@Maroxad said:
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,
"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.
Log in to comment