6 winners and 3 losers from CNN’s climate town hall

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | 2020 Elections | President | 6 winners and 3 losers from CNN’s climate town hall

Viewing 5 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #138990
      leftcoast mountains
      Participant

      September 5, 2019

      Winner: Bernie Sanders

      Sanders was somewhat late to the game in this climate primary; he didn’t release his comprehensive climate plan until August. But when he came out, he came out with a bang, outlining the only plan so far that rivals Inslee’s in scope and ambition. And it contained a few provisions that no other campaign has touched, most notably a plan to semi-nationalize the nation’s electric utilities. The price tag: $16 trillion over 10 years.

      At the forum, Sanders benefited from following Biden, who was as rambling and unfocused as he has been this whole campaign season. By contrast, Sanders was sharp and on-message, with easy command over the details of his plan. And the more intimate setting allowed Sanders moments of quiet reflection and — especially in response to a question about fossil fuel workers — real emotion.

      https://www.vox.com/2019/9/5/20850009/cnn-climate-town-hall-2020-presidential-democrats-winners-and-losers

      #DestroyDems

    • #139205
      Snort McDork
      Participant

      Every time Joe opens his mouth, it makes Bernie look that much more smarter and Joe more clumsy.

      I'm Snort McDork and I approved this message.

      "I like birdy num-nums"

    • #139501
      davidpdx
      Participant

      Was the debate worth watching? I haven’t seen it yet. I heard it was fairly long.

      American living abroad in South Korea and a proud progressive.

      • #139505
        Charles
        Participant

        @davidpdx

         

        It wasn’t a debate but rather a 7 hour long town hall event. The 10 candidates were given a 40 minute time slot to discuss their vision and plans to address climate change. Biden, Sanders, and Warren were given the prime time spots. I watched those and a few of the others.

        The questions for the most part were much better than one would expect on CNN. Even members of the Sunrise Movement got to ask a few of them.

        Overall it was worth while as it showed how invested candidates were in working to address climate change and the candidates had time to go somewhat into depth on their ideas and plans.

        CNN has the town halls by candidate on Youtube if one searches for them.

        Here is Bernie’s:

        Bernie: "Not Me. Us"

    • #139575
      davidpdx
      Participant

      @charles thanks I’ll check a few of them out. I doubt I’ll watch all 7 hours though lol

      American living abroad in South Korea and a proud progressive.

    • #140557
      eridani
      Participant

      It Wasn’t a Debate, but CNN’s 7-Hour Climate Forum Laid Bare Key Differences Among Democrats

      https://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/58553-it-wasnt-a-debate-but-cnns-7-hour-climate-forum-laid-bare-key-differences-among-democrats

      But the forum allowed space for presidential hopefuls to flesh out key differences between their approaches to climate action. Early in the evening, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) said she would eliminate the filibuster in order to ensure climate action (the Senate procedural rule calls for 60 votes, rather than a simple majority).

      If lawmakers “fail to act [on climate change], as president of the United States, I am prepared to get rid of the filibuster to pass a Green New Deal,” Harris said.

      Abolishing the filibuster would require buy-in from the Senate itself, making the process complicated, but many activists and lawmakers alike have argued that major climate action will not pass while the filibuster remains. Warren has called for ending the filibuster and numerous other candidates have said they are open to the possibility.

      However, not everyone is on board. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) balked at the idea during his round of questioning.

      “What I have said is we need major filibuster reform. Budget reconciliation is the method we will use,” Sanders said, arguing that his $16.3 trillion climate plan could pass without abolishing the procedure.

      Nuclear power also emerged as a divisive topic. Sanders supports ending nuclear power in around a decade, arguing that it “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me to add more dangerous waste to this country.”

      Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

    • #140558
      eridani
      Participant

      Democrats must go to war with fossil fuel industry to take on the climate crisis

      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/06/democrats-climate-plans-fossil-fuel-industry

      There has been plenty of debate this cycle over candidates’ relative positions on nuclear energy, with policy wonks not unreasonably arguing that it could be risky to take that option off the table entirely. But any climate plan that doesn’t challenge the gargantuan power of the fossil fuel industry head-on is flatly denying several realities about our energy system. While the cost of renewables has plummeted over the last several years, their share of our energy mix has remained largely flat. Use of natural gas – what Amy Klobuchar called a “transitional” fuel – will need to decline 74% by mid-century, if we’re to take the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seriously, but is poised to grow dramatically over the next several years via fresh development in the Permian and Appalachian basins. Building even prodigious amounts of clean power won’t stop that, or magically outcompete incumbent fuels. In short, there is nothing “inevitable” about the transition to renewables.

      The extended discussions about carbon pricing further left out the uncomfortable fact that – if that price isn’t high enough or complemented by stringent regulations – it could kill coal while driving business to big oil and gas companies not impacted by modest fees on pollution. That could trigger a massive build-out of dirty infrastructure, new long-term contracts could lock the world into an emissions that would make it virtually impossible to meet our climate goals – let along the hugely ambitious one of “well below 2C” outlined by the Paris climate agreement every candidate praised last night.

      What’s more, coal, oil and gas companies, along with investor-owned utilities, have spent millions of dollars to mislead the public about the existence of the climate crisis and blocking policies to curb it at every level of government. Just last year in Washington state, BP spent $13m in a successful attempt to kill a modest carbon tax – a proposal it theoretically supports. How do candidates think they will respond to their plans to create a carbon free America by mid-century at the latest?

      There’s no way around it: curbing the climate crisis means going to war with the fossil fuel industry – not attending their fundraisers.

      Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

Viewing 5 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.