. Scher? Tells me that you don't realize how bad she will be for the environment, the nation, and the world.
Maybe i read too fast.
Sanders has talked about downsizing the military and not making war the first resort as we now do.
You don't understand the situation. Those military jets were needed to fight off the onslaught of the ISIS Air Force. At the same time, the aircraft carriers, destroyers, and submarines of the U.S. Navy are fighting the ISIS Navy in the Atlantic to prevent the ISIS Marines from landing on our shores. Whenever ISIS Marines make it to an American beach, they have to deal with the U.S. Marine Corps. And if any of them get inland, the U.S. Army is waiting for them. That's why we have to thank our service men and women whenever we see them. They are protecting our freedoms and our wedding parties.
Not trying to be confrontational here, but I've looked carefully for any public statements by Sanders against TTIP and TISA, and have yet to find any. I would like to find such.
I realize ThomasMarx is talking about much more when he says the choice is never ours, but I live in WA where I can't even pretend to make the choice. The lefties are already off the ballot by the time the primaries come to WA, CA and NY.
This is a bogus argument, because Sanders progressive domestic and trade policies would seriously start restraining the military-industrial complex. Most people vote on domestic issues and anti-military talk is political suicide within our 1% owned political and media system (eg. Kucinich and every progressive 3rd party candidates). This is just an excuse to do nothing, but accept a corporate owned Hillary or a crazed Republican. Sanders has no illusion he is the answer, but he can be a vital part of the people's revolution he has repeatedly called for. Do your part: see that he is elected and that there is a revolution in the streets to support him. Bernie Sanders for President!
Who funds Hillary and who funds Bernie? There is your world-changing choice in a nutshell.