Presidential hopeful Biden looking for 'middle ground' climate policy

[TexasTowelie]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden is crafting a climate change policy he hopes will appeal to both environmentalists and the blue-collar voters that elected Donald Trump, according to two sources, carving out a middle ground approach that will likely face heavy resistance from green activists.

The backbone of the policy will likely include re-joining the United States with the Paris Climate Agreement and preserving U.S. regulations on emissions and vehicle fuel efficiency that Trump has sought to undo, according to one of the sources, Heather Zichal, who has become Biden’s informal advisor on climate change policy. She previously advised President Barack Obama.

The second source, a former energy department official also advising Biden’s campaign who asked not to be named, said the policy will likely also be supportive of nuclear energy and fossil fuel options like natural gas and carbon capture technology, which limit emissions from coal plants and other industrial facilities.

A spokesman for Biden’s campaign, TJ Ducklo, declined to comment on Biden’s emerging climate policy or his advisors, but said Biden takes climate change seriously. “Joe Biden has called climate change an ‘existential threat,’ and as Vice President was instrumental in orchestrating the Paris Climate Accord,” Ducklo said in an emailed statement.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-biden-climate-exclusive/exclusive-presidential-hopeful-biden-looking-for-middle-ground-climate-policy-idUSKCN1SG18G

[DownriverDem]

1. Go Joe!

I'm curious, why would someone who supports Beto post articles about Biden?

[TexasTowelie]

3. I post news about all of the candidates.

While I have my preferences and opinions about all of them, whomever is the nominee will get my vote in the general election.

[Hortensis]

5. Yes, you do. And that's great.

And me too.

[WeekiWater]

6. I've posted very positive articles about Warren, Yang...

Williamson, Booker, Harris, Buttigieg, and I’m sure some others. I think we are in a very unique position. Rarely have I felt numerous persons in a primary were actually Presidential material.

Note: I don’t think Williamson is but I watched her give a talk where she was employing her community to get out and vote, even if they felt the were compromising themselves. I was beyond happy with what she was saying. She was also in early and tied with Yang when it comes to having the most robust platform. Things like that will always get a mention and thanks from me.

[George II]

7. He posts positive stories about all of the candidates and also some very interesting articles....

....of local interest in the individual State forums.

[Hortensis]

2. Biden believes climate change is an "existential threat." He also knows

that only under a Democratic president will our nation do what it has to to save ourselves and our planet from a future of the giant, growing disasters that we've unleashed.

If he wants to campaign on a climate policy most voters can elect him for, I'm fine with that. Disasters are accelerating, and I unfortunately feel pretty confident our next Democrat in office will find both massive need and growing public support for doing more than whatever was initially run on.

Btw, here's a post of mine from yesterday on Biden's environmental legislative record, which began in 1973 when basically indifference or denial were the norm.

The League of Conservation Voters assigns members of congress scores based, not just on climate issues, but on all environment-related legislation, species protection, water, ag, energy, nuclear waste, public health, forestry, etc, starting in 1971. President Johnson sent his climate warning to congress in 1965.

The more recent a career -- for Democrats -- the higher the score will tend to average. For Republicans, the averages were actually higher back in the early 1970s but have been increasingly in the toilet for decades as Big Energy and the rest packed congress with their agents.

Biden's record in congress goes back to 1973, long before most people began to believe this problem was real. For climate change, which is only counted on specific bills starting in 1990, and stopping after 2007 when he was elected VP, Biden's score is 100%. Current score for all issues is 100%, lifetime 83%. That last is far, far above congress's average for that period. Scanning all years on all issues shows a very strong domination of green checks.

Mitch McConnell's record only goes back to 1985, by which time science had proven conclusively, offering indisputable proof, that climate change was real and man-made. His score is 7%. Dairyman Devin Nunez's is 3%, but at that they're higher than many Republicans who are at 0%.

Bernie Sanders' record only goes back to 1991, and his lifetime score is 92%, 2018 100%. Nancy Pelosi's 2018 is 100% along with many in her caucus and the senate; her lifetime is 94%.

"Overview of the 2018 scorecard: Overall, the 2018 scores reveal fairly stark polarization between the parties. Seven Republican senators received a score of zero percent in 2018, meaning they voted against the environment and public health at every opportunity. In sharp contrast, 35 Democratic senators and one independent senator earned a perfect score of 100 percent. In the Senate, Democrats, and the independents who caucus with them, averaged 95 percent, while Republicans averaged eight percent. On the House side, 77 Republicans earned a zero percent and 29 Democrats earned a perfect score of 100 percent. The House Democratic caucus averaged 90 percent, whereas the House Republican caucus averaged eight percent.

As we begin 2019, we couldn’t be more excited to work with the new, pro-environment House majority to hold the Trump administration accountable and make real progress in the 116th Congress. Under the strong, proven leadership of Speaker Pelosi, this exciting new majority looks more like the country as a whole, campaigned on a message of action on climate, healthy communities and protection of public lands, and now clearly has a mandate to stop the corporate polluters’ agenda in its tracks."

http://scorecard.lcv.org/

[WeekiWater]

4. Everyone should be, and most are,

Talking about how “going green” will also help working class America.

[Baclava]

9. It will make some here angry, but 'Middle of the Road Joe' will appeal to voters from both sides

'Joe, the Safe and Sane choice for President'

He's got the blessings of the beltway establishment, and that means donors and that means money

Policy changes only work AFTER you get elected



"I've told the Democratic candidates not to go too far to the left" - Nancy Pelosi

[zipplewrath]

8. There is no Carbon Capture Technology

This is akin to "clean coal" and nuclear fusion, ideas that have never really come to fruition. Various attempts at carbon capture have been tried, but they are very expensive. There is no "clean coal".

[MH1]

10. Reforestation. But that isn't what the "carbon capture" technologists are talking about, of course.

It's very simple. Stop cutting down trees, start reforesting / regreening with the dual purpose of supporting biodiversity and supporting best carbon capture per acre. Also stop forcing people to reproduce who don't want to. Stop basing metrics of "economic prosperity" on measures that require population growth. (with automation, that's a recipe for disaster anyway, completely apart from the environmental issue)

[zipplewrath]

11. No it's not

And it's not clear we could plant enough trees to effect real change. The carbon capture technology that has been attempted has often involved algae, which can also store alot of carbon. But as I said, it so far is kinda expensive.

[MH1]

12. It *IS* a simple concept.

It would be hard to implement in reality because it would require a lot of destructive humans to stop their destructive ways.

It might be difficult to offset all the carbon we're currently producing, even if we crammed the entire population into the highest possible skyscrapers and planted the best possible carbon-capturing living plants on every other square inch - I agree, because I haven't actually done the math. But if that is the case, then human over-population is DEFINITELY past the tipping point of being unsustainable on this planet. I think most of us guess that intuitively but like me, haven't crunched the numbers to prove it.

I totally agree with you that carbon capture technology (man-made) is currently a pipe dream. I think it would take a major scientific breakthrough - discovery of new principles - to enable an effective technology that would allow business-as-usual to continue in perpetuity. Short of that, in my opinion we are headed for a very painful population "correction". There's a good chance that the dinking around the edges that's currently going on, will forestall it long enough that I won't be alive to suffer it. I feel for the younger folks though. Things are going to get rough, if not for them, then for their kids.

[Amimnoch]

13. Doesn't matter.

Presidents don’t write bills, Congress does.

Will a President Biden sign any Democratic party passed legislation on climate change, be it a small step or a large? I do believe he would.

Will a President Biden veto any Republican Party passed legislation on climate change that weakens rules or regulations? I do believe he would.

I wish people spent half as much time and energy on the issues with the Senators and House members they support as they do with Presidential candidates.

For me, it’s all about most electable, will pick a strong cabinet, make good appointment choices, will sign any congressionally passed legislation that furthers the agenda of the Democratic Party, and veto’s any passed legislation that furthers the agenda of the tRumpublicon party.

Pretty much our entire field of candidates, other than Bernie Sanders will meet all of those, so really, other than BS, it’s all about who is most electable.