Is Bernie Sanders the New Climate Candidate?

[Uncle Joe]

Climate advocate Jay Inslee may have dropped out of the Democratic primary, but it doesn’t appear like the controversial issue of [checks notes] saving humanity from an environmental apocalypse is going to fall out of focus. On Thursday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) released arguably the most ambitious proposal yet to tackle the climate crisis, setting himself up to succeed Inslee as the field’s most prominent champion of the issue.

Dubbing the plan as his version of the Green New Deal, Sanders wants America’s electrical and transportation systems to be powered exclusively by renewable energy by 2030, and for America to be totally decarbonized by 2050. The plan calls for a $16.3 trillion public investment to make this happen, which Sanders says will pay for itself in only 15 years, partially through tax revenue generated from the 20 million new jobs the plan would create. To help kick the plan into gear, Sanders would take executive action to declare the climate crisis a national emergency.

(snip)

Sanders plan distinguishes itself in how aggressively it targets the fossil fuel industry. Not only does it call for hiking up taxes and penalties on polluters, it taps the Justice Department to pursue litigation against them. “They have evaded taxes, desecrated tribal lands, exploited workers and poisoned communities,” the plan reads. “President Bernie Sanders will ensure that his Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission investigate these companies and bring suits — both criminal and civil — for any wrongdoing, just as the federal government did with the tobacco industry in the 1980s.”

Sanders was one of the first prominent politicians to endorse the initial Green New Deal, which offered a framework for an economic overhaul to combat the climate crisis. The plan the senator released on Thursday is the closest a presidential candidate has come to filling in the specifics. As Sanders put it to the New York Times, his plan puts the “meat on the bones” of the Green New Deal, which has been promoted most notably by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)

(snip)

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/bernie-sanders-climate-crisis-874986/

[stonecutter357]

1. I think all the candidates are on the same side of Climate Change !

[NYMinute]

2. But only BS has a pie-in-the-sky 17 trillion dollar plan

Which is almost equal to the GDP.

That is like me wanting to buy a Ferrari, a Lamborghini, a Maserati and a Bugatti so it will same me commute time.

[Uncle Joe]

4. Except life as we know it is not a luxury. n/t

[NYMinute]

21. Yes ... and at BS's average of $17 per donation

it will take only 1 trillion people to make this happen !!

That would be like 130 times the population of the Earth ... but sounds good right?

[bahrbearian]

8. I know that's way to much money just to save life on earth. Get real Bernie,

we can just curl up in a ball and climate change will go away by itself. Bernie with his Pie in the sky Medicare plans and pie in the sky climate change plans. It will never come to pass!

[Baclava]

10. What exactly does he mean by decarbonizing an industry?

We will fund a $500 billion effort to research technologies to fully decarbonize industry, and a $150 billion effort to fully decarbonize aviation and maritime shipping and transportation.

Make planes fly and ships run without fuel?

A fully electric tanker or cargo ship or airliner, one that has never been invented yet?

yeah, right


Better learn how to make candles.... and sounds like cotton will have to be picked by hand again.

[TexasTowelie]

17. Any business with a diamond drill must close.

It will also wipe out most jewelry stores.

[ehrnst]

46. Vermont's carbon emissions have gone up.

Martha MacCallum: “You think we should eliminate nuclear power, which I know they did in Vermont.”

Bernie Sanders: “Sure.” .

Martha MacCallum: “But it ended up moving your emissions higher.”

“Honestly, I don’t think that that’s correct,” said Sanders.

However, Vermont’s Department of Environmental Conservation says otherwise, that the state’s emissions rose 16.3% between 1990 and 2015, which was twice as much as national emissions rose during the same period.

Sanders: “In my city, Burlington, Vermont, the largest city in the state of Vermont, all of our energy is now renewable.”

For electricity, Burlington burns biomass for a large portion, however biomass power plants produce one-third more carbon emissions than coal plants.

[Baclava]

47. Nice find, "renewable is not the same as clean and carbon free"

Not every state has a forest of trees to cut down to fire boilers either.

[ancianita]

11. Compared to the crisis management plans of the others, $17 Trillion will be a bargain. UP FRONT

investment in climate crisis is the ONLY cost efficient means to get us away from the 2 degrees Celsius threshhold from which there will be no return -- and I and climate scientists, Inslee, Wallace-Wells, Bill McKibbon and other experts mean NO RETURN.

If any other nominee puts climate crisis lower than Bernie, $17 Trillion will be the LEAST we'll be spending to save ourselves from what happens in the next ten years.

[dualboy24]

35. I believe it documents how to help cover the costs, but the money needs to be spent...

this is an end of life as we know it issue, you also have to realize it is spent over a period of 15 years, elimination of fuel subsidies alone would net ~650 billion a year that would be almost 10 billion to be used against the plan over the 15 year period.

Also this money would be spent on US industry so it's really reentering the economy.

However their is no "we are all against climate change" but not willing to take drastic steps to combat it.

Think about the analogy of "A meteor is going to hit earth and kill half the population in 12 years. Only a 17 trillion plan has a chance to stop it to save the lives."

[LanternWaste]

3. Nope. He trails Biden in this as well.

Biden calls for achieving net-zero U.S. greenhouse gas emissions no later than 2050 through legislative action, executive orders, tax adjustments, etc., which allow several social justice and equity provisions, such as stepped up enforcement of pollution that affects communities of color and the poor.

Biden's realistic goals are generally in line with what the UN says is needed globally to meet the most stringent Paris target of 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming compared to pre-industrial levels, which would be net zero global emissions by 2050.

In 1986, Biden introduced the Senate's first climate bill, he co-sponsored a "Sense of the Senate" resolution in 2005, the League of Conservation Voters has awarded Biden an 83% lifetime score on his record.

[ancianita]

12. Inslee is right. 2050 is too late. A resolution? That's not a bill or a law. That's intent ONLY.

"Sense of the Senate" and a high scorecard are laughable at this point.

We'll have to have NEGATIVE pre-industrial levels to get to pre-industrial levels by 2050. Fat chance of that with Biden's plan.

[floppyboo]

23. Biden ranks lower than Sanders according to Greenpeace FWIW

Biden was ranked super low the first time they did their evaluation, then he pulled up his socks but still not ahead of Sanders. But maybe this old dog can at least know how to pretend new tricks. Someone else will implement - as long as he's on record for being attuned - better than Trump! Who's gonna argue?

[George II]

5. Who is going to work at those 20 million jobs that are supposed to be created?

There are only 9 million unemployed people in the United States. Even if every one of them is employed, that's a shortfall of 11 million.

[Uncle Joe]

7. I believe you're taking a static or segmented view pf our population and how employment

will be affected.

The fossil fuel industry workers for one will transition over to the sustainable energy sector and Bernie's plan offers assistance in that area.

[ancianita]

13. Yes, it does.

[TexasTowelie]

18. Tell that to a refinery worker in their 50s.

It's far more likely that they will be fired and they will struggle to find a new job that pays as well. The fairy tale is that people will be retrained and transitioned into a new occupation without any ill effect. Even if they are fortunate enough to retain the same compensation, there is the stress of having to learn new skills at a time in their lives where learning isn't easy.

[Hortensis]

6. Agree with the others. But YOU should look Sanders' record up here:

https://scorecard.lcv.org/overview

The League of Conservation voters rates members of congress for each year they serve and also give lifetime ratings. And while you're checking Sanders' record on environmental, climate, energy, water, conservation, agriculture, and public health (yes, they're all big parts of any climate solutions), maybe check out all the other candidates who ever served in congress.

Today, by far most Democrats have 100% ratings for recent years, our 27 Blue Dogs drag down the averages. Those who've been around longer, like Sanders and Biden, also have 100% ratings for recent years, but their lifetime ratings will be lower.

Don't be dismayed to discover that the LCV has very high regard for Joe Biden, who's been a reliable representative for environmental issues for well over four decades. What's important is that our Democrats in congress are solidly on board -- and have been for some years waiting to get the power to act.

Btw, what a tragedy that we couldn't take control and launch our battle against global warming in January 2017 -- as we'd fully planned. Isn't it, Unk? Instead of entire planet suffering the dreadful and scary-dangerous consequences of that election.

We are thrilled that the 2018 National Environmental Scorecard is the last of an eight-year reign by the most anti-environmental U.S. House of Representatives in history. The tectonic shift to a pro-environment majority comes not a moment too soon, as the Trump administration has continued its unrelenting assault on our air, water, lands and wildlife—all to benefit its corporate polluter allies. The attacks on the environment and public health from the Trump administration and the House of Representatives throughout 2018 were all the more egregious in light of the record-breaking climate-change-fueled extreme weather our nation experienced—from the deadliest wildfire in California’s history to more intense hurricanes along the east coast—in the fourth hottest year on record, surpassed only by 2015, 2016, and 2017. It’s clear that climate change is having devastating impacts on people across the country, particularly those from low-income and communities of color.

The 2018 National Environmental Scorecard details how the extreme leadership in the House of Representatives failed to protect our environment and public health or combat the climate crisis. Instead, as the votes show, they continued to serve as a rubber stamp on the Trump administration’s attacks and once again pushed their own breathtakingly anti-environmental agenda. The 35 scored votes chronicle the breadth and depth of the chamber’s destructive efforts from allowing more toxic pollution into our air to removing protections for endangered species to slashing clean energy funding.

[brooklynite]

9. No...

Having a policy paper is one thing. Having to veer away from his standard stump speech is a bridge too far.

[ancianita]

15. Then let them challenge each other's plans. That's what's needed. No need to force them to

cancel each other out in the next debate.

[Amimnoch]

14. But would he pass a bill that's less than everything he wants here?

No argument that this is a GREAT position!

Biggest problem with Bernie is his purity tests.

We maintain the house, and do manage to squeak in the 50 Senators, any bill passed on the environment that does manage to get passed is going to have concessions, and items that are less than perfect.

I trust every one of our candidates BUT Bernie will sign said legislation moving us forward, even if less than perfect. Given his history and stance on.. well.. everything.. I wouldn't be at all surprised on a Bernie Veto, and no progress at all being made.. but his supporters will be able to still claim that he had the right position..

[ancianita]

16. Bernie knows climate change don't care about purity tests. It needs to get paid attention. Period.

We have to stop KNOWING what Bernie will do, like a veto, when he could very well send back a bill for modification and stipulations.

He's been THE amendment guy in the Senate, so that will be like second nature to him.

[Amimnoch]

19. Nope. I'd rather see progress over nothing at all.

Even if it's impure progress. If he refuses to sign off on bills that do manage to make it through congress, and "sends them back" nothing at all is what we'll get. You may not have meant to, but you made my point perfectly.

[ancianita]

20. Did you say "if"? I think you did. Want to have strong opinions over a hypothetical? Then you

have no argument.

I based mine on his factual record of being an amender of bills. What have you got.

[Amimnoch]

24. LOL, True, my "if" is a long shot.

Since it's about "if" he's elected.



exactly 3 bills that he's sponsored has made it through to law in.. how many years again?

S.893 Introduced 5/8/13. The Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 which became law in November 2013
S.885 Introduced 5/7/13. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 35 Park Street in Danville, Vermont, as the “Thaddeus Stevens Post Office” became law in November 2014.
H.R.5245 Introduced 4/27/06. To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, Vermont, as the “Matthew Lyon Post Office Building” became law in August 2006.

BIIIIIIG achievements there.

you sure do put a lot of emphasis on that title given to him by Rolling Stone.

At least you do understand that he isn't going to sign less than perfect legislation that would.. hypothetically.. hit his desk. More than enough for me in validating my notion for NOT supporting him in this race.

We get a Democratic Party POTUS, I want one that I can count on to sign hard fought for Democratic Party led legislation. Bernie is the only candidate in our field that cannot be counted on to do that.

[ancianita]

26. 3 bills in a Republican majority session, along with the other Dems sponsors who are not running.

Seriously, and without emphasis: if you let the bias toward purity testing and making the D the standard for being democratic in spirit, there's a real problem in democratic legislation from the get-go.

You conveniently overlook that his ideas in 2015/16 were so successfully hard fought they now define the party.

The LOL's on you. Someone's got to seriously put a lot of emphasis on the high priority of climate change. It might as well be Bernie, who knows who of the 1% will have to pay for it.

You want someone who'll sign on to Democratic legislation? He's signed on to more Democrat sponsored legislation than 20% of senators who've registered as Dems. Pretty good indication, if you want to note it.

[ehrnst]

28. Where do you get the 20% stat?

You conveniently overlook that his ideas in 2015/16 were so successfully hard fought they now define the party.

What ideas did he have that weren't defining Democratic party ideas before? Universal health care? Reproductive rights? Preserving and expanding the social safety net? Taxing the wealthy more? Environmental protection? Reducing military spending?

Here are some votes that Bernie cast. Not counting the recent "absent" on the sanctioning of Russian Oligharchs.

Opposed the Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks for gun purchasers and restricted felons’ access to firearms https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h614

Opposed legislation that would've maintained or created over 300,000 small business jobs through loans
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll188.xml

Opposed attempts to prevent GOP cuts for benefits for legal immigrants, Medicaid, the disabled, and children safety nets http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll329.xml

Opposed Democratic attempts to increase funding for legal immigrants and child care http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll329.xml

Opposed federal funding to help the homeless http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increased funding for nutritional programs for women infants and children http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll708.xml

Opposed funding for assisting prospective homeowners with AIDS http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed allowing breastfeeding on federal grounds http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll426.xml

Opposed legiation requiring federal agencies to create and enforce anti-sex discrimination policies http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed legislation banning imports from forced child labor http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1997/roll474.xml

Opposed funding going towards investigations of unfair trade practices http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increased education funding http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increases funding for poor students http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed legislation increasing financial aid http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Supported gutting oversight for agricultural marketing practices http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1995/roll550.xml

Opposed increased food safety and inspection http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

And then there's Sierra Blanca - which Paul Wellstone called "environmental racism." Just google it for the fallout.

[ancianita]

34. I got the 20% from a link during the 2016 primaries.

I can't locate the link right now, but will try.

Okay, fair case building out of 442 statutes. Don't know which are key, but some are definitely not cool.


However, here's a look at how he's compared with Dems in the 116th session, so he's differed by 5% from what was called the "do nothing" 115th session.

https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/S000033-bernard-sanders/compare-votes/116

Sanders votes with...

-- Sherrod Brown 84%

-- Elizabeth Warren 95%

-- Kamala Harris 90%

As long as you like votesmart, we might as well compare Sanders, Warren's and Harris's ratings, too.

https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/27110/bernie-sanders#.XWAjOy2ZNok

https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/141272/elizabeth-warren#.XWAjZS2ZNok

https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/120012/kamala-harris#.XWAjgS2ZNok

I'm now undecided.

I'm no longer out to promote any one candidate this primary season.

I chose my candidate, donated over $500, and now will see how the debate and state primaries shake out, since I'm in a Super Tuesday state.

[ehrnst]

37. So that's a stat you got 3 years ago, and you don't remember the source.

I'm now undecided.

I'm no longer out to promote any one candidate this primary season.

That was sudden after promoting Sanders constantly.

What made you change your mind?

[ancianita]

38. You saw the updated stat, regardless. And so what. Do you keep post histories back that far?

I've asserted for most of the frontrunners. Biden, Warren and Harris, particularly.

In case you're unaware, I posted OPs on the Inslee Primary Candidates' threads from April 4 onward, while posting support for other candidates.

I'm in the primary season. Defending Bernie isn't zero sum, nor does it indicate my commitment to his nomination. Candidates evolving isn't an issue for me, either. They all do. I still try to support all Democrats.

I've never stated what I'd do if my candidate were to drop out.
I've never changed my mind, either.

I'll change my vote from Inslee when it's my state's primary.

Thank you for asking.

[ehrnst]

39. Your constant cheerleading/defense of Senator Sanders, no matter what, indicates otherwise.

You're welcome.

[ancianita]

40. You asked me. I gave you an honest answer. I defend any candidate who I think is baselessly

undermined. Yours were the only stats, links that showed up in a negatively opinionated thread by the time I read your post.

As much as I've defended Biden, Warren, Inslee and Harris, Bernie deserves defense against underminers as much, with the facts of his record, policy positions, votes, political philosophy.

I don't Alert, as a rule; just question those who undermine Democratic candidates without evidence. I've been annoyed with unsubstantiated consensus choruses lately, but I'll get over it.

I don't mind any negative opinions as long as they're grounded in fact, confirmed by links to credible sources. Well reasoned arguments with good links -- effort posts -- are exciting reads, and sources of learning on DU. It's the only fair way to not be a circular firing squad, as Obama calls it.

[ehrnst]

41. Unsubstantiated?

I beg to differ.

I link to my sources, and a voting record isn't opinion.

Still interested in the source for the 20% stat.

[Uncle Joe]

42. Well in 2016 Bernie's voting record with the Democratic Party was 95%

and the average Democrat voting with the party was only 80%.

A month before he was re-elected to a third term in 1994, House Democrats blessed his claim for a leadership role on one of his committees. Sanders had no Democratic challenger that year, and a spokesperson for his Republican opponent called Sanders "an adjunct to the Democratic Party" according to the Washington Post.

The party backed Sanders’ 1996 re-election bid over one of their own. Burlington lawyer and Democrat Jack Long, after being informed that the party was committed to Sanders, told the Washington Post that he felt like he was "caught in a Kafka play." Sanders wouldn’t have another Democratic opponent until 2004.

By 1997, Sanders was still not a member of the House Democratic Caucus nor a Democrat. But he voted with the party more often than the average Democrat (95 percent of the time opposed to 80 percent). Keeping good to their promise, Democratic leadership gave Sanders a subcommittee chairmanship over a freshman Democrat.

When he ran for the Senate a decade later in 2006, still as an independent, the party worked to stop Democratic candidates from running against him, and he was endorsed by numerous state and national Democrats.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/23/bernie-sanders-democrat/

Perhaps the poster had this in mind?

[ancianita]

43. Yes. Thank you.

[ehrnst]

45. The Politifact article doesn't support what you said:

He's signed on to more Democrat sponsored legislation than 20% of senators who've registered as Dems.

The text that Uncle Joe bolded was a stat from 22 years ago. Your statement inferred a current statistic.

I think you may have seen that on a meme that someone came up with without any citations, and believed it because it confirmed what you assumed about Democrats.

[Uncle Joe]

48. The claim from post #34 was "I got the 20% from a link during the 2016 primaries,"

and that's when this article was printed.

[ehrnst]

50. From upthread. I've bolded the relevant text to make it easier for you:

ehrnst (23,770 posts)

37. So that's a stat you got 3 years ago, and you don't remember the source.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287249567#post37

[ehrnst]

53. So, what do you make of this?

The biggest argument was over running as a Democrat. Over and over, Bernie Sanders said he didn’t want to. He’d spent his whole life purposefully outside the Democratic Party. He treasured his status as the longest-serving independent in Congress. Running as a Democrat wasn’t who he was. He didn’t want to do it that way.

His longtime consultant Tad Devine and the rest of the group came down hard: this is never going to have a chance of working unless you get over it. Suck it up, they told him.

[ehrnst]

30. Amendment guy.

After the hard, real work of drafting, compromise and working with a team is done, then someone comes in and puts an amendment on it.

And that person is supposed to be considered a legislative master?

LBJ had the smarts and the people skills to get the Great Society legislation passed. He didn't wag his finger and yell and insist that everyone who disagreed with him was corrupt.

FDR was the consumate insider - a 1% er who had the understanding and background in economics, along with people skills and charisma to know when the time was ripe for his programs.

Bernie is no LBJ, and certainly no FDR.

[Vegas Roller]

22. Another platitude and a slogan with a vague BS plan

Just in time for election!! (And cleverly and transparently timed to Jay Inslee's exit)

There will be hundreds of such pronouncements weekly to attract votes -- whose price tag will reach $100 trillion very soon.

We are already at 24 trillion.

[ehrnst]

31. I noticed that... right after Inslee leaves the race. (nt)

[comradebillyboy]

25. In a word, no. No he isn't because he's an ineffective

legislator. Has he gotten any of his grandiose 'plans' enacted?

[katmondoo]

27. If is popular Bernie will persue it as long as it is not a candidate that is popular

[SidDithers]

29. No...nt

Sid

[StevieM]

32. I would say that Tom Steyer is the new climate candidate.

If they will let him in the debates.

[myohmy2]

49. I would say...

...yes,

https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/

...

[DrFunkenstein]

51. The U.S. government estimates it will receive $3.645 trillion in revenue in 2019

I appreciate an aspirational goal as much as the next guy, but Bernie might as well have said $16 zillion.

I love him to pieces, I've still got his sign in my window, but this goes beyond moon shot. This is more like Biden saying "We're going to cure cancer" if he's elected.

[Autumn]

52. Low-income and minority communities are feeling the effects of climate change first

and it is and will be hardest on them, some of the same people who won't vote for him because he's a socialist. Ignorance. Do those people think capitalism will save them when it gets bad? Who knows. Maybe they can be convinced of the idea of nuking hurricanes.