Washington Post Op Ed:

[George II]

Trump’s wall is child’s play compared to Bernie Sanders’s climate plan

By David Von Drehle
Columnist
August 23 at 5:43 PM

If you cross a Missouri cow pasture and don’t look where you’re stepping, chances are you’re going to wind up with a certain substance on your shoes. Same goes for voters trying to get from here to Election Day.

Not like we haven’t heard some lies already. Trade wars aren’t a good thing; they aren’t easy to win; there’s no big, beautiful, see-through wall with solar panels on it along our southern border; and Mexico didn’t pay for it. This election cycle, though, rampant unreality knows no party. On one side, we have the Fabulist in Chief. On the other, we have the likes of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

The wall is child’s play compared with the risible fantasy that Sanders has rolled out in lieu of an actual climate change strategy. It’s hard to know where to start with this document — but here are a couple of the, uh, high points:

Sanders will replace or scrap all aircraft, the vast majority of cars and trucks, most buses, trains and ships; hundreds of power plants; and much of the electrical grid — which is what he would have to do to reach his promised “100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation.” And he will do this by 2030. That’s 10 years. Boston’s Big Dig took 20.

(more at the link, restricted to four paragraphs)

This is a good read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-wall-is-childs-play-compared-to-bernie-sanderss-climate-plan/2019/08/23/cfb69490-c5da-11e9-9986-1fb3e4397be4_story.html

[yardwork]

1. Very eye-opening.

[Celerity]

7. David Von Drehle, the author of the OP's article tore into Warren with equal gusto a few weeks back

‘Pragmatic’: How Corporate Media Praise Dems Who Abandon Progressive Values

https://fair.org/home/pragmatic-how-corporate-media-praise-dems-who-abandon-progressive-values/




American politics could use a healthy dose of pragmatism



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/american-politics-could-use-a-healthy-dose-of-pragmatism/2019/08/02/6ea550c4-b540-11e9-951e-de024209545d_story.html

[yardwork]

20. He's rather consistent in his views.

What's eye-opening is to read some of what's actually detailed in Sanders' plans.

[Celerity]

42. consistent in his views, yes (attacking Dem POTUS candidates) here he trashes Hillary on her emails

and other favourite (RW) Clinton-bash tropes.

The Clinton Way

BY DAVID VON DREHLE

MARCH 12, 2015

https://time.com/3741847/the-clinton-way/

snip

The Clintons play by their own set of rules. And in this case, the former Secretary of State explained, those rules bless her decision to erase some 30,000 emails from the family server despite knowing that the emails had become a subject of intense interest to congressional investigators. These were merely “private personal emails,” Clinton averred, “emails about planning Chelsea’s wedding or my mother’s funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.” After she finished taking questions, Clinton’s staff disclosed that no one actually read through those 30,000-odd documents before she “chose not to keep” them.

snip

Along with her husband–the 42nd President of the United States–Hillary Clinton is the co-creator of a soap-operatic political universe in which documents vanish, words like is take on multiple meanings and foes almost always overplay their hand. Impeachment can be a route to higher approval ratings; the occasional (and rare) defeat merely marks the start of the next campaign. Whatever rules may apply to them, the law of gravity is not one.

Still, Clinton’s failure to defuse the email issue, along with a growing list of questions about the family’s relentless fundraising and her husband’s choice of companions, has revived hopes among erstwhile rivals in the Democratic Party that the Hillary dreadnought might actually be sinkable. Backbiting inside the Clinton campaign–a hallmark of her failed 2008 presidential effort–has begun to leak into the political press. Republicans who were morose over their presidential chances mere months ago have a spring in their step.

Trust Me

The story of the Clinton rule book is a long and Gothic yarn, with its roots in the loam of human nature: lust, money, ambition, idealism. The mix of those last two–ambition and idealism–put the young Bill and Hillary Clinton on the path of politics a half-century ago. The first two–lust and money–posed significant obstacles in their way.

It’s news to no one who lived through the late 1990s that Bill Clinton can be sexually reckless. But for a politician who grew up in the years of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, when sexual recklessness was the presidential norm, only to find himself in the chastened age of Gary Hart, Clinton’s lifestyle required that he and his wife become good secret keepers.

snip


plenty of other Hillary and Bill slagging off in there

[yardwork]

43. That is disgusting. The writer is a pig.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

27. Guys, Republicans are allowed to lie about their policies, but Dems have to pay for everything!

F pragmatism.

Republicans just put a $2 TRILLION dollar tax cut on a credit card. Let Bernie spend money to save the planet.
When the GOP gets billionaires to pay back that tax cut, THEN I will worry about Bernie's numbers. And not before.

[Cha]

2. Thanks, George. Ohoh.. more

reason for BS to complain about WaPo.

They're not afraid to voice their opinion on his Climate Change plan.

[mr_lebowski]

3. To be fair, it sounds ridiculous mostly because of the scope of what we actually SHOULD be doing ...

Truth is, we should've f***ing started in the 1970's.

Now ... what we actually NEED to do?

Sounds freaking ridiculous.

Cause it is ... but that's because we've completely f***ed up as a world when it comes to this subject. We've utterly and completely LAGGED on doing what needed to be done.

Not exactly Bernie's fault. I don't blame him for aiming high (though I take great issue with his desire to shut down nuclear power, which is ludicrous IMHO) because that's where we need to start.

People need to understand what the actual scope of the task is here. So I applaud him for shoving it in people's faces.

We need a plan that's RIDICULOUSLY BOLD at this stage of the game.

If a guy like Bernie can't put it out there ... I ask ... who CAN?

[George II]

4. His climate change "plan" has everything but the kitchen sink, and lots of it has nothing to do....

....with climate change.

If I was in a position to act on it, I'd need a LOT more than 38 pages before I'd spend $18 trillion.

[SCVDem]

16. We did start in the 70s.

Pres. Carter and the solar water heater on the WH.
Then came the Republicans who ridiculed environmental action and took out the solar system.

Here we are at the precipice. Thanks Repubs.

[mr_lebowski]

19. I thought of that very thing as I was writing my post :) And Yup ... thanks a-holes! nt

[Ferrets are Cool]

22. Exactly!

[yonder]

28. +1. Scope.

In my book, exactly right.

[wasupaloopa]

39. Congress will decide what the plan is not Bernie.

Bernie is out there like the pied piper blowing smoke up everyone's ass and fools follow him into fantasy land.

He should drop out and these fools listen to realistic candidates which they think are losers because Bernie has such a “bold” plan.

[mr_lebowski]

46. That's a not-unreasonable POV ;) (nt)

[bitterross]

5. The both-sides-do-it part makes me angry

Sanders is not a Democrat.

[elocs]

17. This!This!This! Sanders is not a Democrat.

I am undecided now as to who I support but in the Wisconsin primary I will vote for a candidate who is a proud member of the Democratic Party and works within the party to make it better,
not a candidate who just uses the party to run for president.

[pangaia]

25. Pride is one of the seven deadly sins...

[liberal N proud]

18. Nailed it

[ArcticFox]

24. He's better

I'm afraid we're all doomed when so many refuse to even try to save or planet. Bernie Sanders is one of the very few people willing to admit the enormity of what needs to be done.

[wasupaloopa]

40. He is not realistic. We need real scientists to

advise us about what to do.

Bernie is living in fantasy land. We have to rely on people who know what needs to be done and what can be done and when and how to do it.

[oasis]

6. Could Bernie and Nina Turner sell such a bold plan?

[comradebillyboy]

12. As easily as they could sell the Brooklyn Bridge to a

New Yorker.

[betsuni]

8. Blah blah Jeff Bezos blah Washington Post blah personal bias blah corporate media conglomerate blah.

[melman]

11. Yeah this garbage column is a great example of that indeed

Thanks for pointing it out!

[Cha]

13. No, it's not "garbage" just bc they don't

like BS' climate change plan.

[melman]

14. Yes it actually is

It's total trash.

[betsuni]

21. Blah blah garbage blah trash blah corporate shills blah terrified of Bernie blah rigged blah.

Attack the messenger still on auto-play.

[melman]

23. "Attack the messenger"

There was a whole lot of messenger attacking going on in this thread here

And yet judging by your post there you seemed okay with that. Odd.

[betsuni]

32. No, that OP was not an example of attacking the messenger.

Explaining what you think someone got wrong is criticism of the media:
That's a bad headline, change it.
Don't take things out of context.
The reporter should've talked to the people there to see what they thought.
That is not factual.

Attacking the messenger is not discussing the content:
Jeff Bezos owns the WaPo and he owns Amazon so the WaPo is garbage.
MSM is a corporate media conglomerate so it is trash.
That blogger's brother's wife's cousin works for the Biden campaign, they are a neoliberal.
I don't know the person who wrote that tweet, why should I care what they think?

Now do you understand? Next time you see an OP with an article or tweet, why not try to discuss what is said, not who wrote it or who owns the news source it comes from?

[melman]

33. "The reporter should've talking to the people there to see what they thought."

Why? When a presidential candidate is speaking the only thing that matters is what people in the actual room thought?


That is absolutely ridiculous.

[betsuni]

35. "the people there" means the "people in the actual room."

Same thing. (Didn't notice my typo "talking." )

[melman]

37. Right

I got that. But why is their reaction the only thing that matters?

[betsuni]

41. The point is that reporters took one sentence out a speech without hearing the speech

and the context, which the audience would know. Of course the opinion of a witness is more important than the opinion of someone who wasn't there.

It's like if you came up to a group and someone's been telling a long joke but all you hear is "... and she stepped on the ball." Then you go around telling everybody that person's joke wasn't funny. But if you'd asked one of those people in the group what they thought you'd have a better idea of the joke. Biden was explaining what times were like in the 60s when MFK and MLK were assassinated and his sentence about Obama was part of the story, it didn't come out of the blue. That's what people were criticizing: "I would challenge reporters tweeting about this to ask a single person in that room today what the take away from the event was."

[melman]

44. "the opinion of a witness is more important than the opinion of someone who wasn't there."

No it's not. Not when all of the words are available for everyone to read/watch/hear.

It's a nonsensical diversion tactic to say, basically, ''if the people there thought it was okay then it's okay"

First of all, you don't know it was okay for everyone there. And even if it was it's irrelevant because..


He's running for president and not just president of the people in that room.

[betsuni]

61. ...

[DallasNE]

29. Plans Are Never Fleshed Out At This Juncture In A Campaign

So it is a little early for the garbage truck to pull up. Upcoming debates will give the various plans the necessary critique and then we go from there but article is silly in its wild flailing, superiority complex. Indeed, why is it even featured on DU as it speaks better of Trump than any of the top Democratic candidates.

[George II]

34. Then why has the cost of the plan been fleshed out at $18 trillion?

[DallasNE]

63. That Is A Worst Case Assumption From An Unfriendly Source

The plan likely need work and that is part of the process. But this infighting plays right into Donald Trump's hands. Indeed, I'm not even saying I support it at this time because I don't know enough about it. I'm just keeping my powder dry until more is known.

[George II]

64. It's actually $16.3 trillion, not $18 trillion. Sorry. From his own website:

"Directly invest an historic $16.3 trillion..."

So I say again, he's saying it will cost $16.3 trillion and we don't know any of the details?

[mcar]

9. Good grief!

Does Sanders' plan really suggest all that?

[melman]

10. Why didn't you use the article headline for the thread title?

[Cha]

50. Why does it matter?

[melman]

51. You know why

[Cha]

52. No.. I don't read minds.

[betsuni]

54. I wonder what the diabolical reason is.

Maybe Jeff Bezos is involved.

[Cha]

55. lol

I knew this was going to be funny.

There's got to be some diabolic plot with Bezos at the center.

And, maybe George?

[betsuni]

57. If we all write best-sellers to hawk on Amazon, we can be millionaires, too.

[Cha]

58. Wait.. I thought amazon was bad?!

Except when they're selling certain books?!

[betsuni]

60. "All that I'm saying is, I don't think anyone seriously believes that because I wrote a

best-selling book, it made money, that I've changed my views and you'll now hear me saying 'Gee, maybe we want to give tax breaks to millionaires.' I don't think you've heard me say that."

[Cha]

62. ...

[Me.]

15. So Everything Will Come To A Sudden Stop?

no one will be able to get to work, truckers won't be able to bring food or supplies. won't need medical because how would we get there...no jobs ...no money...no money no nothing. Dead stop...literally.

[JoeOtterbein]

26. The WP smears on Bernie are convincing more and more...

...that they must be worrying that Bernie will be POTUS and dare to raise taxes on the wealthy and comfy.

[katmondoo]

31. Bernie just plain worries me. I am not sure if he means what he says or just puts stuff out.

[Cha]

49. No.. the WaPo Doesn't like BS climate change

plan.

[George II]

65. Not many people do. Other candidates have better, more detailed plans.

[Cha]

66. Exactly!

[LanternWaste]

67. 2+27. Another statement. Like yours, also unsupported by evidence.

Yours is another accurate example of an allegation lacking evidence to support it. Simply saying it's so doesn't actually make it so. You do know that, yes?

[PatrickforO]

30. Interesting.

I am struck by this paragraph:

United Nations scientists have urged a deadline of achieving net-zero global emissions — that is, eliminating as much greenhouse gas pollution from the atmosphere as humans generate — by 2050. That would stave off the worst consequences of climate change like rising seas, longer droughts and worsened heat waves, experts say.

I bring this up because I had my kids over for dinner last night, and when we were grilling the meat, I was talking to my son about climate change. He is 34 years old, and said, "Well, it doesn't matter how much it will cost, does it? Because we're down to the wire and if we don't take some aggressive action, we'll all go extinct."

I know not everyone on here likes Bernie, and for that matter AOC, but this Green New Deal? We need it or something very like it moving forward, and we as a people, since we consume more than any other group, need to step up and take some serious leadership in the matter.

Honestly, I don't know what the answer is - I'm not a scientist. Interesting to me that Bernie talks about eschewing 'false solutions like nuclear power,' because I was having a conversation with a member on here named NNadir. He is a rather severe fellow, but is a very strong advocate of nuclear fission, and of creating a very strong recycling program where we figure out how to reuse waste. Here's a link to that conversation, and I encourage you all to go to his journal and read some of the papers on there.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=252342

Now, I'm not ready just to go out and completely endorse everything NNadir says on here, but the guy is a scientist and suggests that maybe since most of us are not, we should actually base any plans moving forward not on political expedience (i.e. what gets the highest polling numbers), but on real science.

The climate scientists (real ones, not the faux ones paid for by big oil) need to be gathered together, form a consensus, and then we need to do what they say.

Hard for me to say that, you know, because when it comes to most issues I feel I have a pretty informed opinion. But I'm not a physical or life scientist and we need those people now more than ever.

So, let's try and refrain from picking apart everyone's plan, and pressure the person who finally ends up being our candidate to do the intelligent thing and let our plan grow from actual scientific consensus. Because bottom line, we are going to be breaking new ground here if we want to save the earth and our species.

[questionseverything]

47. well we can't just switch from a big oil scientist to a big nuke scientist either

much of the warming in the pacific from the last decade is because of the melt down of the coast of japan, that fuel was never found and the ocean water cooling fuel makes the water warmer


with what we have witnessed this summer (the glaciers melting at warp speeds),the artic circle on fire, the amazon on fire) I would guess the un's 2050 warning is about 30 years late


the trouble is no matter what we do, the rest of the world many of whom are just trying to survive probably aren't going to follow, when your children are crying from hunger the ozone means nothing to you

[PatrickforO]

59. Yeah, but the human species will become extinct because our

carbon emissions will cause the planet to become uninhabitable.

That's why I'm suggesting that whoever is elected president needs to get the most respected climate scientists (not just 'big nuke' scientists, but the most prestigious of all climate scientists) in a room and give them a month to come to some consensus and then do that.

I'm 60 and my father fought in the Pacific theater in the Second World War after having survived the Great Depression.

We were in uncharted territory in both of those situations, too, but we tried stuff. And if that stuff didn't work, we tried other stuff. Finally, we found the stuff that worked and kept doing it until the crisis was over.

That's what we need to do now.

Or else by the time our children's grandchildren get there, there won't be a there to get to, if you take my meaning.

[Perseus]

36. Has anyone read Sanser's plan on this board?

Can anyone assert here if this is not republican propaganda?

It would be nice to know. I will read both and then make up my own mind, but I hate to accept this article at face value.

[Recursion]

68. I've read it.

It's pretty vacuous. His answer to "how can we replace the entire generation and distribution system within 10 years?" is "FDR electrified the Tennessee valley in 8". I need more, personally.

[George II]

70. People don't realize that this isn't 1932 anymore.

In the mid-1930s the most used passenger aircraft was the DC-2, which carried 14 passengers, and there were a few dozen commercial passenger flights per day.

Now we have aircraft that carry 500 passengers and there are about 40,000 commercial passenger flights per day.

The Tennessee Valley isn't the United States.

[Recursion]

71. And we do things like assess a project's environmental impact

Or its impact on Native American archaeological sites

[Kurt V.]

38. the big dig was as bad a comparison as it gets. good grief

[NYMinute]

45. BS's plans can be summarized easily

Everything for everyone and let the costs be damned.

[Vegas Roller]

48. An excellent read .. thanks for posting nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. K&R

[myohmy2]

56. you...

...either believe we have major problems needing immediate attention or you don't...

...read for yourself,

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

" Reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization by 2050 at latest – consistent with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change goals – by expanding the existing federal Power Marketing Administrations to build new solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources. "
……………

" This plan will pay for itself over 15 years. Experts have scored the plan and its economic effects. We will pay for the massive investment we need to reverse the climate crisis by: "
…………..

" We cannot accomplish any of these goals without taking on the fossil fuel billionaires whose greed lies at the very heart of the climate crisis. These executives have spent hundreds of millions of dollars protecting their profits at the expense of our future, and they will do whatever it takes to squeeze every last penny out of the Earth. "
……………………….


...Bernie's plan sounds like an all-out effort to halt climate change like the all-out effort we made to defeat the Nazi's in WWII...you either believe climate change is a real global emergency and disaster happening or you don't...

...I'm old and will be croaking soon...if I had 50 more years I'd be listening real close to what people like Bernie has to say and what needs to be done...it's your and your kids lives and future on the line, do what you like...but when the shit hits the fan, don't say you haven't been warned...

...good luck, you'll need it...

[Cha]

69. Thank you, WaPo!