Bernie Sanders Gets a D- for His Climate Plan

[lapucelle]

Kevin Drum's appraisal of one candidate's plan:

Bernie Sanders Gets a D- for His Climate Plan

Bernie Sanders released his climate change plan today, and Bernie being Bernie it was naturally the biggest, leftiest, most socialist plan out there. And that was the good part. The bad part is that it’s practically designed to fail.

If you’re going to propose a massive, $16 trillion plan, the first thing you should do is get as many people on board as possible. Instead, Sanders practically revels in pissing off as many stakeholders as possible. He’s going to tax the rich. He’s going to hobble the fossil fuel industry. He’s going to ban nuclear power. He’s going to nationalize electric generation and turn it over to the federal government.

And then there are the absurd promises. He’s going to create 20 million new union jobs. (No he’s not, unless he also creates 20 million new human beings.) He’s going to eliminate fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest. (I don’t think even the most optimistic environmentalist thinks we can build out solar and wind that fast.) Electricity will be “virtually free” by 2035. (Oh please.)

snip=========================================================

The Sanders plan looks to me like the worst kind of kitchen sink proposal: a “plan” that avoids making any hard choices by simply saying that we’ll do everything. Call me cranky, but I’m tired of this stuff. It’s a box-checking exercise designed to appeal to every possible lefty constituency rather than something that has even the remotest chance of building the public support needed to get it passed through Congress.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/08/bernie-sanders-gets-a-d-for-his-climate-plan/

[HerbChestnut]

1. Great opener. Can't take this guy seriously when he uses language like that.

This article was written to get clicks. Thanks for feeding their advertisers.

[yardwork]

39. You have a problem with Mother Jones?

[HerbChestnut]

55. I have a problem with the way this reporter wrote their article.

It's not meant to be informative, it's meant to be inflammatory. Respectable environmental organizations, like the League of Conservation Voters, have thrown their support behind the Green New Deal. I'll take their opinion over this guy's any day.

[Hortensis]

76. No nuclear power?! We'll solve the climate crisis without

one of our biggest tools? We CAN'T. Some things are pretty simple, Chestnut. Without as much energy as before, people die.

Imo, you shouldn't be trying to insist none of this is valid. It's your choice to support someone who is promising the nation on what he can't possibly deliver, but why not just say, "I know, but I don't care"?

[Bradical79]

94. Nuclear doesn't seem that useful

From a Mark Jacobson Q&A session on another forum:

Aside from the Vogtle reactors being built, which will take 15-16 years to complete from the time of initial planning to operation, there are no other nuclear plants being planned for construction in the U.S., and many are slated for retirement. So, I see only a decrease in nuclear power output over the next 10 years in the U.S. Worldwide, nuclear output in 2018 was 6% lower than in 2006, so there has only been a decrease in the usefulness of nuclear power as a climate change tool in the past 13 years. Nuclear takes 10-19 years between planning and operation and costs 4-5 times that of new onshore wind or utility solar PV so is no longer competitive. It also has meltdown, weapons proliferation, waste, mining lung cancer, and CO2 emissions issues, so there are multiple issues that make it not an attractive method of energy production going forward. Small modular reactors cause many of the same problems. Please see more details of all these issues here:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NuclearVsWWS.pdf

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/

I personally had been going back and forth on the issue. I'd read good things about Thorium Reactors in a local newspaper article, but nobody seems to be talking about those for some reason. That's defenitely a bit beyond me though.

[Hortensis]

95. This is part of the problem, not a solution. If we'd elected Democrats

in 2016, we'd be subsidizing continuation and construction right now. Because under sensible people committed to solving problems, what has to be done is. And no problem has ever been a fraction as huge as the global climate crisis.

[Bradical79]

96. Seems subsidizing nuclear may have been a bad decision

From the paper:

Overall, emissions from new nuclear are 78 to 178 g-CO2/kWh, not close to 0.
• China’s investment in nuclear plants that take so long between planning and operation instead of wind or
solar resulted in China’s CO2 emissions increasing 1.3 percent from 2016 to 2017 rather than declining by an
estimated average of 3 percent. The resulting difference in air pollution emissions may have caused 82,000
additional air pollution deaths in China in 2016 alone, with additional deaths in years prior and since.

[Hortensis]

97. Bradical, China's "footprint" per person was extremely low

until very recently because many hundreds of millions lived under primitive conditions. Developing and increasing wellbeing caused footprint numbers to explode, with much more to come -- a foreseeable global catastrophe. But thanks to centralized decisionmaking and the realization that they HAD to keep that from happening, it's been vastly slowed down and limited, but still much more to come.



Itm, many millions have been pushed off the land they once could at least mostly sustain life on, and relying only on the wind and solar that could have been created could not have provided the energy needed to sustain life in large numbers -- of them and all the others living in towns and cities. Heading for 1-1/2 billion people, after all.

That's a vastly over-simplified picture of the context, of course. We do need to get from here to there, but here and there are unavoidably far apart in time, technology and implementation, so we have to find ways to sustain during the transition. And nuclear energy is one of the better ones for a while.

[Cha]

113. Whereas other people do take

him seriously.

[roody]

2. Who the heck is Kevin Drum?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

4. Notorious Bernie hater.

Get this:

The donation plea from Mother Jones:

FACT:
Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn't fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, please join us with a tax-deductible donation today so we can keep on doing the type of journalism 2019 demands.

Donate Now

[lapucelle]

12. Kevin Drum writes for Mother Jones

Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

History

Launched in 1976 and based in San Francisco, California, Mother Jones or MoJo is a news organization that is named after labor activist Mary Harris “Mother” Jones. Mother Jones focuses on investigative journalism on topics including politics, governments, corporations, environment, crime & justice. They distribute their content via digital and social platforms, videos, podcasts, email newsletters and print magazine. They describe their mission as “to deliver hard-hitting reporting that inspires change and combats “alternative facts.” In 1993, they became the first general interest magazine to go online.

snip========================================================

Funded by / Ownership

Mother Jones’ Non Profit Parent company and publisher is the Foundation for National Progress (FNP) and according to the MacArthur Foundation, the Foundation for National Progress received $1.5 million grants in support for its in-depth investigative journalism work. The Board of Directors can be seen here and the complete donor list here.

Mother Jones’ primary source of revenue is reader donations, subscriptions, advertising and foundation grants, for example the Craigslist founder gave $1 million to Mother Jones in 2018. You can find details of their finances and IRS Form 990s Here.

[Amimnoch]

20. Thank you! I'll take a "Bernie hater" over the pool

Of “Democratic Party Haters” that Bernie has staffed throughout his campaign ANY day.

[Cha]

67. Yay.. Well said!

Amimnoch!

[betsuni]

68. +1

[George II]

104. NOT LEFT ENOUGH!

[Cha]

116. lol

[yardwork]

38. You have a problem with Mother Jones?

Do you know who Mother Jones was?

[ehrnst]

81. Anyone who dissents even slightly from Senator Sanders' statements is automatically

considered a 'hater' by many.

[Cha]

61. Nah.. he just doesn't like

his climate change plan.

[LanternWaste]

69. Well, it was only a matter of time before Mother Jones got thrown under the bus.

We watched it happen to Planned Parenthood in the last primary cycle; so why not Mother Jones this time around...?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

70. Yep. You are correct. Mother Jones is spinning in her grave that the magazine ....

... with her name on it posts pieces saying Won’t someone think of the fossil fuel stake holders!1!

As if socialist Mother Jones wanted to keep the for profit healthcare system that leaves 40 million uninsured and kills 50,000 people a year. Won’t someone think of the shareholders?

Yeah, Mother Jones was thrown under the bus. Oh wait, you meant The Magazine. Never mind.

[ehrnst]

82. It appears that anyone who disagrees with Senator Sanders gets thrown under the bus

or called "corrupt."

[Cha]

84. Nah.. just a journalist doing his job.

[sheshe2]

103. Get This.

Hassin Bin Sober
4. Notorious Bernie hater.

Get this:

The donation plea from Mother Jones:

FACT:
Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn't fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, please join us with a tax-deductible donation today so we can keep on doing the type of journalism 2019 demands.

Donate Now

Get this:

The donation plea from Bernie Sanders:

Today's email from Bernie, April 17, 2019....
Do you know how powerful you are?

You have some of the wealthiest members of the political establishment hiding behind
closed doors — with their canapes — plotting how to defeat our political
revolution.

You have some of the biggest players in Washington frantically putting their heads
together for how to stop us.

You have career political operatives begging the financial elite for money to start
new efforts to derail our movement.

You have some of these same people telling the New York Times that we need to “fall
in line.”

They are doing this not because they fear Bernie Sanders. They fear all of us
together.

They know what we know: It’s not about me. It’s about us.

If there is one thing that the political and financial elite of this country
understand, it is money in politics. And they don’t like that more than one million
contributions have already brought our campaign this far.

So let’s make sure we respond in a way they are sure to understand, with an
emergency 48-hour fundraising drive for our campaign.

Please make a contribution to our emergency 48-hour fundraising drive to send an unmistakable message to the establishment about the power of our political
revolution.

https://act.berniesanders.com/go/11012?t=1002&akid=1079%2E340465%2EzRZ9Er

Our power comes from a simple, timeless truth: when people come together, there is
nothing we cannot accomplish.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1296541

.........................

Not sure the point you are trying to make. Many ask for donations to get the word out. Mother Jones does it and Bernie does it. You make MJ's asking for donations something sinister since you don't like their message.

*sigh*

[betsuni]

107. +1

[sheshe2]

108. Thanks, betsuni.

[betsuni]

110. Just when you think you've reached the bottom of the kill-the-messenger barrel,

there is more. Mother Jones asking for donations as evidence of ... something bad. Don't know how anyone can write that stuff with a straight face.

[sheshe2]

111. Unbelievable.

There are a lot of sources I love to read that are linked here at DU. However many are behind a paywall and we have to pay up or slink.


At least MJ lets you read the article no matter what. They don't refuse to hide their content for a price tag. They are asking for a donation to spread the word. Nothing nefarious about that.

[mr_lebowski]

3. Banning nuclear power is the stupidest part ... it absolutely should be part of the equation

It produces dangerous waste, yes, but it also produces tremendous amounts of power with a VERY low carbon footprint. It's perfect for backup power when the sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't blow (and hydro is not practical for whatever reason). Or primary power where the wind rarely blows, and there's not that much sun either.

And we can let Russia and the 'Stans wreck their environment digging up the fuel (they already are), rather than fracking the shit out of our own countryside for natural gas.

[HerbChestnut]

5. Agreed about the nuclear power part.

I support Bernie on most issues, banning nuclear power is not one of them.

[still_one]

6. On this we agree, but I doubt you will get a consensus

People always want to use Europe as an example for clean energy. Much of that comes from nuclear

[mr_lebowski]

9. Indeed. And if weren't facing a GLOBAL extinction event I'd be thinking differently

But at this point, I'm less scared of a nuclear meltdown affecting a few hundred square miles of our territory ... than I am of climate change. It's really not even close call for me anymore. Esp. when I think about what we're doing to all the OTHER, innocent life on earth with our fossil fuel folly.

At this point, we need every tool for generating energy with minimal carbon footprint that we know of ... to be brought to bear.

The things that would change my mind on this is if some magical, amazing 'battery-like' substitute could be found/created, and/or a massive improvement in our ability to transmit power over long distances without losing large amounts of it en route were to come about (and have a way to be practically implemented).

Barring that, I'm pro-nuclear power at this point.

The biggest problem we face though is not really electricity generation ... it's the cost of converting everything we NEED for our economy to function ... into taking electricity as fuel. Not just the cars, but the buses, the trains, the tractors, the harvesters, the heavy earth-moving equipment, the 18-wheelers, the ships, and the airplanes ... just to name some.

We have INCREDIBLE sunk-costs into these ... lets call them 'machines' ... and the cost of replacing these machines to NOT run off fossil fuels ... is at least as staggering as the cost of moving to solar/wind/nukes/hydro for electricity.

[still_one]

11. I wholeheartedly agree. Politically I think it is difficult to add it to the list of

options for clean energy in the US

[OilemFirchen]

22. We STILL don't have flying cars.

But we're going to have electric rockets soon?

That seems unfair.

[SidDithers]

48. Agreed...

I get ~ 80% of my electricity in Ontario from nuclear. I can go online to see exactly where my electricity is generated at any time:

http://www.ieso.ca/

Sid

[mr_lebowski]

13. Yes, I absolutely am.

We're talking about a few hundred square miles of contaminated land versus GLOBAL FUCKING CLIMATE DISASTER, and a MASS EXTINCTION EVENT of a million+ innocent species. Massive refugee crises, massive social upheaval, changing precipitation patterns, famines, drought, etc, etc.

It's not even close for me.

[bahrbearian]

17. Tells you a lot when they would rather have a nuclear power plant, than a green new deal.

There is nothing Green in Nuclear power. " We can't do anything bold we must take baby steps."

[Eko]

27. I think you missed this part. "it absolutely should be part of the equation"

I'm all for everything green, we are just not going to get there in enough time. Until then we will need something besides solar, wind and other green things for the downtime. Its either that or using natural gas, you pick.

[bahrbearian]

44. It takes 12 years to put a reactor on line, "we are just not going to get there in enough time"

[NYMinute]

53. It can be done in 2 years by speeding up the permitting process. nt

[bahrbearian]

56. it takes 1 year alone to prep the land and 5 years to build,

you want to bypass all EPA regulations? Who are you going to get to insure the thing? The government will be on the hook. are we going to have the government build them too? Good luck with that. You'll never get any support for your plant. Not even looking at the problems with waste.

[TexasTowelie]

109. The American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) currently writes all nuclear liability policies.

It's a joint underwriting association established under the provisions of the Price-Anderson Act of 1957. It provides a substantial amount of insurance protection paid by the commercial sector at no cost to the public or the government

https://www.naic.org/cipr_topics/topic_nuclear_liability_insurance.htm
(National Association of Insurance Commissioners)

[mr_lebowski]

32. You are simply wrong that there's nothing 'green' about nuclear power ... nt

[bahrbearian]

45. I agree , completely.

[George II]

46. People should do some research into nuclear power, they'd be very surprised how safe and....

...."green" it is.

[NYMinute]

54. India has an ambitious plan

to build 11 nuclear reactors to add to the existing 23 and 4 already under construction. This will add a capacity of 38,000 MW to the installed capacity of 6780 MW and producing a total of 112,292.91 GWh.

Now - THAT is green.

[yardwork]

59. This is a very uninformed post. Sorry, but there it is.

[Drunken Irishman]

18. What an insulting comment...

France gets 75% of its energy from nuclear power - are they dead yet?

[SidDithers]

49. Ontario gets more than 80% from Nuclear...

and exports excess capacity into NY and PA.

http://www.ieso.ca/

Sid

[yardwork]

60. Gasp. Has anyone told Greenpeace?!

Where's the little hair on fire figure?!

[Cha]

89. I used to love that

little excitable guy.

[questionseverything]

30. the cooling systems for nuclear need to have wind back up power

it would not make it totally safe but it would help in many cases

[brooklynite]

19. Most of those "socialist" European countries Sanders' fans love make heavy use of nuclear

[StevieM]

21. Agreed. Nuclear power should absolutely be part of the equation. (eom)

[Hortensis]

79. Right. In an extremely complex issue, this at least is simple

enough to understand, and it has been explained in clear lay-language statements by many experts.

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. I found this post by NNadir quite enlightening & on-point from a scientific standpoint.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=250768

[lapucelle]

15. Thank you for sharing that.

Bookmarked.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. You're quite welcome.

[Eko]

28. Careful,

unless you think Nuclear is the only way to go and solar and wind will ruin the earth that might not be a good cite.

[mr_lebowski]

31. Yeah, I agree with NNadir on the need for some nuclear power as things stand ...

But I'm not nearly as down on solar and esp. not wind ... as he is. He considers them basically total folly and a waste to even try ... I disagree on that point.

He is a damn smart cat though. I don't discount anything he says on this subject.

[Tarheel_Dem]

37. Thanks, but I'll take my chances.

[SidDithers]

50. I've always been a fan of NNadir...

thanks for posting.

Sid

[Lordquinton]

62. Where's the scientific standpoint?

I just see a bunch of opinion and standard Bernie bashing.

[Cha]

112. Thank you, Tarheel!

[mcar]

8. Kick

[Cha]

14. Wow.. mahalo, lapucelle.

[mtnsnake]

16. The C- that the same yo-yo gave Elizabeth Warren for her climate plan is nothing to write home about

either.

In case you don't know, Kevin Drum is a huge fan of Joe Biden, and there is nothing wrong with that, so it's not surprising that he would go after Joe's two biggest rivals in the primary race.

If you want a valid appraisal of the climate plans of the candidates, you should look at what the LCV says about them, not what some Mother Jones blogger says.

[Cha]

33. Actually Kevin Drum gives good reasons for his opinion..

I'm not going to write him off because you're trying to "kill the messenger"..

If you’re going to propose a massive, $16 trillion plan, the first thing you should do is get as many people on board as possible. Instead, Sanders practically revels in pissing off as many stakeholders as possible. He’s going to tax the rich. He’s going to hobble the fossil fuel industry. He’s going to ban nuclear power. He’s going to nationalize electric generation and turn it over to the federal government.

[Cha]

65. And, what's wrong with being "a huge fan

of Joe Biden"?

[Thekaspervote]

78. I will wait on that answer as well

[Cha]

83. ..

[Cha]

73. Do you have a link for that, mtnsnake?

[Hortensis]

77. The LCV is cheering all climate discussion on, thrilled (their word

for when Democrats took the house) that it's an election issue and not about to throw cold water at this point. They've only made brief, sis-boom-bah! statements for Inslee's and Sanders' so far.

Go, climate talk!

[Eric J in MN]

24. Bogus headline.

The guy giving Bernie Sanders a D- saying he "gets a D-" as if a group gave that.

Greenpeace gives Bernie's Green New Deal plan an A-:
https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/climate2020/

[yardwork]

42. Journalists writing for Mother Jones are not "bloggers."

Your post, and several others here, illustrate one of the problems I have with Sanders' campaigns and Sanders himself.

There is a disdain for learning anything, a knee jerk dismissal of anyone who criticizes Sanders, and a troubling cult-like adoration of anything Sanders says.

Mother Jones was a labor organizer. This publication was founded on the 1970s and is respected for investigative journalism.

[Eric J in MN]

57. Kevin Drum calls himself a blogger.

He posts his short reactions to the news.
https://mobile.twitter.com/kdrum

Mother Jones the person (1837–1930) doesn’t make the magazine founded in 1976 good.

[yardwork]

58. You're continuing to illustrate my point.

Mother Jones is a respected publication. I don't think that you know that. Your posts come across as criticizing anyone or anything that critiques Sanders, while praising anyone who praises him.

If Mother Jones had given him an A+, you would be promoting it as the best publication ever. Sanders himself encourages this behavior.

There's a lack of discernment and judgement with his campaign approach that is very troubling.

[Lordquinton]

63. No one is saying anything about Mother Jones

They are talking about the one blogger and this article. Good publications can have bad writers, it happens. If this were about Biden there would be screaming from the rooftops and Mother Jones would be under the bus. The Sanders supporters here can separate the two and call out this article for what it is, a hit piece using the reputation of it's publication as cover.

[yardwork]

64. I'm reading the posts in this thread differently from you.

[wasupaloopa]

105. Why is any criticism of Berne an attack.

Anyone with half a brain knows this plan will go nowhere. It could never get through Congress.

So everything positive about this plan being law is mute.

[betsuni]

66. I thought Mother Jones was the one place immune to attacking the messenger.

Because ... it's Mother Jones! I was wrong.

[Cha]

74. Well, if they give BS a D-..

[betsuni]

75. So on Teh Corporate Media Conglomerate enemies list they go!

[NNadir]

36. It figures. The contempt for science at Greenpeace is incredible and the fact that the media...

...calls this organization of uneducated bourgeois brats an environmental organization is frankly criminal, given their pathetic lack of knowledge about science and engineering and their contempt for both disciplines.

The world spent over two trillion dollars in the last ten years on kissing up to anti-engineering and anti-science bullshit from the morons at Greenpeace, so called "renewable energy."

The result is written in the planetary atmosphere: We hit 415 ppm of CO2 measured at the Mauna Loa observatory in the atmosphere this year, and in this century, the rate of degradation of the atmosphere has reached 2.4 ppm per year, after being less than 1.0 ppm in the mid 20th century.

Does anyone at the asshole factory at Greenpeace know how steel is made? How about aluminum? Plastic, the shit that wind turbine blades are coated with that peels off after 3 years?

How about cobalt for batteries? Any of the assholes at Greenpeace know how that is mined, where, and by whom?

No one alive will ever see a measurement below 400 ppm again because - clue this in - solar and wind remain trivial forms of energy.

Trashing huge tracks of pristine wilderness to turn them into wind turbine industrial parks serviced by trucks, is not environmentalism; it's a crime.

Of course, they give Bernie Sanders and A+. They deserve each other. Unfortunately humanity, including the 7 million people who die each year from air pollution while Bernie Sanders spits on the work of Enrico Fermi, Eugene Wigner, Glenn Seaborg and other great American scientists do not deserve this ignorance.

Greenpeace can go fuck themselves. Their half a century of blind ignorance kills people.

[NYMinute]

25. I give him an F nt

[Gothmog]

26. K&R

[betsuni]

29. Seven minute abs again.

[yardwork]

40. Perfect!

Stealing.

[NurseJackie]

72. I believe so.

[NNadir]

34. That seems like an unreasonably high grade to me. n/t.

[Vegas Roller]

43. BS plan

It doesn't reduce the carbon emissions much - he just reshuffles the carbon from vehicles to carbon from power generation.

Dollar for dollar, the LEAST effective plan.

[hughee99]

47. It seems like there are a fair number of people who think Trump has been acting

Like a dictator, but also like this plan.

Bernie has a better chance of winning the republican primary than he does of implementing this plan.

[vsrazdem]

51. LOL. I'll take the League of Conservation Votersand Greenpeace opinion over Mother Jones any day.

[Bradical79]

93. Or Stanford's director of their Atmosphere and Energy program

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/

https://www.resetera.com/threads/exclusive-climate-expert-mark-jacobson-answers-your-questions-about-climate-change-q-a.137642/#post-23987377

Calls Sanders' plan the most aggressive of remaining candidates when asked about whose plan is best, and backs up many of the proposals of Sanders' Green New Deal.

[sheshe2]

52. K&R

[NurseJackie]

71. I guess a "D" is better than an "I"

[ehrnst]

80. Indeed. (nt)

[corbettkroehler]

85. How About We Confer With A Top Environmentalist?

In much the same way that the Parkland survivors have been an enduring voice for sane gun laws, the Sunrise Movement is recognized as being among the most influential groups on climate change because of its young leadership. As a top executive in the Sunrise Movement, Varshini Prakash has been noted by key leaders, including Speaker Pelosi, as having a loud voice on the climate crisis.

Here's what SHE thinks of Bernie's plan:

Climate plan sets Sanders apart from the rest of the pack

http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/458887-climate-plan-sets-sanders-apart-from-the-rest-of-the-pack

[lapucelle]

86. Wait...what? Varshini Prakash is a "top environmentalist"?

While she is an activist with a "loud voice" (your words) who spent much of 2016 repeating Jill Stein talking points, I'm not sure that it's accurate to call her a top environmentalist.

Varshini Prakash is also the co-founder and head of the group that posted a dubiously edited video of Senator Feinstein meeting with school kids. After the way her group manipulated both the school children and the video, it's difficult to trust her message or take her seriously.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/regional/the-west/article226669524.html



https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cycle=2018&cmte=C00674697

[corbettkroehler]

98. The World's Old Grassroots Environmental Organization Says So

Leave it to a Sanders critic to try to sidestep the inconvenient truth that a DUer who supports Sanders posted here.

Let's try the truth from a different angle.

What is the world's oldest grassroots environmental organization? It is the Sierra Club, founded by John Muir, friend of President Teddy Roosevelt, who help guide POTUS in the creation of the world's first (and most envied to this day) national park system.

I am a life member and former volunteer executive with the Sierra Club. I have lived carbon neutral for more than a decade. My home is solar-powered and my automobile is a plug-in hybrid. The only reason I burn any gas at all is because my Chevy Volt requires that I use the internal combustion engine at least twice a year. I know this topic and defy ANYONE to try to disabuse me of verifiable facts.

So, is Ms. Prakash a top environmentalist? I'd hasten to say that, when one of the world's top environmental groups heaps praise on her, the answer is an undeniable yes. Boom!

Varshini Prakash Has a Blueprint for Change

The Sunrise Movement tackles climate change and income inequality

http://sierraclub.org/sierra/2019-4-july-august/act/varshini-prakash-has-blueprint-for-change

[lapucelle]

99. Your conclusion doesn't logically follow from the "evidence" you cite.

Appeals to authority are not a substitute for cogent reasoning.

[corbettkroehler]

114. What You Call An Appeal, I Call Citing Proof

As usual, you have the whole thing backwards. If using another authority which has stated that the person I named an authority to prove my point is unclear, you need to consult your dictionary because you have no clue what cogent means.

What is the purpose of footnotes in scientific whitepapers? To cite other experts! I just used the discussion board equivalent of that literary technique which has been the accepted standard for centuries.

I just showed you that a leading authority on climate change has been impressed by Varshini Prakash and her organization's work on climate change so much that it advertised her to its enormous base of members and allies. That lacks cogent reasoning on my part? You can't get past yourself that I just won this debate.

Your attempts to attack the messenger have fallen flat and I'm through wasting keystrokes on your desparate attempts to refute the irrefutable.

Read it and weep!

[lapucelle]

115. The link is to a sweet puff piece in the Sierra Club magazine.

It is not a white paper, and Varshini Prakash is not cited as a "top environmentalist" in any part of the profile. Her chief accomplishment appears to have been "making headlines" and "attempting to shift the center of gravity" (?) by "making big moments".

The Sierra Club magazine puff piece charitably makes no mention of the "big moment" her organization manufactured last February which led to condemnation for having coached and used children to stage a "confrontation" with a senator and then releasing a doctored video of the encounter.

"But Sierra Club magazine did a profile!" is a far cry from "she is cited as an expert in scientific papers".

The critique on the grounds of cogency still stands, as does the evaluation of the claim of Varshini Prakash's purported "expertise" on climate science as an falling into the category of fallacious appeal rather than a logical argument.

[George II]

106. A "top environmentalist" who has been out of college all of four years....

and hasn't worked one day as an environmentalist.

[Scurrilous]

87. ...

[Bradical79]

88. Does he have expertise on anything climate related?

His article is pretty light on any kind of useful analysis.

[lapucelle]

91. In what way is the article "light on any kind of useful analysis" on the BS policy proposal? N/T

[Bradical79]

92. For one, he says nothing about what Climate goals need to be met

That's by far the most important thing in any potential plan. If it wouldn't meet the neccesary milestones to avoid catastrophic climate change, then nothing else really matters.

It doesn't address the merits of any of the actual proposals beyond snide remarks. No expert opinion, no mention of what alternatives actualy would work, not even any rationaile behind the little he would know about (the politics). Then he puts a grade on the proposal. The entire piece is an amatuerish useless joke.

[lapucelle]

100. The failure to address "what climate goals need to be met"

Are a failure of the plan itself, not the analysis.

[comradebillyboy]

90. D+ is way too generous...

[Kurt V.]

101. drum was right about something one time.

[wasupaloopa]

102. Even if Bernie's plan were not a fairytale, it could

never get past Congress.

He can say what ever he wants to because nothing he says will ever happen,