I love Kamala, but I'M IN FOR GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE

[ancianita]

Last edited Sat Mar 9, 2019, 12:42 PM - Edit history (3)

Rachel Maddow's introduction to Washington's Jay Inslee sold me. She herself looked so pleased about their talk.

Don't take my word, or Al Gore's, for why climate change must be our top national priority.

Inslee knows that if we don't turn around our carbon output, the Earth's humans won't survive. He and the Pentagon truly understand what's at stake.

Read David Wallace-Wells' The Uninhabitable Earth (2019) to understand how panicked the planet's climate change scientists are, and just how important Inslee is in helping them.

He is THE candidate who promises a Climate Manhattan Project, which is what we need.

Whether we realize it or not, nothing else that happens politically will ever matter after we hit the 2 degree Celsius mark.

EDIT: Here is Inslee's donation page, for now. I just donated $500. I'll be a full donor, as I was with Obama, if he reaches the Democratic Convention.

He's my hope and change candidate this time around.

https://www.jayinslee.com

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/gov-inslee-climate-change-is-a-true-national-emergency-1452119107923

EDIT: Sorry the clip was removed. I think I found another. Below is Inslee's recent ad on MSNBC.

https://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/hvy91u/picture85934392/alternates/FREE_1140/Obama

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Inslee

[samnsara]

1. yep..hes my Gov.. Im still rooting for Joe but I will take Jay any day of the week!

[disndat]

88. I agree

and double that. Inslee is all the good progressives rolled into one - Biden , Sanders, and Gore. Also, I am still rooting for Biden. maybe, together, a dream ticket, Pres. and V.P.

[Hortensis]

127. Nice to hear that from a Washingtonian. I like what

I've read about him a lot, but I don't "know" him. Yet. Hope he at least does very well in the primaries so he can help direct the national conversation on climate, environment, water, energy, ag, etc.

[Wounded Bear]

2. Washingtonian here...He's pretty good...

I haven't changed my DP Avatar yet, though. We'll see.

[ancianita]

3. Inslee is AOC with experience!

[DownriverDem]

4. Great Guy

We have such fine Democratic Party candidates this time. I am so proud of the Democratic Party.

[ancianita]

5. He's our dark horse progressive. Can't wait to watch him in primary debates and town halls.

[Freddie]

6. I just changed my preference

Because he can WIN.

[ancianita]

11. Yes, he can!

[hedda_foil]

7. Thanks for posting this, ancianita. I'm impressed.

He's got the right stuff. I don't know if this is the year for another oldish white guy but he's definitely presidential material and I agree with him on most everything.

[LakeArenal]

8. Never heard of him til now.

[aeromanKC]

9. Very impressed with his Rachel interview

Definitely VERY qualified and could win. Would enthusiastically vote for him in 2020. Gotta believe however if that is not the case, he has EPA Cabinet Secretary locked up.

[Power 2 the People]

21. +1

[roamer65]

24. He would be better as DOE secretary.

He could use the department to start a green energy initiative.

[Auggie]

29. Don't agree. He's exhibited awesome leadership abilities, and

is campaigning on a too-powerful-to-ignore message that will interest millennials.

Inslee is going to make Climate Change the #1 issue for 2020. It's a winning strategy.

[roamer65]

95. If Biden doesn't run, I'm with Jay.

[pnwmom]

72. He's the only candidate who's been a Governor. Why would he be better as a DOE secretary? n/t

[Byronic]

112. He's great but

he isn't the only candidate who's been a governor.

[pnwmom]

113. Hickenlooper hadn't announced yet. n/t

[BigmanPigman]

92. That is what I was thinking too.

If he doesn't get elected he would be great in that dept. I feel the same with Warren and how she handles the economy and corruption. The Dems who are runner ups would all be good cabinet secretaries.

[Perseus]

10. Inslee/Harris is the ticket

I admit that I had never heard or seen him, saw his participation at the View and I was impressed, cool, collected, charismatic and smart so I think the Inslee/Harris ticket will be a winner for all.

We cannot dismiss Harris, she is a fighter, very smart, doesn't take crap from repubs (just like AOC), and she will be very good on the campaign trail, and during debates, but I think Inslee will have a huge appeal to voters.

Inslee/Harris
2020

[ancianita]

13. I totally agree! Harris can bring in at least two demographics -- women and African Americans.

[calimary]

51. Yep. That's my dream ticket, too.

AND it sets Harris up to carry the baton all the way to the top, beyond that. Plus, she’s still young enough to do that.

[crazycatlady]

22. If Kamala Harris is not on the ticket

I can see her as a kick ass AG.

[calimary]

53. Or as a future SCOTUS Associate Justice.

Hell, if John Roberts ever steps down, she’d be a great Chief Justice.

[rurallib]

30. That would be two people from states likely to go democratic anyway

be nice to have someone from a state that we could flip (eg Brown from Ohio).

Well I won't decide the ticket.

We have some great candidates pretty much anyone of witch I could whole heartedly endorse.

Met Inslee about 12 years ago and was incredibly impressed back then, especially with his environmental knowledge. He is a real keeper.

[LisaM]

79. I agree, except that that's a full West Coast ticket.

I'm not sure that will have the national appeal that it should (not that it ever seems to matter for Republicans, where Bush and Cheney were essentially living in the same state and lied about it), but that's the only thing that gives me pause about this ticket, swapping either one as VP or Prez.

Inslee is my governor, and I like him. He's really taking climate change seriously, and he's been good on immigration, too.

[roamer65]

12. If Joe doesnt run, I will swtich my preference to Jay.

I've seen him talk before and I think he would make a great president.

[ancianita]

15. Compare Joe's and Jay's records. One stands out as more progressive.

That alone can help us regain some international leadership on climate change accords.

What Inslee has done for Washington, and will do nationally, could become a model for other nations.

[MoonRiver]

14. I'm still for Harris, but would also be delighted if Inslee got the nomination!

What incredible candidates we have this go around!

[Andy823]

16. Thanks for posting this

I missed him on Rachel, but heard a lot of good things about what he said. He is my governor and I really like what he has done in Washington state. I also like Harris and so I am in the position of having a tie right now between the two. I ams really look forward to hearing more from both of them, and the rest of the candidates.

[Stellar]

17. I too was impressed with him...

and all that he has accomplished for his state.

[frazzled]

18. I agree he is definitely the candidate for climate change

And that climate change, and achievable policy in that realm, must be a top priority. But any candidate for president has to expound on a range of topics to prove ready for the presidency: foreign policy, economic policy, social policy. And they have to display their managerial and communication skills, character, and electability as well. I like Inslee (as well as several others), but I will wait until I compare all these vectors across all umpteen candidates, and over time as the campaign progresses. We're just at the starting gate.

Having just emerged from a mayoral race that included 14 candidates, I can testify that these large-pool elections are very tricky. You can't just pick the one you like on the basis of a single policy issue, because everyone will have a different opinion on that, and splitting the vote among 20 candidates can lead to very odd results when none can get more than, say 12 or 17%. You have to be strategic. I think we need to look beyond personal-preference voting in the primary this time and think about the general as well: who can win.

This probably is not going to be an ordinary primary, where among 5 or 6 candidates 1 or 2 will emerge as early leaders. I may end up liking Inslee best in the end, but if I sense he is not going to emerge near the top of the pack and have broad public appeal, I will not vote for him in the primary. This is not a time to "vote one's conscience." It's a time to vote for whoever, from this vast pool of talented candidates, looks like they could really win in the general. I'm not going to throw away my vote on someone I like a lot only to get Trump in the end. I may have to hold my nose a bit, but this time I'm going to try to consider a whole bunch of logistical issues before I pick my candidate in this crowded primary.

[ancianita]

27. I recommend David Wallace-Wells' "The Uninhabitable Earth."(2019) It convinces me: climate change

is not just any co-equal issue of conscience in this primary, nor in the general election. We will have to win, yes. More than that, this country must come to realize, as other nations already have, that...

We can't afford to wait until we're comfortable with climate change initiatives. The fact that we are at 2.0 degree Celsius means that climate change must drive our laws, not the other way around, at this point.

Climate change-related laws must be enacted yesterday if our children and grandchildren will even be able to live, nevermind continue life as we know it. Everything that changes Earth in the next 50 years will render our politics nothing but catch-up frenzy as this continent simultaneously floods and burns. If you think I'm exaggerating, read the book. Climate scientists worldwide are in panic.

Climate change panic is the appropriate reaction to today's world disasters, none of which are "natural" anymore.

If we don't get a climate change president in office ASAP, no other national politics will matter.

[frazzled]

31. Yes, if we don't get a climate-change president it will be bad

But if Inslee doesn't win the primary, then that doesn't mean that we won't get a climate-change president. Among all of the seeming top contenders, all will make climate change a priority in their agenda, as will a Democratic Congress. There are many experienced climate change individuals who will assist in making policy, including cabinet members, advisors, and special panel appointees. Inslee could in fact be a top advisor to some other presidential candidate or president. We're not talking zero-sum game here.

If we don't get a winning general election candidate, then we will REALLY lose: because a second Trump term will be really, really, really bad for climate change.

That is where I am coming from.

[ancianita]

36. I just don't understand why you doubt his winnability. Do you have real reasons?

Once he's won -- the right information and know how that he can engage legislators with will get any congress's support across the aisles.

[frazzled]

41. I don't doubt it necessarily: I am looking at all of them for that

It is why I remain undecided at this extremely early point in the race. Each one of them may be electable, or none of them may be. The very first contest in the very long primary season is still nearly a year away. That's an eternity in political terms. I just don't understand why people are locking themselves in so early. A lot is on the table, and a lot can happen.

[ancianita]

46. My belief, well founded by climate scientists, is that endorsing a climate change candidate

absolutely cannot come too soon.

We are crossing the threshold of climate change for the next million years. Right NOW.

Against Trump in debates, Inslee will inform the politics of opponents inside the party, and on their behalf, solidly articulate opposition to the Big Fossil Money and the cheap social politics of this oafish, badly informed Republican president.

[Bucky]

54. Watch the news... it's already bad. Climate change isn't coming. It's already started.

n/t

[frazzled]

58. How insulting

I do watch the news. (Watching, however, is insufficient: I also read the news). What does that have to do with primary voting or my argument for waiting to choose among the various candidates, all of whom (with a few exceptions, and I won't be voting for them) will put a premium on strong climate change policy.

Please don't insult people; I've refrained from insulting you and I would expect the same in return.

[ancianita]

64. Please don't take insult where none's intended. It really is SO much worse than media show.

And media don't connect the dots to show that these disasters aren't even "natural" anymore.

[ancianita]

65. Here's a picture of what you and Inslee are talking about. From a little over a year ago.

[calimary]

68. What also struck me was a look at the African continent.

I can remember, in geography class, when the Sahara took up a large part of the northern half of Africa. But not all. It was a wide strip that extended from the Atlantic coast to the Red Sea. There was green at its northern edge along the Mediterranean, and bordering below - across the widest part of the land mass. The “ice cream scoops loaded into and spilling over the top of ice cream cone” - if you will. It’s not like that anymore. That whole horizontal part of the continent is ALL DESERT now. Up to the Mediterranean Sea shore, all the way down INTO the “ice cream cone” part. The Sahara has expanded, widened drastically, as the jungle areas to the south slowly recede.

I find that FUCKING TERRIFYING.

[ancianita]

71. We all should. We've passed over the climate change threshhold. Inslee is the visionary gamechanger

candidate for taking this country back to world leadership in saving human life on planet Earth.

[frazzled]

142. I don't freaking need convincing!

I am totally convinced, and informed. My post is about a totally different issue. So just stop.

[ancianita]

143. You're not my only audience here, so just calm down about what I wrote two whole days ago.

I get your "totally different issue" and expect to read it elsewhere around DU.

[frazzled]

144. Then try not replying to my post

You can reply to the OP if you're talking to everyone. Your reply was not even remotely pertinent to what I posted.

[LuvNewcastle]

141. I agree with all of that and I think

that there's going to be at least one big candidate announce around August or so. This process has all happened before. We've had candidates get into the race early and get some support and then get abandoned when a big contender comes along. That's why I'm waiting before I commit to anybody.

I was going to support Brown or Warren, but Brown isn't running and Warren is talking about fucking slavery reparations. Inslee seems like a possibility, but I don't know enough about him yet. I really like Sen. Michael Bennet from Colorado and heard he might be running. He seems like he's got his head on straight and could be formidable. Bennet's more conservative than some might like, but I think we're going to have to nominate a more moderate candidate to fight Trump. We've got to win this election; it is imperative. We've got to make sure we pick a winner.

[talking-liberally]

19. Inslee is my favorite candidate so far. His state was voted best for business and employees. He

...promotes green jobs in rural areas.
He has been very consistent and made principled votes that cost him re-election (assault rifle ban).
He explains complicated subjects very well.
He can take on our president rhetorically.
Here is his interview with Rachel Maddow.
-

[PatSeg]

20. Everyone was impressed with his interview on Rachel

as was I. I wonder how long before the right-wing attack machine comes out against him, now that he appears to be a credible threat to them.

This is going to be an incredible primary race. Can't wait for the debates. So many great choices!

[StarzGuy]

23. In My Mind, Climate Change Is The Issue of Most Importance in...

… the 2020 election. The question is simple, shall we survive or become extinct? The choice is clear to me. Right now we have decided that because of the anti science and dumbing down of the electorate by pukes over the past 50 years it shall be extinction.

[Autumn]

25. Any candidate who doesn't grasp that climate change is the biggest threat we face

and isn't willing to make it the focal point of their campaign are exactly what we don't need. I think Inslee is the one.

[calimary]

69. Can't help but agree.

It’s THAT BIG a threat to life on this planet.

[Autumn]

70. Everything else is just distraction. We do this or we die.

Three of the candidate are beating this drum front and center in their campaigns, Bernie, Inslee and Buttigieg.

[chomper]

26. I'm in.

[ancianita]

28. In The Rolling Stone: "Jay Inslee Wants to Be the First Climate President. Is America Ready?"

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/jay-inslee-presidential-candidate-2020-801415/

?crop=900:600&width=440

[BeyondGeography]

32. Great article

Especially enjoyed the unvarnished Kerry quotes. Thanks for posting.

[calimary]

59. All I know is - this American IS ready.

I just hope there’s still time to make a difference.

[ancianita]

62. oh so glad ...

[MFM008]

33. Me 2

Great team.

[at140]

34. Most critical issue in 2020 is...

The top 1% robbing the middle class. The hard working vast middy class is never going to get better without stopping that robbery.

Top 1% received 10000 times more tax cut than Joe 6 pack making $50,000.

There is only one candidate who understands this in Toto. And that is Elizabeth Warren

[ancianita]

37. Sorry. All the wealth and knowledge of it in the world won't matter past 2 degrees Celsius.

I've always loved Warren, too. Believe me, she's one of the greats who'd rework any area of the Cabinet she were appointed to.

[at140]

42. I spent 17 years in WA state before moving out

2 years ago. Inslee is smart alright but can not debate Trump like Warren can, because she is fearless, combative, experienced politician in ways of DC much better than all others except Biden.

[ancianita]

44. We'll see in the debates. Inslee has more facts packed into his politics than anyone I know.

[Lulu KC]

102. If debates mattered that much, we'd have Hillary right now

Oh, that's right. She won.
But seriously, I haven't changed my choice but this is the first candidate who's made me think about it.

[ancianita]

106. When the climate numbers out there come out in debates, they'll matter a helluva lot. And suddenly.

There's no debatable way out of climate change. Climate disaster in the Trillions isn't to be reasoned with or about.

[Lulu KC]

139. I do hope so--no laughing matter n/t

[calimary]

66. Sadly, that's IT. Right there.

I was saying years ago that all the jobs in the world won’t mean squat if you can’t breathe because pollution and other toxins have damaged your lungs.

If our air, water, and ground are so poisoned that little will grow that provides nourishment.

If larger and larger swaths of land are turned to deserts because of human recklessness and greed.

If deforestation continues unabated (because we need hamburgers and toilet paper)? Those trees are the lungs of our planet and we’re steadily whittling them away.

When the oceans are so poisoned, trashed, and polluted that life there is imperiled - both animal and vegetable? Those kelp beds and other ocean vegetation provide more of the lungs of our planet.

If the masses of human population that once could live in those areas and can’t survive there anymore start migrating... to WHERE? And by then, who will have them? Who will want them? Who will be able to accommodate them? Who will provide food, housing, sanitation, safety? Where will all these hundreds of thousands - even MILLIONS of the environmentally displaced - environmental refugees - go?

We’re ALL in for a world of hurt. ALL OF US, EVERYWHERE, even in still-green-for-now, still-temperate-for-now zones!

All I can hope for is that maybe - MAYBE - there’s still some time left to turn this around. Or at least slow it down!

[pnwmom]

73. Jay is very progressive on economics, and he wants to use a Green New deal to help

the middle and working classes.

[yaesu]

35. I haven't heard much about him but what I have heard is all good

he seems like a great, progressive candidate.

[Duppers]

38. Same here. Heard him on Rachel for 2 mins.

Then told hubby I'm in. GW has been my #1 issue for years.

However, I'll back the candidate most likely to beat tRump. Any Dem is better than that pos. So, I'll wait a few weeks before changing my undecided on DU.

[ancianita]

39. Donation page added in the OP.

[mntleo2]

40. I went to HS with him

Jay was both a football star and a basketball star, leading our school to all-time records. One football year we actually broke a national record where no other school even scored points against us! He married his high school sweetheart, who was (you guessed it) one of the cheerleaders, and they have been together ever since. His basketball team also went on to become state champions, he was unstoppable. I was never one of the "popular" people so I did not know him well, but he was an impeccable person, always nice and there were absolutely no scandals about him or his wife.

A friend who was a doctorate in Political Science said that he must have been a born politician if he was just so likable, lol. I am not sure if I am going to vote for him, which of course I will if he is nominated, (I may primary in the caucus for someone else).

Jay has been an awesome governor, abolishing the death sentence in our state, creating green jobs, creating a better gun policy (better IMO), and very sensible but sticking to his guns, when our Senate for one term, turned all Republican.

So go Jay!

Love, Cat in Seattle

[ancianita]

45. He looks squeaky clean against oppo research, doesn't he.

Thanks for all the personal background on him.

[tinrobot]

43. ...and if he doesn't get the nod - make him EPA or Energy secretary.

We need people like him.

[Garrett78]

47. Harris-O'Rourke with Inslee leading the EPA.

[ancianita]

49. Ask them how they will prioritize climate change energy infrastructure change.

Their good intent isn't good enough.

They would have to beat Inslee's 30 years of influential executive and legislative experience.

From the Atlantic:

He was elected governor in 2012 and has, without much national notice, pursued arguably the most progressive and greenest agenda in the country, with fields of solar panels, fleets of electric buses, and massive job growth to show for it.

... years before anyone was tweeting about the “Green New Deal,” Inslee wrote a climate-change book while he was in Congress: Apollo’s Fire, a 2007 blueprint for how much economic and entrepreneurial opportunity there is in saving the planet.

[BlueWI]

56. Agreed with Anacianata above.

It's early, but I look forward to more info on legislative priorities from all the candidates. I feel confident in my understanding of where Warren, Sanders, and now Inslee have their legislative priorities, but I am less sure with Harris and Biden and have no idea what core issues O'Rourke will advocate for. I will self-educate but all perspectives on legislative priorities of candidates are appreciated.

[efhmc]

48. I heard him for the first time on Rachel and was very impressed.

nt

[calimary]

50. I'm right there with ya, ancianita!

I like Kamala Harris A LOT! But that Maddow interview licked me in for Jay Inslee. But then again, anybody who makes the climate crisis a top priority is gonna turn my head.

I’m a grandmother now. And I can’t spend even a few minutes worrying about what kind of planet we’re leaving to my granddaughter (who’s a big fat two months old today) AND all the other granddaughters and grandsons who’ll have to make it work long after we’re gone. We will have left an almost impossibly messy room for them to pick through, clean up, and survive.

[Bucky]

52. That's an impressive surge in DU's poll, jumping 1% to 3% overnight

But let's wait till we see how he does in the swimsuit competition.

[ancianita]

55. I think he's trying to actually save beaches so DU can keep its swimsuit competition.

On his beach near Bainbridge Island ( I've taken the ferry from Seattle to see that beautiful place.)

It's astonishing to realize that, in spite of his living in such a lush, verdant place, Inslee has not succumbed to the complacency about climate change that we in the U.S. have, simply because we still think we haven't been hit us as hard as have the other parts of the suffering world.

?1551442763645

[trickyguy]

57. We have lots of good Democrats running, but Governor Inslee is on top of the list now for me

because he is addressing what should be the number one priority of all candidates - climate change.

Am reading The Uninhabitable Earth right now and nothing else will matter after we hit 2 degrees Celsius.

You can't have a political discussion with a wild fire or a tornado or any natural disasters that are
coming our way if we don't get the climate change discussion up front - as Inslee insists.

[ancianita]

60. Thank you! I'm so glad you're reading this book. If enough of us do, it's the game changer

Last edited Wed Mar 6, 2019, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)

of all our politics, policy and legislation. And international standing.

[nolabear]

61. He's my governor and he's virtually unassailable.

Of course people can disagree with climate change or priorities but he's smart, he has a clear course and isn't timid about it, and I don't think he's got a thing the trolls can wedge into.

Honestly he's not my first choice but I like and respect him, and seeing him call out 45 with no reservations makes me happy.

[ancianita]

63. Inslee: "I wish nothing but the best for Donald Trump, including having the top bunk."

[nolabear]

75. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Yep. One reason id like to see him do well is so 45 can’t just dismiss him.

[Guilded Lilly]

67. Our options are looking brighter. My hope just got a shot in the arm...

keeping a serious eye on Inslee.
Possibilities are widening.

[onit2day]

74. Thought all our candidates felt this way. Glad he's emphasizing it. He's absolutely right

[Honeycombe8]

78. They all are supposed to support the Democratic Party Platform.

Climate Change is part of that.

But each candidate has different priorities. With Inslee, that's his #1 issue above all else.

[Squinch]

76. I'm in for Kamala, but I'll happily vote for Inslee if he wins the primary. I like him!

We have a great bench.

[yuiyoshida]

91. This!

[Honeycombe8]

77. I am VERY interested in him. I need to research him more.

He's the only one I'm interested in for the candidate, so far.

Climate change is one of my main issues. It affects everything...the environment, weather, where we live, disasters, animals & wildlife....

He's also a Governor, which I was waiting for. What I don't know yet is if he has the "it" factor that winners do. The charisma and likeability and leadership qualities. It's why Clinton & Obama were elected, even though they weren't as experienced as others.

[ancianita]

81. Yep. He and Harris are the IT factor for the election. Harris/Inslee or Inslee/Harris in 2020.

Either combination rings my hope and change bell.

[Honeycombe8]

86. I don't think I'd vote for Harris as the nominee. So that is not an option for me.

I might accept her as VP, if Inslee should win the nomination. Maybe.

She is not leadership material, IMO, although I see that a lot of people like her or want her, or both.

[ancianita]

90. I tend to agree. But I'd also put it to you that she's a quick study.

[Honeycombe8]

94. Well, maybe.

She has some good points. There's the Franken business, though. And the Northam business. I think she jumps on bandwagons because she thinks it's good politics for her, before knowing all the facts or giving it much thought. Imagine her pushing the nuclear button because she thinks it will be popular, before finding out that intel was wrong.

She's smart, though. No doubt about it. And has good experience in her background. And a nice, clear somewhat deep voice. She's better than most of the others that jumped in before Inslee. I also like the idea of having a person of color in the W.H. and a woman. I wouldn't vote for that, specifically. It would be a perk, tho.

[debsy]

80. I am equally impressed by him.

When we may be staring at the chance of extinction due to the climate crisis and all it encompasses, what else can possibly matter as much? Without human survival (and who knows how many other species we will drag down with us), none of the other stuff matters. There would not be a need for any of it.

[Buzz cook]

82. He was my congress person, now my governor.

Inslee is a good guy and I hope his candidacy moves the climate debate to the fore front.
Still prefer Warren, but if Jay wins the nomination I'll be happy to support him.

[Cha]

83. Jay voted against assault weapons!

Very inspiring, ancianita!

I liked hearing him make his brilliant case.. Mahalo!

And, he was born on my Mom's birthday, Feb 9th.. Aquarius!

[ancianita]

85. He WAS brilliant to go down on that assault weapons ban hill! Glad you have a birthdate in common!

[ancianita]

84. I hope Inslee speaks with these climate change youth protesters on March 15.

Our children are as desperate as the world's climate change scientists are in panic.
Students across the world will join in.

https://www.thenation.com/article/greta-thunberg-climate-change-strike/

The biggest student strikes thus far appear to have been in Australia and Europe, with journalists reporting that 32,000 students and supporters filled the streets of Brussels on January 24. Additional thousands rallied in Berlin, Munich, and smaller cities across Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium. In Dublin, striking students displayed an impressive grasp of climate science—particularly the need to stop releasing additional CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel—chanting, “No more coal, no more oil, keep the carbon in the soil.”

. “Adults keep saying, ‘We owe it to the young people to give them hope,’” Thunberg said at Davos. “But I don’t want your hope…. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if the house is on fire. Because it is.”

?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=ea7af891577b8e66ae2e852ae8288db7



We can't just sit on the sidelines and watch them, hoping for a sympathetic politics. We have to BE the change we want them to see.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

87. First close up look...

Definitely impressed both my wife and I. If we don’t at least try to fix climate change nothing else will matter.

[Kind of Blue]

89. Yes, never listened to him until Rachel and he's pretty exciting.

From all the videos I've watched of him so far I like his ability to unflinching cut thru bullshit. Will be looking for Inslee's human rights stance.

[Iggo]

93. Harris.

And Inslee's cool, too.

[Awsi Dooger]

96. White male governor who can do a ton with a few words

That is almost the perfect combination. The conventional wisdom that we need to nominate away from white males is flat wrong. The demographic shift has not advanced far enough yet. That is a full decade away. Right now we desperately need to peel away a vital percent or two. Many of those guys who aren't particularly thrilled with Trump will still vote for him if we present some of the other options among our candidate list.

[kcr]

97. Add me to the impressed list.

He's a welcome addition to the field, for sure.

[Garrett78]

98. Inslee struggled to get the WA legislature to take action.

In all likelihood, how the US addresses climate change is not going to differ very much regardless of which Democrat is in the White House.

[NNadir]

99. Of course climate change is the most important issue before humanity. But...

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2019, 07:24 AM - Edit history (1)

However, to be quite frank and address a sad reality, a sacred cow if you will, I've heard the Governor's proposals on the issue and they won't work.

Everyone insists, rather dogmatically and with a poor perception of reality that solar and wind power will save the day.

But humanity invested over two trillion dollars in them in the last 10 years as a whole with the result that carbon dioxide concentrations rose by 23 ppm since 2009.

This information is here, in the UNEP Frankfurt School Report, issued each year: Global Trends In Renewable Energy Investment, 2018

In this century, world energy demand grew by 164.83 exajoules to 584.95 exajoules.

In this century, world gas demand grew by 43.38 exajoules to 130.08 exajoules.

In this century, the use of petroleum grew by 32.03 exajoules to 185.68 exajoules.

In this century, the use of coal grew by 60.25 exajoules to 157.01 exajoules.

In this century, the solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal energy on which people so cheerfully have bet the entire planetary atmosphere, stealing the future from all future generations, grew by 8.12 exajoules to 10.63 exajoules.

10.63 exajoules is under 2% of the world energy demand.

2018 Edition of the World Energy Outlook Table 1.1 Page 38 (I have converted MTOE in the original table to the SI unit exajoules in this text.)

So called "renewable energy" has not worked, is not working and will not work.

I heard the Governor announce. It was all solar and wind.

Quietly, without much fanfare, President Obama and his first Secretary of Energy were a little more realistic.

I don't think most of us are.

I am strictly ABT; I'd even vote for Bernie Sanders if he were the nominee. But frankly, I don't see a single candidate in this country who will do what's realistic about climate change rather than what's popular. Confusing popular mentality with what is right and what is realistic is not a good idea.

The Governor is playing to the crowd. Maybe he has to do that; I don't know, but those who think that wind and solar are sustainable are frankly robbing all future generations and sinking us deeper into the fossil fuel hole.

[ancianita]

103. Know why green hasn't beaten fossil energy yet? First To Market. That's all you've proven.

Fossil fuel has been used since the late 1800's. It's had a 100-year start.

Solar panels got commercial over 100 years later, with photovoltaic storage not even around until 1999. For these major reasons, solar panels have only been on the market for the last 20 years. And fossil lobbies have paid off states to make personal solar use illegal. You need to see that there's a Green v Fossil war on in this country.

The U.S. stands 4th in the West in using solar. because unlike the countries ahead of us, we haven't committed to a national green infrastructure, and so it's fallen to individual states to set renewable energy goals with solar power.

With Wall St. estimates of 160,000 gas stations in the country, and retailers puming between 500,000 and 3 million gallons of motor fuels a year, you also have to admit that's a helluva head start.

There is no arguing what does or doesn't "work" for green energy. Your argument is wrong because it's too soon to fairly compare.

You absolutely cannot say that Jay's plans won't work when solar and wind -- thanks to cockblocking by the fossil industries, Exxon not the least of them, as we know -- have hardly scratched the surface of manufacturing, distribution, and installment!

You make an unfair set of claims, given this corporate and 'legal' bind that the gas industry has put the green industry in.

"Realistic"?? "Sacred cow"?? Climate change disasters we see are no longer "natural." We will never have 100-year events again. They are yearly.

Hurricanes, tornadoes in weird places, millions of miles of forest fires and flooding produce all the attendant death and destruction cascades of mud slides, river and aquifer pollution we suffer from -- right now -- from fossil fuel extraction.

You will have no safe place to live if we do not start a Climate Change Manhattan Project that should have started yesterday.

Costs alone to life and repair -- a city can only withstand a once-in-a-century disaster, not a once-in-a-decade disaster -- are far higher as we now live than if we invested in a major energy overhaul. Everyone knows it. This country mustmust muster the political will to commit funds to that overhaul.

Jay Inslee knows how to scale up his and other governors' efforts to make that work. He's got lots of governors support throughout this country. Most important to Jay's scalable plans, the solar industry recently overtook oil, gas and coal in the provision of employment.

One Trillion UPFRONT investment in green energy will prevent trillions in BACK END costs to human life and property that disasters have caused by fossil energy.

Climate scientists are in full on panic mode right now because of ho-hum attitudes I see both in the US government and out here on Main Street. Inslee will have more support from climate scientists than you can shake a stick at. Not to mention the high job creation that will bring millions back to the work place.

This isn't even my main source of up-to-date information, but it's one accessible link.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-how-much-climate-change-could-cost-the-u-s/

[NNadir]

107. I have 30 years under my belt...

...studying energy and the environment in the primary scientific literature.

I've certainly heard thousands upon thousands of arguments along your lines.

I do not credit them at all.

The reason so called "renewable energy" is a failure is quite simply physics.

The world abandoned renewable energy in the 19th century because most of humanity lived short miserable lives of dire poverty.

Most of my journal here refers to readings in the primary scientific literature. I invite you to scroll through it to understand what I know about energy and you don't.

Sorry but I know more about energy than anyone making excuses for the failure of so called"renewable energy" to do anything at all to address climate change.

[ancianita]

108. Sorry, your cred's not convincing.Renewable energy is the only path through, even if not out of,

fossil energy-caused climate change.

You've studied only one side of renewable use while the research was crippled by fossil industry funding and propaganda.

Time to read up on the other side.

The extremes of wealth fossil supports will have to moderate. Earth doesn't support current high energy drains from cryptocurrency mining and all the currently profligate consumer-base uses. Everyone knows it.

[NNadir]

111. You are absolutely free to hold science and scientists...

...in contempt and reject them because of fondness for a political figure. This places you with most Americans, quite honestly.

Very few political arguments are reality based.

Now in 2008, I opposed the nomination of Obama because his platform endorsed Carter's coal to oil scheme from the 1970s. I was for Clinton then.

As President, Obama hired Steven Chu who certainly understood energy. We heard nothing about coal to oil from the former Senator from Illinois.

If Inslee is the nominee, I'll vote for him, but right now I'm not impressed. If he's elected he may be more sensible, just as Obama was.

[ancianita]

121. I'm pretty sure that I don't hold panicked climate scientists in contempt, but in highest regard.

You're quoting experts on renewables. Different.

[NNadir]

132. Again, my opinion on so called "renewable energy" is...

...is based on 30 years of study of the scientific literature, the primary scientific literature.

This includes quite literally thousands of papers on so called "renewable energy" including many that are quite disturbing to me as an environmentalist. For just one example out of hundreds, there is the appalling and terrifying broad discussion of increasing the efficiency of solar cells using cesium hexaiodoplumbate perovskites, for example. Distributed energy using distributed lead is simply an insane idea.

It seems to me that people advocating bat and bird grinders in the sky have no idea how steel, aluminium and neodymium iron boride magnets are made, or, for that matter how long the devices last before becoming landfill.

I by contrast have carefully analyzed the wind turbine database provided by the energy agency of that offshore oil and gas drilling hellhole Denmark.

I posted this analysis here.

I don't know what "experts" I am alleged to have quoted in this thread, but I have certainly provided many hundreds of links to scientific papers in my writings here, which have guided my own thinking. For the record, I used to endorse so called "renewable energy" but I changed my mind.

Also the paper I most frequently link here in my posts and comments is the open source 2012 publication in Envir. Sci Tech coauthored by the most prominent climate scientist in the US, Jim Hansen.

You may define for yourself who and who is not an expert, but my definition is sure to differ, since you define a trillion dollar industry, the solar industry, as immature. It is failed as a climate strategy, and is useless, but it is not immature.

The solar cell was invented in 1954.

[ancianita]

133. So all that you've concluded is that, in 30 years, papers have shown disturbing flaws; and THAT,

measured against 100 years of petroleum fuels' flaws (hidden by the industry) proves to you that "renewables" are found useless.

Moreover, you find no candidate or thinking that can stand up to those hundreds of scientific links you have to papers that have changed your mind.

And so you write off the future of a just-born alternative energy system using oceanic potential energies, solar and wind energies that are hardly tapped enough (a whole 30 years) above ground, which can't begin to compete with the 100 years' use of underground fuels.

I'm not going to take your word on how defeated you seem to think humans are, stuck in a bad "marriage" to energy sources whose dangers they were kept from learning by the profiteering extractor industries that hid that knowledge.

Not while cascades of fossil fuel disasters surround us, no way will I take your word that the fossil energy we have is the best and only energy way of life we can have.

[NNadir]

136. Technologies clearly exist that WILL work to address climate change.

I have written about them extensively here. They're unpopular perhaps, and there's almost no chance that humanity will wake up and use these technologies, but they exist. They are not simple; and they represent profound engineering challenges, but they are definitely technologically feasible.

You clearly are not going to take my word for anything, and believe me, you're certainly not alone in that.

I'm a dissident, and quite proud of it. There are many popular opinions which I would be deeply ashamed to endorse.

You can talk all you want about the untapped potential of solar energy and wind, but I've been hearing this delusional crap my whole damned adult life and I'm an old man. I read the stupid predictions of Amory Lovins in 1976, when he said that solar energy would be providing 20 Quads (One Quad approximates one Exajoule) in the United States by the year 2000. It's 2019. Solar energy, the poor stepchild of the horrible wind industry doesn't produce three exajoules on the whole damned planet. In 1976, I was so badly informed I actually thought Lovins made sense. You know what he does today? He consults for oil sands companies and other fossil fuel companies.

I apologize to all future generations for buying in this horse manure in 1976.

I bought lots of shibboleths when I was a kid. For instance, I used to believe that you could change people by educating them, as if education itself was a kind of panacea. What I failed to recognize is that there are far more people who absolutely refuse to be educated. For example, one could talk to the end of one's days trying to educate Trumpers that um, Muslims, for instance are human beings very much like them, but they're not going to hear it.

There are, as implied, many other examples.

I pointed out in my first post in this thread that the world has spent over 1 trillion dollars in the last ten years on solar energy (approximately) and another trillion of wind energy. I gave a reference for my claim. Here it is again:

Global Trends In Renewable Energy Investment, 2018

By the way, the authors of this document are happy about this; cheering and cheering. They must be out of their minds. We are over 412 ppm of carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere this week.

Solar and wind don't produce 2% of the world's energy, not 11 exajoules of the 584.95 exajoules humanity consumed at the last reckoning, 2017.

Now how much money is two trillion dollars? It is more than the gross domestic product of India, a nation with more than 1 billion human beings in it.

Yet you say it's "untapped?" If - this won't happen - the solar industry, which is very much the equivalent of the semiconductor industry, ever got to a significant scale, say 20 exajoules per year, it would add to the already intractable problem of electronic waste on a scale that I gag to contemplate.

By the way, do you have any idea about how a solar cell is manufactured? Have you ever taken a class in solid state chemistry?

There are two billion people on this planet who lack access to improved sanitary devices, even primitive latrines: WHO, status of world sanitation, and yet we can blow two trillion dollars on a fantasy that didn't work, isn't working and won't work.

Look, I'm a scientist, an old scientist. I have two sons who are young men, and I deeply regret the world my generation is leaving them. One of my sons will be a better scientist than I am, because I have raised him to think from the get go. I see that he does so and I am very pleased about that. (His brother, an artist, is also an excellent thinker, but not a scientist.) I am very impressed with the friends and associates of my sons who are their age. They will, one hopes, not be as stupid and as gullible as I was when I was their age.

On the other hand, one also sees starry eyed kids who know nothing at all about the world, and arrogant themselves to live in unworkable fantasies. Some of these "kids" are 50 and 60 year old human beings who never grew up, and some are honest to God real young people, stars in their eyes, but no brains behind those eyes.

I've seen them all.

If it makes you feel better, I will die soon enough. You may also take pleasure in the fact that I live in New Jersey, and before the New Jersey primary takes place, the nomination race will be over; the candidate who wins will be anointed.

If - I hope this isn't the case - it's some guy or gal carrying on about how solar and wind will save the day and they're elected, and don't question themselves and their own rhetoric, they will fail to address climate change. That's a fact.

If the nominee is Jay Inslee, I will vote for him, and, as I indicated elsewhere in this thread, hope that he rejects much of his energy platform as a candidate, much as Barack Obama wisely did in 2009.

However the rhetoric you share with me here, makes me that I will hope that someone else is the ultimate nominee. We have plenty of choices now; which is a good thing, not a bad thing.

I use this analogy all the time. People who understand the gravity of climate change and then announce that more money thrown at solar and wind is the solution are rather like a physician who correctly diagnoses a cancer and then announces that the cure is to travel to Peru to meet a Shaman and collect magic amulets.

I'm a scientist, and scientists generate hypotheses, conduct experiments and draw conclusions. If their hypotheses (theories) don't hold up because experimental results conflict with them, they reject the theory, not the experiment.

The world conducted a more than two trillion dollar experiment in so called "renewable energy" in this century, more than two trillion in the last ten years alone. The rate of increase of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide is rising, not falling. In the 20th century the rate was 1.3 ppm per year. In the 21st century it is 2.17 ppm/year, and over the last ten years, 2.29 ppm per year.

Annual Mean Growth Rate for Mauna Loa, Hawaii (Carbon Dioxide Observatory)

So much for wishful thinking.

If you are here to announce that reading thousands of scientific papers is a waste of time: God help the human race if such ideas prevail. We are certainly living in times with declining respect for scientists and science, and frankly your arguments here depress the hell out of me, because they reify that awful impression.

Jay Inslee, in the case you are describing him correctly (one hopes not), seems to be that physician sending us to Peru to meet the witch doctor. It's good that he understands that climate change is a critical issue and that the planet is in critical condition. It's bad that he thinks the problem will be solved by magic amulets. It's possible that he's a deeper thinker than his political rhetoric allows, and you're misrepresenting him, but if he is what you say he is, I will support one of the other fine candidates from whom we may choose. I'm undecided.

This conversation is concluded.

[ancianita]

140. Thanks for your posts. I'm old, too, not a scientist, and with only familiarity on climate issues,

so I do appreciate your knowledge of it. We learn a lot around here from folks like you.

I'm pretty sure that Governor Inslee is "a deeper thinker than his political rhetoric allows," yes.

I also think he can still challenge energy realists and climate nihilists which influence the average American.

I'd like him to publicly echo what Wallace-Wells says:

The project of unplugging the entire industrial world from fossil fuels is intimidating and must be done by 2040. Many avenues are still wide open if we're not too lazy, blinkered and selfish to try them.

Some examples of unnecessary practices:

-- Half of British emissions come from inefficiencies in construction, discarded and unused food, electronics, clothing
-- Two thirds of American energy is wasted
-- Americans subsidize fossil fuel at $5 Trillion each and every year
-- Americans waste 1/4 of their food, which makes each meal's carbon footprint 1/3 larger than it has to be
-- Bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining consumes more electricity than is generated by all the world's solar panels combined, wiping out gains of several generations of green energy innovation
-- the average citizen of the West produces many times more emissions than anyone in Asia, just out of habit
-- it's not necessary for Westerners to adopt the life of the global poor.
-- 70% of energy produced on the planet is lost as waste heat
-- if the average American were confined to the carbon footprint of European counterparts, U.S. carbon emissions would fall by more than half
-- if the world's richest 10% were to limited to the European footprint, global emissions would fall by 1/3

The problem is, according to climate studies, individual lifestyle choices don't add up to enough unless they are scaled up by politics.

I think Inslee can lead the national mindset to see that without fossil fuel, green energy scaling shouldn't be imposible.

Recent costs of adaptation in the form of green energy have fallen so much that the old cost equation has flipped -- we now know it will be much much more expensive to not act on climate than to take the most radical, aggressive action today. Today.

In 2018, one paper calcaluted the global cost of rapid energy transition by 2030 -- negative $26 Trillion -- yes, it would make us all that much money, compared to our static system -- in only 12 years.

Right now there are carbon capture technologies that take more carbon out of our systems than contribute to it, "anti-industrial" plants which are expensive at $30,000 each. To match the amount of carbon we presently emit into the atmosphere would require 100 million of them at a cost of $30 Trillion, or roughly 40% of global GDP. To reduce carbon by 20 parts per million per year would require 1 billion of them, $300 Trillion, or four times our total global GDP.

The cost will likely fall. A 2018 paper by David Keith demonstrated a method for removing carbon at $94 per ton to neutralize our 32 gigatons of global emissions -- the cost would be $3 Trillion.

If that sounds expensive, remember that we already pay fossil fuel industries $5 Trillion per year. AND we just gave the U.S.'s richies a $2.3 Trillion tax cut.

We in the U.S. and the world can afford what we want to afford. Turning from our cascading disasters is entirely within human control. How slowly, thoroughly or well we do it is up to us.

After this election, we will never be able to say to our children and grandchildren that we didn't know.

We do know.

[marylandblue]

135. You don't have more years in environmental technology and policy than me

I saw your journal. You are lost in all physics weeds and can't see anything else. The problem with renewables isn't physics, it's engineering and economics. Just like the switch to steam engines wasn't about our short miserable lives. The start of the Industrial Revolution actually made people sicker for a while. Economics drove the switch to coal because you could get more power more reliably, out of a steam engine than out of a horse or water wheel.

I agree with you on nuclear power, but you aren't going to convince anybody by shooting down renewables. They have their place.

People are scared to death of nuclear power. No candidate is going to mention it because the environmentalists will shoot it down and that's the end of that candidate.

Inslee has to run on renewables. But after he's in office he is the most likely to see the need and have the confidence and credibility to sell it. I think the only other one who might see it is Hickenlooper, because of his geology background.

Meanwhile, if you want to convince anybody about nuclear, turn your considerable brainpower to learning about risk communication. We don't have enough scientists who know how to communicate risk.

[NNadir]

137. You do realize what happened in the industrial revolution, don't you?

The world, which had been surviving for thousands of years on renewable energy, abandoned it. Do we ever stop to think why they did so? When the steam engine was invented, one of the first applications was to use it to pump water out of coal mines and to make them industrially viable. This state of affairs led Jevons to offer his paradox, which more than a century and half has passed, is still true.

I hear this request all the time that I should embrace some kind of diplomacy and give into what I regard as ignorance so that I have a shot at convincing people to be less ignorant. The assumption here is that I am trying to convince someone of something.

I'm not. I'm accepting a reality, which is that we are at 412 ppm after decades of jawboning about so called "renewable energy," and the expenditure of trillions of dollars on solar and wind.

Solar and wind are the subject of endless enthusiasm of course; everyone is convinced they're great. I could of course, agree, and be very popular, I suppose...

...Except I don't believe in lying to myself or anyone else.

And of course wind and solar are as great as popularly supposed if the idea is to create lots of jobs doing dangerous chemistry and making for future jobs in electronic waste treatment. If the idea is to address climate change, however, they're useless. How do I know? Because I keep my eye weekly on the data from the Mauna Loa carbon dioxide observatory.

New Record Weekly High For CO2 Measurements at Mauna Loa.

I keep track obsessively, and I've written lots of posts here along these lines.

I know the chemistry of solar cells and wind turbines. I know whence steel, aluminum and lanthanides come. Should my goal be to be popular, and say it's perfectly OK to dig refine petroleum to make "green" electrodes for the Hall process, and coke for Bessamer ovens for crap that the people who are infants today will need to haul away in twenty years?

Well before the industrial revolution there was a period of plague in Europe and Asia. In Europe the popular means of dealing with it was, um, prayer. It was very popular.

Did it work?

Guy de Chauliac recognized the plague for what it was, a transmittable disease. Would he have been more effective if he also embraced prayer as the key element of treatment? Perhaps he did. Did anyone consider rats and fleas because he was effective at playing into biases? Suppose he discovered that the vector was rats. Should he have spent money that might go to eliminating rats on prayer indulgences so peoples popular notions were not offended?

I consider squandering more than two trillion dollars on the theory that "renewables have their place," to be a crime against humanity, since there are more than 2 billion people who don't have either latrines or toilets.

What matters, these human beings or the fantasy of driving a Tesla car and buying renewable energy credits even though no one stands at a power line to sort electrons generated by burning dangerous natural gas and electrons generated by putting bat grinders in the sky and turning the coastal shelves into industrial parks?

As for the popular view of nuclear power; I'm very aware of it. I hear all the time about the big bogeymen of Fukushima and Chernobyl, whereupon I usually post the link to the Lancet Study on risk factors and human disease, which includes the interesting fact that 7 million people die every year from air pollution, and no one issues a peep.

Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (Lancet 2016; 388: 1659–724) One can easily locate in this open sourced document compiled by an international consortium of medical and scientific professionals how many people die from causes related to air pollution, particulates, ozone, etc.

I have two choices, lie to embrace what I know to be ethically wrong, to embrace irrational biases, or to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

I love to remind people that I was banned at Daily Kos for telling the truth, which is that opposition to nuclear power kills people. I did this when James Hanson published the famous paper on the subject of showing that nuclear power saves lives:

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

The irony was that people loved to praise Hansen at Kos and elsewhere, until he said something that conflicted with their dogma and biases. How is this different that a Republican rejecting science because we "need" fossil fuels?

There are people who oppose vaccination. They're in the news. Can we convince them of anything by agreeing with the premise that maybe vaccines have risks? Would we confirm their biases or arrest them?

As for economics, I have heard all this endless crap about how competitive solar and wind are with fossil fuels. These calculations completely ignore the fact that they require redundant systems. It's widely reported that at every moment, in every period of 24 hours, the sun does not shine on one half of the Earth. It is also reported that the wind doesn't always blow. The reality is that at these points in time the economic value of a solar cell or wind turbine is zero. Moreover, they require back up systems, all of which are fossil fuels.

I'll take this putative economic argument seriously when someone includes the cost of a gas plant that will be less economic because it will be required to be idle for several hours a day because it isn't raining, or dark, and/or the wind is blowing. As a practical matter, these issues are addressed by spinning reserve, which are turbines that are kept in motion in case the wind stops blowing or the sun goes down.

We are burning more fossil fuels than ever. Their use is rising not falling. It's pretty clear that the popular approach is not working at all.

In about 20-25 years, the United States built more than 100 nuclear reactors while providing the lowest priced electricity on Earth. The death toll of these operations over half a century is vanishingly small, not zero, but infinitely smaller than the general use of dangerous fossil fuels. Most of these reactors ran for decades, providing energy almost continuously.

This is a fact.

If people are terrified by facts, there really, really, really, really isn't much I can do about it. Is there?

I'm going to die soon enough. I'm not going to change anything at all. I certainly realize that. I'm just screaming into the void in the hopes that someone in the future generations we have screwed might stumble upon remarks like mine and realize we were not all as contemptible as the results we will leave, that someone cared, someone tried to stop it.

History is not going to forgive us for what we have done, should history still exist.

There are oodles and oodles of people running for the office of President to replace the orange criminal ignoramus in the White House. Some are better than others. I feel perfectly free to point out the intellectual and moral flaws that some display.

Whoever the nominee is, I hope he or she will care deeply about the climate in particular and the general environment as a whole. If he or she has pandered to the "renewables are great" fantasy, if he or she is to govern well, he or she will have to cut the shit.

Thanks for your comment. Have a wonderful Friday.

[marylandblue]

138. You sure say a lot for someone not trying to convince anyone of anything.

But you can say what you want.

Sometimes I read your articles. Thanks.

[NNadir]

145. This has got to be my favorite...

...comment of all time on my writing.

I almost never do smilies except when the editor inserts them in a formula I've loaded into a post, but here's an exception to the rule"😀😃😂

[Honeycombe8]

115. Of course, no one's plan in full will ever pass, or be 100% effective. It's a starting point.

The point is to acknowledge the goals, acknowledge what we know works, and have discussions about how to reach the goals. Somethng that hasn't gone on to any great degree in our country.

The new green deal is pie in the sky, IMO. A wish list. It will never pass, and would possibly harm the country, if it did.

I agree with Gore's statement that there is a way to get there without harming the country or its economy, and in fact, grow the economy.

All the candidates will propose extreme plans that they know can't pass. All politicians do that. I hope the public knows that.

[NNadir]

117. Well said, I think.

I would hope that the next President will have both an open mind and political courage. We need someone who scores higher than Obama on these qualities, and Obama scored higher on these than any President of my adult life.

The last worst President in history was followed by Abraham Lincoln.

We need someone of that quality. The issue of that time was very much on Lincoln's mind and his approach as stated in his campaign was ethical pablum.

This said we in our party are rather as out to lunch on solutions to climate change as Lincoln was on slavery in 1860.

This is not to minimize the great moral historical tragedy of slavery, but climate change is an even greater threat to the future of the world than slavery was to the United States.

[trickyguy]

100. An Inslee/Harris ticket is the way to go. They're both smart and appealing candidates.

[Raster]

101. Actually, I think I like a Harris/Inslee combo better...

...The first action of the first female POTUS should be to charge Veep Inslee with a mandate to deal with climate change on behalf of POTUS Harris (or Klobuchar) and the American people.

[chwaliszewski]

104. Sanders is my current Primary choice, Inslee is my current Governor.

However, I could quite happily switch my allegiance to Jay as the Dem Rep for POTUS.

[ancianita]

105. POTUS won't matter once the Earth passes the 2 degree Celsius mark. I'm shocked people don't see

it.

[Garrett78]

110. The actions taken to address climate change won't depend on which Democrat is in the White House.

They'll depend on reducing the opposition. Even in relatively liberal Washington, Inslee wasn't able to convince the WA legislature to accept his recommendations.

Frankly, there is no viable Republican Party absent racism and sexism (the GOP would be reduced to fringe 3rd party status). The GOP is wholly dependent upon fomenting and exploiting racism and sexism. Until we reduce those evils (by reducing systemic racism and systemic sexism, which will ultimately reduce personal animus in the same way legalizing same-sex marriage will ultimately lead to greater acceptance of LGBTQ persons), we won't reduce opposition to liberal policy reform. Republican Party support isn't maintained by right wing environmental policy or economic policy or foreign policy or health care policy. In fact, a clear majority of the US population supports the liberal position on virtually every issue. But racism and sexism convince people to vote for those promoting right wing policy.

With Democratic control of the White House, the US House and the US Senate, there may be some semblance of hope. Then, put Inslee in charge of the EPA, where he can more directly impact environmental policy than he could as POTUS.

[ancianita]

118. Climate disasters don't care. Except WE do. We want the BEST Democrat in the WH.

Climate change realities put the lie to the "any Democrat is better than Trump" argument.

Since we, within the party, have more in common than don't, the one thing that won't divide us across parties should be climate change.

Look at the maps of disaster. I promise you that the longer we ignore climate change as our #1 mission -- and all the economic improvements our energy investments will bring -- "Racism and sexism," "right wing policy," "Some semblance of hope" through "Inslee in charge of the EPA" absolutely will not matter once the Democratic Party fails to make climate change the national security issue that the Pentagon has. Period.

Go ahead. Keep treating climate change like any other campaign issue. Inslee won't have anyone questioning his leadership and accomplishments at state levels once people at national leadership levels are forced to depend on his past work -- no matter how we fight for our pet "likes" or niggle about probabilities and slow timelines for climate change goals in the political arena.

Climate scientists are not niggling about climate change.

Climate disasters are, right now, bigger than anything politics cares about.

Once we pass the 2 degree Celsius door, all our "issues" will disappear, all because we cheaped out on prevention when we could have actually invested in a shield against what's coming. Then, on the BACK END, no amount of trillions spent to chronically and wearily mend what little land base safety we have to live on will be too much, will it.

[ancianita]

120. It's time for us to see ahead better. And plan accordingly. Governor Inslee is ON IT.

With a couple of exceptions, BACK END curative spending is how we've always shortchanged the future of the planet.

Obama has always said, "Better is good."

So we'd better get better at planning for the climate cascades that will be hurting our (grand)children in the next ten years.

[Garrett78]

122. You completely missed the point, but it's all good.

[ancianita]

123. Maybe. Thanks for reading. If anyone cares to clarify what you've said, I'd appreciate it.

[chwaliszewski]

114. Thanks for the lecture.

[ancianita]

119. Don't give me another thought. Let the next climate disaster "lecture" you.

[chwaliszewski]

126. You're talking to me as if I've never heard of climate change before.

I merely commented to your initial post that I am currently a backer of Bernie, who is also concerned about climate change and wants to do something about it but would gladly back Jay Inslee as well. He happens to be my governor here in WA state so I'm familiar with him. I found your reply to mine "POTUS won't matter once the Earth passes the 2 degree Celsius mark. I'm shocked people don't see it." to be rather unnecessary and lecturing.

[ancianita]

128. It's not meant as a lecture. Only a perspective that needs foregrounding in the election.

Awareness has many levels, and climate change is usually in background awareness. I'd rather err on the side of trying than not trying to communicate.

I didn't think you'd even see it as a lecture. But I don't know you.

No matter how much people post around DU, unless we've met and spent time IRL, I doubt we can ever really know each other better. I don't think knowing DU people is as much a goal as the exchange of ideas, information and good faith encouragement.

My thread is not about comparing candidates or their issues, although I'm aware that goes on.

I'm just trying to pitch a candidate and a global issue we both stand for.

No offense taken or intended as I read comments. That's who I try to be.

[chwaliszewski]

130. Fair enough.

Good day.

[Turin_C3PO]

109. He's my second choice.

I think he‘d be great as President.

[Honeycombe8]

116. I heard this a.m. that Biden says he's 95% he'll jump in.

That livens things up a bit.

[classof56]

124. I'm all in with you on both of these awesome candidates.

Recently declared for Jay. Would be great if they were both on the ticket. BTW, I love your signature line. Chief Seattle has always been one of my heroes.

Cheers!

[ancianita]

125. Cheers! And thanks.

We are more together in the thick of it than we can even imagine.

[lkinwi]

129. Now that Brown isn't in the running, I'm going to do a little more reading on Inslee.

So far, I like what I’ve seen.

[fishwax]

131. I thought he did a great job on Rachel

Another great candidate to add to our embarrassment of riches.

[BigmanPigman]

134. I think he has a really good chance.

I have heard him speak several times on CNN and MSNBC and have always been impressed. He is sincere and the real deal. Climate Change encompasses everything else...immigration, the economy, jobs, the environment, international affairs, health and welfare and he has plans, real do-able plans.

[ancianita]

146. Recent video edits are now in the OP. Sorry I missed the removals due to copyright.