What do you think of Bernie Sander's Global Warming plans?

So a few days ago, Bernie Sanders announced his plan to counter global warming.

Specifically, the goals were to,

· Cut U.S. carbon pollution by 40 percent by 2030 and by over 80 percent by 2050 by putting a tax on carbon pollution, repealing fossil fuel subsidies and making massive investments in energy efficiency and clean, sustainable energy such as wind and solar power.

· Create a Clean-Energy Workforce of 10 million good-paying jobs by creating a 100% clean energy system. Transitioning toward a completely nuclear-free clean energy system for electricity, heating, and transportation is not only possible and affordable it will create millions of good jobs, clean up our air and water, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

· Return billions of dollars to consumers impacted by the transformation of our energy system and protect the most vulnerable communities in the country suffering the ravages of climate change. Bernie will tax polluters causing the climate crisis, and return billions of dollars to working families to ensure the fossil fuel companies don’t subject us to unfair rate hikes. Bernie knows that climate change will not affect everyone equally – disenfranchised minority communities and the working poor will be hardest hit. The carbon tax will also protect those most impacted by the transformation of our energy system and protect the most vulnerable communities in the country suffering the ravages of climate change.

How to achieve these 3 goals he has these 5 plans,

· Ban fossil fuels lobbyists from working in the White House. Massive lobbying and unlimited super PAC donations by the fossil fuel industry gives these profitable companies disproportionate influence on our elected leaders. This practice is business as usual in Washington and it is not acceptable. Heavy-handed lobbying causes climate change skepticism. It has no place in the executive office.

· End the huge subsidies that benefit fossil fuel companies. When fossil-fuel companies are racking up record profits, it is absurd to provide massive taxpayer subsidies to pad their already enormous earnings. After all, it is immoral that some in Congress advocate harsh cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security while those same people vote to preserve billions in tax breaks for the most profitable corporations in America.

· Create a national environmental and climate justice plan that recognizes the heightened public health risks faced by low-income and minority communities. Low-income and minority neighborhoods will continue to be the hardest hit if we don’t act to stop climate change now. Ten years ago, Hurricane Katrina decimated the Gulf Coast, flooding 80 percent of the city of New Orleans. Some areas of the city were submerged in as much as 10 feet of water, and 28 percent of residents had no way to leave the city. Almost 100,000 African American residents who left New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina never returned. The reality of the impacts of the storm on the African American community in New Orleans exposed the broader trend that low-income and minority communities face the brunt of climate change impacts first and worst.

· Bring climate deniers to justice so we can aggressively tackle climate change. It is an embarrassment that Republican politicians, with few exceptions, refuse to even recognize the reality of climate change, let alone are prepared to do anything about it. The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is to blame for much of the climate change skepticism in America. Bernie recently called for the Department of Justice to investigate Exxon Mobil, which may have not only known about the dangers of climate change, but has spent millions of dollars to spread doubt about the causes and impacts of burning fossil fuels.

· Fight to overturn Citizens United. In a 5-4 decision in 2010 in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court opened the floodgates for corporations and the super wealthy to spend unlimited and undisclosed money to buy our elected officials. The Supreme Court essentially declared that corporations, including fossil fuel corporations, have the same rights as natural-born human beings. This decision has enabled billionaires and special interests to increasingly control the political campaign finance system, and amounts to legalized bribery.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/climate-change/

Seems a bit naive to me. However, it is not impossible. On a per capita basis, your average swede pollutes nearly 75% less than your average american, despite not consuming much less power. One should always aim to fix the problem rather than trying to brush it aside much like other polliticians are seemingly trying to do. But how feasable is it, considering the US political climate where a shockingly large number of citizens and politicans are global warming denialists.

Banning fossil fuel lobbyists from working in the white house doesnt seem very democratic, but it may be a lesser evil. Ending the subsidies is a good idea, if they (the corporations) have flat out used money to bribe scientists to do fraudulent research, they dont deserve a cent. Overall, I feel his plans are pretty coherrent and many of the points go well together. But still, iconsidering that the majority of the senate are republicans his goals and means to achieve them might be difficult to achieve.

I dont get why he brings up minorities and the poor. I dont see how they are more affected by global warming than the rest of us. Can someone fill me in on this?

Anyways, what are your opinions on his plans. Are they in line with reality or out of touch with reality? Will they be too expensive, perfectly viable, cheaper in the long run? Do you agree or disagree with his approach?

And for you denialists out there,

http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/

It is interesting and makes sense to me.

Personally, lobbyists should be banned in their entirety IMO. They are probably the very core of what is wrong with politics here in the US...

I agree with ending subsidies for the fossil fuel industry (in general). Beyond that I would need to educate myself further on his proposals.

"Seems a bit naive to me."

Yeah, that's Bernie for you.

"But how feasable is it, considering the US political climate where a shockingly large number of citizens and politicans are global warming denialists."

Simply put, it isn't. Republicans hold both houses of Congress so this has no chance.

"Banning fossil fuel lobbyists from working in the white house doesnt seem very democratic"

I'd much rather see campaign finance reform. The presence of lobbyists is just a surface effect of campaign finance conditions in my mind.

"I dont get why he brings up minorities and the poor. I don't see how they are more affected by global warming than the rest of us. Can someone fill me in on this?"

It seems a little out of place to me as well, but if he's in line with others making similar comments then it's predominantly an affect of standard economic affects on lower income people. Such people are more greatly affected by destruction/devaluation of existing assets, being geographically displaced, being professionally displaced, and enduring higher costs on constricted essentials such as water and agricultural products. That's all true enough, but I suspect it's inclusion here is at least partially motivated by his notorious difficulties in minority outreach.

"Anyways, what are your opinions on his plans."

At least some of them at the beginning seem reasonable enough. Citizens United has zero chance of being repealed in anything resembling a reasonable time frame. I don't understand what he means by bringing climate change deniers to justice. It's entirely legal to spread FUD in this country, so I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that isn't feasible unless he can further clarify those statements.

They're just a symptom of our campaign finance situation. If the lobbyists were to be banned from DC, the communication and "education" would simply occur by other means.

Not feasible given the climate (and logistics) but valiant I guess. As to what others have said, don't ban fossil fuel lobbyists. Just ban work on getting ALL lobbyists out. There's no reason we should be subsidizing the freaking oil industry, its mind boggling.

He has his mind in the right direction unlike all these other bought out politicians. It's definitely possible, but all these corrupt Republicans would never let him pass this stuff.

I like it but I still maintain that nuclear power is the way to go. It's clean and efficient.

Problems though: Banning oil lobbyists may be a violation of freedom of speech, Citizens United repeal will depend on the Supreme Court, and while the plan sounds great, it wouldn't go through the legislature unless there is a Democratic majority and not in the pockets of the oil industry.

As for the minorities and poor, I guess the reason why he brought it up was because of Hurricane Katrina and how it forced out low-income people in Louisiana (in this case, minorities in the South) to go northward and didn't come back. And it's a campaign ploy... idk. I would have argued that the effects of climate change can affect the national and global economy, from food supply to fossil fuels, which can lead to a number of things later on, and that usually depends on multiple things.

Definitely has some interesting ideas... some that I completely agree with.

Ambitious! But I suppose when negotiating, a common tactic is to start high then give up some stuff.

My only reservation is going nuclear free; if done right, nuclear power is efficient and safe, and a good temporary alternative to fossil fuels. Provided we recognize that it is not a permanent solution, I think going to all-nuclear power while transition from fossil to "green"/alternative energy is a good plan.

Investing in nuclear power, while phasing out fossil fuels and coal power, over the next few decades while researching and perfecting renewable energy solutions would be a good tactic.

At this point it is really about CO2 emissions, that is the pressing concern. Provided you have well-built facilities and a deep, secure pit to store waste, nothing is wrong with nuclear power [for the time being].

The further the U.S advances in the current election cycle, the more incongruous Bernie appears to me. His sentiments are admirable and his ambitions are respectable, but the sociopolitical reality in the U.S leaves no place for him.

On a slightly different note, oil subsidies in the U.S always baffled me; why does one of the most profitable industries in the country and worldwide require subsidies?

This is the best way to describe my current opinion on it. At least unlike most people, he has his mind on the right direction. The problem I have with his plan is how he will face difficulties with the rest of the politicians. Case in point the Dont Ask, Don't Tell act. Which was born from a "comprimise" between the congress (who wanted homosexuality to be banned in the army) and the pro-gay Bill Clinton (who wanted homosexuals to serve in the army). With the unavoidable clash of opinions, who knows what comprimises will be made, and who knows if they will be just as devastating as Dont Ask, Dont Tell.

Nuclear Power is a great transitional system. And it seems that is what Sweden might have used to transition into green ones. In the past we had more nuclear reactors, but as time moved on, we transitioned into greener sources primarily hydroelectric power.

https://sweden.se/society/energy-use-in-sweden/

In any case, Nuclear Power is still a much lesser evil compared to all these fossil fuels.

I believe that Nuclear Power is pretty good as well.

And Hurricane Katrina might be it. Either that or some campaign ploy as you said.

To that point, you can read his plans for that here.

This is the first thing I strongly disagree on with Sanders, it seems like he has fallen into the environmentalist bullshit with Nuclear energy being bad..

Because corporate America has US politicians on both isle by the balls.. Its incredibly disgusting how in US politics how much power and influence a select few individuals have say in our politics due to their wealth and economic power..

That's probably mostly a holdover from his age. It's probably less of a matter of him "falling into it" and more of a matter of him not changing with the times.

I hope your right.. I don't want to start seeing him talking about GMO's being banned..

I don't know if we can handle all his experiments

yeah plus this stuff costs a lot of money. Still a good candidate however.

As said I don't believe in global warming as in industrial. Ok it might have some impact but not as much as there saying on the earth. How ever I do think it got a lot of impact on our health in general breathing in just car fumes. So if they say it to improve our health more I think people would listen more. I go for walks a lot and think. What is the point sometimes as see that many cars going buy and seeing all smoke and crap coming out of it. All though I did go skiing one time on one most highest mountains in Italy. By day 3 I was sucking on car exhaust pipes to get some air. I was having difficulty in swallowing due how high and how clean air was according to doc. lol :P.

I understand that, but surely there's a limit to such corporatism and blatant theft from the citizenry. You can conceal corporate tax cuts through legal loopholes and shady practices, but how can you in a supposedly democratic country disguise oil subsidies? this is insane.

Bernie Sanders>Rand Paul and Ron Paul.

i could solve it with a few dozen nukes.

blast some dust into the air, reduce incoming sunlight, induce an artificial nuclear fall, cool down the planet a bit and finish up by buying a hummer and doing a few shots of gasoline with a methane chaser while we burn our trash in the backyard.

ending global warming is literally a nothing problem to solve.

I dont really care about solutions about climate change, i dont think we can ever do anything about.

What I care about is new and better technology that helps humanity for the better.

Cleaner cars, better sources of energy, etc. I care about that stuff mainly because its better and effective, not because it will save dolphins or anything like that.

Sure I care about nature and I wish we could perserve it and not distroy so much, but lets be honest... we arent gonna stop.

I'm trying to stay away from the politics/off topic section because I disagree with a lot of people on this site. This though is 100 percent accurate. F*** lobbyists, they're the cancer in our political system.

@n64dd: Aren't the topics of conversation in which you disagree ones you should gravitate towards? That's how you learn new facts, perspectives, and iron out cognitive dissonance. Placing yourself in an echo chamber that reinforces your own thoughts may be pleasing, but it's ultimately a waste of time.

Most users on here just want to have their views validated, whether it be politics, movies, video games, etc. Unfortunately not many seem to care about challenging their beliefs which is a shame.

Nah, because I've had the debates before. Off topic is like a giant liberal arts campus. I could just flip on msnbc and get the same thing.

We could have clean free energy already if it werent for number of people with a financial interest in fossil fuels, theyre the ones holding the human race as a whole back and keeping us all enslaved to them.

Fusion power could already be a reality right now if it werent for these greedy corrupt evil bastards who crave money and power, get rid of those and the human race would actually have a chance at survival. As it stands with those people in the positions of power we're all fucked as they dont give a shit about the world or the people that inhabit it and all of this talk is smoke and mirrors bullshit to make themselves richer/more powerful while the rest of us suffer.

Its no coincidence that most of the people who have invented free energy devices are all dead/been murdered and their research disappeared.

I genuinely pity the human race for letting this happen.

It got far worse with Citizens United Case in 2010/11.. Basically corporation were ruled as "individuals" meaning they could give unlimited funds to politicians under that guise.

@n64dd: I would argue that that's a feature, not a bug. It's not about the debates, it's about connecting with and understanding the worldviews of others.

This topic has become inordinately interesting the last couple of years given the misinformation industry and the opinion tribalization occurring. Those are trends that I (and I would think others) want to fight on a personal level lest I start to believe things that have no merit simply because I want them to be true or because people I associate with believe them.

Someone needs to kick there asses, or let the earth be slowly destroyed.

Good thing then both goals are not mutually exclusive.

I care about global warming and climate change, because this will bite us in the ass later on if we continue the way we do.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/31/citi-report-slowing-global-warming-would-save-tens-of-trillions-of-dollars

I dont believe the numbers will necessarily be that high. But still, I think shifting developing cleaner technology and shifting to cleaner, more eco friendly power sources will save us a lot of money in the long run.

I agree, that is pretty sad. Personally, I tend to gravitate towards opposing opinions. Only because it will end in two ways.

1. I will learn something new. The best times are when someone proves me wrong with evidence.
2. I will get amused by someone's willful ignorance.

And thankfully, it is usually the former not the latter that I see.

It sounds reasonable except for the fact he wants to do a carbon tax.

Not sure why people still throw in the term "global warming" since the Antarctic has little effects by it. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains There goes the sea levels rising argument.

I am all for clean energy, and mainly because of toxic pollutants in our air destroys sea life and taints our soil. Also shouldn't be breathing in toxic chemicals. It's why I am against GMO because their heavy usage of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers that get into waterways and create large masses of algae, which die and kill fish from oxygen depletion.

There are too many loopholes in how we dump our toxins. Many of the toxins we sell so they are dumped elsewhere, like your tap water containing industrial waste from mines.

I mean, it's obvious lobbyists back up large industries.

To this.