Bernie Sanders’ climate consistency: Why he, not Hillary Clinton, should be the choice of people who

[Uncle Joe]

care about global warming

Because Clinton’s real problem is precisely that young people have done their research. For months now, they’ve been bird-dogging all the presidential campaigns, lining up along the rope lines with those gosh-darned smartphones, and trying to move the conversation.

And it’s worked: Those young people have put all the candidates on the defensive. And they’ve put Clinton on the record, documenting the change in her positions one shaky iPhone video at a time. She used to be for the Keystone XL pipeline, for instance, but by late summer she was against it. On Feb. 4, one New Hampshire activist asked, “Would you ban the extraction of oil, gas and coal on public lands?” Clinton immediately replied, “That’s a done deal.”

The trouble is, her evolution has been slow, halting and grudging (even after making that “done deal” commitment on fossil fuel extraction, for instance, she’s tried to walk it back). And now, with the New York primary looming, she’s in an uncomfortable spot, because New York has been ground zero in the war on fracking. Activists pulled off an almost impossible feat, using inspired and dogged organizing to force Gov. Cuomo to ban fracking in the Empire State.

But fracking, for Clinton, is fraught. It’s not just that she’s done big fund-raisers (as recently as the week before the Iowa caucuses) at investment firms that made billions backing the technology, or that her campaign’s biggest bundlers include executives at natural gas firms. It’s that as secretary of state she set up an entire arm of the State Department to help spread fracking overseas.

(snip)

At least on climate change, slow and evolutionary change is another way of giving up. Because the world is changing so damned fast. The same week that Hillary was laughing at young folks, scientists told us that this winter had broken every temperature record, that new Antarctic data showed the sea level was likely to rise much faster than anticipated, and that record-hot oceans had put a third of the world’s coral reefs on “death watch” this year alone. In energy terms, we need a revolution; slow and steady loses this race.

I’m for Bernie Sanders — I helped introduce him the day he launched his campaign in Vermont; I’ve written letters and given speeches on his behalf. Partly that’s because he’s a fellow Vermonter, and Vermont is a small enough state that if he were in any way a phony, he’d have been found out long ago.

But mostly it’s because there’s never been any need for his positions on these issues to evolve. Keystone? “No” in September 2011, not in September 2015. He co-sponsored the bill to stop fossil fuel extraction on public lands. Fracking? Nothing complicated, just a simple, “No.”

His history, in other words, is an asset. Which is odd, because he’s the older candidate — were he elected, he’d be our oldest President. But if you’ve said the same things for decades, when those things were popular and when they weren’t, it’s much easier to get the future right. Young people have done enough research to figure that out.


http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/bill-mckibben-bernie-sanders-climate-consistency-article-1.2598313

[daleanime]

1. K&R....

[uponit7771]

2. Cordite from all the bullets fired from the guns he supported being sold isn't good for the ...

... environment so I disagree.

[Uncle Joe]

4. Nice try

[Buzz Clik]

3. Not just "young kids" who study the environmental issues, and Google doesn't give you perspective

1) Keystone XL opposition was a big media splash for so-called environmentalists who constantly ignored the fact that our country is laced with existing pipelines. When Obama finally denied XL, the other components of the Keystone pipelines were forced to pick up the slack, and they did. The crude from the Canadian tar sands is flowing through out country anyway.

2) Fracking. Blanket opposition to fracking borders on stupidity. Regulate it; don't block it.

So, on these issues, I'm closer to Clinton than Sanders, and I've studied longer and greater depth than any of the 19-year-olds with cell phones.

[All in it together]

5. The studying should be on the damaging effects of fracking

Just attempting to regulate fracking tries to limit the damage allowed, which doesn't work well. It destroys the ability to reuse the water because of all the polluting material in it. And causes earthquakes.

I'm glad we stopped KXL and hope we can stop other pipelines that carry fossil fuels, especially the very dirty and corrosive tar sands oil that only speed up the damage done mining and using this absolute fuel that is taking down our way of life. It may take our lives too.

I'm glad I'm close to Bernie and his positions and the continuing of life on the planet. Hillary probably won't get us where we need to go to save our children and grand children.

[Buzz Clik]

6. So ... no natural gas, no petroleum.

That's gonna put a kink in the system, doncha think?

[Uncle Joe]

7. That's why we need to start a Marshall Plan in regards to switching our nation's energy sources

to solar, wind, geothermal, wave etc. etc. versus playing Russian Roulette with fossil fuels.

There is no upside to remaining addicted to greenhouse gas producing energy systems.

[Buzz Clik]

8. And we're ready for that today, right? The infrastructure and pricing is just perfect...

... for an immediate switch from fossil fuels to renewables.

You think the transportation industry is on board with you on that? How will you be powering that computer of yours?

[Uncle Joe]

11. There is enough solar and wind energy to power all our computers if we actually tried to harness it,

the same can be said for transportation.

I don't expect it to happen "overnight" but we do need to act with a sense of urgency which I don't believe Hillary has.

There is no upside to fracking it only keeps us addicted to fossil fuels longer while creating the potential to poison our ever dwindling sources of fresh water while also releasing massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere.

This image came from natural gas which didn't even involve fracking.

?itok=R0j6FG6X

One small “hot spot” in the U.S. Southwest is responsible for producing the largest concentration of the greenhouse gas methane seen over the United States – more than triple the standard ground-based estimate -- according to a new study of satellite data by scientists at NASA and the University of Michigan.

Methane is very efficient at trapping heat in the atmosphere and, like carbon dioxide, it contributes to global warming. The hot spot, near the Four Corners intersection of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, covers only about 2,500 square miles (6,500 square kilometers), or half the size of Connecticut.

In each of the seven years studied from 2003-2009, the area released about 0.59 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere. This is almost 3.5 times the estimate for the same area in the European Union’s widely used Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research.

In the study published online today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, researchers used observations made by the European Space Agency’s Scanning Imaging Absorption Spectrometer for Atmospheric Chartography (SCIAMACHY) instrument. SCIAMACHY measured greenhouse gases from 2002 to 2012. The atmospheric hot spot persisted throughout the study period. A ground station in the Total Carbon Column Observing Network, operated by the Department of Energy’s Los Alamos National Laboratory, provided independent validation of the measurement.

To calculate the emissions rate that would be required to produce the observed concentration of methane in the air, the authors performed high-resolution regional simulations using a chemical transport model, which simulates how weather moves and changes airborne chemical compounds.

Research scientist Christian Frankenberg of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, first noticed the Four Corners signal years ago in SCIAMACHY data.

"We didn't focus on it because we weren't sure if it was a true signal or an instrument error," Frankenberg said.

The study's lead author, Eric Kort of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted the study period predates the widespread use of hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, near the hot spot. This indicates the methane emissions should not be attributed to fracking but instead to leaks in natural gas production and processing equipment in New Mexico's San Juan Basin, which is the most active coalbed methane production area in the country.


https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/satellite-data-shows-us-methane-hot-spot-bigger-than-expected/#.Vw5o8tQrL4Y

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Great big KnR!

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. My post was #9, but I can only see two of us. LOL

[Uncle Joe]

12. Peace to you, GreenPartyVoter

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. And to you!

[Octafish]

14. Clinton Foundation Called On to Cut Ties with Fossil Fuels Sector

There are problems and there are ways around problems.

Clinton Foundation Called On to Cut Ties with Fossil Fuels Sector

"This is an opportunity for the Clinton Foundation to prove themselves as climate leaders," says May Boeve of 350.org

byDeirdre Fulton, staff writer

Citing big-dollar donations from three fossil fuel giants—Chevron, Conoco Philips, and Exxon—a leading climate justice group is calling on the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative to stop investing in or accepting money from the industry that's driving the global climate crisis.

Specifically, the public demands from 350 Action—directed toward Foundation president Donna E. Shalala, founder and chair President Bill Clinton, and vice chair Chelsea Clinton—are that the Clinton Foundation:

* Stop any new investments in the top 200 fossil fuel companies.

* Drop coal, oil and gas from your investment portfolio (by divesting from the top 200 fossil fuel companies).

* Invest at least 5 percent of your portfolio into climate solutions defined as renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean technology and clean energy access.

* Direct the Clinton Global Initiative to no longer accept donations or pledges from the top 200 fossil fuel companies.

"Taking money from and investing in the fossil fuel industry poses a challenge to all of the good work the Clinton Foundation is doing around climate, health, and poverty," said May Boeve, a spokesperson for 350 Action, which is the political advocacy arm of 350.org.

"This is an opportunity for the Clinton Foundation to prove themselves as climate leaders," she added, "and join the movement in taking back our systems from the stranglehold of the fossil fuel industry."

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign ties to the fossil fuel industry have come under increasing scrutiny in the wake of her hostile interaction at the end of March with a Greenpeace climate activist, and another a week later in Pittsburgh.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/12/clinton-foundation-called-cut-ties-fossil-fuels-sector

Thank you for the great OP, Uncle Joe.

[Uncle Joe]

15. Thank you for the addition, Octafish.