"Joe Biden's climate plan appears to directly copy multiple lines from other organizations — but his campaign says it was a mistake."
This says it all... :(
It is remarkable how the intensity of climate change movement has become so mainstream and compelling just in the last few years. I suppose pictures of the Arctic being destroyed by temperatures far beyond anything we have ever seen in that polar region in addition to the devastating impacts of heat in other parts of the world are having on the world's oceans, shorelines, islands and inland areas also exposed to violent climate changed related weather events. All of this has gelled with climate science and climate activism reaching fever pitches around the world.
Of course, the troglodytes in the Republican party continue to deny the evidence and make shameful public policies designed to favor the one group that does face extinction from green energy i.e. oil, gas and coal producers.
It is also telling how a Democratic centrist like Biden has embraced the new agenda, but it would seem given the political landscape of the Democratic nomination process he has no choice but to embrace the new climate agenda.
It may be that all of this effort will not be enough. That green house gas levels in the atmosphere have reached tipping point for the world's climate system. We will learn that over the coming decades through the end of the century. What may also be required are geoengineering technologies to extract some of the accumulated gases from the atmosphere. That in itself could or will sporn a new industry.
2
What amazing writing. Is this enough for climate change, I don't know but as long as we have these kinds of journalists on the beat, I believe. Bravo Ms. Glueck, Bravo
1
Climate heat and drought will cause an explosive migration. The key to the future of this country is in the Democrats hands. To accept and assimilate all migrants is an old and nieve plan. We must not only work against climate change, we must work within the boundaries of climate change accepting its here, and what can we do now. Israel, one of the driest countries on earth now makes more freshwater than it needs, from saltwater.
It seems as though we get more reports that strike fear than give concrete solutions. Some areas will grow more food, other areas will grow none. A pipeline from the glaciers, new cities started to handle the coastal migration, ocean farming instead of corporate farm subsidies, the best trees that eat carbon and mostly, simplifying the message.
No need to go to Paris wasting jet fuel, this country, this America, has some of the most brilliant minds just waiting to solve the immediate problems.
"Make America Lead" again, lead the world with the key to save the world as if a shepherd into the future.
The Democrats may hold this key, if they unite and accept the challenge.
Sanders/Warren
2
Absolutely insane. These cost estimates are woefully low, probably by a factor of 5X to 10X. Perhaps leftists living on the coasts think this is a grand idea but sane Americans are NOT going to stand by as their standard of living slides backward to the '50's, the 1850's that is. No one can explain why spending tens of trillions of dollars to barely nudge the temperature in 50 or 100 years makes sense. They can't explain it because it makes no sense from a financial or social standpoint. We need to stop thinking emotionally and start thinking in real terms, trying to run a modern economy with windmills and solar cells is not possible, especially when nuclear energy is always off the table. The Dems will lose big if they continue to embrace these destructive ideas.
1
Joe Biden is fun to watch when he is progressive. But when he says republicans will meet somewhere at some time on something he proves he has not learned anything from his Senate Presidency as Vice President.
2
for years we have been told that we are killing the planet, when it is its hospitality to human/huwoman that is in question. the planet will be around until it crashes into the sun and it will be full of life even with high level of CO2 and Methane and ... but we will not.
I live in a rural area. Do you really think anyone in rural America cares about climate change? Most think it is propaganda created by the Left to foster their big government agenda. The reality where I live? Zero regard for the environment. Huge industrial chicken farms are going in by the hundreds (the size of football fields each). No one cares how many gallons of water it takes to create one pound of hamburger meat (80 I think), There needs to be some serious education going on outside of the coasts. These people do.not.get.it.
3
I just don't think Joe Biden is the right person for the job...I don't think this plan comes from him, he has never aligned himself w/ green ideals or anything progressive. I don't thin he is insincere I just don't think the environment has been a driving force in his life.....kind of waking up late in the game......we have other better choices to select our candidate from. He is the choice of the corporate DNC. Younger people will never get behind Biden when will the DNC get that?
2
Whenever you hear criticism of Biden's plans you simply have to scratch the surface to find a supporter of Sanders. They helped Trump win the WH in 2016 and are determined to do it again in 2020. Sanders missed his opportunity and we need someone to face Trump that the GOP cannot dismiss with the word socialism. They are going to use it every chance they can but Sanders has painted the target clearly on his back. Kerry was a war hero and the GOP destroyed him. Sanders is done before a single vote is cast.
4
You would be surprised by how many Americans across the country want and need Medicare for All and free community college or vocational training.
1
None of these proposals can supply the needed power to run the economy unless nuclear power is brought into the mix. The fear of nuclear ignores the facts:
Many many more have died from the two Boeing 737 Max8 crashes than from all nuclear power accidents ever. And nearly twice as many died from the single collision of two 747s at Tenerife. Nuclear power, considering what it can do, is extremely safe.
No one died due to the Fukushima reactors. They all died from the tsunami and the hasty evacuation.
No one died from TMI.
And the number of casualties from Chernobyl are far lower than the two crashes I mention above. And that reactor had, stupidly, no secondary containment; all others do.
Nuclear power needs to be put into perspective by asking “compared to what?”.
The key issue is dealing with the fuel rods after they have used only a few percent of the available fissionable fuel in it. That fuel can be reprocessed, but Carter stopped that. It needs to be restarted so more of the useful fuel can be used.
And remember, replacing one coal plant with a nuclear plant eliminates 40,000 TONS of carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere each and every day! That’s only one plant. And along with that comes radon, uranium, mercury, arsenic, soot, and thousands of tons of tailings, also each day.
This alone makes economic arguments irrelevant. We need to save the planet regardless of cost.
3
I am happy to see a plan from Biden, though I have read many full length books on how to address climate change and 22 pages seems like an off the cuff approach, not a serious plan. But it appears to have some elements right. Embracing The Paris Accord is not sufficient. Paris will leave us with 2 degrees C warming resulting in continued permafrost melting, extinction of 1/3 species on Earth, serious acidification of our oceans, billions of climate migrants, and complete loss of the Maldives, many Alaskan island communities, parts of New York, London, New Orleans, Miami. We must do better than the Paris agreement. I am surprised any climate change experts would endorse this. At least Warren's plan sells the idea to the country by offering a true New Deal to Americans with green energy jobs incentives, new Cabinet level agencies, and real commitments, including how to pay for it. Complicated economy-wide problems require large, complicated, detailed efforts, not 22 pages.
2
Sanders/Warren
Sincere,solid, of one mind. Not backed by Walmart, Comcast (the media) and More Corporations.
Climate heat and drought will cause an explosive migration. The key to the future of this country is in the Democrats hands. To accept and assimilate all migrants is an old and nieve plan. We must not only work against climate change, we must work within the boundaries of climate change accepting its here, and what can we do now. Israel, one of the driest countries on earth now makes more freshwater than it needs, from saltwater.
It seems as though we get more reports that strike fear than give concrete solutions. Some areas will grow more food, other areas will grow none. A pipeline from the glaciers, new cities started to handle the coastal migration, ocean farming instead of corporate farm subsidies, the best trees that eat carbon and mostly, simplifying the message.
No need to go to Paris wasting jet fuel, this country, this America, has some of the most brilliant minds just waiting to solve the immediate problems.
"Make America Lead" again, lead the world with the key to save the world as if a shepherd into the future.
The Democrats may hold this key, if they unite and accept the challenge. Bernie and Liz will do this with honesty. We actually can trust them.
1
I see Joe liked Beto's plan enough he decided to copy it ! I encourage everyone who likes this plan to compare it to Beto's announced last month. Beto has real good policy, it just gets lifted by everyone else
1
@just a girl
I believe it was cribbed from some fossil-fuel-industry-backed groups. Which would fit in with Beto pretty well as the number two recipient of fossil fuel donations in the House.
Let’s have some equal coverage for all of the plans addressing climate change, not to mention all the Democratic candidates, shall we? From this article on one of the top issues for 2020, it appears that the NYT has already decided who they think is the Democratic front runner, which can have a huge influence on voters. You mention Warren’s plan in the article’s title, then give the bulk of the article and all of the quotes to Biden. Those of us who have not made a decision which candidate to back need full information on each of them. Please do better.
5
Has this story been updated to include Biden's admitted plagiarism in his plan from the Blue Green Alliance and another fossil-fuel-industry-backed outfit? Apparently he can't break the plagiarism or corporate-loving habits.
2
Imagine… political wunderkinds vilifying ICE Officers, or using the transitive verb impeachment as a cunning prop for their hatred. Watching the ad-libbing antics of democratic pitchmen and candidates on the alleged political ‘road to 2020’ reminds me of those old ‘Road’ shows where Bing Crosby and Bob Hope were filmed depicting the wacky antics of asinine buffoons.
Imagine… comparing presidential candidates, ideological pitchmen or so called journalist / pundits with the mainstream news media to buffoons; or grimly pondering socialist coup junkies abandoning any notions of democratic tolerance and honesty for the shadowed world of parsed lies and cunning hatred.
Imagine… wondering when this socialist buffoonery might end; or members of the Democratic Party first sold out or were hijacked by socialist activist. Or when liberal wunderkinds first ventured down the socialist road to perdition. Talk about duplicity morphing into parsed larder where politically correct wunderkinds spew their cunning hatred while peeking up the robes of Lady Justice.
It’s hard to be optimistic when Americans just elected a leader who denies science, plans to focus on reopening coal mines and receives support from fossil fuel giants like Russia, Saudi Arabia and the Koch Brothers. Trump’s America (Republicans) cannot be persuaded by facts, as they only hear “truth” that supports expanded energy usage.
Yes, all of these Democrat action plans are going to impact everyone's lifestyle. The only question is which will cost more, taking action now, or denying science and delaying a response until the earth is on the brink of catastrophe.
The science denying Republican Party must be removed from positions of power until they can join the debate with facts supported by real science. Time will eventually convince everyone of the climate change reality.
3
One point seven trillion dollars is twice the whole yearly budget for the country. Here is my plan. Just let technology take us there in the natural course of time. The world in spite of AOCs warning is not going to burn up in twelve years. Think about what it takes to get the material needed out of the ground and the energy to make what is needed. Green energy will not hack it.
To make wind mills you need aluminum. To make batteries and copper for car engines you need all kinds of material mined. Then you need more electricity to power everyone's cars.
1
Dem's favor un or barely restricted immigration, which conflicts with the root cause of carbon emissions and that is a constantly growing population, exacerbated by the enrichment of low income, largely minorities.
Even worse, Dem's have never proposed verification or measurement of their carbon emission's caps and controls on the atmosphere. One good reason is few understand the molecular weight of CO2 which makes it a ground level gas where the concentration is greatest; nor do they understand the role plants through photosynthesis places in transforming CO2 in oxygen and stored carbon.
Best to use lofty, catch phrases instead of planting trees and replacing parking lots with forests.
Even worse are Republicans who are just as ignorant.
3
Biden's mild delivery of his ambitious green new deal ideas, those of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is so folksy, so soft. He presents himself as friendly Uncle Joe, not a fiery, passionate, intelligent fighter who could win against Trump.
The key points of Biden's plan are good, that is, taxing carbon emissions, eliminating CO2 emissions by 2050, funding the plan by rolling back Trump's corporate tax reductions, and demanding that all states pay a part of realising this plan.
But tariffs are already in place on China, though not for carbon emissions, and they have only served to hurt Americans economically. That might not be the way to go.
Would like to know how he proposes to persuade oil and coal barons, and automakers, and corporate recipients of tax reductions, to "go green". They will be giving enormous sums of money to Trump.
His facts are right, but as their messenger, he'll fail, except among grey-haired centrists who were never hippies.
Warren has more fire, and I like her green energy manufacturing plan.
I like Sanders the best, and hope the DNC doesn't botch their candidate choice again, like they did in 2016, by ignoring the people and the polls, and selecting someone based on name recognition.
Sanders, again, is polling in first place. He is having well-attended town halls across the U.S. And where do we read about him? On social media.
The press needs to get off the DNC wagon and report reality.
6
@Lilou
Climate heat and drought will cause an explosive migration. The key to the future of this country is in the Democrats hands. To accept and assimilate all migrants is an old and nieve plan. We must not only work against climate change, we must work within the boundaries of climate change accepting its here, and what can we do now. Israel, one of the driest countries on earth now makes more freshwater than it needs, from saltwater.
It seems as though we get more reports that strike fear than give concrete solutions. Some areas will grow more food, other areas will grow none. A pipeline from the glaciers, new cities started to handle the coastal migration, ocean farming instead of corporate farm subsidies, the best trees that eat carbon and mostly, simplifying the message.
No need to go to Paris wasting jet fuel, this country, this America, has some of the most brilliant minds just waiting to solve the immediate problems.
"Make America Lead" again, lead the world with the key to save the world as if a shepherd into the future.
The Democrats may hold this key, if they unite and accept the challenge.
Sanders/Warren
1
Climate change is important but it's not what weighs on the minds of most families as they pay bills at the end of the month. Families worry about having enough money right now--not some vague, future climatic catastrophe.
Dems still have pressing issues for most people: inequality and health care. That's where they should focus their differences with Trump.
3
@Frank Baudino
What is vague about catastrophic fires and so much rain you can't plant a crop?
1
Stop stumping for this failed Senator who will be run over by Trump just like he ran over Jeb Bush. Biden's record is awful:
1991 As Chairman, allowed fellow members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to attacked Anita Hill. (So we got Clarence Thomas.)
1994 Wrote the disastrous Crime Bill. (Hello prison industrial complex.)
1995 Wrote the Omnibus Counter-terrorism Act (became Patriot Act).
1996 Voted Against Gay Marriage. (Real leadership there.)
1999 Repealed Glass Steagall. (World financial crisis.)
2001 Voted for the Patriot Act. (Big Brother is watching you.)
2002 Voted for Iraq War. (Yeah but it's ok, cuz his son served.)
2005 Voted to end bankruptcy protection for students. (Endless debt builds character.)
2018 Presents G.W. Bush with Liberty Medal. (Finally gets the big stuff right.)
5
It appears that only Biden can take back PA, MI, WI & OH from Trump in 2020 Election. All other candidates need support Biden's candidature in order to defeat current occupant of White House.
1
Bottom Line. If we don't have a Dem Congress and President, nothing will get done as usual. Last time we had 2 year's we delivered health care, and took patriotic casualty's for it. That being said, my choice to get things done is a blend of the old and the new. Biden is the man who can win and restore some desperately needed order. He is the right man right now, and i think can be an excellent President we can be proud of again. Make America Proud Again. Biden/Harris.....powerful blend, winning ticket. My 2 cent's.
1
I would vote for my cat if she were the Democrats nominee( for sure she is more capable than the bloated orange eminence) that said, at this point Biden is the lead, and a good guy
With a proven record, and a chance to capture the electoral number needed. Climate change is affecting not only our costal states, but also the heartland...floods, tornadoes, droughts. That must be where the Democrats should target effort. Please! Don’t be so far left that we get left out, again!
1
Meanwhile the Republicans are doing NOTHING and yet it is the traditionally red states that are being smashed the hardest by extreme weather events. We sit and watch the news and see the reddest of red states like Oklahoma, Iowa and Kansas that are under water and yet they just don't seem to get that this is not normal and we need a radical change in thinking when it comes to energy use. Totally bizarre. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/us/midwest-floods.html
I quote Bill Clinton, “it’s the Economy stupid!” Green is good, money in people’s pockets is better and if the DP wants Congress and the WH, they better keep Clinton in mind. After tax breaks and money flowing into checking accounts or both, comprehensive healthcare is #2. Getting out of our War commitments is #3, Clean air is #4 at best.
2
when joe biden spoke at the last demorcat national convention, he raised an issue, certainly pressing, yet easily soluble...he bemoaned the costs to teachers of school supplies they had to purchase...how easy is that to fix said the locals at my local?
appointed to the intiative, i sent a letter to mr biden complimenting him on his concern and promising both to send a check to any teacher he'd name for reimbursement and support any plan for remedy, suggesting that the heads of, say, amazon, microsoft and tesla, plus publishers, makers of supplies, etc., might respond readily to provide supplies or reimbursement and putting pressure on local school boards to ensure the same...finally i sent a pack of notebooks and a quantity of pencils to mr biden c/o his vp office, to deliver as he might...answer came there none, then and to this day.
trusting that mr biden and any of the other wannabe potusim who cannot address much less solve such a simple problem, or that for all the blather about climate change (for only one example) cannot muster any passion for fixing the major and far more tangible problems of the homeless, (hunger, health and housing and rehabilitation) or the obstructions to opportunity that face native tribes and the poor in blighted communities...defies the sad reality of our declining commitment to service.
btw: for the climate, while raving on, how about a simple first step like lowering the speed limit...let's see it it's a test of will power we can pass.
How do they explain American companies building and selling more petroleum burning cars overseas and adding to the carbon footprint there?
1
The problem with polls this early is that at this stage, before any nationally televised debates, most only know the big names. Of COURSE, if it's a choice between someone you know and a bunch you don't, you're likely to say you're voting for the person you know.
It's up to news organizations such as the NY Times not to portray the horserace, which is useless information at this stage, but to fully give air to the candidates and what they stand for.
1
I think Biden would be more convincing if he had talked about things like this before it was fashionable.
2
The headline is about the release of BOTH the Warren and Biden plans, but the coverage is predominantly about Biden's with very little detail about Warren's. This seems to be a recurring problem with the Times' coverage of the candidates. The white males get the bulk of the coverage.
Next time check the fairness of your coverage--including a table or infographic with side-by-side comparisons of the plans of ALL the candidates would fairer and more informative.
4
More and more, politicians will focus on Saving The Planet. It is to their interest to have The People concentrate on the impossible and ignore the possible.
Anything we do to "fight" climate change will only make things worse. We caused it. We cannot "fix" it.
Save the planet? That's grandiose thinking (a symptom of narcissistic personality disorder).
Almost 8 billion people on the planet, nearly all of them living in opposition to nature... THAT is why we have climate change. It will never be fixed by those 8 billion; certainly not by a piddling few million Americans.
In the effort to "improve" the world over the centuries, we have dumped uncounted tons of pollutants into the environment. Now we pay the price for living at odds with our environment.
Since we are not all going to live like the Kalahari Bushmen, this will go on and on.
Humanity is hopelessly out of synch with a planet we now mistakenly believe that we, the cause of the problem, can "save."
What's happening now is the planet's way of getting rid of a threat.... us.
There is nothing humans can do about it unless we get into harmony with the planet. It gets dark? Live in the dark till morning. It gets cold? Bundle up.
No more "conquering nature."
No more "taming the wilderness."
Nothing short of that will even begin to work.
But we clearly worship convenience over survival.
History shows that everything we have ever done to "improve" the world... made things worse.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
1
Joe didn’t do anything when he was VP except help son Hunter makes tons of money in Ukraine and China. The Paris climate hoax accord is a joke which does nothing but hamstring the US while China and India pollute the world. Joe is one of the “stupid people” Trump mentions often who did nothing but ship US jobs to Asia and Mexico. He is a very mediocre speaker and will get crushed when debate time comes in the primaries. Look for Joe to flounder soon and suspend after New Hampshire or maybe even Iowa. He’s just not very good.
2
Please, America, elect Democrats in 2020!
The world can’t take any more ignorance/ willful blindness from the Trump maladministration and shameless GOP on climate change.
The house is on fire and all they care about is giving tax cuts to the rich and keeping immigrants out. It’s as repugnant as it is irresponsible.
1
“I’ve done some dumb things,” Mr. Biden conceded at a stop-the-bleeding news conference at the Capitol. “And I’ll do dumb things again.”
Uh oh. Not what you want to hear from our president.
Famous last words.
Bye, bye, Biden. It was good while it lasted.
2
Americans need to wake up and realize that there must be one and only one objective in the next presidential election- remove Trump. Slight, or even significant, differences in the policies and platforms of individual Democratic candidates are meaningless and irrelevant. If you consider the general positions of each Party on the important issues facing the nation (race, abortion, immigration, climate change, the economy, taxation, international relations, trade, education, Medicaid/Medicare, Social Security, LGBTQ rights, religious freedom, sexism, judicial appointments, etc..) it becomes immediately apparent that the platforms of the R's and D's are diametrically opposed. It doesn't matter who gets the D nomination- the country must support and elect that person in the hopes of restoring America. Vote for the party, not the person.
1
Nice to see the science writer covering politics. As we get closer to running out of time to avert the worst of the warming, everyone from everywhere will need to unite in this one great and important effort.
Globalizing carbon fees, carbon tariffs, if you will, are a good idea. So is cap and trade and the forest projects it can fund.
2
@RjW
We are actually running low on co2 and temperatures have been cooling. Ouch. Sorry to inform you.
1
Given the number of comments that fit the description, I think my earlier post is worth repeating:
It's really simple.
Anyone who is seriously concerned with the climate and other environmental issues has to make a choice. A scientific, *quantitative* choice, really.
Consider the difference... A minus B... between the re-election of Trump, who will gut all environmental policies and create an oligarch-friendly supreme court for the next 30 years, and "moderate" Joe Biden.
Not really difficult math.
So, if you are for real and not a fossil-fuel Russian troll, you will enthusiastically support Biden if he is the nominee. If not, you are not for real. If you stay home, or vote for Jill Stein, you are not for real. It's either an existential question for humanity, or not.
The Koch Bros, and Putin, and Republican drones, know this, and they are afraid of Biden because what he does is make the rational middle... call them Republican Lite, Neo-Liberal, whatever... comfortable.
They would have no reason to fear Biden on many issues, and they would then be quite willing to get rid of the craziness we are now putting up with. They would be happy to get rid of Trump.
The Republican's only hope is to have a Dem candidate they can scare people about. So, here they are. Either the negative comments about Biden being too moderate are from people who actually *don't* care about minimizing climate change, or from Russian/Koch/Republican trolls.
2
Where all the details of Biden or other candidates? It seems to me substance Warren offers is more than enough to push me to vote for her although I was leaning her way anyways. We the public should have all the other's detailed plans.
1
Reduce emissions by 2050?! Why so bold? Why not wait until 3050? This is an emergency, and needs to be dealt with long before 30 years are up.
"Electable" Joe now knows which way the wind is blowing and where he can aim his hot air.
Why is it so hard to make people understand that wide swaths of the country will stay home if it's Biden vs. Trump on election day? They think Trump is so bad that that will be motivation enough. We have already seen that a corporate Dem will not get enough people out to win this one.
1
@RAC
I will vote for Trump and could not wish for a better opponent than Biden. He’s the most clumsiest uninspiring candidate you could hope for. Please throw him up there.
Trump - Pence 2020 and 4 more MAGA years!
1
Biden will not get anything done. Democrats will do everything in their power to keep losing. Its easier to lose to a Republican than a progressive. When are people going to realise Biden and many other "Democrats" are just Republicans with a "D" next to their names. I can't trust anyone who has been bought. NYT keeps pushing this Biden narrative on people cause they and other establishment platforms don't want real change. Why would they? Its working for them. Wish people would wake up and understand Sanders/Tusli are the ones that want actual real change not the same nonsense we've been getting for half a century.
3
The climate change protagonists must remember that this is not the first time fake science created mass hysteria.
Planes were going to drop during mid-flight and the Wall Street trades were going to explode due to the Y2K problem as the Millennium big would jeopardize the civilized world.
Well, January 1, 2000 came and went. Nothing happened. After the fact, the fear mongers tried to cover up and duck for cover.
Unfortunately, climate change is a more sinister conspiracy. Biden and Warren are incapable of forming an objective view on this matter.
1
Joe Biden had to shift left because the entire Democratic Party has shifted left. We need real solutions to climate change, not talk. This is a bunch of baloney to try and appease the left.
1
Obama and Biden supported fracking and claimed that natural gas was clean energy. It’s not. There’s nothing natural about pumping trillions of gallons of chemicals into the ground and if any of the natural gas escapes in the process, which it does, the methane heats the atmosphere 10x faster than CO2. What exactly are Biden’s plans this time? Has he educated himself on the dangers of fracking yet or is that part of his “green” new deal?
4
I sure hope Democrats don't pin their hope on Biden. He will be demolished by Trump and the Republicans. I been watching absolutely cringe-worthy past footage of him on all sorts of issues that will make Democratic voter's stomach turn. His attempt to ride the coattails of the progressives, the way he rode the coattails of Obama will not go unnoticed. Is he better than Trump? Mitt Romney would be better than Trump, but I wouldn't vote for him if presented as the Democratic candidate. And certainly he would fail turn out an enthusiastic base which is what Hillary failed to do when she bone-heatedly ran as a Republican-lite. Somehow the Democrats will find a way to lose, I'm afraid. We live in an oligarchy in this country and our party is controlled by a corrupted and inept oligarchy kept in power by Superdelagates, rigged elections (thanks for the heads-up Donna Brazile) and DNC and DCCC rules meant to stifle change.
2
It is obvious that his proposal does not come from principle, but as a reaction to AOC’s intensity. You can’t beat Trump if you expose yourself as a copy of radical democrats. If democrats think Climate Change is by far the area that will have a more significant impact on American people’s life, then you want to have a front runner genuinely and passionately engaged with Climate Change, and not someone that realised 5 minutes ago how incredible crucial is to spend ~$2 trillion on that thing. On top of that, have democrats analysed which percentage of Americans think Climate Change deserves such a ridiculously extreme budget? Do they think that at the peak of a booming economy driven by capitalist policies, people are going to care about green initiatives? Democrats should leave their bubble from time to time and take a walk on reality land for a change.
The economy is in a massive bubble.
it looks great until it pops. When it pops this.time it will lead to depression then war.
1
Biden did not initially have no clear plans for the climate change. That is why he is not my candidate since to me climate change is a top priority issue for mankind.
Per capita, America is among the biggest polluter in the world. We need to step it up. The current administration is doing their absolute best to deregulate Obama's EPA rules and regulations. Since Sanders and Warren pledged they will refuse money from Wall Street donors, they are the All-Stars in my book.
Sanders/Warren 2020!
3
In Germany, the Green Party became second strongest party with over 20% of the votes at the European Parlament Elections. There's now talk about the next chancellor being potentially 'green'. The old established parties did not register that concern for the health of our planet is now mainstream (and that includes more issues than Climate Change). It's a mainstream issue, one that has the power to unite. The young are leading this powerful movement hopefully outvoting any old delusional climate denier soon. Good for you, Biden, to take notice!
1
There is no such thing as environmental justice. Does it matter to Flint? Standing Rock? Do the legions of Democrats who drive SUVs really get it? There’s only one thing to do, and that is to shift as rapidly as possible to clean energy and by any means necessary. That’s the only justice that matters. Without this there is no survival.
"His environmental targets are similar to the goals of the Green New Deal put forward by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, which even the House Democratic speaker has been unwilling to embrace."
Good for Biden. I'm pleasantly surprised by the boldness of his plan, and this is the sort of thing that casts him in a more favorable light for me.
Pelosi has been a huge disappointment since retaking the Speakership. Outside of being sassy to the president a couple of times, she's been timid, weak and too small for our current moment.
Fifty years too late. We need to talk about how to deal with upcoming problems like shore flooding, agriculture shifting toward the poles, changes in drought and flooding, climate change refugees, ...
7 billion people are not going to change in time to stop the consequences. So best we start to plan dealing with them.
1
This is a good start on the most important global problem. The imposition of a “ carbon tariff “ is very creative. However, scientists maintain that the only way to deal with the immense amount of carbon already in the atmosphere is the development of carbon-capture technology. We need a bold initiative like the Manhattan Project to combat and rollback the carbon now causing massive environmental damage like monster fires, massive hurricanes, and major floods.
The real test of seriousness is to see how often each candidate mentions climate change, and how early in each speech and interaction, on an ongoing basis. Inslee is the only one to acknowledge that it needs to be the #1 priority because it's the single existential threat on the to-do list.
1
In my view, Biden's willingness to take money from Pacs, from big banks and his history of being what I think of as a lobbyist for TBTF banks and Wall Street and given Warren's opposite nature on TBTF banks and Wall Street financial amalgamations, I have about 10,000 times more confidence that Senator Warren has the best interest of the planet and average citizens than I do Biden.
I hope we end up with a candidate that actually cares about the world, about principles, about the golden rule, about morals and about what the real measures of character are and which are expressed by what we do far more than what we say.
1
I agree with JerryV that nuclear has to be part of the solution along with a price on carbon and greater use of renewables. But he is wrong to pick on China. Per capita, the average Chinese has a carbon footprint half that of a US citizen. China for a long time has been doing much more than the US to reduce emissions. It has an extensive Nuclear Power program including pioneering the latest generation reactors which cannot melt down. It has the worlds largest renewable energy plant (in fact the world largest power station full stop) at the Three Gorges Dam and is making huge investments in Wind and Solar as well as electric vehicles. At a provincial level there is even an emissions trading scheme. If Biden can implement his plan then the US will begin catching up.
These types of ambitious plans for climate change are not what's being discussed at the kitchen tables across America. Health Care & Immigration & Infrastructure are the key concerns. Yes, climate change but on a much smaller scale. Biden talked about how many jobs his plan will foster, but were they "net" jobs? And were they minimum wage jobs? So long as China and India are not matching our plans, we're running uphill on roller skates. The Green New Deal will mean a loss for the Dems.
2
I think taxing importations based on pollution level is a much better plan than just randomly taxing everything and starting a trade war.
39
@Lilly Lynd " a much better plan than just randomly taxing everything and starting a trade war."
It's the same. Every manufactured good requires energy, and all industrial energy in China is based on coal. That is why China is still building one new big coal power plant every week. That makes any US action symbolic only.
Taxing based on energy used WOULD be permanent and it WOULD start a permanent trade war.
3
Very encouraging. In Indian Country the government could invest in renewable training and development, replacing jobs that are currently being lost associated with resource extraction.
There is an enormous amount of economic opportunity associated with the development and maintenance of all kinds of renewable energy, particularly here in the west. I just hope we take advantage of it now. We can lead the way and literally change the world.
43
@Lou Good
Yes, and that 'enormous amount of economic opportunity' ...for renewable energy, has been in place for some time. Unfortunately, it has not, repeat not, been utilized enough up to now to make the huge difference that is needed to be effective. And there is not any elected or wanna-B elected politician who is making any sense of it.
@Lou Good......"INDIAN COUNTRY" eh? Exactly what is 'renewable training and development'? Will your government ship recyclables there to be transformed into yet more consumer goods, or do you have some other imposition on this reservation?
@Cali Sol
The training needed to construct and maintain wind and solar power installations that take advantage of the extensive power grid already in place that the Indian nations own and was previously used to transmit coal fired power. Nothing is imposed, this is at the request of the Navajo and Hopi nations here in AZ and UT.
Once again, Bernie is right. We cannot take incremental steps to combat our planet's biggest risk for survival: climate change. I'm hoping farmers devastated by floods and tornadoes in the midwest will come on board and support green infrastructure spending and policies that reduce our emissions. Furthermore, if republicans are worried about migrants now, wait till climate change makes a quarter of the world have to relocate to more sustainable area.
87
And what was St. Bernie’s plan here, again? Exactly?
7
@Sue Salvesen yes, exactly what is Bernie's plan? You need to have a workable blueprint to accomplish these types of goals.
5
@AM The internet is your friend:https://berniesanders.com/issues/combat-climate-change-and-pass-a-green-new-deal/
6
Politician-to-English dictionary: "retraining programs" = "a lot of people are going to lose their jobs" under my proposal. Democrats have used the fantasy of retraining programs as the universal solution to their job-killing free trade policies since Bill Clinton. And a $1.7 trillion spending plan for clean energy, paid for by increasing corporate taxes? This from the most moderate of the Democratic candidates? Sell signal!!
3
Great news and thanks to Biden for making this a key part of his platform. We’ve got so much work to do.
I am impressed with Joe Biden's objective #3, "Rally the rest of the world to meet the threat of climate change. Climate change is a global challenge that requires decisive action from every country around the world. ,,, He will not only recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement on climate change – he will go much further than that. He will lead an effort to get every major country to ramp up the ambition of their domestic climate targets. ... He will fully integrate climate change into our foreign policy and national security strategies, as well as our approach to trade."
If I were his adviser on this plan, I would urge him to use his office to pursue the establishment of an institution similar to the shared participation funding of the cornerstone institutions for international economic cooperation created by the Bretton Woods proposal: I.M.F., International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Dumbarton Oaks proposal for a permanent U.N.
This approach of participating at the U.S. share of World GDP, he would leverage his 1.7 Trillion to about 8.5 Trillion to invest in technologies that would provide the alternate energy to fossil fuels, such as very cheap electricity that could use the market to provide this vital energy globally, likewise technologies for scrubbing CO2 from the common atmosphere. With cheap electricity we can make synthetic jet fuel from air and water, power industries, and desalinate billions of gallons of water for agriculture.
1
hi! Bernie Sanders is ahead of Joe Biden in climate policy. The only difference between Joe and Bernie is that Bernie don't accept big money. I guess you are for the rich people like me right ? Thanks for supporting Joe and my right to have my money untouched by the poor.
1
Finally, a candidate willing to tackle the largest issue facing mankind and America. I was skeptical of a Biden presidency, but as of right now, he has my vote.
Why is it that all the discussions of anthropogenic climate change seem to deal with proximate causes but never the underlying cause? The essential reason for the increased production of the products that contribute to global warming is the quadrupling of the world's population in the past century coupled with the democratization of material expectations. I don't have the answer, but I do know that unless that ongoing reality is addressed, all else is putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound.
So far no public person, let alone political candidate, seems prepared to and capable of dealing with this.
5
These are good ideas. I'd recommend the book "Reinventing Fire" by the Rocky Mountain Institute for other shovel-ready ways to reduce carbon. (It's an exciting read, for both verbal and technically minded people.) I've also written about upstream carbon taxing for the Huffington Post in a piece called, "Carbon Tax: A Primer." Retrofitting roofs, weatherizing and making buildings (by some estimates the largest non-industrial contributor to climate change) sustainable could create millions of jobs in months. Permanent green energy jobs could come with the development and maintenance of solar fields, geothermal projects, turbines and advanced and safer nuclear energy. I've done some research into fusion technology. Exciting work is being done on light nuclei reactions by Maris and Vary, particularly their paper "Ab initio no-core full configuration calculations of light nuclei." This has proven effective at creating safer nuclear technology.
1
At this point we are going to have to adopt a huge push for Carbon Sequestration technologies as well. which plan incorporates that the most?
1
It's a bad sign if Joe Biden is already "borrowing" phrases from somewhere/someone else. This just reinforces the notion that he has no ideas of his own. What is the core of the man?
10
This is the first time I’ve been excited at the thought of a Biden presidency. Biden is uniquely suited to convince Middle America that we need to address climate change now. And he’s doing it with a big aspirational vision. We saved the world seventy years ago. Now we must do it again.
This is the first time I’ve been hopeful that we might actually go carbon neutral. Remember the 2016 debates? Just one question asked tangentially touched on climate change. Now we have our front runner committing to it.
And I like that this is one big idea, not the laundry list Democrats usually pitch. Everything else can wait, except possibly voting reform, because that will make everything else we want easier.
1
Democrats have come a long way since Al Gore's film Inconvenient Truth seemed to wake up millions of people to the climate change issue. Gore's film described the problem well but not what to do about. After Gore's film the climate movement really took off but only later did it become a climate justice movement. The Green New Deal attempts to create legislation based on the climate justice movement. It has led to more ambitious goals to reduce emissions and to take into consideration that the effects of climate change will fall more heavily on poorer people. But through this evolution in attitudes the facts on the ground have remained largely the same. We are still heading for around a 4C increase in global average temperature above pre- industrial levels by the end of this century. Neither Gore's film, 350.org, the Paris climate agreement, or anything else has changed that. And about 80% of energy still comes from burning fossil fuels, a percentage that has been maintained for many years. Given this lack of effective action it is hard to get very excited about climate change plans from any Democratic candidate. It all seems like words that will have not real effect. But at least the Democrats are dealing with reality. The Republicans seem to be a lost cause pandering to voters who are mired in conspiracy theories and steadfastly supporting an irresponsible president who has made the completely nutty statement that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese.
Back in 1981 a paper by James Hansen, that hit the front page of the NY Times, warned of multi-meter sea level rise within a century:
“The seven atmospheric scientists predict a global warming of ''almost unprecedented magnitude'' in the next century. It might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, they say, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. In that case, they say, it would ''flood 25 percent of Louisiana and Florida, 10 percent of New Jersey and many other lowlands throughout the world'' within a century or less.”
In 2016 a numerical ice sheet model by Pollard and DeConto put some physics behind what Hansen had been thinking, once more showing his prescience.
DrConto notes that they put arbitrary speed limits on their model, to be conservative, but it still doubled previous estimates of potential sea level rise.
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/22/us/study-finds-warming-trend-that-could-raise-sea-levels.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature17145
1
Will Biden commit to a Democratic debate on climate change that includes all candidates for whom climate change is in their top three priorities?
1
Experts predict perhaps a 10-year window to deal with global warming before 2050. Northern India is experiencing 123 degrees Fahrenheit temperatures this week. Closer to home, Spokane is covered with smoke from a fire in Grant County. Yes, our fire season is now starting today, June 4. The deadline to act is here, now. We won't survive another Trump term.
1
Biden and Warren should be commended for presenting a plan to address global warming. Clearly GW is a great threat to our future and the future of the world. Let's hope that this becomes a central issue in the next election, and that the public can be convinced of its seriousness.
6
Just one problem: there is no climate catastrophe. UNIPCC data show NO statistically significant change in rates of droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, sea-level rise during the industrial carbon dioxide era. Mass hallucination in my Democratic party. Climate is an incredibly complex system, with both chaotic and regular but unknown influences and feedbacks. CO2 is not a simple regulator of temperature. Calm down, enjoy the reliable, inexpensive energy, and keep an eye out for problems should they arise. They haven't yet.
4
@Maya L. - Funny.
According to NOAA: "Is sea level rising?
Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate."
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
The IPCC examined the different factors - the chaotic and the known influences and feedbacks, and looked at the increasing warming since 1950 and our greenhouse and black carbon emissions are the cause of more than 100% of the warming - that's because the papers the IPCC examined also noted that our aerosol pollution and some land clearing for farming had cooling effects.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/anthropogenic-and-natural-radiative-forcing/
CO2 is not a simple regulator of temperature, but a valid rule of thumb is adding more CO2 increases temperatures, reducing CO2 lowers temperatures. There have been greenhouse shifts up as well as down in the past and the results are what physics expects. Trap more heat, you warm.
1
@Maya L. I don’t care where you live, you’ve seen the weather change over the past twenty years.
1
@b fagan Hi: UNPICC: recent inch per decade is the same as early 20th C, before the CO2 bump.
I fear that this is all old style politics, brought down by the election of 2016. I hope I am wrong, but Mr Trump never once talked about money, or targets, or tactics. It was all about end goals and the fear and disillusionment that drove support for them. Recall: A 'beautiful wall paid for by Mexico to keep out those criminals, gangs and drugs'. Perhaps the 'left' wouldn't tolerate such campaigning? Yet it was the 'right' and middle that brought us to this point. So how about, "the cleanest air, water you can drink straight from the river, and 1000's of the most perfect jobs to harness our wind, our waves, and America's great sunshine!"
1
Remember this other Left wing hoax when you vote in 2020. A growing body of evidence suggests that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon-dioxide emissions than policy makers generally assume—and that the need for reductions in such emissions is less urgent.
According to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, preventing “dangerous human interference” with the climate is defined, rather arbitrarily, as limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial temperatures. The Earth’s surface temperatures have already warmed about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1850-1900. This leaves 1.2 degrees Celsius (about 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) to go (Source: Judith Curry). You believe in SCIENCE, right?
2
@Hank I don’t understand. The UN report showed that scientists has discovered that the climate is more sensitive to carbon than we’d hoped, not less. We had been aiming for 3 degrees (and it looked like we were going to blow through that anyway). Lower-lying countries like Myanmar requested that the UN analyze 2 degrees. Even 1.5 looks bad.
3
At last. Good for Joe. His joining with other Dem candidates with a realistic plan makes the Democrats the party of science and action. Republicans are left defending the indefensible. They're now the fossilized party of fossil fuels, drowning cities and fire tornadoes.
2
Focus on weather proofing the country rather than “ battling “ climate change. Create many new jobs around protecting the country against the damage due severe weather events and creating a resilient power, safe food, and healthy water grid , as well as enhancing our ability to absorb weather “ refugees “ from other countries.
Global warming is no longer an academic or distant event-- will we stop the worst of global warming in time to avoid environmental collapse?
Human civilisation could end by 2050 as experts warn climate change will cause ecological collapse followed by disease pandemics, nuclear war and lethal heatwaves https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7103089/Human-civilisation-end-2050.html
This is how you spin. Don't talk about what the plan looks like relative to other candidates. Frame it as being BEYOND!!!!!!
.....what Obama did.
4
These policies are focused on spending side. There need to be policies on conservation, taxes on consumption, education from kindergarten, etc., is more important than upping the spending. Institutions focused on R&D to reduce the global warming is essential. A cooperation across the universities to bring the research to practice. This is a global emergency and we loose big if we don’t lead.
1
Here we go again. Are we going to spend the election cycle defending Biden? Just like when Clinton ran in 2016 & took money from Goldman Sachs or used her home servers for government work? Democrats can’t afford easy, distracting mistakes. The target is Trump, not shoddy campaigning.
16
@Ted: No, the target is not Trump, but the presidency and the Senate. Doesn’t matter which Democrat wins the nomination. With a progressive House and Senate, Biden will be just fine. If the Senate remains Republican, Democrats will have a problem.
2
As I write this the tally is 254 comments. This tells me that there is really as little interest in the climate crisis this time as in previous elections. No, we don't get it, and this election won't change things enough to matter. These are proposals that will be cut in half or rejected in Congress, even if democrats control the whole government. All you have to do is whisper "economy" and "growth" and the worry about a march to death just floats away.
9
It’s sad that such a transparently phony proposal is getting serious coverage. However, because Biden is the leading candidate of the Democratic Party establishment, the New York Times is, of course, going to give this idea, and any other by Biden, SERIOUS COVERAGE
It might be funny to watch Biden tried to run on any climate change plan with a carbon tax. The cap and trade carbon tax was a major contributor to the house Democratic Party wipeout of 2010. Plus, Biden supposedly plans to pursue votes in the rust belt — But Trump will crush him in the Rust Belt if he runs on this policy.
10
@NJ resident -- right, the people in the Rust Belt who were told by Bill Clinton and other free-traders that the answer to their job loss was simply a matter of retraining, the people who were barely making ends meet until Trump made real changes and supercharged the economy -- those voters are now being told by the Democratic candidates that they will lose their jobs all over again (more "retraining," reregulating, and retaxing their employers) AND have to change (further constrict) their lifestyles on the alter of climate change. A winning message to win them back!
What real changed did Trump make. What have the workers been retrained to do?
Good, the more Democratic candidates declaring that addressing climate change is a top priority, the better for getting this extremely crucial issue out of the GOP burial grounds and back to life again.
I am tired of being swamped by the fossil fuel industry's arguments carried out by the Republican climate-hoaxers, anti-science town criers, and religious end-of-times believers.
2
Democrat politicians can lead the way by turning off the air conditioning in their offices and homes until October. It will save electricity and they will show that they are willing to sacrifice comfort to slow climate change. Of course they can claim that their little bit doesn’t matter but then whose does?
1
This is a great thing, for two reasons. Climate change is the most important issue of all, it is one major thing that will determine if humanity has a future or not. Nuclear weapons would also be such an issue, but there is no hope of eliminating them for now, and thankfully little chance of their use. Compared to global warming, things like gun violence, international trade, transgender rights, student debt, and thousands of other issues, just don't have a long-term impact.
The other reason it's great that this is becoming a major part of this election is that Trump has no climate change policy, except to deny it and to exacerbate the problem.
So we will be presented with the choice of sanely voting for a candidate who will do something to limit climate change, or insanely voting for a candidate who denies reality. I hope the sane outvote the insane, but if not, then at least we will deserve our fate.
5
Not sure how I feel about an old school politician who had to be forcibly dragged by his rivals' policy proposals just to be sensible about climate change. If Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Ms. Warren, and Mr. Sanders did not make climate change a key issue, would Biden have taken these new positions? Doubtful.
And, if Biden becomes president, why should we expect him to honor a commitment that he was forced to embrace due to political necessity in the 2020 Democratic Party primaries?
8
@Sándor: Depends on which party has the majority in House and Senate. And who gets to choose the next SC judge.
1
Anyone who calls Biden opportunistic for releasing this now doesn’t understand that all politics is opportunistic. Besides, Biden has the best chance of changing our trajectory and the experience to know how to deliver legislation. He is our best hope for a gentle(ish) path to a sustainable future.
5
Not everyone agrees that Biden is the best chance to best Trump
I really do not believe his corporate money changers will go for that.
They already have Biden in their back pockets, right beside their wallets.
18
Proof, please. No...real proof.
4
The US and other countries have been unsuccessful in trying to halt the rise of greenhouse gas emissions for several decades so I am not going to expect Biden or anyone else to be able to do it. The political obstacles that have prevented progress on this are still in place and arguably even more formidable with the rise of right wing authoritarian governments. Can Biden overcome the fossil fuel industry and the Republicans who are beholden to that industry? That's asking a lot. But he or any other Democrat who wins the presidency needs to try. My view is limiting global warming to 2C is better than 3C and limiting it to 3C is better than 4C, etc. The main thing is that we cannot give in to pessimism and give up.
2
@Bob - I've crunched the numbers on CO2 emissions from BP's Statistical Review of World Energy (2017 edition).
Germany's CO2 emissions are now lower than any time in BP's data back to 1965. They're still in the top four manufacturing economies, a bigger population and economy than 1965 and still have a very nice standard of living, too.
UK emissions are now down to at least 1965, too. Overall EU emissions in 2014/15 were like the mid 1960s, then ticked up slightly in 2016. Other nations there dropped emissions, I won't list them all.
Our US CO2 emissions peaked in the mid 2000s.
2016 emissions were more like 1993/94.
So progress is being made and needs to be encouraged and accelerated. Electric cars will help greatly - while also being cheaper to operate and better for the air we breathe. Their batteries will also help soak up wind power - wind blows at night, car batteries are a natural match.
But yes, we have to limit warming to what we can limit it to - the good thing is it benefits us with cleaner air and water at the same time, so we will be aided if the federal government gets out of its hostage situation and starts helping the public again.
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
I would very much like us to be part of an attempt at a solution rather than being a big part of the problem. I suppose at this stage it is unrealistic to expect more than happy talk and optimism about how we can succeed without sacrifice or significant change in behavior. But I think I would respond better to what might seem to be a more realistic call for stronger and quicker action even at considerable expense and personal inconvenience. I think there is general agreement that delay will not make things easier (i.e., counting on a future technological miracle is not a sound basis for public policy when the stakes are high). I do think the Mr. Biden's plan is correct to draw attention to Chinese outsourcing of growing CO2 emissions by building coal fired power plants in Belt and Road countries that can't say no and to question their commitment to reducing climate change.
2
The US and other countries have been unsuccessful in trying to halt the rise of greenhouse gas emissions for several decades so I am not going to expect Biden or anyone else to be able to do it. The political obstacles that have prevented progress on this are still in place and arguably even more formidable with the rise of right wing authoritarian governments. Can Biden overcome the fossil fuel industry and the Republicans who are beholden to that industry? That's asking a lot. But he or any other Democrat who wins the presidency needs to try. My view is limiting global warming to 2C is better than 3C and limiting it to 3C is better than 4C, etc. The main thing is that we cannot give in to pessimism and give up.
1
Ok Biden wins ,senate doesn’t change hands, nothing will get done , except what they want to get done. There is always an agenda, no matter what party wins. Frick or frack, doesn’t matter.
2
Although climate and CO2 emissions are an existential issue, the real question is whether Biden has the fortitude to do what is needed to end the minority takeover of the US Federal Government we have just experienced. The fundamental conditions for another such takeover will remain unless tough action is taken to reshape our politics in the direction of a more direct democracy. Any idea that we can compromise with Republicans weakens the needed resolve, and I'm afraid Biden is as weak as Obama on that score. No platform, no program, no campaign promise can stand unless we fix our democratic institutions just as soon as Democrats control the Congress and the Presidency. Those conditions occurred in the first two years of Obama's presidency, but as much as I loved him, he lacked the vision and resolve to stand up against the right-wing onslaught on our democracy.
5
One problem the left/ Dems have at this point is this- they need to do big progressive things to address the countries needs. They also have to win this election and bring along a good many moderates/ independents in order to take back the senate, which is essential.
Does Biden have flaws? Sure. Hoe to get that landslide victory? Biden/ Warren, or Harris.
The party goes more progressive from there, IF they take the senate. They have to take the senate to do anything- who can do that? Biden helps them take the moderates and independents in the purple states. If the left wing boycots the election then it is on them. Let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good- again.
3
Joe Biden, thank you for playing the "Who Wants to Be President" game ... you are now officially out of the running for my vote. I will never support any candidate who announces an environmental plan that looks like the Green New Deal. Such a plan is fiscally and economically irresponsible, and the equivalent of a dictator imposing his will on the people. Yes, we have a climate crisis on our hands, but talking about "net zero emissions" is not the way to address it. How about some incremental moves that both the left and right can agree on? Nuclear power has been suggested here; that would be a good place to start. How about finding ways to make farming less carbon-intensive? Why do policies put forth by the Democrats always make things to stark - "we will eliminate fossil fuels by such-and-such date, whether you like it or not, regardless of how much it ends up costing you and your family."
AOC is a political novice and a hack; she has yet to propose anything realistic. Democratic presidential candidates who align with her may do well in the primaries, but will fare badly in the general election because they are going to turn off independents like myself.
@PK
And what are your qualifications to call the GND irresponsible? Most climate scientists would say the opposite, that not doing the GND is irresponsible. And the facts are plainly against your argument, which really just boils down to the fact you don't like certain people. Look at California, for example. Being way out ahead of the nation on a great number of energy conservation measures sure hasn't crippled the world's 5th largest economy.
3
"Incremental changes" huh? That'd be great if we didn't only have 10 years left to get a handle on this... Hope you're old, otherwise you're going to have to suffer through the consequences of moving slow and "safe." It's a lot worse than you likely think it is, of course oil-sponsored Fox isn't going to tell you that, instead they'll make things like the Green New Deal sound exactly the way you think it is. It's not.
Let us not be hypocrite. This country is part of this huge carbon footprint when fossil fueled device called automobile rolled out on the surface of planet Earth with unregulated extraction of fossil oil from the Arabian deserts. It was a problem before Biden's time. Biden is old stale politician.
2
It is easy to say but does Mr. Biden really has strong determination to prevent global warming? Without strong determination, it is not easy for politicians to reduce the emission of greenhouse gas by fighting against the industrial world. We have to ascertain whether what he promised is realistic or not through the discussions with other presidential candidates.
2
All the armchair experts want to own the best solution. Whilst the Accidental Occupant runs amok reversing environmental protections. 2020 is a ways off. In the meantime, why not do this?
1) Choose a clean energy provider for your home energy consumption. I did this a few months ago and my gas & electric bill has gone down several notches, even though temp fluctuations have been wild, with exactly 1 day between winter heating and summer cooling systems.
2) Vote for a candidate with a decent plan and a chance of a) winning and b) being earnest and effective in delivering results as promised.
Incremental actions, such as some might believe Biden would land on, are still better than the reversal of positive changes we can observe in progress now. So keep debating, hold all candidate's ideas in mind, but take a few baby steps forward, while we still can.
1
Biden’s plan sounds more like a cry for attention instead of a real plan.
Carbon credit is a plan that just shifts the blame to other mostly poor countries.
It was a bad plan to start with and now that climate change is getting worse by the day,
It is an absurd bad cowardly plan.
But it will please the very and extreme rich who helped speed up climate change and don’t want to spend their money.
They will be happy to hear that Presidential candidate Biden is on their side.
3
Let's say that by some miracle Biden is elected and gets such a program through Congress. It would still be some 30 years to the goal of 2050. Meantime, all it would take is a Republican sweep in a election between 2021 and 2050 to undo whatever Biden or any other progressive manages to pass because, count on it, Republicans would make rolling back progressive environmental programs their first order of business, just as they are doing right now.
1
"It resurrected a sensitive issue for the Biden campaign: Accusations of plagiarism forced Mr. Biden out of the presidential race in 1988."
If an idea is a good idea or at least you believe it to be then just what is the problem here.
3
If this plan does not include nuclear power, it is not credible.
1
In announcing climate plans at this stage of the game, Biden's team shows perspicacity and a degree of boldness perhaps some weren't expecting. What's not to like about that? I'm sure the candidate will bone up, get on board and upon election follow through brilliantly with whatever agenda he deems necessary and feasible. Practical bipartisan legislation is what he's always pursued and often succeeded in attaining.
I'd like to see him wrap a well-conceived and adequately funded jobs retraining program and significant funding increasing clean energy research into the plan, if these elements are not already there. We still have an opportunity to lead instead of naysaying global efforts. Even if they prove ultimately futile, doing something to improve current quality of life and the economy vs. arguing about unknowns would improve everyone's mental health. Except those who have already booked passage on the Ark, of course. They're just fine, thanks, maybe a few more paper towels, please?
1
Yet again, a corporatist trying to play catch up with the 21st century, and looking clumsy while doing it! When his big money corporate donors pull his strings, he dances to any tune that’ll get him votes! Dems need the real thing, not some retread. Sanders/Warren 2020.
10
Take the lead from Trump and welcome the climate tariff and add to that a living wage tariff. Can Biden deliver a tariff? I doubt. Can Bernie deliver a tariff? very likely. Can Warren do this? yes, she can. The dilemma is only Biden can beat Trump in general election. Others cannot.
It's really simple.
Anyone who is seriously concerned with the climate and other environmental issues has to make a choice. A scientific, *quantitative* choice, really.
Consider the difference... A minus B... between the re-election of Trump, who will gut all environmental policies and create an oligarch-friendly supreme court for the next 30 years, and "moderate" Joe Biden.
Not really difficult math.
So, if you are for real and not a fossil-fuel Russian troll, you will enthusiastically support Biden if he is the nominee. If not, you are not for real. If you stay home, or vote for Jill Stein, you are not for real.
The Koch Bros, and Putin, and Republican drones, know this, and they are afraid of Biden because what he does is make the rational middle... call them Republican Lite, Neo-Liberal, whatever... comfortable.
They would have no reason to fear Biden on many issues, and they would then be quite willing to get rid of the craziness we are now putting up with. They would be happy to get rid of Trump.
The Republican's only hope is to have a Dem candidate they can scare people about. So, here they are. Either the negative comments about Biden being too moderate are from people who actually *don't* care about minimizing climate change, or from Russian/Koch/Republican trolls.
4
This is the guy that is going to be Trump? Good luck with that.
The only thing that makes him a moderate is that he's an old white guy that doesn't seem to be a socialist.
Does anybody remember the 1984 election? 2020 is shaping up to be a repeat of that!
2
Newsweek just reported that Greenpeace graded all of the Democratic candidates on climate change and Biden was the second worst with a grade of D-, ahead of only John Hickenlooper.
His climate change policy adviser, Heather Zichal, earned over a million dollars as a board meeting of a natural gas company.
I just don’t trust candidates who take money from corporate donors. Maybe Mr. Biden is sincere, but I really don’t believe it.
Also, after a lifetime working in government, he should have the finest staff members in the nation, and those yahoos couldn’t even provide accurate citations prior to publication?
It’s sloppy and doesn’t reflect well on him.
It’d be different if Biden was a new candidate still learning the ropes, but he’s had 50 years to attract intelligent staffers.
10
Old habits die hard. Courtesy Business Insider:
"Joe Biden's climate plan appears to directly copy multiple lines from other organizations — but his campaign says it was a mistake."
5
@Susan
Must have been a 'copy - paste' rush job to get His Plan out there. Good Ole Joe. Still plagiarizing after all these years. Have to wonder if he even knows what it says.
1
@irene: Please let Good Ole Joe plagiarize to his heart’s content from progressive Democrats. As long as he lives up to it if he becomes president... Copying is the best compliment!
Biden- A do-little-or-nothing politician in do something times. Again he is late to the dance. He now gets to where Sanders has been for two generations.
12
Polluting energy generation/consumption is definitely a major part of our planet’s overheating climate/mass-extinction problem. But it’s not the most important or even the most pressing. Destruction of wildlife habit is.
Destruction of wildlife habit trumps it. We can always stop burning carbon. We can’t resurrect extinct species.
Since most of the most crucial wildlife habitat being destroyed is located in poor, overpopulated Third World countries our focus must be there, on that — and them. We must help them alter the underlying economic forces that cause habitat destruction, to preserve species diversification while there is still something left to save.
We lose there, we lose everything.
3
CapitalOne Bank wants to know whats in your wallet, fair question. But I wanted to know what in CapitalOne wallet and out fell Old Joe and the rest of his buddies.
Old Joe has no policies other then what special interest tells him!
9
for his entire career, biden has trimmed with the wind. so this is a positive sign that the winds are changing.
it remains true that the people have to lead by example on climate change. politicians will follow, eventually, but for institutional, social and political reasons they cannot lead.
1
Biden is a genuinely good man. But it is time for him to step aside and, instead, support and mentor younger candidates.
The US needs to look forward, not backwards.
4
I am very glad to see that Biden, who is widely perceived to be a "moderate" Democratic candidate, is willing to make such strong proposals for climate a centerpiece of his campaign. I think this could bode very poorly for the Republicans in general and Trump in particular. The Democrats will be more or less united on the need to address climate change in a big way. Most Americans will support them in this. Trump and the Republicans have already dedicated themselves to a losing battle. They won't be able to turn this in their favor. They may just look pathetic.
3
This is a plan to destroy the US booming economy, starting with our energy independence, which brought it about.
Now we'll have to see whether Americans would go for Biden for his age, or for his energy, or for his general lack of awareness, let alone intelligence.
Or maybe for his unmatched corruption, which made the Chinese give his son, during Biden's official visit, a $1.5 billion hedge fund, followed by Biden saying that the Chinese are no match to us.
Maybe people would go for Biden because his son owns one of the great Chinese companies involved in face recognition for the police. So that Hunter Biden would help make the US a police state too.
Or maybe people will get attached to the Nixonian Biden, who helped spy on a political candidate...
The good thing is that we won't need Wikileaks to bring us what Biden is all about. Since it's all out there.
PS From snippets of interviews, Trump is under strict instructions from his campaign guys to take it easy on Biden right now. Since Biden would make the best opposition candidate in 2020. Better than a rerun by Hillary, even.
3
@otroad, a plan to address climate change in a necessary and meaningful manner is not a "plan to destroy the US booming economy."
n fact, it's a plan to save the US economy. If we do not get serious - now - about mitigating the changes to the atmosphere and the oceans that our use of fossil fuels has caused, we will consign our economy to trillions of dollars in losses.
You don't believe me? Read this: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0444-6
5
@otroad - so by "energy independence" you mean you are afraid that some foreign power will block the wind and sun from reaching Nebraska? How would that work?
You're right next to Kansas. They get about 36% of their power from wind energy, but Nebraska's not taking advantage of the opportunity as much - 14%. Not bad, but you could do better. Then we could cut down on ethanol production from corn - it's not a good fuel replacement strategy.
1
We’ve been seeing numerous impacts catching many scientists by surprise with how soon they are occurring. In 2014 two independent teams of scientists reported that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is likely irreversibly retreating.
The paleoclimate record indicates that increasing global temperature by just 1.5-2°C above preindustrial temperature commits the system to an eventual 6-9 meters of sea level rise, a large fraction of which could arrive within the next 100 years.
Corals may not survive this century of warming and acidifying oceans, and droughts and floods linked to global warming—and conflict linked to those droughts—have already caused four countries to face famine.
Because of the decades to millennial long lag between a climate forcing and our feeling the full effect, due to the thermal inertia of the ocean and response time of the ice sheets, the effects we are feeling now are largely just the beginning of the result of emissions from the 20th century. And emissions have been increasing steadily for decades.
We are also seeing numerous amplifying feedbacks: loss of albedo (heat reflectivity) from ice melt, permafrost melt, methane release and massive wildfires; the Earth is starting to wrest any possible further human control of the climate away.
We're about out of time on this, if not already, and leaders are not only still acting as if this is not a planetary emergency, but some are acting as if there isn’t a problem at all.
13
@Erik Frederiksen
The media must stop acting as a a false balance. They continue to take a conservative partisan scientists and suggest they are equal to the other 98% that say we are facing a crisis. Stop lying for the republicans that are actively doing everything they can to destroy scientific evidence that goes against their political agenda.
3
@Adrian. where on Earth do you get the statistic that all environmental scientists support nuclear? there's enough sunlight falling on Earth every day to supply 7 years of global energy needs. storage systems exist and are not nearly as expensive and dangerous as nuclear.
4
Concerning the needed 'big thinking' that is clearly needed now: A plan to restore the American economy and build out a green energy grid could go hand in hand.
Firstly the production of great quantities of renewable energy is needed. The build out of this new production and delivery grid could be married with a new national high speed rail, slowly replacing the existing Amtrac service.
As we have roughly 4,500 flights per day in the U.S. and commercial aircraft have a very high carbon footprint, this reduction in flights could be a good start to the reduction of carbon use.
The amount of labor needed for both projects would be very large. If it were mandated that the labor, and materials came from the U.S. this would go a long way to re-establishing a new manufacturing base here.
Democrats could sell this as a means to heal the red /blue divide in the land , which of course is as much of a existential threat to the country as climate chaos is.
The reversal of the recent tax give away to big corporate and the wealthy will only begin to cover the costs.
It will be a very hard to sell. However if we want to live in a world as we have known it for very much longer we are going to have to do many things that are going to taste like bitter medicine.
Leadership on the grand scale is called for now.
4
Biden’s plan makes good sense. But an even better plan would be a carbon tax whose revenue would fund social security and Medicare.
3
Robert N. Stavins, an environmental economist at Harvard really thinks that climate change is a "left" issue? I think he needs a new job.
And glad to know Biden wants to go further than the Paris Accords which are not much more than a mild start.
6
Everyone's going to the left, so go further faster to the left. What about the center? No, no - to the left. But the majority of Americans don't like the far left, so what? The democratic fringe loves the left. That settles that, we're going to the far far left.
@leaningleft
If you are trying to dodge an asteroid that will destroy all human life here are the choices. Listen to the scientists and evidence they present. It’s agreed upon.
There is no left but if you are going to doge the crisis politically. The left says dodge hard to make up for lost time. The center says... maybe we will do something but maybe we won’t. The right says full speed ahead towards the asteroid and let the market sort it out.
2
As a chemical engineer, working for a major American oil company, I spend my 37 year career as a project engineer and project manager, on major multi-billion dollar projects to contain and control the greenhouse gases polluting earth. The $40 billion (today's dollars) Saudi Gas Program of the 1970's eliminated huge tracts of burn pits from the Eastern Province that could be seen for hundreds of miles. Programs to collect and monetize stranded associated gas from oil fields in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Working with the EPA and Air Quality Management Districts when at work in the USA.
I felt good about my career. I spent it with an ethical company, cleaning up methane, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants associated with the oil patch. I did it, knowing I was making the world a better place for our children and our grandchildren.
Today, in retirement, I stand aghast at how the Trump Administration, is attempting to destroy the global environment.
Today, the top people in the EPA (like Andrew Wheeler) are paid agents of the unethical Koch brothers and their ilk, who are out to destroy the planet's air. These administrators are paid off by Texas/Oklahoma frackers who look to destroy the Permian Basin and other areas' surface and ground water, for the quick profit.
These Trump agents are doing great damage, and putting our earth at great risk. Vote in 2020, so we can take our US government back from these climate change deniers. Our children need our help!
19
Forget nukes, fission is carbon free but mining, extraction and storage of wastes are not. The amount of area to power with solar is astoundingly small and wind is always blowing somewhere. Storage is already being built. Neither suffer from radioactive wastes, terrorist targets and human error that deliver catastrophic results...unless we put the NPP in your backyard.
2
We need to rely more on nuclear energy while spending on new renewable tech.
1
"...Biden Jr. discussed his plan to reinstate the climate policies of the Obama administration..."
The problem is, the Obama administration climate policies were a mixed bag of good and bad, some slowed climate change, some speeded it, such as Obama's opening of public land for oil and gas exploration.
Obama even bragged about all the oil extracted during his two terms:
"Over the last three years, I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We’re opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high."
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/obama-and-climate-change-the-real-story-104491/
5
Is Biden gonna pull a Hillary? For it then against it-
ie. pipeline/ttp ? If he is, he will not get the nomination. He has got to show what he actually stands for. That is what the race is for I guess.
3
If Biden has given up the idea that natural gas is a bridge to the future then he is getting somewhere. In the Obama administration natural gas was seen as a bridge to the future. It's not. It is as critical to get off natural gas as it is to get off coal. Why this is so is explained very clearly by climate writer David Roberts in this Vox article https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/5/30/18643819/climate-change-natural-gas-middle-ground.
3
Rest assured there will be a distinct point at which one can be certain climate change is at a critical stage. That is when there is broad based consensus nuclear power must be the baseload technology. Without it everything else will be inadequate (unreliable), slow to deploy and expensive.
2
@clarity007 - Slow to deploy? Iowa gets about 37% of all their electricity from wind power, from less than 1% in 2000. Kansas went from start to 36% of total generation even faster. Utility solar is fast to deploy, too. Battery systems are very fast to deploy.
Expensive? Wind and solar continue dropping in price and are upending the industry because of that. They're accelerating the death of coal that natural gas started, and they're increasingly outbidding natural gas.
Note: I favor keeping existing plants going where possible - but nuclear is expensive and slow in the USA. Here's how the four most current new builds are doing.
South Carolina abandoned a pair after huge cost overruns and delays. "The two reactors, which have cost the utilities roughly $9 billion, remain less than 40 percent built."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-project-canceled-in-south-carolina.html
Georgia's limping ahead with theirs, but slowly. "The price of expanding Georgia's nuclear Plant Vogtle has jumped to at least $25.2 billion and the timeline for completion of the project has been pushed back to as late as 2023, according to a disclosure by Southern Co. (NYSE: SO) during an earnings call Wednesday."
https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2017/08/03/southern-company-raises-plant-vogtle-expansion.html
Deploy renewables and storage like crazy while seeing if nuclear can eventually join in.
1
Democrats do not need Biden to lead on climate change, or any other Progressive agenda. They do not need him to "be out front such as Inslee is".
If Democrats can trust Biden to aggressively work towards whatever goal he has promised (and trusting him is a separate issue, so I'm just saying "if").... then what does it matter who's idea something is? Achieving the goal is the goal, not awarding Brownie points to whoever thought of something first.
If we want the president to represent the people, it's GOOD that a presidential candidate shifts their position to more closely reflect what the people want. It's a very positive sign for Progressives that they are pulling even Biden to the left.
Should Biden remain ahead in the polls, should he remain "most electable", then it's a win/win for Democrats if he begins to adopt more of a Progressive platform.
3
@ImagineMoments - yup. The key things everyone has to remember are that any Democrat climate plan is better by default than the GOP's plan to accelerate in reverse.
Second thing - the Democrat candidate needs to win, so I'm hoping they narrow the field rapidly so they can stop bashing each other as soon as possible.
Third - they need a firm majority in the Senate, otherwise little will get done - and enough majority to deal with the fact that Joe Manchin's a Democrat, but in a state that still mistakenly believes there's a future for coal. Pity them, but work around them.
Executive actions go a certain distance, and many states are doing great work, too, but we need laws passed by Congress.
1
@b fagan
We have to get the senate and keep the house. That is more important than the presidency.
1
@Mathias - true, mostly, but if Trump gets a second term, he's now got Wheeler and a few others who are actually competent in doing their jobs. Doing them against the best interests of the public, yes, but doing them in a way that would continue the decay of actions we need from EPA, Department of Interior and others.
So let's hope for a triple!
I certainly don’t trust Biden to be sincere or committed on this, but it’s still cause for celebration that even the leading establishment New Democrat is at least giving lip service to the Green New Deal.
We have Bernie to thank for this. The last time around in the Iowa debates when the candidates were asked what the biggest threat to America was, all of the others, including Hillary, of course, talked about terrorism. Bernie alone said climate change.
Whether it’s climate change, a single payer medical system, a $15/hr minimum wage or the refusal to take corporate money, Bernie has been the game changer in the Democratic Party.
He might not win the nomination, but even in losing last time he accomplished more for working people and the planet than most Democrats do when they win.
That’s why I cringe when I read the Times’ simplistic tallying of electoral wins and losses of Bernie-affiliated candidates. Historically, Democrats rarely deliver progressive change without being electorally threatened from their Left.
Like him or not, if you’re honest and you’re paying attention, you have to admit that the Democratic candidates wouldn’t be lining up behind the Green New Deal and single payer - and squirming about taking corporate money to the point of giving it back a la Buttigieg - if Bernie hadn’t nearly foiled Hillary’s coronation.
8
Brian, Jay Inside and Elizabeth Warren deserve as much or more credit as Bernie whom I admire greatly. And what reason do you not trust Biden? You have no basis to question his commitment to this. Those concerned about addressing climate change need to worry about Mitch McConnell and winning the Senate by a margin or else all of this talk is merely academic.
1
Some commenters argue that Biden's proposal is suspect because it might be rooted in a desire to please Democratic voters. So? Isn't that what politicians who are seeking votes should do?
The important point here is that Mr. Biden has made a reasonable proposal for addressing the biggest issue of our time in a meaningful way. The reality is that any plan that any Democrat proposes is going to get changed on the way through Congress. What counts is whether the plan includes elements that recognize the imperative of ceasing all fossil fuel use within a few decades at most and of transforming our economy and society to a renewable- and nuclear energy foundation.
Mr. Biden is the most likely Democratic nominee. You and I may have other "first choices," yes, but the polls indicate that he is a known and basically trusted politician among the party's voters. It is good that he is listening, even if that behavior is partly or even mostly motivated by a desire to win the presidency.
Not that I think Mr. Biden is that craven. I do think that he cares about this issue and I don't think it's fair to assume that he does not.
3
If you cannot give specifics about what is in the plan then there is no plan. Show me a concrete way forward and not lofty generalized statements about an "ambitious climate change" policy. This type of rhetoric is what made a fool of AOC and now Biden is looking to make the same mistake.
1
@Lisa
specifics- yes. A national green energy grid, married to a national high speed rail.For starters.
@Lisa - so did you look it up? So many articles have comments that sound like the newspaper article, a brief writeup of a situation, should be an encyclopedia. And even if they were, they'd be saying what they choose to present.
So here's where Biden's plan is. Go past the request for donations, scroll past lots of other stuff, and get to the part where the heading is (in all caps): "The Biden plan for a clean energy revolution and environmental justice"
Then you can read the details.
https://joebiden.com/climate/
I'm hoping every Dem has fairly similar plans so they can pick a candidate, win the election, and get some federal-level work done again on replacing our outdated, polluting, expensive power and transportation systems.
Just maxed out for Joe Biden.
The environment is number one in my list of priorities; getting rid of Trump is number two.
Joe Biden seems the best candidate for both of those.
4
We will never fully understand a candidate's passion, sincerity, and actual ability to deliver on campaign promises until that person has actually been elected, and had had their opportunity in office to face up to the juggernaut of regressive policies called the GOP.
But whoever it turns out to be, we'd better ALL help them give it their best shot in whatever way we can. What that means, each of us must think about. It's not about one person being the savior who is going to somehow pull this country out of the mess it is in.
1
Yes we can. We can look at their record and what they have accomplished.
Good for Joe, now steal Bernie's tax plan and Warren's Wall Street plan and you'll actually do something.
4
We finally have a hero fighting for our planet survival instead of turning their heads and joining the GOP climate deniers. Why is it we Dems understand there is a serious problem but the small brained Republicans are hard line deniers? I will vote only for Joe Biden since he is making an effort to be sincere about this top issue. The GOP have been campaigning since day 1 of Trumps illegitimate Presidency and always mocking climate change. Very sad.
1
Please 'give it up' Bernie can actually represent the 'others' those with out allegiance to the almighty corporate dollar.
2
I'm afraid the far left has such animus for Biden that if nominated they will stay home over voting Biden. This choice could well lead to Trump's re-election and the end for climate. I live in a very left leaning town, this past weekend I worked a climate change booth and had every Bernie fan tell me if Bernie is not nominated they will stay home. That is a terrifying notion for our climate - 4 more years of Trump moving us backward will be the last straw for humanity I fear.
2
I agree but they also want to be represented. I’m very tired of democrats pandering to republicans and being forced down their path.
Biden represents what Hillary was. How we arrived here and what led to Trump. A massive neglect for the rust belt during globalization.
Though republicans snipe at her she is actually proposing real policy that can be debated and potentially legislated to help get the rust belt out of their swamp. Democrats need policy to help the middle of the country that was left out.
They need more than minimum wage retail and service jobs so they can also benefit from global trade. When global trade balances then we can downsize. There is a role for government during this time.
Protectionism and zero sum thinking has the potential to lead to large scale wars.
3
It’s wonderful to see the Democratic party moving sharply to a pro-environment policy with long term goals, and to see the resurgence of green and liberal/environmentalist parties all over Europe as a reaction against the putrid stench of right-wing populist lies.
Now it’s up to the voters, worldwide. VOTE GREEN. VOTE FOR YOUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE!
2
Lots of people acting like Biden's acting entirely for political reasons, and has come late to something he's not politically invested in. Biden talked, in Congress, about the need to get things done to limit climate change back in the '80s before it was as urgent as now. His state has an average elevation of just 60 feet above the rising seas, and here's part of what the Delaware DNR says about risks to his state, so please realize he's got skin in the game.
"By the end of this century, 8 to 11 percent of Delaware could be underwater based on the state’s sea level rise planning scenarios of 0.5 meters (1.6 feet) and 1.5 meters (4.9 feet), respectively."
https://www1.udel.edu/researchmagazine/issue/vol4_no1/slr_intro.html
https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/stories/slr-delaware
Inslee is running as wanting to do things about climate. As governor in WA, he wanted a carbon emissions tax. They don't have a carbon emissions tax.
Sen. John McCain tried often in the 2000's to get an emissions plan passed, with Joe Lieberman. It didn't pass.
Passing durable climate legislation is hard. Executive orders are easy, and then go straight to years in court. The good thing right now is any Democrat could undo much of Trump's mischief because, the Supreme Court upheld the CO2 endangerment finding, and thus the EPA's right to limit emissions. Trump's also been sloppy with his rulemaking.
Any Dem plan beats GOP no-plan, but it has to pass. Win the Senate and the White House.
2
We’re supposed to believe that a guy who a few weeks ago was talking about a middle ground, now he’s going to be a ground breaker?
Biden’s record is one of accommodation to corporate power and, as such, his talk on climate change has zero credibility.
3
Joe Biden doesn't know any science related to climate change. Perhaps Biden is full of nostalgia ahout the end of the last Ice Age and is missing the taste of fresh mammoth meat?
Biden doesn't know economics either. Hunting and gathering and bartering is all the economics Biden knows.
If Biden is asked to provide policy detail he will wander off into a mental fog of inarticulate meandering buffoonery.
3
@Blackmamba
While delineating your ideal candidate purity test, and in constructing your caricature of the current front runner, please explain how Biden's deep, diverse, lengthy and undisputed talents in reaching across the aisle and across the pond disqualify him for the exact job description that 2020 - 24 reconstruction of our federal agencies, national identity and international role is going to require.
As opposed to the current paralysis we observe in the highly partisan Congress, I mean. An experienced consensus builder with a full team of expertise at the agency level, charged with an agenda validated by an untainted election process, I mean. A man capable of evolving according to new information and the demonstrated priorities of the electorate, I mean. A guy who actually listens to his advisors, instead of of corrupting, terrifying and/or firing them in favor of accessing a revolving door of yes men.
As opposed to Pence's horrendous density, on display last week in Alaska as he enthused about new shipping lanes as a result of the rising seas. I fully expect to find him announcing a privately-funded Ark project to take full advantage of them next.
Furthermore, Biden sure as heck knows how to wear a tux infinitely better than that giant geriatric biker dude currently embarrassing the US in the UK. Ewwwww....
1
Good: “an enforcement mechanism that includes milestone targets no later than 2025.”
Bad: But it suggests that such a bill would include a tax or other form of price on carbon dioxide pollution, which is not included in the Green New Deal.
"Economists widely agree blah blah blah"
Dear journalists: Ask successful REGULATORS what worked, not these ivory tower $ academics with silly assumptions about frugality.
Regulators like Mary Nichols at CARB in California. What works is deadlines. Set a deadline for replacing dirty energy to power engines, turbines and furnaces with clean energy.
Example is the RPS or the ZEV mandates. CA is now running on 55% renewable power BECAUSE the RPS mandated it and by 2025 will be up to 25% Zero Emission Vehicles sold because the ZEV mandated it.
Today's left wing Democrats are motivated by passion, dreams, and think that gradual solutions represent no solutions.
Since nearly all of our technology and productive systems rely upon fossil fuels, all of our efforts to transform our way of life away from fossil fuels will require fossil fuels. When it's done, all of the systems built to work with fossil fuels will have to be scrapped and replaced with systems that rely upon other fuels. Everything new will have to be capitalized and none of the old can be liquidated to pay for the new.
Not one politician who proudly talks about zero emission by 2030, 2050, or even 2100 has any plan for accomplishing the task by those dates. They just tell people what sells them to their potential constituents.
The transition from fuels that produce carbon gases to ones that don't and are sustainable is a huge undertaking. We will not have the means to do it all over again if something about it proves to be another unacceptable big problem. being in a hurry to act would be reckless.
1
It is good that Biden is coming around regardless of whether this represents his inner convictions or just plain politics because the important point is to make sure the environment is a top theme for whoever the Democrats nominate. Then it needs to be a top theme for the general campaign for two reasons. The first is because this really is an important issue and we are running out of time. The second is to force Trump to engage on climate change, which is a real weakness for him. In other words, Dems need to deal with both their inner convictions and just plain politics when it comes to climate change for 2020.
6
This is a good start but much more needs to be done. I don’t see any way of accomplishing these goals without adding nuclear energy to the mix. Yes, I know about Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile River but much safer reactor design is now available. Indeed, France now gets 75% of its electricity generation from nuclear power. But even if we get there, green house gasses will continue to be spewed out by China, India and Russia. Indeed, even if all global emissions were to stop by tomorrow, climate change would still continue and accelerate. As much money and energy needs to be put into protecting our shorelines and river flood plains. I see no plans for this now. Finally, any President can announce a plan but few may be able to carry it out. Because of his experience in the Senate and as President of the Senate, Biden would likely be the person best able to get it done. For instance, John Kennedy (even considering his abbreviated tenure) was able to get little new legislation accomplished. Lyndon Johnson was able to get much of the war on poverty started, including passage of Medicare and Medicaid, the War on Poverty, Head Start, the Civil Rights Act and much more. (Sadly, his record on Viet Nam was another matter.)
51
@JerryV One thing I have learnt as an immigrant in the US is that when the US adopts innovative technologies other countries follow. China will follow or expand their green initiatives because their people can't breathe anymore in the polluted big cities. Same for India. Inaction or backing off of global treaties is not the way for US to show leadership! In the '90s Clinton & Gore talked up the information super highway leading to wide spread use of the Internet and the jobs and companies that have arisen from that vision. The US needs to set these visions for the future and Climate action is a big one to lean into and not back off of.
21
@JerryV
I doubt that Biden is really sincere about this. I do not trust Biden, nor do I believe him. I don't think he is one of our stronger candidates this time around, and I don't think that he will be the nominee.
12
@JerryV Three mile island. Not river. How quickly people forget the details of horrific disasters.
8
Carbon tariffs are a great idea... more or less establishing a carbon tax that doesn't just apply to the US.
I want to hear more details, but this is better than I was expecting from Biden.
Most of all, I want the sense that he will actually follow through. Clinton made a lot of promises to appease different groups, but I often got the impression that she wasn't sincere, and would later look for an excuse to back out. Is climate change an issue Biden will prioritize? Will he push it through even if there are political costs?
53
@Brendan Terrible idea. What's the cost? Biden is placating the left wing of the party. Americans are not rock- throwers because we have full elections every 2 yrs. We tend to punish anyone who sponsors something we don’t like. Everyday citizens are the ones who vote governments in or out, not environmentalists and certainly not pundits. Politicians serve at our pleasure not theirs. The French riots underscore an important point: Higher gas taxes, emission standards, even carbon tafiffs are unsustainable in France or anywhere else for that matter. That goes double for the U.S. People are getting squeezed. They move further away from economic centers because the cost of housing in urban areas is unaffordable, but now their way to get to work is becoming unaffordable as well. Low wage earners spend a lot to fill their cars that they need to get to work. Does Biden want to make commuting more expensive too? Politicians rarely think of the poor & the hardship it causes to them. They should reconsider the plausibility of trying to regulate something that the VOTERS CLEARLY DON'T WANT. A carbon tax that is revenue neutral (because in theory somehow all of the cash collected is returned back to the people) is unpopular because people are much more aware of the cash going out of their wallets than the check they get months later to offset the expense. We & (the world) will continue to use fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. It can't eliminated overnight. That will take decades.
2
@Bill Brown
You have to remember the context of the Yellow Vest movement in France - which arose after a one-two punch from Macron. He gave a tax cut to the rich, then followed it up with a "climate saving" gas tax on everyone. The Yellow Vests are now debating (with the Macron government) the crucial questions you ask - how to make the economy more fair to all, while mitigating the effects of climate change without the costs falling on the backs of those who can barely afford the rent. As you point out in your post, there is no easy answer.
14
@Brendan you want the sense that he will follow through and you got the impression she wasn't sincere? That's some serious hand wringing. Are you equally concerned regarding the other candidates' proposals? Asking the same question? What will any of them do if there are "political costs"?
2
There's neither passion nor wisdom in this change in policy. I fear the man and his campaign has arrived at this policy primarily for votes. How many times in this country have we seen candidates backtrack on promises born by waffling? Issues that are forced upon a candidate, always seem to get compromised when the donors object.
88
@Narwhal
Yes,agreed. Perhaps only if he signs the no fossil money pledge then we can trust it. Hopefully the image he projects is not as waffly as it looks.
10
@Narwhal You can always vote for Trump and watch the world be destroyed. That's the power of democracy where even the ignorant can vote. And even worse, the most ignorant man on the planet can be president.
6
@Narwhal The truly distressing thing is that most of the commenters seem to be falling for Biden's rhetoric.
9
"'This clearly demonstrates that Biden and his people recognize the polling that Democrats in the primary electorate are skewed to the left, and the polling demonstrates that they care about climate change,' Mr. Stavins said."
---
Wouldn't it be cool if environmental economists of all people recognized the moral imperative to take actions that might go some way towards mitigating the catastrophe our shortsighted pursuit of individual interests has already locked in, rather than playing pundit and assuming it could only be due to polling?
I'm no Biden supporter, and am not about to be one. But I'm all for anyone ratcheting up action. But this kind of framing reinforces the idea that action on climate is a "left issue," or some kind of concession to "special interests." It's about the ability of our species (and whatever other species manage to survive what's starting to feel like a purposeful effort on our part to wipe out as many of them as possible) to survive on a planet that looks anything like the one that made civilization possible.
126
@Shirley0401 Perhaps republicans want to narrow the playing field. Gerrymandering and purging voter registration can only go so far. The wealthy will be able to survive longer due to their ability to migrate to habitable areas around the globe and their bought representatives will be sure to provide infrastructure that protects their assets.
4
@Shirley0401
Of course you would vote for Biden if he is the nominee, Right? I mean you wouldn't vote for Trump, Right?
I applaud Joe Biden for finally coming forward with a bold plan to combat climate change, but I question his timing. Unlike Jay Inslee who has always made climate change his TOP priority, just how plausible is it that this announcement came AFTER his staff reviewed the polls and realized Democrats care about climate change? Originally Mr. Biden was merely “seeking a “middle ground” to combat climate change” but once again, a “mischaracterization of his position” has been cited. His history of “missteps” about issues is why I have concerns. How successful will he be in achieving aggressive climate policies?
I believe he cares about the environment. But I think his priority is spinning the issue to generate votes his way. To pledge “an investment of $1.7 trillion over 10 years into clean energy and environmental justice programs, designed to help minorities and poor people disproportionately harmed by pollution” is bold and noble. But is he merely stating that to appease the voter? Will those programs really happen and be successful? The amount of money he is quoting could benefit many people. But what about fixing what’s broken which caused the environment to be unhealthy in the first place? Until those problems are remedied, more people will suffer from pollution, regardless of the money spent on treatment.
I rarely agree with Bernie Sanders, but he is spot on with “We have got to make it clear that when the future of the planet is at stake, there is no middle ground”.
175
@Marge Keller: Biden has not staked out a middle ground here. His proposals are consistent with those of the most climate-forward candidates. He has linked climate to justice, he has linked climate to trade, he will issue orders to put America back in the forefront of the global fight against climate change, and he will call for a massive investment in a clean energy future for the country.
If you wonder whether Biden's proposals will be enacted then you have to wonder whether the proposals of any of the other candidates will be enacted. And I don't see the difference in Biden making proposals that will appeal to voters and the other candidates making proposals that will appeal to voters. There is no candidate running who does not want to be elected and all will say things that will help them to get elected.
Maybe Biden is just a better candidate than you thought. Maybe he'll be a better candidate than I thought. I'm not prepared to vote for him today, but I'm not going to dismiss him from consideration because he no longer fits outdated preconceptions. The Democrats need all of their candidates to be as strong as they can be.
49
@Stan Sutton
Extremely valid and solid points to consider and remember.
I too am "not prepared to vote for him today nor will I dismiss him from consideration" either. I will continue to keep an open mind but not a blind eye or deaf ear to his past. I have to get past my notion of Biden acting like a bass out of water - flipping from side to side, unsure or not completely committed plus the continued appearance of wavering within a issue depending on how straight and far the crow will fly.
I am being cautious. I truly appreciate comments like yours and articles like this. The more we know and read about EVERY candidate can only help each of us make an education decision at the polling booth.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
24
@Marge Keller Thanks for your response. I generally agree with your comments on most topics and I think we're really not too far apart here. Right now I am very much in favor of being open minded. I believe that this will strengthen the party and produce a better party platform. And I am hopeful that it will result in the nomination of the strongest candidate, one who combines the best chances for defeating Trump with the greatest ability lead the country into the future.
6
Carbon neutral is bogus, but most politicians and media members are both way to scientifically illiterate and have no incentive to say that.
You would need to sequester an immense amount CO2 to even come close to getting to carbon neutral - how much methane is produced by 100,000,000 deer for example? Carbon neutrality will never be achieved through reducing consumption, it can only be achieved by removing carbon from the atmosphere.
I find the dishonestly from the media and politicians on what carbon neutral means to be rather embarrassing.
8
Carbon neutrality must only be achieved for “long cycle” carbon, that is carbon emitted from burning fossil sources created over millions of years. “short cycle” carbon such as anything resulting from the consumption of rapidly renewable sources (e.g. vegetable food, some biofuels, etc.) does not need to be neutralized, as this process will happen naturally over a short period of time (i.e. the growth of new plants and trees that essentially recapture the same carbon by photosynthesis, which is essentially solar power).
Therefore I wouldn’t worry about “absolute neutrality” as it is a pointless goal, the short-term carbon cycle is a natural thing (as long as we keep replanting the trees and plants we take, of course).
1
@Andy
Warming of the permafrost releases huge amounts of methane. The whole system is out of balance.
1
@Emily
Carbon neutral would mean that there is a balance, not elimination. The flow of carbon from solid to gaseous states would maintain a continuous concentration. That would be achieved by ending the abundance of carbon gases from man's technologies to restoring plant life in amounts that act as carbon sinks.
Not much original thinking by Biden. Just copy someone else’s plan. And if his plan doesn’t work by 2050, will he be blamed for the failure?
3
@Robert Bosch
I don't think blame will matter much in 2050. Mr. Biden is presently 76. The year 2050 is 31 yrs in the future. That would make Mr. Biden 107.
Just a thought.
2
Somehow do not think the KingMaker will approve and he too shall be issued his marching orders to just sashay away.
Thinking about all the people suffering from extreme storms across our nation,
this news is good to hear. We must act now!
5
The more we do about climate change the better.
2
It is imperative, for the survival of this planet, that any future elected leaders fully embrace the dire concerns about Global Warming and act to mitigate the impending damage. Bill HR 763 - Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act - takes a proactive down to earth position on carbon taxation in order to pressure all industries to curtail the use of CO2 producing activities. It is a well vetted base line solution to the actions needed to make an immediate affect on carbon usage. Hopefully Mr. Biden will support such legislation.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/
6
‘He will not only recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement on climate change’
Translation – under Bidden, we will not move a finger about the environment, while saying we are.
The Paris agreement that Obama signed reads ‘the signatories should …’
Should…. As in shulda coulda woulda …. None of them count.
It’s ‘You shall pay taxes’, it’s not ‘you should pay taxes’, it’s a mandatory thing, not an optional wishy washy pipe dream. Yet the Paris agreement is just that, a ‘you should …’ and not a single way to prove you did, no punishment if you don’t.
That is why it was readily signed by so many, because they all laughed at it when they saw this, and knew it was nothing but a farce.
And Bidden is pledging us to recommit us to this, a farce, an optional thing, a ‘if you have time and is not so much of a bother…’
We need better than that, an Bidden is not the man to deliver.
He should know this … but clearly he does not.
7
Biden has to be careful here. He is trying to shore up his support with the extreme left of his party but if he goes too far it can backfire. The extreme left will vote for Biden no matter what if Trump runs again, but some people will vote for Trump if the democrats nominate another Hillary and put him over the top again.
Most Americans are for making the environment safer not a drastic immediate plan to eliminate anything but solar energy and donkeys.
Most Americans need the spirit of Roe not abortion on demand.
Most Americans need universal, quality, affordable health care, an extension of ACA not England's total socialistic medicine.
Most Americans need immigration not letting the flood gates open to the whole world.
Most Americans are for basic gay rights not making a wedding case Supreme Court case their #1 priority.
Etc. Etc.
If the democrats follow the above rules they will have an excellent chance of getting the WH and Congress in 2020.
If not and nominate another identity obsessed, social engineering, I am not Trump but a woman so anoint me president east coast liberal like Hillary they are most likely doomed to giving Trump another term.
1
@Paul
If the 5th largest economy in the world can run on 55% renewable energy, then it is no risk, honestly.
It is happening. California today exceeds its 2030 mandate to be 30% renewable by 2020, it was so easy.
4
Gays should be able to get married but can still be discriminated against?
Abortion should be legal but not on demand? Do you mean they should be hard to get? We should shame the woman more than we already do?
Letting the “flood gates open” to all immigrants? Sigh. Congress needs to put foreword bipartisan immigration reform... oh wait, they did and Laura Ingram didn’t like it so it was scrapped by the president. Trump has made everything at the border worse. Just look at the numbers of illegal crossings.
2
So what you’re saying is, we have to find a middle ground between basic decency, and basic human rights for marginalized people, and making you too uncomfortable. What a stirring appeal to “the fierce urgency of now.”
3
Biden's goals are in line with the science and assuming he comes up with further policy details for achieving the goals the big question is how would he rank climate change as a priority if he is elected. Obama did not make climate change a top priority in his first term and actually did not even mention it for a long period of time but did make it a top priority in his second term when he could not run again for the presidency. Biden and any other Democrat need to make climate change their top priority to have any realistic hope of reaching the critical goals for limiting global warming. So far only Jay Inslee among the Democratic candidates has committed to making climate change the number one priority.
3
Biden represents some sort of normal in a nation shocked by Trump. He will support all of these progressive ideas when President.Now, stay middle of the road don't shake the boat and get elected. We need to win and then do the important changes. Biden offers this chance.
6
I view all promises by political candidates, especially primary candidates, as aspirational. When rubber hits the road its usually compromises that get results. I don't know that the Green New Dealers are aware of this simple idea. Sanders, and his screaming, will not get their wish no matter how loud he and his supporters scream. The winner, assuming a Democrat, will have to compromise with his fellow Democrats and the opposition party(s). That is not to say that the activists are all wrong, they do help to move the goal posts. The goal is to select the best candidate who can beat DT, not necessarily to hew to the one issue partisan line.
3
A lot of people all over the world are screaming about the need for action on climate change You would be surprised to know how many Americans—especially young Americans—think this is a number one issue.
Well after his lackluster approach and middle of the road declaration, he didn't have much of a choice.
2
It is clearly necessary to reduce carbon dioxide and other carbon gases in the atmosphere and oceans as some as can be done. Achieving zero emissions by any means necessary by a fixed year without any real plan is marketing nonsense intended to affect people’s feelings. But consider what would happen with an all out effort with the means available, a fossil fuel based industrial system. A big production of carbon gases that will take decades to get out of the air.
1
“ “If they want to win the nomination, all of the Democrats will ultimately have no choice but embrace the Green New Deal, which is just a wish list of unrealistic, socialist policy ideals,” the spokeswoman, Erin Perrine, said in a statement. “
Calling me or the ideals I espouse “unrealistic” or “socialist” doesn’t deter me from holding them. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
I feel sorry for anyone who doesn’t have a wish list, especially in terms of innovative, new ideas. I hope something like a new green deal is well represented in the Democratic platform.
1
As per usual, another politician sticking to the pc script: i.e., no reference to the country's and planet's rising population growth as being a significant factor to climate change and pollution.
1
@Michael, I agree with you but realistically no President can do anything about population explosion. Sadly, to some degree it will be partly achieved via the effects of climate change. The loss of productive agricultural land through desert formation in some areas and flooding in others. Mass migrations and famine in many areas of the world. When we look at the desperate people migrating from Central America, it is caused not only by crime and drugs, but mostly by lack of water to raise crops.
1
No nuclear expansion equals no real deal that is going to run our economy. Look at Germany, for all the great statistics on renewables they are burning more coal and setting up burn Russian natural gas. Nuclear has to part of the equation.
4
Let’s not forget methane folks. Gas produced by agriculture will have to be reduced as well as carbon emissions, or this boat called earth will continue to sink.
I like Biden but this hastily put together proposal is absurd & has no chance getting through Congress. More importantly it will face wide-spread public opposition. Democratic voters may be concerned about climate change. But in poll after poll, the overwhelming majority of Americans are against paying higher taxes for climate change legislation. The point of climate change legislation was always to increase the price of 85 percent of the energy we use. That is the goal. For it to “work,” climate change legislation needs to increase the price of oil, coal, and natural gas to force consumers to use more expensive forms of energy. President Obama’s former OMB director, Peter Orszag, told Congress that price increases would be essential to the success of climate change legislation. The majority of U.S. voters will never go for this. Period. Voters have a legitimate fear of higher energy costs. If we were simply forced to generate power through only clean methods at this point, there would be rolling brown-outs and power curfews like there are in 3rd world countries. The American public won't stand for this under any circumstances. While many people are in favor of alternatives, they also want those alternatives to not compromise on their lifestyle. Can we bring ourselves to prioritize renewables over cheap fuels? Are we willing to vote against our own self-interests & approve higher taxes on fossil fuels? Absolutely not. It's never going to happen.
2
Vote against our own self interest? I think living in a world that’s not on fire, under water, or being blown away by giant tornadoes is in most voters’ self interest.
3
It's a positive step, but I'm dubious because Biden seems to base his appeal on "bipartisanship" and "healing the nation". Well, the Obama administration burned away its first term with a "bipartisanship at every cost" mentality. We can't afford that any longer. We can't afford a half-a-loaf, corporatist, centrist mentality when our planet is dying before our eyes. Had Biden released this plan from the beginning, I might believe it, but at this moment it seems like a purely political move- blowing with the wind instead of standing for something. I'm sick of politicians who are willing to bargain away everything instead of actual leaders who stand and fight for something. Enough is enough. We're out of time.
7
This is simply not true. Biden will do nothing - just as he has always.
3
the democrats are well on their way to re-electing trump. Although hard core democrats might like this, 2/3s of the electorate are either republican or independents, and will not buy into this nonsense. (Perhaps these proposals are only for the primaries, and then there will be a bait and switch for the general election). to start, these "climate change" plans are minimally effective (most of the CO2 comes from elsewhere, and a carbon tariff is ludicrous), they might create a recession and elevate unemployment (removing corporate tax cuts, increase in other taxes ), and are generally not implementable for many other practical reasons. Although these make one feel good, - and that is what the democrat base mostly responds to - the other 2/3s will recognize the impracticality and vote for Mr Trump. And then what about impeachment?
1
Action on climate change is “nonsense”? If the majority of Americans think this, then we are doomed.
The number one issue for voters in 2020 is health care. What will Biden do about single payer health care?
2
If and when Biden gets around to closing Gitmo and shutting down Afghanistan, I will start to listen to him. But he has a long standing habit of telling voters what they want to hear and then doing something completely different.
Biden will not get my vote, period.
2
Personally, I am not a fan of Bernie Sanders but you know what? I love my kids and their future is more important than my likes and dislikes. Trump will hurt their future on this planet more than any of the democrats running. By far. If you want to change the world, run for office! Get involved. But please don’t cut off all of our noses out of spite.
1
Some people argue that big plans to combat global warming are too expensive, but the costs of mitigation pale before that of adapting.
For example, the cost to move the first village in the US due to global warming impacts is estimated to be $180 million for around 600 people.
The US alone has 1,400 cities and towns threatened by sea level rise.
Just this one impact alone will strain the resources of the US, perhaps to the breaking point if it comes in fast as current glaciology indicates is a real risk.
14
Liberals claim that tariffs are really a tax on consumers. They’re right.
But so are taxes on corporations. In order to maintain after-tax profits, corporations will raise their prices.
You can’t have it both ways. Tariffs and corporate taxes are both taxes on consumers.
So Joe Biden is proposing a massive tax on consumers to fund a wannabe Green New Deal. Fair enough.
Let the voters decide.
4
@John The Corps paid 33% of the federal taxes in 1980 ,now 11%. Bringing these back to "normal" would create lots of revenue. Last year revenue at 17% of GDP and normally 19%. Reasonable taxes would give lots of money to do lots of things. Also, don't forget these new policies will create lots of revenue and that is usually not included in the cost evaluations. As example medicare for all evaluations forgets to include the billions of dollars people now spend for private care.
12
@John. There’s no free lunch for anybody. All the things that serve the common good, rather than just the interests of the wealthy few will need to be paid for. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect taxes or higher prices. I’d rather address climate change and have less personal money, ie, “market share” for Walmart (cuz that’s how they see me).
13
@John
Incorrect. Tariffs are a forced like income tax.
A tax on the profits of corporations may or may not be passed on until the profits are absorbed. They can try to pass it on but may not be able to do so.
Or tax the extremely wealthy directly who own more than the entire bottom half of the nation. They need to pay for the infrastructure that maintains them and the blood of the Americans that die for them.
Great but how are democrats going to make sure the next Republican president doesn't dismantle it all, as Trump has done with so many of President Obama's achievements? That is the folly of executive orders.
9
Let us elect this average JOE. All the Democratic presidential aspirants need to consolidate and stand with JOE. He is the one who can defeat Trump in PA, MI, WI and OH. Actually, 2016 Presidential Election was Biden's shot, but Hillary HIJACKED it putting Donald Trump in White House.
6
@Trevor Diaz
“this average Joe”?
I’m 64. Average Joe was elected to his first term in the Senate in 1972 when I was still playing high school football and 17. True.
47 years in DC does not make you average. It means you will do and say anything to get re-elected. Also true.
Joe knows nothing else.
Be careful what you wish for.
4
@Trevor Diaz, Actually, no one hijacked it. Biden declined to run because it was too close to the sickness and death of his son Beau.
3
@Trevor Diaz
I strongly disagree -- The idea that the other candidates should all quit to support Biden -- as if he were our savior or something is ridiculous. Actually, old "Status-Quo Joe" is one of the weaker candidates in this cycle. His current "lead" is just the vapor of prior name recognition.
2
I am appalled that anyone would think Biden or anyone else could be better than Obama.
2
@Shamrock Agree, but Obama tried too hard to be reasonable and he did not learn until too late. Repubs will not help, they are indeed the enemy and we now know this. The next Dem will ignore them and go forward.
@Shamrock Who thought that? Did I miss something?
1
I’m real sorry that folks have a hard time understanding that a) politicians tend to respond to voters, b) if you’re gonna yell at Biden for pandering, might wanna take a good hard look at St. Bernie trying to recover from getting booed half off the stage by black women, c) it takes time to plan stuff out, and d) if you completely buy what ANY pol tells you in a primary, you really shouldn’t be allowed to walk around loose.
Joe put out a pretty good framework for a serious approach to climate change. Not sure why that’s evil.
42
@Robert No policy will ever be as it is planned. it will be a combination of many things when finally enacted. All of these 'policies' are outlines not specifics.
1
@Robert here's a suggestion for politicians:
Instead of "responding to voters" all the time, how about showing some actual LEADERSHIP and respond to an actual crisis with the kind of action required to safeguard your country and the planet? Maybe do more to educate voters about the seriousness of the issue, instead of waiting for the political winds of change to blow it into your lap.
Biden already had eight years sitting on his thumb as VP, plenty of time to plan stuff out.
7
@Robert
Simply rather choose someone who means it than middle of the road.
2
Once again, a Democrat presidential wannabe goes over the top to appease and court the global warming crowd. Biden just sealed his own death warrant with this radical Green New Deal copycat plan. Trump will make mincemeat of Biden and his plan, which would grind American business into the dust with new stranglehold greenhouse gas emissions, and would give China a straight path to world economic dominance. The 23 Democrat presidential candidates just can't stop themselves from giving away the store in exchange for votes.
9
Dust is a good word. It’s what much of our land will become if we don’t stop burning oil. Temperatures are headed in one direction. Up. Even China knows that.
9
On the contrary, China is already way ahead of the US in renewable energy. It takes a bold vision to put you back at the head of the pack. If I could vote in your election Joe is up at the top of the list. Doing nothing and pandering to coal will do nothing but seal my son’s fate to a world we cannot even begin to imagine. Climate change is real and it’s already started.
9
@paul We are being ground into the dust by climate change. Or, swept into the rising waters; choose your metaphor. Citizens around the world want to save the planet. Most businesses haven't done such a great job leading the way.
3
Unless Joe is willing to support the construction of 200 new nuclear reactors, he is just wasting time. All of the world's top climate scientists support nuclear energy. What do they know that you don't?
11
@Adrian This:
"All of the world's top climate scientists support nuclear energy. "...is not true.
Many do. Many don't:
https://thinkprogress.org/why-james-hansen-is-wrong-about-nuclear-power-44b486ed8a72/
6
@Adrian Nuclear energy is a thing of the past since we still have no place to put the spent nuclear waste and it sits in nuclear plants across the country just waiting for an accident.
4
@Adrian It's more a matter of the "rest of the world" bringing "we"/the US along at this juncture. Across the globe, solar and wind are supported; in general, they're ahead of where we are.
China is spending 3 times as much as we are on PV and wind:
https://qz.com/1247527/for-every-1-the-us-put-into-renewable-energy-last-year-china-put-in-3/
4
This is a much stronger plan than Biden's critics on the left expected, and the proposal for a carbon tariff would be vital for remaking a world economy to protect climate.
29
@Ben Lieberman
‘This is a much stronger plan than Biden's critics on the left expected’
Hi critics expect:
ICE disbanded
Open borders
AOC’s Green Deal
All school loans dismissed
A government job upon graduating from school
Medicare for all
Free school for all
Reparations for descendats of enslaved people
Taxing the rich to give to the poor
And they are not willing to listen or support any one that will not march to their tune.
There is no way Bidden, the most centrist of all candidates, could ever get their support.
Instead of regressive taxes on consumers, let's consider a different sort of carbon capture: using high-income taxpayer dollars to build factories to pull carbon out of the air and bury it, as proposed by companies such as Carbon Engineering, Climeworks and Global Thermostat. Support among low-income voters will increase if climate-friendly proposals don't affect their pocketbooks.
4
The path for Joe Biden to win the nomination, and to win the general election, is have forward-looking policies (such as this climate plan) while wearing a humble, people-friendly average Joe demeaner. Great step forward.
39
@PT he's going against a complete disgrace with no plan at all save from trying to keep himself out of prison, why is it so hard for Democrats to triangulate a path to victory?
2
I question the sincerity of this plan because of his insistence that he is the centrist option in the democratic field. This is like a vegetarian suddenly saying he likes steak too because his date orders a steak.
17
@John
I agree. I do not trust or believe old "Status-Quo-Joe."
I also don't think he is one of our stronger candidates, and I do not think he can win the nomination.
1
@John - oh, brother. He's not allowed to address the issues because he plans to be everyone's president?
2
Good for Joe joining the train of making a plan that would destroy of economy and commit millions of Americans to poverty. Makes it much easier for Trump to win again.
1
No, this doesn’t come close to “matching” the Green New Deal. Biden’s plan to work within the establishment system will produce no results. His centrism will produce the same result as 2016: Trump wins.
26
@Michael
'Biden’s plan to work within the establishment system will produce no results.'
And the extreme far left fringe insistence that every one think your way or get lost will ensure a fractured Democratic party unable to mount any challenge, and ensure Trump 2020.
Keep it up pal.
4
@Michael it's more detailed that the GND and it's do-able.
1
@AutumnLeaf
Could you define who/what you see as the "extreme far left fringe"? I didn't know we had one - instead we have two candidates that look to me like what the Democratic Party used to be - a party of the working people, during FDR's time.
4
Even among people who understand that global warming is a threat there are many who don’t understand how big a threat it is to humanity.
A population of a few million human hunter-gatherers was apparently beyond the carrying capacity of the planet as most places where we showed up the megafauna disappeared.
Around 10-12,000 years ago, when large climate oscillations settled down, we developed agriculture which allowed us to double our population many times into the billions.
But agriculture faces big challenges if we don’t change our ways soon (1), as do our fisheries, and if they both decline significantly, forcing us back to being largely hunter-gatherers, history tells us that out of every 1,000 people you see maybe one survives.
Except this time it won’t be meat on the hoof with mastodons, large flightless birds and picking lobsters off the beach. Going back to trying to hunt and gather during the 6th mass extinction isn’t the best timing so one in a thousand may be wildly optimistic.
1 IPCC Western N America drought 1900-2100
http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2013/drought-western-us-1900-2100.png
7
@Erik Frederiksen
True - a lot of people who are relatively well educated on the issue maintain avid fantasies of our ability to wrestle the challenge into place in time to avoid massive changes to the arrangement of civilization, or what can survive of it.
Even the Paris Accord entertains delusion, forecasting a 1.5C global temp when the Accord really tracks us to 3C+ by 2100. And of course, we are nowhere near even meeting that basic scenario.
2
Joe Biden plan seems more like a Republican plan, not addressing the urgency of climate change to transition from fossil fuels
Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth Action says:
"This plan embraces dangerous nuclear power, environmentally-harmful biofuels, and foolish dreams of carbon capture and sequestration that will lock in our continued dependence on fossil fuels," said Pica. "Like most candidate climate plans, it barely addresses agriculture and the U.S.'s international obligations as the world's largest historic emitter."
10
@steve The GOP now, is in near complete denial w.r.t. Climate Change so, no, this is not a "Republican plan".
Currently, the Republican plan is to rely on coal and fossil fuels; they believe that there's no problem with doing this.
4
@steve
"Dangerous" nuclear power? Perhaps, but note that air pollution in all its forms is killing 10,000 people per day, and has been for decades. Nuclear energy deaths have yet to top 1000.
And, carbon capture may be a foolish dream, but we are so far behind on this that no credible scenario of saving civilization remains that doesn't include some form of active carbon sequestration. It's really that bad. Only the time lag of CO2 emission and expression of effects allow us to pretend otherwise.
This issue alone should give the Democrats the white house and the senate. If we don't take major steps soon, we will have no ground to stand on...literally.
15
We need a Democratic wave election like none in recent memory. A massive washing away of the rotted timbers of the deeply criminally corrupt Republican party and their policies of death, disease, destruction and founded on the sand of lies.
Multiple members of that party need to be prosecuted, including their party leader. And the incredible damage their party fealty to the fossil fuel and weapons cartels has done must be dramatically and permanently reversed.
If not, the American Experiment will come to an end, as a failure.
31
How will they limit the massive emission volume of jet travel? Seems like a very unrealistic goal considering air travel will double in the coming decades. My guess is, he will get votes for making promises he can’t keep. Same old story.
14
@LackProgress - first off, the increase in air travel worldwide is basically because people in China, India and other nations can now afford to do it. It's not driven by the developed nations nearly as much as by the emerging nations. So what would any President do about other countries other than push the international agreements?
Second - airline emissions are not by any means one of the major sources of CO2 in the US today. At some point, as power generation becomes increasingly carbon-free, and as ground transportation electrifies, yes, air travel will be a more significant factor of emissions, but that will be because other sources have declined.
15
@b Fagan
A more damaging source of carbon emission that is almost never mentioned is the bunker fuel used to ship goods across the oceans. Putting a massive tax on those emissions to reflect the externalities of those destructively dirty forms of transportation would force economies to localize
12
@b fagan
So, in other words, fly on and consume freely. Jets and cruise ships have no effect on climate change. That's a convenient distortion. Of course they will and there will be issues with solar farms and windmills because the issues are already there and denied by the industry that can't examine itself, just its competitors.
1
Biden's ideas are not only laudatory and ambitious, they are politically doable. He shows how he will achieve them. Of course, he is being politically timely, but that's a ridiculous accusation. Politicians who aren't politically timely are called defeated candidates.
95
If you start in the middle and the negotiations begin where do you end? Nowhere, with just small incremental change that will fall short of what we need.
2
@Robert
"If you start in the middle and the negotiations begin, where do you end?"
I completely agree - not a good strategy for any critical piece of legislation. This is how we ended up with Obamacare, which contained no public option. Incrementalism often seems a strategy for "doing something" to placate the masses while never getting to the goal.
1
Nice to see a Democrat someone showing respect for Mother Earth.
Raping her is not the answer, despite Republican efforts championing and celebrating environmental violence,
Filthy, polluting, poisonous coal is not the answer.
Manmade fossil-fuel-based global warming is very real.
The solution is transitioning to solar, wind, tidal, biomass, geothermal and new forms of energy and kicking our filthy fossil fuel addiction.
Clueless Joe gets a clue.
46
Liar, Liar! pants on fire. This is not bold and it does not live up to the Green New Deal.
Again NYT and pundits are in for "status quo" don't rock the money ship flowing into the pockets of the robber barons.
Let's talk about the Gilded Age of late 1800's to 1930? Why not and compare that to todays robber barons.
How come journalists have not connected the dots? If you don't remember history or research history, you are bound to repeat it. Corporate media is all for repeating it so they can grow their millions.
37
@Julie
....Sincerely from, Portland
Explains the off shoot, irrelevant rant about robber barons and corporations
3
Or, you could try examining Biden’s actual plan. Which I notice you didn’t mention as you rushed by to yell about the 1930s.
7
@Julie - please provide a point-by-point analysis that backs up what you're saying. Fact checkers do that. Others just yell pants on fire and ramble into generalities and sloganeering.
Making the second-largest economy in the world be net-zero on emissions by 2050 is a big job and is in line with the emissions goals of the Green New Deal. Note that the Green New Deal isn't finished with even selling fueled vehicles until 2040, and that means there'd still be emissions as cars and trucks age.
And keep in mind that anyone's plan will have to be carried out in the real world, where three Democrats in the Senate voted against the Green New Deal in McConnell's pretend vote.
So it's a good thing that another leading Democrat candidate is putting plans for what needs doing on his program - it's more than the GOP does, and they need to be defeated, including in the Senate.
Why not spend some of your time reminding the rural voters that wind power leases put money in their pockets? Of course, that might lead to green energy robber barons, but that would be an improvement.
3
I didn't like Biden before this. I was against the Iraq War and saw him as a lukewarm moderate. This changes my calculus significantly (as a coastal gen-x independent). I hope more Dems will follow suit to make this the defining issue of our political era.
47
@Ryan
Don't be fooled. Biden will never seriously offend his donors.
I am glad that this is where Joe Biden has arrived since he is the candidate most likely to be capable of getting any legislative package through the Senate. He is well regarded by the Senate members and will not be as easy to dismiss as President Obama was. He certainly has a huge skill advantage over someone who has never written and passed a major piece of legislation and whose greatest accomplishments were roll call amendments for a few years.
112
Sorry, WHY will Biden not be as easy to ignore as Obama? Because he and Republican senators talk about each other as though they were friends? Because he’s white? Because he’s “moderate”? Has ANYTHING broken through the shamelessness of the GOP in blocking the most reasonable proposals of Democrats?
22
@Joe Barnett Assuming any Democrat can get any legislative through the current Senate is road to disaster. Mitch McConnell will say no to whoever the nominee is. Biden is no different, even though he says he is.
The only road to passing ANY legislation is winning the senate and nuking the filibuster. If Joe says he'll do this, great. If he says he'll work with Senate Republicans to get it done, hard pass. Not in this lifetime.
14
@sedanchair
So do you think it matters what Democrat we put in office if Mitch McConnell is still in the majority? We need to change the leadership in both houses along with the Whitehouse.
Definitely better than what we are doing now, and certainly better than I expected from Joe.
This has to be our number one priority if we love our children and the natural wonders of our incredible planet.
The Lorax 2020.
32
From NASA’s former lead climate scientist, speaking in 2012:
“the longer we wait, the more difficult and expensive it becomes. If we had started in 2005, it would have required emission reductions of three percent per year to restore planetary energy balance and stabilize climate this century.
If we start next year, it is six percent per year. If we wait 10 years, it is 15 percent per year -- extremely difficult and expensive, perhaps impossible. But we aren't even starting.”
https://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_change/transcript?language=en
83
@Erik Frederiksen
This year we added 3.5ppm CO2, the second highest annual increase yet …
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/04/latest-data-shows-steep-rises-in-co2-for-seventh-year
15
"Mr. Biden would also call for an investment of $1.7 trillion over 10 years into clean energy and environmental justice programs, designed to help minorities and poor people disproportionately harmed by pollution."
So we have to interject social justice warrior claims of victimization into climate control as well as everything else?
6
Those of us who inhabit Earth actually call that, “realism about who gets hurt most.”
13
@JerseyGirl
They aren't just "claims of victimization," the reality is that those of us most responsible for the problem are also conveniently those most capable of insulating themselves from the effects. Globally and domestically.
7
@Shirley0401
Observing our Accidental President in his tux, you can see he's already been working on installing another layer...
Sorry. No. Biden is a political hack.
The US doesn't need to chase away producers and try to redistribute wealth to buy votes. Especially as the US produces only 15% of carbon emissions ( and this proportion is shrinking). Note also that China and other countries are securing fossil fuel resources around the globe.
A better idea is a new US based technology initiative to make sustainable energy cost effective. But that's above Biden's pay grade. The Democrats need a manager or scientist, not a hack at the head of their ticket
5
@James Sustainable energy is becoming more cost-effective every year – that’s why so many coal fired plants are closing. Not environmental concerns, but the cost of producing energy with coal is now higher in many places than the cost of producing it with renewables.
And if you include the environmental and health costs of coal for all those living down wind down stream and near any coal fired plants or minds, the price of coal is unsustainable.
14
@James--sustainable energy already is cost effective and would be even more so, if fossil-fuel producers and users did not get to pollute for free.
6
@Rob Coal fired plants are closing because natural gas is cheap and plentiful right now. No other reason.
1
A policy issued on the website is a nice start, but it's not the same as a candidate out there defending and pushing for the agenda. Where is the fight, Joe?
2
I like his sentiment, but question the depth of his commitment to what would be involved to implement it.
As I look back, I think that one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on the American people has been to addict us all to rampant consumerism. Most of our stuff is just superfluous, despite what endless advertising would have us believe.
To make real progress towards climate change we need to get to the root of making more and more human consumers.
82
@GMR Rampant consumerism and tourism are both a big impediment to any environmental progress. This is about getting votes with half baked plans.
4
@GMR
We need more than one person strong-arming legislation to counteract climate change. We need a national commitment and a leader. I am optimistic that many of the Democratic candidates are up to the task and grateful that Biden is making the environment central to his campaign.
9
@GMR nobody consumes under duress. Excessive consumerism isn't a case of fraud that you and I are victims of. That's just passing the buck along. John Clarke said it best, "We don't tell them what to want"
1
Biden shares plans on equality and climate. 2 issues middle America does not care about. I care about them but want to hear about healthcare coverage and a viable economy. Biden is too late and off course.
@Meg Riley
He’s just getting started. You’re a half empty type. Fine. Let perfect be the enemy of the good.
You need to grow up politically. You can’t do long term planning with short term thinking.
5
Joe will say whatever is expedient. Just last week he didn't think Climate Change was an issue that needed a proposal. He would just seek 'middle ground'. This shows that he is just offering platitudes. His staff came up with something and he signs his name to it. No real sense of urgency on his part and he surely doesn't believe it or he never would have said it wasn't a priority. It will be interesting to see him defend the points of the plan in a debate setting.
90
@Moana
I hope he ends up on the same night as Jay Inslee, who knows what he is talking about and has been for years.
16
@Moana
I agree - Joe Biden has his finger to the wind, and will propose anything that goes the way the wind blows. It's pretty tough to have any faith in him - "Senator Credit Card". I know of people who lost most everything thanks to the the tough bankruptcy bill that he championed.
2