Hillary’s Delegates Want 100% Clean Energy … But Veto Solutions To Get Us There

June 29th, 2016 by Zachary Shahan

Bernie Sanders, despite no Big Money backing and essentially no backing from establishment politicians in Democratic leadership positions, gave Hillary Clinton a serious run for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. The grassroots support for Bernie across the nation was record-shattering and a shocker for many people in and outside of establishment politics.

Naturally, despite the eventual loss, Bernie Sanders and his yuge number of supporters expect better representation in the Democratic Platform after this surprising success. One step toward that was that Bernie got to select 5 delegates to help craft the new Platform, while 6 came from Hillary and the chair of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, selected another 4.

The Democratic Platform is a comprehensive document that is supposed to guide the Democratic Party’s policy focus. While Bernie’s delegates don’t represent a majority (which is obviously reasonable) and can’t push through anything they want (which is reasonable), they do represent 1/3 of the group crafting the Platform and are very important to its creation. Bernie’s delegates have already “won” a number of progressive inclusions, relating to minimum wage, the earned income tax credit, breaking up the banks Glass-Steagall style, social security, immigration, and criminal justice reform.

350.org + Tesla Model S + Bernie Sanders

As you surely noticed, there is nothing in there about climate and energy. Did Bernie not appoint a cleantech champion as a delegate? Of course he did. He actually appointed Bill McKibben, the well known journalist-turned-activist who initiated 350.org. Bill, apparently, isn’t very happy with how the discussions have been going, and he published an article this week on POLITICO that goes into some of the details. From that:

We spent two weeks listening to powerful testimony from citizens around the country, and then on Friday in St. Louis we started taking votes.

And it was there that the essential dynamic quickly emerged. The Clinton campaign was ready to acknowledge serious problems: We need fair trade policy, inequality is a horrible problem, and unchecked climate change will wreck the planet. But when it came to specific policy changes, they often balked. Amendments against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and backing Medicare for all failed, with all the Clinton delegates voting against.

At which point we got (about 11 p.m., in a half-deserted hotel ballroom) to the climate section of the platform, and that’s where things got particularly obvious. We all agreed that America should be operating on 100 percent clean energy by 2050, but then I proposed, in one amendment after another, a series of ways we might actually get there. A carbon tax? Voted down 7-6 (one of the DNC delegates voted with each side). A ban on fracking? Voted down 7-6. An effort to keep fossils in the ground, at least on federal land? Voted down 7-6. A measure to mandate that federal agencies weigh the climate impact of their decisions? Voted down 7-6. Even a plan to keep fossil fuel companies from taking private land by eminent domain, voted down 7-6. (We did, however, reach unanimous consent on more bike paths!)

Bernie himself highlighted the votes against a carbon tax and a ban on fracking in a press release published a day before Bill’s article.

While I love the idea of more bike paths (my master’s degree thesis called for precisely that — particularly, aesthetically pleasant and well designed ones), that’s a rather easy thing to support. And the point Bill is making is that the Democratic establishment is happy to support vague, feelgood targets that we are supposed to achieve over the course of decades, but is not willing to do the hard work that connects the dots and make those targets a reality.

I’m sure there will be debate on this — and, yes, I would have preferred that the delegates push for a carbon fee & dividend, and carbon pricing isn’t an absolute solution — but some of those policy suggestions are downright obvious things the Democratic Party (and Republican Party) should support. The idea that we can’t stop the raping of our world via fossil fuel extraction and burning, the idea that we have to pursue an “all of the above” energy strategy, the idea that we will somehow make more progress by going against the wishes of the majority of the population isn’t just wrong — it paves the highway that would lead to runaway global warming and society-demolishing climate change.

Democratic voters are a bit tired of the weak approach to energy topics that basically involves trying to get a few morsels of bread to survive on while we hope that fossil fuel and related industries crush themselves. It is not a political strategy I support, and I think it is one the Democratic Party should have evolved beyond a couple of decades ago.

How does the Democratic Party intend to do its part to keep global warming below 2°C (while praying that is adequate to stop runaway global warming and society-demolishing climate change)? Why can the party leadership not agree that fossil fuels shouldn’t be taken from public lands? Why can it not agree that federal agencies should consider the climate impacts of their own decisions and policies? Why can it not agree to the obvious — that we need to put a price on carbon?

I don’t think it is entirely corruption. I think that’s a small portion of the problem on the Democratic side — I mean, just look at where fossil fuel bribes (er, political donations) are funneled:

No, I think the issue is primarily weakness and faulty logic. I think the Democratic establishment is concerned that strong statements about global warming, for clean energy, and against pollution will scare away centrist voters. It’s an absurd idea, in my opinion, since poll after poll shows that the majority is eager for the government to provide cleantech support, and Democrats who have run campaigns with strong climate- and energy-related stances have overwhelmingly won their races.

The Tea Party didn’t grow to become such an influential hand on Republican and overall American policies by being weak and waiting for the other side to just come over to their table. Franklin Delano Roosevelt isn’t remembered as one of the strongest and best presidents in US history because of a “let’s hold hands and ‘run in all directions’ policy agendas,” nor is Abraham Lincoln.

On the plus side, President Obama has been making stronger and stronger statements and commitments regarding the climate and cleantech. But we need a lot more than that. We need Hillary Clinton’s delegates, supporters, allies, and White House administration to put in a serious effort to transition us quickly to clean energy and clean transportation.

Push on your representatives and national leaders to fight for civilization rather than a lemming parade off a dinosaur-age cliff.

Photos by Michael Vadon (some rights reserved); Michael Vadon (some rights reserved); Joe Brusky (some rights reserved)

Buy a cool T-shirt or mug in the CleanTechnica store!

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: 2016 elections, Bill McKibben, Congress, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Republicans

About the Author

Zachary Shahan is tryin' to help society help itself (and other species) with the power of the typed word. He spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as its director and chief editor, but he's also the president of Important Media and the director/founder of EV Obsession, Solar Love, and Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and energy storage expert. Zach has long-term investments in TSLA, FSLR, SPWR, SEDG, & ABB — after years of covering solar and EVs, he simply has a lot of faith in these particular companies and feels like they are good cleantech companies to invest in.

Epicurus

Fracking has been around for decades. Pollution of fresh water aquifers is caused by casing leaks due to bad cement jobs. Earthquakes are caused by saltwater injection. Yes, the toxic chemicals used in fracking should be disclosed and regulated.

Casing leaks can happen in any oil and gas well. Therefore, fewer wells should be drilled. Period. No new oil and gas leases on federal lands, onshore and offshore.
Epicurus

What the Dems don’t realize is that people want true leadership. They want to be told unpleasant truths, and they will accept well thought out solutions given the opportunity. FDR proved this.

Hillary Clinton and the other fake liberals who have a stranglehold on the Dem Party are either cowards or pawns of special interests. They aren’t leaders.
- Bob_Wallace
  
  What’s a “fake liberal”?
  
  Someone who supports and works for equal rights for all is, in your opinion, a fake liberal?
  
  What’s a real liberal? Someone who wants to burn the entire system down and the wait to see what emerges from the ashes?
  - Epicurus
    
    A fake liberal is someone who claims to support liberal goals during their campaigns but votes the other way, or supports the other side, or kills the means to accomplishing them (as described in this article). Like Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) co-sponsoring a Monsanto favored sham GMO labeling bill with Pat Roberts (R-Kan.).
    
    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/29/senate-food-fight-erupts-over-sham-gmo-labeling-bill
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      I had to look up the details. Here’s what I found. Stabenow (D) and Roberts (R) negotiated a bill that was acceptable to the Republican majority in Congress.
      
      The bill is not what the most extreme anti-GMO people would like but here’s what it does do –
      
      “Under the plan, food companies would be required to disclose which products contain genetically modified ingredients. But companies would have a range of options in just how they make that disclosure: They could place text on food packaging, provide a QR (Quick Response) code, or direct consumers to a phone number or a website with more information.”
      
      http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/06/23/483290269/senate-unveils-a-national-gmo-labeling-bill
      
      IMHO Stabenow should be celebrated. She managed to get a GMO labeling bill through the right wing Republican controlled Congress. While it’s not a perfect bill, in the eyes of some, it’s a start. And it’s a great start that we can build on over time. (Progress.)
      —-
      
      I think we need a term for the portion of the left who seems to lack an understanding of how politics work. The “unrealistic left”? The “clueless left”? I realize those are not as “kind” as they could be. How about suggesting some alternatives.
      
      Liberals isn’t adequate. Liberals are people who are “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values”. While these people are liberals, they’re a subset of liberals.
      
      “Progressives” is not available. Progressive has a couple of meanings “a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas” and “happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step”.
      
      The group for which we are looking for a label do advocate for liberal ideas but they have no apparent desire to achieve progress by step by step methods. They want a switch flipped and change to happen instantly.
      
      People like President Obama and Secretary are progressives. The are liberals who work to move the country forward and implement social reform and have the patience and stamina to actually make it happen.
      
      What’s your idea for this group of liberals who aren’t truly progressives?
      - Epicurus
        
        A lot of people, particularly the millennials thank providence, are sick of the status quo and aren’t satisfied by two steps forward and one step back. Bernie’s campaign is evolving into a movement.
        
        Use whatever labels you want.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Whenever those people come up with a workable plan I’ll likely get behind it. I’m not getting behind – “Let’s have a revolution”. “Let’s burn it all down and grow back the perfect.”
        
        Labels:
        
        “Well intentioned babes in the woods.” Too long. A bit too demeaning.
        
        How about “The Impractables”? Also somewhat demeaning and doesn’t acknowledge their liberal positions.
        
        Give me something better and I’ll use it. In the meantime do not insult the rest of us by calling us “fake liberals” or that we “aren’t progressives”. We’re the ones who have done the heavy lifting needed to move the country forward to date.
      - Epicurus
        
        I didn’t call you anything, Bob. You don’t hold elective office, do you?
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        I’m a progressive and liberal in the Obama/Clinton style.
        
        I have roughly the same goals as other progressives/liberals, including Bernie Sanders. But I recognize that we achieve goals by successive approximations. Very, very rarely is it possible to achieve a goal in one quick step.
        
        So when you say “Hillary Clinton and the other fake liberals who have a stranglehold on the Dem Party are either cowards or pawns of special interests” I feel you are insulting me as well.
      - Epicurus
        
        You might be interested in a comment by Bill McKibben concerning climate change in the Democratic
        Party Platform.
        
        “Physics is a poor negotiating partner. It does not compromise and it is uninterested in battleground states.”
        
        Good quote for a protest sign or T shirt.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        That’s a pretty naive statement.
        
        Put a climate change denier in the White House, especially one who has stated that he intends to put coal miners back to work, and we slow our progress on eliminating fossil fuels.
        
        Lose the battleground states and “Welcome back coal”.
      - Epicurus
        
        McKibben meant that physics is what it is, whether you like the result or not.
Epicurus

I just heard five talking heads on Fox News, including Ben Stein, all claim that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax so the “guvamint” can “control” people and so lefties can get rich through crony capitalism.

Not one person was there to state that the overwhelming scientific evidence in favor of ACC was accepted by every national scientific society in the entire world.

So much for “fair and balanced.”

CNN and MSNBC aren’t much better. In all the Republican debates, I never once heard the candidates challenged about their nutjob views on climate change. They should have been challenged on this issue at each debate if our media was the least bit competent.
RobertM

Yea I am sure their are poll with huge support for the environment but everything he talked about would likely be getting support in the 20% to 30% range if people were asked about them. Of the 4 items listed only 1 am I a bit surprised on the mandate that federal agencies weigh the climate impact of their decisions. All the rest would likely result in everyone who voted for them looking for a new job. Carbon Tax will directly effect people bottom line hurting the poor and middle class the most. End to fracking would do more at this time to kill the middle class then anything thing else out there. As a Republican I would love it that would guarantee a Republican controlled federal government.
- Bob_Wallace
  
  Solar and wind are making themselves cheap. Offshore may need some help getting going.
  
  A well designed carbon tax should have roughly no impact on people at the top, middle or bottom. Put a fee on carbon and use that money to lower the cost of electricity at the point of sale.
  
  Make it more expensive for a utility to use coal or NG which means that they would sign contracts for more wind and solar. Since wind and solar are already as cheap or cheaper than coal and NG there would be little, if any, impact on sales prices. And whatever increase there might be could be offset with revenues collected.
  
  We might need to use some federal money to keep sales prices steady but considering the $140 billion to $242 billion we’d save annually in coal-related health expenses we taxpayers would be far, far ahead.
  —
  
  Renewables will replace fossil fuels. The question is whether it would be enough to wait for the invisible hand of the market to do the work or if we should use legislation, regulation, and public spending to move things along quicker.
  
  Looking only at what taxpayers spend on the external cost of burning coal (and oil) it makes sense to me to quit fossil fuels sooner. We start getting an immediate payback.
  
  When you add in the hurt we could cause ourselves by burning more and more fossil fuels and screwing up the climate it becomes a no-brainer.
  - RobertM
    
    Carbon Taxes will be passed directly though to the consumers it will be a new line item on people bills and it will raise their cost. You can pretend it will do more but in the end it will simple raise the cost on power. The increase cost will likely do very little to change the power profiles and just be another tax getting passed to the public and a nice sledge hammer to be used against any Congressmen / Senator who voted for it.
    
    If you really want to effect the power profile then work on making it easier to run high power lines across the country. Work on improving zoning and work to add a tax credit or rebates for hooking up solar power to the grid in some area’s it can be expensive and their is currently no national rebate/tax credit for doing so. Those are a few things off the top of my head that would actually effect the power profile not just be feel good things that wont actually do any good.
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      Come on Robert. We have the option to neutralize the impact of a carbon tax on consumers. I just explained how.
      
      We need to do a lot of things to push the transition off fossil fuels faster. A carbon tax is one tool we can use.
      
      ” add a tax credit or rebates for hooking up solar power to the grid in some area’s it can be expensive and their is currently no national rebate/tax credit for doing so”
      
      Uh, no, there’s currently a 30% federal subsidy for installing solar.
      - RobertM
        
        Uh, no, there’s currently a 30% federal subsidy for installing solar. — Bob_Wallace
        
        I can’t find anything definitively but I remember reading someplace that some grid operators will charger you fees to connect solar to the grid it wasn’t considered part of the install cost so wasn’t part of the federal solar credit but I can’t find anything to confirm that so I could be incorrect.
        
        Come on Robert. We have the option to neutralize the impact of a carbon tax on consumers. I just explained how. — Bob_Wallace
        
        If you charge the company’s a fee or a tax they will simply add a another line item on your power bill and charge you for it. At best consumers will get a line item for the tax and another for a credit and the two cancel each other out and we the tax payer are out the cost of administering the program. However in the end it will still cost people more and will have little effect on the actual power profile.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Robert. I described how we could put a price on carbon and do it in a way that would not change what people pay for electricity.
      - RobertM
        
        Robert. I described how we could put a price on carbon and do it in a way that would not change what people pay for electricity. — Bob_Wallace
        
        Bob,
        
        I have re-read your post several times. It sounds like you want to add a new tax on Carbon and then give power users a rebate to help offset the new tax. From my experience with BGE in Baltimore for over 20 years what I would except is BGE would do is add a new line item with an obscure name that would pay for the Carbon Tax plus another 5% admin fee for the accounting cost of collecting the tax. Then later down the Bill their would be you rebate credit. Again because of admin fees I would expects the 2 fees wouldn’t cancel each other out because of admin fee related to administrating the programs. So in the end it would cost power users more money and give very little incentive for them to change things.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Robert, I described how a user-friendly carbon tax would work. That’s how the tax would work.
        
        It’s very simple, Robert. Read the words.
        —
        
        If we left it up to Republicans to write the bill it’s very likely consumers would get screwed. That’s how they roll.
      - RobertM
        
        Robert, I described how a user-friendly carbon tax would work. That’s how the tax would work. — Bob_Wallace
        
        A well designed carbon tax should have roughly no impact on people at the top, middle or bottom. Put a fee on carbon and use that money to lower the cost of electricity at the point of sale.
        
        Make it more expensive for a utility to use coal or NG which means that they would sign contracts for more wind and solar. Since wind and solar are already as cheap or cheaper than coal and NG there would be little, if any, impact on sales prices. And whatever increase there might be could be offset with revenues collected. — Bob_Wallace
        
        Just because you say it will have “no impact on people” doesn’t mean it will have no impact on people. Like most things the devil is in the details. In the US most people get their power from the same company that generates it and those that don’t tend to have long term contracts with them that makes it hard to change.
        
        What you are basically saying is you want to do a Tax that will raise the cost of generating power using fossil fuels but do it in such a way that the public isn’t going to be pay more in the process.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Yes, Robert. That is what I suggested. A price on carbon with the revenue used to offset the increase in price at the consumer level. A ‘cost to consumer’ neutral price on carbon.
        
        I have no idea why you think it either important or meaningful to then tack on something about it being possible that a different law might be written. A sorts of abusive laws could be written. We have a Congress currently run by the sort of people who specialize in screwing people. I’m sure they could dream up a carbon price law that pour cash into fossil fuel pockets. They’d probably tax solar panels and wind turbines and call it the Clean Air and Water Carbon Fee Bill
      - RobertM
        
        Yes, Robert. That is what I suggested. A price on carbon with the revenue used to offset the increase in price at the consumer level. A ‘cost to consumer’ neutral price on carbon. — Bob_Wallace
        
        Not going to happen. At best your idea will waste taxpayer money with zero effect in power profiles. Maybe I have seen too many things being done in the State of Maryland where I was very active in state politics. The only way you can effectively do a Carbon Tax is to hurt consumers by making their power bill go up.
        
        We have a Congress currently run by the sort of people who specialize in screwing people. I’m sure they could dream up a carbon price law that pour cash into fossil fuel pockets. They’d probably tax solar panels and wind turbines and call it the Clean Air and Water Carbon Fee Bill —
        Bob_Wallace
        
        You mean the congress that extended the 30% tax rebate on solar and wind? Most Congressmen aren’t complete idiots. That is why outside a few Congressmen in safe district you aren’t going to see any of them pushing or even willing to vote for any kind of Carbon Tax billing anytime in the near future.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        I’m afraid you are right. We’ve got enough idiot voters that between the idiots they send to Congress and the non-idiots whose hands they tie we are not likely to see a federal price on carbon until tea party mentality has run its course.
        
        For now we’ll do it on a state by state basis and wait for angry old white men to die off some more.
- Epicurus
  
  You need to sue your English teachers for malpractice.
  - RobertM
    
    You need to sue your English teachers for malpractice. Perhaps English wasn’t your first language. — Epicurus
    
    Gradate of the Maryland Public School system and yes my spelling sucks really badly.
    
    Wind and solar energy are already cheaper than coal — Epicurus
    
    I never said that Solar or Wind aren’t cheaper. I was addressing the question about making the conversion to Solar and Wind FASTER. A Carbon Tax will likely have very little effect on the conversion from fossil fuels to renewable. It will just be another tax that will appear on peoples bills and raise the overall cost for people but wont be much of an incentive for power company’s to change. Making the installation cost of solar and wind cheaper will make the conversion happen faster.
NRG4All

That’s why I’m writing in Bernie Sanders in November, because no matter which, Donald or Hillary, you vote for, our climate will suffer, so you might as well make a statement and have the next President voted in by a plurality not a majority.
- Epicurus
  
  If there’s no majority of the electoral vote, the House elects the president, (which is what the Founding Fathers intended would be customary since it was assumed a state’s electors would always cast their vote for their state’s candidate and thus no candidate would get a majority).
  
  The climate will fare much better under Hillary than Trump for damn sure. Trump thinks climate change is a Chinese plot.
Larry

There is still way too much bowing and kneeling at the altar of corporate superpacs by members of the Democratic insider establishment
- Bob_Wallace
  
  We could fix an awful lot of that by simply changing how we finance elections.
  
  We, the voters, do have the power to change the country.
Epicurus

When are great leaders and intellectuals “representative” of anyone? Isn’t that part of what makes a leader great, that he isn’t part of the herd? He is great because he has new ideas and a novel vision.

By any reasonable definition, West and Coates are two of the leading intellectuals of the day.
madflower

Obama’s plan was so complete and brilliant. As long as we keep at it, we will be okay.

It isn’t a simple problem to solve and yet, we have made a lot of progress. More importantly we -really- haven’t broken anything or run into any major problems.

We are developing and testing solutions, rather then run head first into the wall like the Germans did.
- AllenHans
  
  This thread has featured a lot of venting from the Complain-About-Stuff wing of the democratic party, it’s refreshing to see some appreciation for the Actually-Do-Stuff wing. The CPP in my opinion is a work of art, a complicated and ungainly piece of machinery that gives the incumbent interests (e.g. utilities) just enough incentive to go along. The Paris Accord is another incredible achievement forged from political sausage, and Obama’s behind-the-scenes efforts were an essential part of making it happen. I’m very glad to have a pragmatic president at this point in history. The alternative, I think, would be that we’d have gotten to hear lots of lectures about how corrupt corporate interests are blocking all the progress on climate change and if we’d just wake up and start a political revolution we could actually do something about it.
eveee

Churchill said,

“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else”
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/winstonchu135259.html

FDR said,

“I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it”

That seems to be the Democratic Party stance. Truly, look at the money. There are democrats that lean toward fossil fuels. Voting alone won’t do it. It’s going to take constant pressure – there’s just too much corporate interest pushing the wrong way. It’s the reason the public wants action on climate change, but is frustrated.

A clear illustration of how corporate interests rule politics. The US should have publicly funded elections with strict rules against private funding. And lobbying should have monetary interests as well. Money has corroded ethics in Washington and turned status quo lobbying into little more than legalized graft and corruption.
- Zachary Shahan
  
  Fully Agreed.
  
  And I’ll repeat what I often do: true “democracy” relies on the public being informed and engaged. We’re obviously not well informed, and we’re obviously not very engaged. Because “politics is hard,” “politics is boring,” “I don’t want to consider the details of these matters,” etc. Well, we get what we put in, and the public isn’t putting in enough to make the political elite do what they should for the masses, and the system has been too heavily tilted for the rich & powerful by the rich & powerful. Honestly, is there any other legitimate reason why we are not adequately addressing global warming, and why inequality keeps growing?
  
  This has all been known for decades. But “compromise” between this 1% group and this 1% group continues, information and opinions from lobbyists continue to shape public policy in both parties, and the masses continue to not pay attention to the details, not put legitimate altruists into office, and not bring to the front the steps to structural change.
  
  I can’t say that I’m hopeful for the country at this stage, but I will continue doing my duty to try to bring useful information to more of the public and to stimulate action….
Zachary Shahan

Just set this free from Pending.

As I noted below, I’m not as well informed on immigration topics (since I spend most of my day on energy, transport, and climate), but I’m definitely not anti-immigration and think the whole thing is absurd given that the USA is largely a country of immigrants (from at most a few generations back). The only “real non-immigrants” are some of the worst off populations in the country. Also, more broadly, I just don’t get xenophobia and think people who treat foreigners as if they are less human than citizens is more sickening than absurd.

All of that said, I still think the climate issue and fundamental inequality and “rigging of the system” are the biggest issue our society is facing. As a sociologist by training, I’m also convinced that structural racism and classism are hugely under-acknowledged and some of the biggest social issues to tackle. Cornel West (who I was happy to watch speak at my college graduation) and Coates understand that well, and Sanders understands that well, but I am not surprised that it wasn’t a winning point for minorities since it is so under-discussed and downplayed.
- Bob_Wallace
  
  No, Sanders has a poor understanding of race problems. He’s not been involved in that struggle except for a short period when he was in college and after Black Lives Matter got in his face and embarrassed him a few months ago.
  - Zachary Shahan
    
    I don’t think it would be wise to disagree with Cornel West and Ta-Nehisi Coates on this. Sanders may not have focused on race as much as other topics as a Congressman, but he focused on the underlying structural rigging of the system, which disproportionately affects minorities.
    
    Really, this is a humongous discussion, but that’s my point: two of the most respected scholars on this topic backed Sanders. They had deep, thorough reasons for that.
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      West, IMO, is a bomb-thrower. Bernie attracts people who “want a revolution”. Coates, I’ve read (some). Don’t have a good feel for him.
      
      Bernie has a wonderful stump speech about (some of) America’s problems. Many of us were excited by him but rapidly became disillusioned because he’s still giving that original stump speech. He’s presented no clear and reasonable route for reaching his goals.
      
      (Two is a small number.)
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        Thomas Jefferson was not perfect, and I’m not saying I fully agree with the point of this quote, but I think it is one that is still (maybe more so) relevant today than when he said it:
        
        “God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
        
        Leave political choices in the hands of the comfortable, insulated elite for too long, and give too much power to the uber rich from the corporate world (who focus in an unbalanced way on profits over people), and you end up driving down quality of life for the masses to the point of “revolution.” When it’s time for a sharp redirection in policy to get back on course, the question isn’t whether to allow it (it will force itself through), but who to give the steering wheel to — the Roosevelts and Sanders of the world, or the Trumps of the world? I think the choice is clear, but there are obviously a lot of people who can be wooed by blatant racism, xenophobia, promises of destruction, and hate.
    - Ivor O’Connor
      
      West calls Obama a “pimp”, a “black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats”. Cornel West and most black people who keep their eyes on the ball say that about Obama. (And I fully agree with them.)
      - Epicurus
        
        Professor West tells it like it is. With regard to Obama, it’s a sad story.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        “most black people who keep their eyes on the ball”
        
        I’m sure you’re really in touch with how African Americans view PBO.
        
        You should read up on West. He’s apparently pissed at Obama because he did not receive an invitation to Obama’s first inauguration. (The lack of an invite seems to have been a clerical error.)
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        Well it certainly seems that most prominent black leaders were endorsing Bernie. I suppose we could tally that up.
        
        And do you really think or believe that somebody would base their politics on whether they were invited somewhere? Seriously? We are talking professionals not your 3 year old great grand-daughter. Kind of hard to take you seriously.
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        Agreed. The invite may have been a spark point, but West and others didn’t view Obama’s work as going deep enough. It’s a tough game. Obama obviously did a lot, and I think he’s one of our best presidents in history, but he was also moderate on financial issues, regulation, and to some degree held back on race issues — which I think was because of a multitude of smart if difficult reasons (there’s only so far he could take things without the GOP going insane, there’s only so much he could do, it couldn’t have taken too long to see the GOP was racist as hell and eager to play the race card *against* any chance they had, and Obama didn’t want to lose the influence he did have as one branch of the US government). Nonetheless, if you don’t have a strong push outside the halls of government for more progressive action, topics and possibilities drift back toward the center/right.
        
        As someone else quoted, FDR emphasized that the public needed to push him for strong action. Obama did the same on several occasions. I think he greatly appreciated the strong progressive pushes on various matters, and did what he could to move them along in the form of governmental action.
        
        My only big criticisms are that he was far too lax on Wall Street (which he, notably, did take a ton of money from — but I don’t think it was a matter of corruption as much as a matter of his political ideology and close advisors), made a horrible choice for a key regulatory position in OIRA (again, either because of political ideology or simply because of his trust for the person and knowledge that he wasn’t an expert in everything and had to just trust in the people he selected), and has perhaps been too strong on government invasion of citizen privacy and rights (though, this is not a topic I follow closely enough to have any strong opinions on).
        
        Anyway, back to West and others who wanted Obama to do more: I think they typically come from a background that we need more structural change, not just incrementalism, to turn society around. It is a deep conversation that nobody can definitely answer until we see how society ends up evolving. I think Bob has clearly staked his opinion on “incrementalism will do the job.” I’m on the line, but would say that I’m more pessimistic on the matter.
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        Nicely thought out. I’ll simply say I thought of Obama as nothing more than a continuation of the previous eight years. Or Cheney on steroids. And Hillary was fully supporting him on his continuation of the wars in the ME and expansion of them to all countries there. His bailout of Wall Street and Detroit was criminal. And his support of all energy was also lame. He could have done so much better. He could have been the man that we originally voted in because at that point he clearly did see the issues and said he would fix them.
      - Xander66
        
        “His bailout of Wall Street and Detroit” was NOT criminal It was imperative. The repeal of Glass- Steagall in 99 allowed banks to merge with insurance companies and investment houses and set the stage for the financial melt down in 2008 and early 2009. Now THAT was criminal. The fact that NO one from Wall Street went to jail forever was criminal.
        
        I trade stocks for a living and spent the following 4 years recovering financially. I can promise that you would not like the world you live in had “His bailout of Wall Street and Detroit” not occurred. The financial dominoes were 24 hours away from initiating a complete world-wide collapse that would have lasted decades.
        
        Ivor, I agree, or nearly agree with much of what you have to say on many things…..But on THIS, you are dead wrong.
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        Sounds like you are saying Obama should have separated the banking and insurance industries before bailing them out. And that he should have gone after many of the players on wall street. And perhaps it was criminal of Obama to not have done so?
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Ivor, the decision was to let large financial institutions crash and risk throwing the US and possibly the world into a depression or bailing them out.
        
        Were it your decision would you take the chance of plunging the world into a monstrous depression and probably killing millions of people?
        
        Next time around, and there will probably be another time, the government will have the ability to take over those large corporations that get themselves in trouble, keep the important parts functioning, and getting rid of the problems.
        
        As long as we don’t let Republicans delete the legislation that now protects us.
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        Bob, there was a lot of gray between hire the same crooks that got us into the mess and have them give free money to wall street or enter a world depression. For instance, once again, they could have been bailed out but also the insurance and banking portions split out into much smaller organizations.
        
        However Obama chose to give them everything, and everything to the auto manufacturers, and everything to the energy monopolies, and well, everything to anybody. Talk about a president without a plan! (Actually he had wonderful plans before he got elected. Before he turned into Cheney 2.0.)
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Ivor, in your desire to dump on Obama you overlook the fact that the bailout happened when Bush was in office. While Obama was still a senator, wouldn’t be elected president until a month later and wouldn’t assume the presidency for another two months.
        
        “The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Division A of Pub.L. 110–343, 122 Stat. 3765, enacted October 3, 2008), commonly referred to as a bailout of the U.S. financial system, is a law enacted in response to the subprime mortgage crisis authorizing the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to $700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities, and supply cash directly to banks. The funds for purchase of distressed assets were mostly redirected to inject capital into banks and other financial institutions while the Treasury continued to examine the usefulness of targeted asset purchases.[1][2] Both foreign and domestic banks are included in the program. The Act was proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the global financial crisis of 2008 and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008.”
        
        As well, President Bush initiated the auto industry bailout. Even before Senator Obama had been elected as the president who would take over four months later.
        
        “In September 2008, the Big Three asked for $50 billion to pay for health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs, and Congress worked out a $25 billion loan.[87] By December, President Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of $17.4 billion to be distributed by the next administration in January and February.[88] In early 2009, the prospect of avoiding bankruptcy by General Motors and Chrysler continued to wane as new financial information about the scale of the 2008 losses came in. Ultimately, poor management and business practices forced Chrysler and General Motors into bankruptcy. Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on May 1, 2009[89] followed by General Motors a month later.[90]”
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        “. For instance, once again, they could have been bailed out but also the insurance and banking portions split out into much smaller organizations.”
        
        More ignorance.
        
        The federal government did not have the power to take over financial and insurance companies like they can take over a failing bank. That would have been an illegal seizure of private property.
        
        In July, 2010 President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank bill into law. Now the federal government has the ability to take over the “too big to fail” financial corporations if they get into deep trouble.
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        Full of half truths in your attempts to pretend the democrats don’t shit. More detailed analysis show Obama took what Bush started, doubled down, and went for more than Cheney could have even hoped for. Hence my Cheney 2.0 nickname.
        
        I’m sure you are more than aware of this but you seem to be part of the democratic machinery. Anybody else can simply do a google on the topic and find articles where Obama justifies what he did:
        http://www.aol.com/article/2010/01/27/obama-bailing-out-the-banks-was-necessary-but-i-hated-it/19333807/
        http://prospect.org/article/unpopular-successful-auto-bailout
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Oh, Ivor, that is so lame. So very, very lame.
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        Lame? For pointing out direct quotes of Obama admitting to and apologizing for exactly what you just got through saying he didn’t do? And then calling me lame for pointing out your inability to be objective? Stick to something you know, like clean energy, and keep some dignity.
      - Xander66
        
        As I read the discussion on Obama I began to formulate a comment but your first two paragraphs pretty much says it for me. Well said Zach.
        
        Despite any short comings and even with the total lack of co-operation from the Republicans who stone walled his every effort, it’s my belief that history will recognise Obama as one of the most consequential presidents in American history.
        
        The best way to get Trump elected is to vote Green or Libertarian, so for the next President………I’m with Her. (I will NEVER forgive Nader).
Ivor O’Connor

Topic | H1 | H2 | H3 | H4 | H5 | H6 | B1 | B2 | B3 | B4 | B4 | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 |
Carbon Tax | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Ban Fracking? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Ban Drilling? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Consider green | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Emminent Domain | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

The Hillary, Bernie, and Debbie delegates should be assigned names so we can track their votes. Without visibility this will be another Republican/Democrat mess where they rape us again.
- Zachary Shahan
  
  I’m not sure who they all are (probably public), just know Bill McKibben and Cornell West are two of Bernie’s.
Epicurus

This is perhaps the most eye-opening article I have read on this site. I wish every American could read it. It points out a very unpleasant truth. The Democratic Party is dominated by fake liberals–politicians who are tools of Wall St, big corporations, and the 1/10th of 1% as much as any Republican.

As another example, here’s what Hillary Clinton (who allegedly “does her homework”) originally said about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) (before she was shamed into “evolving” by Sanders and others) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6gVxwO8sNY

Here IMO is a much more accurate description of the TPP:

“The TPP is for the most part not a trade agreement at all. Instead, it is a grand manifesto of corporate rights as being superior to any national interest or the people of any nation, a further escalation of the installation of business corporations as the unchallenged sovereign over the planet.

“This is reflected most odiously in the extensive chapter on so-called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). The title itself has evil baked into it, presuming a priori that business corporations even HAVE sovereignty standing on a par with a nation state, such that there should even BE a dispute about whether they are bound to follow that nation’s laws.

“Under the TPP, a ‘dispute’ would go to a kangaroo court tribunal of corporate lawyers with no accountability to any national judicial authority, and granted the power to override our own courts.

“But that’s just the rotten core. Other provisions that have nothing to do with trade expand monopoly rights of pharmaceutical companies, gut food safety and environmental laws, demolish international financial regulation, further accelerate job export to the lowest common denominator wage base. You name it, if there is
anything any greedy corporation has ever done to try to wreck our safety, security or prosperity, and seize all power unto themselves it’s in there.”

Just a few days ago TransCanada filed a NAFTA “arbitration” request arguing the U.S. violated its “expectations” and demanding over $15 billion from U.S. taxpayers for rejecting its permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. This dispute will be decided not in a U.S. court but in NAFTA’s private tribunal system just like the one under the TPP.

Here’s what Elizabeth Warren, a woman who really does her homework, says about this kangaroo court:

“ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally
have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.”

How prescient. That’s exactly what TransCanada has just done.
- Zachary Shahan
  
  Yikes….
  - Epicurus
    
    This is why these trade pacts get shoved through in the dead of night without debate. The politicians rightly fear retribution if the facts about these agreements were publicly known.
    
    Seems like that $15 billion claim on the taxpayers by TransCanada would be front page news and “breaking news” on the news channels. Haven’t seen a word about it in the MSM.
    - Zachary Shahan
      
      yeah, this is the first i’ve heard of it.
    - Zachary Shahan
      
      What’s your source for that?
      - Epicurus
        
        Source for the $15B claim? There are many (google “TransCanada NAFTA $15 billion Keystone”). Here’s one:
        
        http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-25/transcanada-files-15b-nafta-claim-on-keystone-xl-rejection
        
        The pols always want to “fast track” these things, which, I think, is a way around the congressional investigation and debate process. The remainder is my supposition.
  - Bob_Wallace
    
    So you are against establishing fair trade agreements with Australia and other Pacific countries? Agreements which protect workers. Agreements with environmental protections built in? That protect American companies against unfair trade practices?
    
    Why?
    - Zachary Shahan
      
      Definitely not against it. Just not supportive of doing it in sloppy ways that result in environmental and human catastrophe.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        OK, I support that.
        
        Now, do we know if the TPP is badly written or is the left’s opposition just a “America First” knee-jerk response?
      - Epicurus
        
        I don’t think Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren is given to an “America First” knee-jerk response.
        
        “ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.”
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for a change in three provisions of the TPP.
      - Epicurus
        
        Three very important provisions I am sure.
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        I’m certainly against the TPP. It’s basically exactly what the Koch brothers want in an ideal world for them:
        http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/trans-pacific-partnership-issues-120603
        https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/trans-pacific-partnership_b_4479420.html
      - Epicurus
        
        Don’t confuse us with the facts.
        
        Thanks for the links.
    - Epicurus
      
      That’s the official sales pitch for the TPP, but I have yet to read just what those protections are. On the other hand, I have read plenty about what we are giving up, like judicial review in our own court system.
- Ivor O’Connor
  
  Yep, that is Hillary. And Bill was responsible for NAFTA. These Democrats are no better, possibly worse, than Republicans. With Bernie gone everybody should vote for the Libertarian party. There at least we have a candidate that has proven himself for eight years that he is above taking bribes.
  - Bob_Wallace
    
    I had the experience of spending some time in India during the period at which they put up a wall against trade with the outside world and tried to be self-contained. I really don’t think that’s a route that we want to take.
    
    As for voting for the libertarian party. Foot, meet bullet….
    
    —
    Ivor, the word “bribe” has a specific meaning. Unless you can show that Hillary accepted money to make a decision which she otherwise did not support then you are committing libel.
    - Ivor O’Connor
      
      Oh right Bob, I forgot, our Supreme Court decided that money doesn’t constitute bribing.
      
      Back in 2011, the majority held in Citizens United that
      corruption should be defined only as straightforward bribes. Do big
      donors to “independent” Super PACs get a receipt saying “Received: $5
      Million in Return for Cutting Your Taxes”? No? Then according to the
      decision, the donation did “not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption,” and that’s all that matters.
      
      https://theintercept.com/2016/06/29/supreme-court-eliminates-political-corruption-by-defining-it-out-of-existence/
      I suppose the supreme court can define what is up, down, etc., and we are suppose to pretend.
  - Epicurus
    
    Granted, Gary Johnson has some superficial appeal, but I can’t vote for a party that opposes environmental, financial and safety regulations as well as a social safety net.
- athbr
  
  Just because you’re green AND a white nativist doesn’t mean that all of your nativist arguments are also green! This is why potential green voters who are non-white shied as far away from Bernie as possible.
  - Zachary Shahan
    
    I’m not sure what your argument is here, but Cornel West and Ta-Nehisi Coates both went for Sanders … for rather obvious reasons … Many African-Americans didn’t simply because of familiarity with the Clintons and the common knowledge that they cared more about helping move beyond our shameful past than the Republicans who they typically oppose.
    - athbr
      
      …and to be honest, I love your columns. I know you’ve lived in multiple continents. You SHOULD know better!
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        Hmm, I think I’m just not sure what you’re referring to.
      - athbr
        
        For some reason, the link I posted went into “pending”. My post would make more sense as a follow up 🙂
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        OK, thanks. I just saw your other one and get the point now. Responded there. Will look for the pending one.
  - Ivor O’Connor
    
    Total BS. Most of Bernie’s supporters were non white. Asian and black mostly.
    
    Make google your friend, if not follow this link:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/28/1507147/–BernieNotSoWhite-Bernie-LEADS-poll-among-CA-Asians-has-MORE-non-white-than-white-Support
    - Epicurus
      
      The Sanders/Clinton divide turns on age among all racial groups, if I recall correctly.
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        Not following you. Are you saying young voters vote for one and older voters vote for the other? And if so which age group votes for Hillary?
        
        I see it more as people not into politics vote for Hillary because she’s a woman and don’t know anything about Bernie. Or that they are in political machinery and vote for Hillary because they know she’s totally corrupt and will give back like a Republican.
      - Epicurus
        
        I thought I read that Bernie has a huge draw among young people with the above 45 or 55 crowd leaning Hillary, but I like your analysis.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        I see it as few people “into politics” view Sanders as someone likely to accomplish the goals he shares with most every other left of center person.
        
        Those who are into politics know that Sanders is not well respected by other senators who haven’t found him a strong supporter of legislation and not good a working with others.
        
        Those who are into politics know that Clinton is a strong, intelligent, honorable person who has worked her adult life to improve the lives of others.
        
        We’ve watched her be attacked by the right with incredible lies and we’re now watching the extreme left do the same thing.
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        I sure hope Sanders is not “well respected” by other senators.
        
        Hillary is strong, intelligent, and honorable? I’m so glad. She’ll be the first politician ever.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        You know that little about politics, Ivor?
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        Yes bob. That little. You though would fit in perfectly.
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        I think everyone is painting the picture too broadly about who supported Hillary and who supported Bernie.
        
        My 2 cents:
        Bernie continuously pushed for more progressive solutions than the Democratic Party as a whole, and lost a lot due to compromised Democrats made with Republicans to get legislation through. To ignore the need for a push further left is to miss how politics works, imho. While Bernie didn’t get a lot of what he pushed for (or, at least, didn’t get it for several years in some cases), he was adept at working in a lot of improvements to bills that went through. He came across from what I’ve read as one of the politicians most focused on working, working, working until others are tired and give in to improvements for society as a whole, rather than the special interests they represented.
        
        Hillary has also been one of the hardest-working politicians in the party, but because she plays the game more like the rest of the party and has long had leadership roles in it, she has greater support and respect for her approach. Furthermore, I’d presume that a lot of current Democratic leaders saw her as the likely first woman president even way back in the 1990s, and so just expected to support her and get her in the White House (again). The conservative media and politicians, also noticing this potential, has spent ~30 years bashing her, which has been effective even among those in the left. She has accomplished a great deal for the betterment of the downtrodden and general public, but she has also made compromises, cut deals, made mistakes (we all do!), and probably even crossed the line of ethics a number of times, which get highlighted a lot more than her good work and focus on helping society. She’s not my ideal candidate because I don’t like her strong connections and opinions on some energy matters, her approach to foreign policy (which, let’s be frank, has been a point of contention between her and Obama, who I think has overall been one of our best presidents on foreign policy), and her lax approach to Wall Street, which is intent on continuing to degrade society in order to make more money it can’t even spend. But she is also great on social, climate, and economic regards in many other ways. I will support Hillary and try to counter the BS that has been thrown her way for decades, but I also think it’s important we continue pushing truly progressive agendas to push both Democrats and Republicans more toward social equity and climate action.
        
        Again, on the financial side, I strongly recommend this:
        
        http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/new-york-primary-financial-crisis-wall-street-213822
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        Yes, most of Wall Street believes they can and should do whatever they want. That it is better to take what you want than second guess what’s best for all. They will trade derivatives way beyond what their institutions can cover. Their bubbles need to be slowly deflated by Sanders or Johnson.
        
        And as for California voting for Hillary. It was just like I thought. Given enough time most everybody would come to their senses and vote Bernie.
        
        “The California Democratic primary has come and gone, but the mail-in ballots are still being counted. Hillary Clinton was announced the winner over Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, but with each new vote tally, her lead diminishes. …
        
        As of July 1, though, the vote tally for Sanders has grown to 12,620, while Clinton’s tally 12,492. Since California’s primary election, Sanders has continued to gain on Clinton, little by little, and so far, fourteen counties reporting 53,643 ballots have gone for Sanders at more than 61 percent.”
        
        http://www.inquisitr.com/3271825/as-clintons-lead-in-california-shrinks-sanders-progressives-seek-to-take-over-democratic-party/
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Clinton has more than a 400,000 vote lead. Nine percentage points over Bernie.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Yes, Bernie has attracted a lot of younger voters. Older left of center/liberals/progressives have had the goals that Bernie presents for decades. We just know that one does not achieve goals without a solid plan and a long hard slog.
      - Epicurus
        
        You can’t accomplish anything without a clear vision of what you want and without making the case to the public and getting them onboard. Like FDR did.
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        The problem is that, on this point (financial regulation and corruption), Obama and Clinton have not been progressive — maybe liberal, if you’re generous. Sanders pushed Clinton further toward strong regulation of Wall Street, and it’s looking possible she will work hard for that, especially if Warren is her VP. But certainly not a done deal, and looks like it wasn’t in Hillary’s plans at all at the beginning of the campaign season.
        
        In other words, it was Bernie’s and his supporters’ push that provided the plan (on Wall Street regulation, at least) and “long hard slog” (on WS regulation, taxing the rich more, and a $15 minimum wage — and, you could add, free college tuition, but I think that push has just begun and is a long way off from being realized, if it ever is). The sad fact of the matter is that, despite many other great components of Hillary’s work and campaign, she has favored incrementalism (at best!) on these topics.
        
        On the financial regulation topic, I highly recommend reading this article:
        
        http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/new-york-primary-financial-crisis-wall-street-213822
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        In my opinion Obama, Clinton and Sanders share the same set of goals. Equal rights for all is a good way to summarize things.
        
        At at given point in time their priority lists may be different but they’d all contain the same points. They all want all people to be treated the same regardless of race, gender, gender identification, religion, etc. They all want the plight of the poor, working and middle classes improved. They all want better healthcare. They all want an end to world strife. They all want safer communities. The list continues.
        
        What separates Obama and Clinton from Sanders, in my book, is that Obama and Clinton are willing to move toward those goals progressively. They understand how one has to gradually change public opinion and US/world governments. They are pragmatic.
        
        Sanders, from what I’ve seen, has little tolerance for gradual change. He wants an immediate change, the sort of thing that requires a “revolution”. But he has no plan that I’ve seen for creating that revolution.
        
        He seems to suggest that if all young people get behind his campaign then a revolution will happen.
        
        How?
        
        I’m close to Sander’s age. I sat through long discussions and meetings almost a half century ago where people like Sanders argued loudly for a revolution in order to make things right. They had no plan other than “revolution” then and I see no plans now. Just some sort of appeal to magic.
        
        Look at what we cover on this site. How long has it taken to bring the price of wind and solar down to where they are competitive? How many more years will it take for renewables to replace fossil fuels? We aren’t getting there via a revolution. We’re getting there by slogging along, taking small steps when we can. Do you see how we might have gone from 100% fossil fuels to 100% renewables “immediately”? Change takes work and time.
        
        I want what Sanders offers in his stump speech. But I don’t think we can get there without an understanding of how things are done and the ability to do the hard work.
    - bwollsch
      
      I thought Clinton won most of the black votes, especially in the South.
      
      http://inthesetimes.com/article/19020/why-arent-more-black-voters-supporting-bernie-sanders
      
      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/03/bernie-sanders-failure-diversity-hispanic-black-voters
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        That she did. Which was so sad. Never said she didn’t did I?
      - bwollsch
        
        You said “most of Bernie’s supporters were non-white. Asian and black mostly.” if Clinton won most black votes, how can Bernie’s supports be mostly black and asian?
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        It’s probably a bit confusing. Maybe an example would help. Imagine in the South there are 100 voters in total. Only 20 of those 100 voters were white. Bernie loses the vote 10 to Hillary’s 90 and Bernie only got one white vote. It is accurate to say 71 out of 80 non-whites voted for Hillary. Yet 90% of Bernie’s vote was from non-white. So Bernie voter make up has a higher percent of non-white people in it. That’s how it worked out that both statements were true. Green non-white voters were more inclined to vote for Bernie than Hillary. It is much more likely a green voter would be better informed. Hence the reason more voted for Bernie.
        
        What does not make any sense to me is how Hillary could have won in California!
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        I know people in California who preferred Bernie (or said so) but voted Hillary because they wanted the primary to end and start focusing on Donald before it was “too late.”
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        Yes, but most, perhaps all, polls showed Bernie had a much better chance of beating Trump than Hillary did.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        It’s pretty simple, Bernie. California votes late in the cycle.
        
        Most people who were originally excited by what Bernie had to say became disillusioned with him as time went on and he offered nothing but the stump speech that he started out with.
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        I’ll take your word for that.
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        From Californians I talked to, they just saw his chances as gone and wanted to focus on bashing Trump.
      - bwollsch
        
        While I get your example, black voters did not make up 80% of the electorate. And even if they did, I don’t think Sanders would have gotten their vote. According to the Huffingtonpost for Super Tuesday:
        
        “Particularly among black voters, the
        results weren’t even close. Clinton won more than 90 percent of black
        voters in Alabama and Arkansas, according to exit polling. She also won
        more than 80 percent in Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. ”
        
        The only demographic that I can see Sanders won were the Millennial voters. I’m not sure how you were able to distinguish green minded voters from non-green minded voters, but if that’s the case, so be it.
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        I can’t tell. I’m just thinking if they look around and recognize renewable energy they’d also see the difference between Bernie and Hillary.
        
        Again the 80 or 90 percent is a different metric. It’s like saying everybody buys ICE cars. A sound bite for republicans but really doesn’t mean anything.
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      That’s a total crock, Ivor.
      
      Google “bernie sanders events”, click on images and take a look at the faces in the crowds.
      
      Whiteville.
      
      Check how Bernie polled over time.
      
      https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/02/Diff-Between-White-and-Non-White-Dmocrats.png
      
      Here’s the picture from the DK article you list. One black. One Asian. And the whites.
      
      http://images.dailykos.com/images/230312/story_image/Screen_Shot_2016-03-28_at_4.53.12_PM.png?1459176826
      
      BTW, that article is only about CA, not about the nation. And his poll numbers were 39% of blacks and 37% of Hispanics, 37% of whites. Bernie has a pretty equal minority cut of most groups with a lead among California asians (43% to 35%).
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        That’s a nice graph. However it shows exactly the opposite of what you said earlier. That as his stump speech became boring people left him. But the graphs show it made him over three times more popular than when he started. If he had more time he probably would have won.
        
        Then there is the fact the above graph does not show his political makeup. Just the fact as more non-whites learned about him the more they would vote for him.
        
        As for looking at a single picture and extrapolating out to the world. Good luck.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        ” Most of Bernie’s supporters were non white. Asian and black mostly.”
        
        Your claim is 100% bullshit.
        
        Bernie started out at terrible and made it all the way up to very poor.
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        I wouldn’t get too harsh here. Bernie started out as a basically unknown to the masses with no Big Money funding to raise awareness.
        
        I would have liked that he expand his messaging (he obviously has the experience and perspectives to do so), but it is the path he chose to try to keep the momentum going and reach more people who hadn’t heard it as he moved from state to state. I think it was overdone, but just barely.
        
        In all seriousness, if he was the one insiders had essentially expected for a decade or two to become the next presidential candidate for the Dems, and he had the Super Pac money for that, he would have gotten the nomination.
        
        Now, whether he’d fair as well in polls and win the general once the GOP started attacking him as a socialist who was going to raise taxes on the middle class, who knows? But he gained momentum continuously, until perhaps the very end when people figured his chances of winning were gone and wanted to take the fight to Trump asap.
        
        The underlying messages, though, are about issues that the mainstream Democrats absolutely need to address if 1) they don’t face a similar or worse situation in a few years, and 2) they want to win over the conservative side of the coin with the same concerns about money in politics, political corruption, and too much influence from the military industrial complex. To ignore these points would put the party in a horrible position, and also simply doesn’t serve the public.
        
        That said, I know these are tremendous challenges and Democrats can’t tackle them alone, and Republicans initially won’t give a shit about tackling them, but if an ongoing effort is launched to tackle these problems, and messaging is done well, the Democratic Party could get enough momentum (imho) to force a change of have the Republican Party squashed by its own corruption and lies. Well, one can dream…. 😀
  - Epicurus
    
    Nativist? How did you come to that conclusion? People who oppose these godawful trade pacts are all nativists?
    - athbr
      
      People who have issues with the specifics of a ‘particular’ trade deal are clearly not nativists.
      
      My experience is that one subset of Bernie’s supporters are attracted to him for a combination of views:
      – opposition to *all* trade deals (I.e. It is trade that bothers them rather than the points they are questioning)
      – complaints about “offshoring” of jobs (mind you, a term never used for jobs moving between europe and the US) and
      – complaints about evil corporations “importing” h1-b labor (as if they are goods, not living breathing humans employed by the firm).
      
      If you happen to have all three of the above beliefs, I would say you’re a nativist. I am yet to meet a Bernie supporter who falls in the former category of technical opposition to a particular line item somewhere. Go ahead. Surprise me.
      - Epicurus
        
        No one I know is opposed to trade, i.e. fair trade. To the contrary. The opposition to trade pacts like NAFTA and the TPP is not about trade per se, but about sovereignty, i.e. who will decide the safety, labor, and environmental standards in our own country.
        
        As to offshoring labor, do we want American workers to compete with people who make $1 an hour in third world countries? Should we support raising standards in other countries or should we participate in a race to the bottom?
        
        To me the h1-b issue is that we have plenty of Americans to fill high tech jobs (according to a programmer friend), but corporations like Microsoft would prefer to bring in people on these visas who will work for a fraction of the salary it has to pay Americans.
        
        Cornel West could explain all this to you.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Why would the US sign an agreement that let another country decide our safety, labor or environmental standards? If there are standards in the agreement then we don’t need to sign if we feel they are as high as we think appropriate.
        
        Raising the standards of other countries does involve something of a race to the bottom, near term. The jobs that can be done by people with fewer skills and are the most transportable will move to the place of cheapest labor.
        
        As those people start earning money their standard of living increases, they educate their children, their economies grow, and they start asking for higher wages. They are no longer the “bottom”.
        
        That is exactly what has happened in China. China is no longer a company of extremely cheap labor. Lifestyles have improved, workers are demanding higher salaries. Low skilled manufacturing is beginning to move on to other countries, China is too expensive.
        
        That’s happened in an amazingly short period. China is off the bottom. Thailand and Vietnam are no longer very cheap labor markets. India is coming up rapidly. Africa is likely where cheap labor manufacturing will move next.
        
        And after Africa’s economies grow to about the level of SE Asia we should start to see manufacturing start to spread across all countries as shipping will be a larger factor than labor savings.
      - Epicurus
        
        I misspoke, as the pols say. I presume the standards are in the agreement, but foreign corporations have the right to enforce them against us outside of our judicial system (why would we agree to that?).
        
        Should American workers have to compete with the low wages in these evolving economies? And the issue is not just unskilled labor.
        
        Should we grant visas to Indian computer programmers so Microsoft can bring them here and pay them half of what they have to pay American programmers? What a great deal for companies like Microsoft.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Life is complicated.
        
        We see people who insist that we quit using all fossil fuels right now. But we can’t do that, the grid would go black and people would riot.
        
        We see people who insist that we should kill corporations. But we can’t do that, the economy would crash and many of us would die of starvation and untreated medical conditions.
        
        What we are faced with is the fact that we have to make incremental changes. And sometimes there is not the political ability to make those changes.
        
        If we want things to improve then we have to put capable people in office. We’ve got to put a Democrat in the White House and take control of Congress away from the right wingers.
      - Epicurus
        
        I guess there must be some, but I don’t know of nor have I read about anyone who thinks we should quit using all fossil fuels immediately or who insist that we “kill” corporations. There are many people who think we should do a “moon shot” or Manhattan type project for converting to clean energy and EVs and who believe corporations, whose sole raison d’etre is making profits for their shareholders, should be highly regulated in the public interest.
        
        I have no faith in either of the major parties. I am biased towards Dems, but I judge each one of them on their own merits.
      - athbr
        
        So, check, check, and check?
      - Epicurus
        
        If opposing America’s participation in a worldwide race to the bottom in terms of standard of living and environmental, labor,and safety standards makes me a nativist, sign me up, Sowell brutha (get it?).
      - athbr
        
        It’s good that you can come around to acknowledging reality and exhibit self awareness at the end. I’m just saying that those positions immediately put you outside the realm of the acceptable for people of other demographics who make up a large chunk of the Democrat party. It’s possible that you could find common cause with Trump voters on those issues – and win. It’s also possible that people like me could end up courting libertarian minded business types who, at least here in the northeast, have been very supportive of diversity – and win. I see either of those options as a likely loss for green politics. To my original point earlier in the thread, the alignment at a policy level of greens with the far right is not ending well in Europe and not going to end well in the US.
      - Epicurus
        
        Pretty sure my concerns on these topics are the same as those of Professor West and other intellectuals of color, Sowell brutha. It’s absurd to accuse them of being nativists and right wingers, but, like Apple’s old advertising campaign said, I can see that you “think different.” Yes, you will fit right in with the libertarian business types.
        
        If anyone is a right winger, it’s you, Sowell brutha.
      - athbr
        
        you don’t have to be a right winger to harbor nativist beliefs. Just because Cornel West agrees with you doesn’t prove you otherwise.
      - Epicurus
        
        I am not opposed to immigration. I do not believe immigrants are destroying our cultural values, and I do not believe in deporting otherwise law abiding undocumented immigrants who have lived here for years.
        
        According to your definition, if one is opposed to the worldwide economic and regulatory race to the bottom, one is a nativist. I’m sure that would be a popular interpretation on Fox News, Sowell brutha.
      - athbr
        
        You just don’t want them to have jobs. Got it!
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        No, I think his concern is the same as mine (but maybe I’m wrong): trade deals that don’t protect the environment, don’t ensure living wages (and practically legitimize slave wages), and funnel more of the world’s wealth to the 1% or 0.1%.
      - athbr
        
        Except that it is clearly not what is happening. Worldwide incomes are becoming more equitable and inequality is rapidly falling. Can you show me one statistic of worldwide incomes over your choice of timespan where the 1% are benefitting at the expense of the rest??? If you can’t find one, then refer to the one the Washington Post published last week which supports my claim – worldwide, the fastest growing income group is 40th to 80th %ile. The only non-growing sections are in the top 80th to 90th percentiles.
      - bwollsch
        
        How about this link. Just look at the gains for top quintile vs the rest, especially the lowest quintile. The top 1% are indeed taking more than their fair share at the expense of others.
        
        http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php
      - Epicurus
        
        He is talking about what is happening worldwide in the aggregate. It looks better.
        
        He doesn’t want to discuss what is happening in the U.S. alone. Too embarrassing.
      - athbr
        
        https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/06/wonk-globalincome0625-1.jpg&w=480
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        Hmm, that’s quite an interesting chart.
      - athbr
        
        To me, it shows that there certain groups that suffer from trade and need help – and I’m more than happy to pay higher tax rates to help them through that transition. But, this chart also goes to Bob’s comments earlier: that the rhetoric raised by people who have a vested political stake in restricting trade and immigration is taken for fact now instead of people critically examining whether those claims of supposed evil are actually true.
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        Same here.
        
        Agreed.
        
        Thanks for helping to educate.
      - Epicurus
        
        What are the “claims of supposed evil?”
        
        Do you believe in open borders, open immigration, and open citizenship?
      - athbr
        
        Do you believe in building walls?
      - Epicurus
        
        No. Have the courtesy to answer my question.
      - athbr
        
        Ok, I’ll bite. Yes, Yes, and yes with residency periods.
      - Epicurus
        
        That’s the true libertarian position, the free, unrestricted flow of labor and goods across all borders.
      - Epicurus
        
        Thinking a bit further down the line, what happens when intelligent machines (which don’t require health care) do most of the work?
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        The fair distribution of good in an economy where labor has little value is a problem that people will have to figure out as time goes along.
        
        The post-capitalist world will look like the capitalistic world. If someone has something that someone else values then they will sell it or rent it out. That’s capitalism.
      - Epicurus
        
        I don’t see how there can’t be a much larger role for the state in providing the necessities of life.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        “The state” meaning “us”?
        
        This is a problem we will have to solve in the future. We need to be thinking and talking about it. Perhaps we can come up with a very workable solution that makes life wonderful.
        
        Switzerland just voted on a guaranteed income for all citizens. Something like $2,500 a month. It didn’t pass and it may or may not have been “the” solution but it shows that we’re starting to think about the problem.
        —-
        
        Population control is an entirely separate issue. And it’s probably solved.
        
        Birth rates are falling. In 50 (?) years we should hit peak population and population numbers should start dropping.
        
        If you look at country fertility rates half the world’s countries are already reproducing at less than replacement levels. The countries that have higher than replacement level births are mostly the countries which are less developed.
        
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate
        
        Hopefully between development, education of females, and better access to birth control materials we’ll hit peak population sooner and at a lower level.
      - Epicurus
        
        Yes, the state is us.
        
        Right, population problems are solved by education and access to birth control. Given the opportunity, women usually
        make intelligent decisions about reproduction. The U.S. could make a big contribution here.
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        Exactly. I don’t know where I wrote about it (maybe this thread) but the hoarding of wealth, incessant greed, and political power of the 0.01% is driving society off a cliff. Anyone ignoring that and enabling it because of other matters they care about is trying to rearrange the deck chairs…
      - Epicurus
        
        As I said to eveee, capitalism with its vaunted “self-interest” may have already destroyed us. I fear we are already in the early phase of a temperature death spiral (as the methane hydrate starts to melt) which will result in the destruction of most life on the planet.
        
        The theory that everyone acting in their individual self-interest only will result in the common good is so ridiculous on its face that it’s laughable.
        
        “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will
        do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.”
      - Epicurus
        
        The “working class” (the people who provide physical or low skilled labor, like factory workers) in developed countries is the most at risk. These are the people who the owners of capital are most eager to replace with cheaper foreign labor, or machines if possible. Is that the primary lesson?
      - Epicurus
        
        It would be interesting to see what happened to the income of the top .0001%. The top 1% of the entire world is a lot of people.
        
        Compare to what has happened within the U.S.:
        
        http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/
        
        Does lumping the entire world’s income into a graph obscure some important truths?
      - bwollsch
        
        Or how about this one:
      - Epicurus
        
        The question arises whether what is happening in the U.S. now is what will happen everywhere eventually.
      - Epicurus
        
        It would be interesting to see what happened with respect to the ownership of capital during that period.
      - athbr
        
        So, now it’s no longer “they’re destroying the environment” and “they’re not being paid enough”? At least the Trump guys are quite frank and honest – what is it about you that you need cloak your nativism in convoluted concepts.
        
        Guess what? You need to make about 34k to be in the top 1% of the world. As skewed as the global wealth distribution is, I’m guessing that you’re part of that evil group on the wealthy extreme. Tar and feathers and off with your head. 🙂
      - Epicurus
        
        What a list of non sequiturs.
        
        What concept is “convoluted” in your mind?
      - athbr
        
        The idea that you think trade is making the world poorer. That is bogus. You don’t want trade because you think it will hurt your individual livelihood. There are plenty of people who oppose coal regulations for similar reasons. There is nothing wrong with that. Just be honest. Don’t give us these crappy conspiracy theories about corporate overlords.
      - Epicurus
        
        Trade has no impact on my livelihood at all. My individual livelihood is more dependent on the prices of oil and gas than anything else.
        
        I am fully in favor of trade, fair trade.
        
        You don’t really understand the opposition to trade pacts like NAFTA and the TPP. These trade pacts are about a lot more than “free trade.” Among other things, they are about ceding our sovereignty to corporations, foreign and domestic. Here’s a real example, hot off the presses:
        
        http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/25/transcanada-nafta-keystone-xl-tpp/
      - athbr
        
        “I am fully in favor of trade, fair trade.”
        
        Where exactly have I heard that over the last 24 hours??? Oh yeah. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/30/trump_im_not_against_free_trade_i_want_fair_trade_i_just_want_better_deals.html
      - Epicurus
        
        Does everything Trump says have to be wrong?
        
        Hitler opposed smoking. Does that make smoking good?
      - Epicurus
        
        The .1%ers don’t want worldwide environmental standards because they want to be able to treat poor countries like a toilet, worse really because we don’t put deadly toxins in the toilet. Google for pictures of what the international oil industry did to Nigeria. It’s horrendous, unbelievable. They couldn’t get away with anything like it in a first world country. The environmental devastation motivated guerilla groups in Nigeria.
        
        Similarly, they don’t want worldwide labor and safety standards either.
        
        These are moral issues.
        
        I will concede the wage issue is a thorny one and that it is probably impossible to maintain our living standard if we compete in a world labor market.
      - Epicurus
        
        And you believe in slave labor. Got it, Sowell brutha.
neroden

This is why Clinton is perceived as weak tea and a sellout. Feelgood statements, yes. Commitment to productive actions, no.

Fracking is spectactularly unpopular, thanks to (a) poisoning water supplies, (b) causing earthquakes, (c) the companies routinely cheating the local landowners, and (d) not actually being profitable!!!

It’s already been banned outright in New York. It would not be so hard to ban it nationally.

If I were in a swing state, I’d vote for Clinton, but I’m not in a swing state, so Green Party it is….
- bwollsch
  
  You’ll never ban fracking nationally. States like North Dakota and Texas rely on it heavily. Texas and Colorado have also made it illegal for a local municipality to ban fracking. And a Republican (Koch) controlled Congress will never allow it to happen.
  - Zachary Shahan
    
    A handful of years ago, people claimed gay marriage would never be legal across the country…
    - bwollsch
      
      Now there is an idea. Who do we sue so that the Supreme Court will be able to hear the case and rule that clean air and no green house gasses are a constitutional right?
AllenHans

What really is the point of including legislative non-starters in the party platform? I find myself in the Clinton camp on this one — these points (specifically the carbon tax and fracking ban) are at best a distraction from the real work that needs to be done, and would only amount to handing a bat to the other side that they could beat you with.

I’m curious if many people here would see a fracking ban as a good thing? NG is such a good complement to renewables in the medium term. I prefer Obama’s approach, which Clinton has said she’d continue, to focus on improved regulation and enforcement to minimize methane leaks and ground-water pollution.
- Zachary Shahan
  
  A carbon fee & dividend has been pushed by Republican leaders for a long time — yes, a fringe of them, but how are you going to get anyone one board if Democrats won’t champion it? For years, fossil fuel companies and utilities have said they expect a price on carbon will come eventually … but Democratic “leaders” keep punting on it, even on 1st down!
  
  Fracking is hugely opposed across the US. We have more than enough natural gas capacity in place right now for renewable energy to reach a hugely higher penetration. And in any case, fracking doesn’t have to be part of the portfolio. I don’t know if its corruption or ignorance that would make the Democratic leadership *not* take up a cause that would have the strong backing of large portions of the population. Who wants polluted groundwater in their backyard?
  - dcard88
    
    You and Allen just painted both sides of the coin. Until we get a congress that cares, we’ll just keep flippin it.
  - sault
    
    This isn’t just about the presidential election. The Dems need to turn the Senate blue to have any hope of enacting any climate / energy legislation. And a lot of these elections are in coal / oil / gas territory or in the “rust belt” where it’s really easy to run effective attack ads against any environmental policy.
    
    I agree with Allen, why give the opposition stronger talking points (even if they’re mostly BS with a kernel of truth tucked in) in order to craft a party platform that can’t even pass Congress? It’s mostly self-defeating. And even if it’s just in an effort to throw a bone to climate activists like Bill McKibben, you and I, the 99% of voters that don’t pay attention to climate and energy issues won’t notice. All most people know about these issues is that Democrats want to protect the environment and Republicans want to drill, baby, drill. Support for protecting the environment is broad among the population but not very deep, meaning people can be swayed fairly easily by BS attack ads paid for by the fossil fuel companies. It’s sad that putting in the policies we need into the party platform would actually be counterproductive. But that’s just the way things work in the current political / media / electoral environment we have right now.
    - bwollsch
      
      Some people may be swayed by attack ads, but I think most a driven by the paychecks. Fossil fuel companies pay very well. It is not uncommon for a roughneck with nothing more than a high school degree to make $100,000 year. You can’t make that kind of money in renewables. States that have fossil fuels under the ground don’t want to loose the tax revenues that come from extracting. And you have another group that just plain doesn’t believe in global warming and doesn’t want the gov’mint telling them what to do.
      
      Until we get a majority in Congress that cares about the environment, it will be hard. Just look at all the Republican candidates for president this cycle, not a one of them was pro-environment and neither are a majority running for Congress.
      - Xander66
        
        Over the last 8 glacial, inter-glacial cycles CO2, unaided by the burning of fossil fuels, fluctuated, in the “natural” carbon cycle, between 180 ppm and 280 ppm and this change of 100 ppm took between 20,000 to 50,000 years.
        
        When CO2 emissions from natural sources are balanced out by the CO2 that is naturally absorbed, global average temperature remains relatively constant and Earth enjoys a stable climate.
        .
        This “just right” amount of CO2 (280 ppm) kept the Earth’s average global temperature in the “Goldilocks” zone (not to hot, not to cold) for over 12,000 years allowing a relatively stable, temperate, Mediterranean type climate, with regular river flow to develop. This climate allowed for extensive farming and human-kind transitioned from hunter-gatherers to farmers, giving rise to civilization.
        
        Earth’s natural carbon cycle is a complex system of biological, chemical and physical processes operating in balance, whereby CO2 is sequestered in plants during the spring and summer growing season through photosynthesis and ‘naturally’ recycled back into the atmosphere through respiration and decomposing plants in the fall and winter.
        
        About 150 years ago, a new factor emerged that is having a huge effect on average global temperature (AGT). That new factor is the addition of more CO2 into a carbon cycle that nature had kept in balance over hundreds of thousands of years. This extra CO2 comes from humans burning fossil fuels.
        
        The CO2 level has now reached 408 ppm and is rising at the rate of 100 ppm in 31 years instead of 20,000 to 50,000 years.
        
        According to the Geological Society, there is no known precedent in the history of the Earth for the rate at which we are now increasing the atmospheric level of CO2, from the burning fossil fuels.
        
        Earth’s current level of CO2 at 408 ppm exceeds the atmospheric conditions of the Pliocene era (350 to 400 ppm of CO2), which ended about 2.6 million years ago.
        
        Pliocene average global temperatures (AGT) were only about 2 to 3 C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures (13.2 C).
        
        Those temperatures drove an intense hydrological cycle with extreme evaporation and precipitation. This led to extensive rain forests, lush Savannah’s (now occupied by deserts), small ice caps (about two-thirds of the present) and the sea level was about 25 meters higher than at present.
        
        Life abounded during the Pliocene. But such conditions mean agriculture would not be possible. The tropical Pliocene had intense alternating downpours and heat waves.
        
        The regular river flow and temperate Mediterranean type climates we are accustomed to, which allow for extensive farming which gave rise to human civilization could not exist under those conditions.
        
        After reviewing the latest climate science reports the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) has reported with ‘high confidence’ that without cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the world risks ‘severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems’.
        
        Severe, Pervasive and Irreversible Impacts
        
        When it comes to global warming, “effect” follows “cause” by 40 years. The climate changes we are currently experiencing come as a result of the CO2 levels as they were in 1975.
        
        We are now vulnerable to a level of climate disruption that human civilization has simply never seen before.
        
        We won’t get a do-over on this.
        
        Tell that to the roughneck with nothing more than a high school degree who makes $100,000 year and the Governors of States that don’t want to loose the tax revenues.
        
        Tell that group that just plain doesn’t believe in global warming that it’s a matter of physics, not belief and to stop listening to those puppets paid by Exxon and big coal to create doubt where there is none.
        
        Then tell everyone you know to vote for the candidate that will support action to implement a “Carbon Fee and Dividend” program and if they don’t know what that is or how it works tell them to Google it. Work to get the majority needed.
        
        We won’t get a do-over on this.
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        +10
      - bwollsch
        
        Agreed but how? Red states in the Midwest and the South don’t appear to have any candidates that support “Carbon Fee and Dividend” initiatives. And the voters in those states don’t want to lose their jobs. I don’t know of anyone who would agree to give up their job because it is harming the planet or others.
      - eveee
        
        GIve up one to get more than two. Way more jobs from wind and solar than coal and oil. Tell them to get retrained doing solar and wind. We all have to change. But at least change for the better.
        
        https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2012/07/jobs.jpg
- Epicurus
  
  Fracking, unfortunately IMO, has, unjustly, become a symbol for everything people hate about the oil and gas industry. It takes the rap for fresh water pollution (turn on the tap and light it on fire) which is really caused by casing leaks which themselves are caused mostly by bad cement jobs.
  
  Fracking also gets blamed for all the earthquakes in Oklahoma and other areas where the shale plays have boomed. The earthquakes are actually caused by the injection of saltwater, a byproduct of oil and gas production, not fracking.
  
  There is no good reason to ban fracking by itself. The best thing to do is support policies to get us off the use of oil and gas.
- Bob_Wallace
  
  The party platform is basically a meaningless document. Candidates don’t actually run on the party platform and elected officials don’t govern based on it.
  
  I really dislike fracking. But I dislike coal more.
  
  Clean up and control NG while we bring the price of storage lower so that we can quit using NG as quickly as possible.
  - Zachary Shahan
    
    Well, it certainly has a place in the overall conversation, and party leadership treat it like it’s very important.
    
    “Commentators downplaying the platform’s significance note that it has no actual enforcement mechanism, and that there’s no guarantee a President Hillary Clinton wouldn’t jettison most — or all — of its main provisions.
    
    “And that’s true. But while the platform itself isn’t binding, it does represent the stated objectives of the Democratic Party. What it says is the clearest expression of what the party stands for and is, more broadly, one of the best ways to gauge the party’s overall direction.”
    
    ” ‘We know that voters in the public get pulled in the direction of the people with the microphone,’ Enos says. ‘If someone gets up there and tries pulling some issue to the left, the party can move in that direction.’ ”
    
    Not the most important document in the world, but if these Democrats can’t support such basic improvements to policy in this document, what does that say about their concern for climate action?
    - Bob_Wallace
      
      I cut candidates a great deal of slack when it comes to not talking about certain issues. Why make an enemy when there is no need to do so?
      
      One has to run on issues that have the broadest appeal and avoid the most contentious, as possible. It’s like PBO’s “all of the above” statement about energy while slyly putting a thumb on the scale, tipping it toward renewables. No reason to get the nuclear advocates all up in arms and might as well let coal advocates dream of clean coal. Economics assure the coming end of nuclear and coal.
    - eveee
      
      If the platform shoots down the environment, is the rest of the party going to do anything? I say it gives the cover to do the same chicken game. It’s bs and it’s nauseating for the party to pull this. Keep this up, and the young Sanders voters are going to defect. The DNC is complacent and corrupt. Look no further than Debbie Wasserman and payday loans.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Sure, there’s some corruption inside the Democratic party. Ever so often an elected Democrat gets caught with his or her hand in the cookie jar. And big money pays too large a role in our elections which means that Democrats may, at times, be swayed to help out one or more of their donors.
        
        If you want purity then crawl under you bed until someone invents a pure form of government.
      - eveee
        
        Not looking for purity. Looking for people to wake up and realize their platform is being stolen by corporate interests after the fracas is over. Americans have to learn that politics is a full contact sport. You don’t quit pushing after the primary votes are cast or after the election is over. That’s when it’s most important to keep up the pressure.
        
        Like FDR said, “make me do it”. We need to “make” them do it.
        
        It’s not about purity. It’s about being savvy about the political process.
        
        And I don’t believe in the all sides do it so might as well vote for the LIbertarian party nonsense. We saw how that worked out with Nader. The Republicans will torch the environment. The Dems can be forced to behave with pressure. But don’t stop the pressure while being fooled into thinking they are all green and wonderful. That’s all I’m saying. Dems get lobbying pressure and have to fund their campaigns, too.
        
        But there is little doubt about which party is best for the environment. The problem with the US is that only two parties control everything and the voters have less control over the primary process which is somewhat less than democratic, IMO.
- eveee
  
  They vote against every single one except bikes. If that had been our leadership during slavery, US would still be a slave nation. No guts, no glory.
- Xander66
  
  A “Carbon Fee & Dividend” would prove to be a powerful tool to combat climate change in a timely manner. There is support from the other side and by including implementation of a “Carbon Fee & Dividend” in the Democratic platform it creates the opportunity to push the discussion at state and local levels as well as federal. This is not a distraction, this IS the point.
  
  Over the last 8 glacial, inter-glacial cycles CO2, unaided by the burning of fossil fuels, fluctuated, in the “natural” carbon cycle, between 180 ppm and 280 ppm and this change of 100 ppm took between 20,000 to 50,000 years.
  
  CO2 is now rising at the rate of 100 ppm in only 31 years (3.2 ppm per year).
  
  According to the Geological Society, there is no known precedent in the history of the Earth for the rate at which we are now increasing the atmospheric level of CO2, from the burning fossil fuels.
  
  When it comes to global warming, “effect” follows “cause” by 40 years. The climate changes we are currently experiencing come as a result of the CO2 levels as they were in 1975.
  
  We are now vulnerable to a level of climate disruption that human civilization has simply never seen before.
  
  We won’t get a do-over on this.
  
  Without implementing a “Carbon Fee & Dividend” program the Paris agreement is not achievable for America and without American leadership many other countries will also fail to meet the the goals they agreed to in Paris.
  
  Exxon and their oil and coal partners perpetrated the most consequential lie in human history with their climate change denial program. Exxon spent countless dollars fighting the truth that they themselves discovered more than 35 years ago.
  
  How much longer would you suggest our politicians wait to take action. It’s well past time for them to make a statement on behalf of American citizens.
  
  You are “curious if many people here would see a fracking ban as a good thing”. I’m guessing only people (like me) who would prefer to prevent, rather than minimize, methane leaks and ground-water pollution would see a ban on fracking as a good thing.
  
  I don’t know you, but from the nature of your comment, I’d have to guess that either you just don’t know enough, or you’re on some oil company’s payroll. Shame on you.
- eveee
  
  What? Every single proposal quashed except bikes? Gimme a break. One or two maybe. Not every one but bikes. Face it. The platform isn’t exactly environmentally friendly. Talk is cheap. Especially when the platform crumbles before corporate interests even before the presidential election begins. The corporations think they go the electorate. DT has move the whole perspective toward dirty energy. The only choice left is something cleaner than DT which is about like taking a bath inside a vacuum cleaner bag.
Shane 2

Tom Steyer’s dollars are dwarfed by fossil sludge dollars. Thanks Exxon. Thanks Kock brothers.
Shane 2

Murica has the best democracy money can buy.
- Shane 2
  
  Check out the “Chevron loophole”
  @ 8:50 mins
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiiIjPzmkBY&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ
  - eveee
    
    You might be interested in this. Looks like Sanders won the California primary. There has been all kinds of voting irregularity. I am getting sick of the DNC. All the superdelegates to HC before it started?
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q50liF72HjA&feature=em-subs_digest
Shane 2

Vote Trump to make climate change great again. Climate change is going to be tremendous.
- Zachary Shahan
  
  Definitely not voting Trump!
  
  But the idea that Democrats shouldn’t be progressive (on issues the public supports!) is absurd to me, and it has done the party no favors, imho.
  - athbr
    
    Well, problem is that for better or worse, there is a lot of social strife in the US like in Europe and issues around globalism, trade, and identity rank higher for many people this year than sustainability. Democrats (like me) pushed back against Bernie because of his attempts to shut down immigration and trade. I’d rather not live in a green country that shuts itself off from the world. If it weren’t 2016 where a large section of the majority demographic define themselves as ‘angry’ (that’s quite scary to someone like me who is not one of them!), I would most likely vote for the greener candidate.
    - Zachary Shahan
      
      What anti-immigrant stance did Sanders have? He’s been one of the most open candidates I recall having a shot at the presidency.
      
      As far as trade, TPP is a disaster in critical ways that NAFTA was a disaster … NAFTA was untouchable among establishment politicians and now TPP is. NAFTA is now acknowledged to have been quite helpful in screwing up the US economy and jobs, and TPP will likely be there at some point too if it goes through as proposed. Plus… note the comments from Epicurus on the matter. Really not in the world’s interest to have corporations allowed to supercede national regulations and protection of its people.
      - athbr
        
        If Bernie’s immigration proposals had been law, Elon would be stuck in Canada right now because the visa type he used would have been outlawed. Just saying! Bernie has been talking out of both sides of his mouth on immigration. The side that I look at are the bills he’s constantly trying to push for (co-sponsored with Jeff Sessions R-AL, another nativist!) and the constant stream of amendments he proposes always center around restricting work based immigration.
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        Hmm, okay, I am admittedly not very well read on this topic (only so much time in the day), so I won’t claim to know better. I was under the impression he was good on immigration.
      - athbr
        
        Unfortunately, his immigration stance are probably the primary reason he lost hispanics and asians (like me). It’s actually quite tragic from a green perspective because I agree with practically the entire green agenda, but I’m a strong believer of open borders and free trade. I support free trade primarily because the source of cheap solar is currently in China, not the US. Flooding the world with cheap panels should be our goal, not protecting old, local industry.
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        Yes, well, that is tragic… and another point that none of us probably line up with *all* of the supposed progressive values.
        
        I’m in support of free trade. But I’m not in support of corporations gaining more and more power to rip people off, destroy their health, and keep growing the inequality divide.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        The seperate the two issues. I agree with you entirely. Open the world up for trade. But deal with the problem of concentration and wealth and power.
        
        And establish trade laws that keep countries from engaging in unfair trade.
        
        A major progressive value, my understanding, is to make the world a better place for all. And sometimes those of us with a very large share of the goodies might have to share them a bit.
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        Yes. And it seems 1) there are just too many people uninterested in sharing, especially with “others,” and 2) greed is too built into the corporate mindset, with corporations demolishing human morals time and time again in order to make more profits.
        
        Tough issues to improve on…
      - Larry
        
        Thanks for saying that, Zach. Totally on the mark
      - Larry
        
        2) is a false premise. Greed is not a function of a corporation, it’s an attribute of the human condition.
      - bwollsch
        
        Agreed, but the rich (er, most) don’t see it that way. There is no sharing for the greater good, only what is good for ME. I read an article that said most Americans would rather buy cheap imported goods than pay for higher priced American goods.
        
        Yes, there is a problem with the Chinese dumping steel and sweatshop labor in the Far East. Trade deals are supposed to prevent this, but don’t.
        
        But one of the biggest problems is US manufacturers closing down facilities here in the US and moving them to countries with lax labor laws. How do we combat that? The 1% who want these policies have elected those that enact laws to enable them to do these things. This is a problem with Congress, but there is very little turnover for either body. Sure in 2010 and 2014, but just enough to change the majority, not enough for meaningful change.
      - athbr
        
        Hmm, by all measures trade is causing a reduction of global inequality, not otherwise. Globally, the fastest growing incomes are people at the 40-80% – which is what we want. Trade is impacting people in the global 80-99% adversely and the fact that that hasn’t been taken into account is a huge failing especially because they are concentrated in a handful of regions (we can do many things like raise taxes, raise welfare and services, etc.)
        
        I don’t think anybody supports corporations ripping people off either, but nothing in the trade deals we have do anything that would be different in international arbitration anyway – you don’t put disputes out to vote “by the people”, you follow the judicial process, which is not meant to be democratic. It is the same if you get divorced – “the people” don’t get a say as to who gets to keep the good china. All that the trade deals have done, to my knowledge, is put into agreements how such disputes will be solved under the free trade regime.
        
        I think people have other reasons why they want NAFTA or the TPP to fail or to have fewer people like Elon (or browner versions of him) come in. So, there is a lot of rhetoric and fear that has been kicked up with different flavors in both sides of our political spectrum.
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        Here are some summary problems (which, as Bob noted, are sometimes complicated by various things happening at once globally) from NAFTA:
        
        MEXICO:
        “While the impact of U.S. investment in Mexico has been substantial, it is less than some had anticipated. Much of the trade between the two countries involved exporting U.S. parts to maquiladoras, the Mexican factories that sprang up near the border to take advantage of cheap labor. Workers would assemble the parts into goods, such as appliances, television sets and auto assemblies, then re-export the assembled products to the U.S.
        
        “Corporate investment in maquiladoras was expected to produce a Mexican middle class that would become a large market for U.S.goods. But the plan failed to live up to expectations, as skills and productivity lagged behind labor costs and jobs moved to China. U.S./Mexico truck-transport problems also raised costs for Mexican products coming to the U.S. (The middle class may be on the decline in the U.S. as well. Read Losing The Middle Class to learn more.)
        
        “To compound the problem, the migration of workers from Mexico City and further south in numbers not easily accommodated in small border towns produced overpopulated slums with high living costs for the Mexican workers. Nonetheless, some argue that the competition between Asia and the U.S. could have become worse without the temporary low-cost labor available to U.S. companies in Mexico.”
        
        USA
        “Clearly, large multi-national companies with investment capacities, world-market savvy and capital resources have benefited from protected investment and cheap labor. These companies enhanced management performance-based compensation while putting downward pressure on production-worker wages and benefits, collective bargaining clout and available jobs, especially in manufacturing. Many view their actions as a major contributor to compensation inequality….
        
        “With their lack of internal resources, small regional businesses are not offered the same opportunities by NAFTA, and in fact, the agreement makes them more vulnerable to the concentrated local effect of a multi-national competitor. U.S. manufacturing, often in concentrated geographical areas, suffered large business and job losses as NAFTA cast a shadow over any labor-intensive process that is not highly automated….
        
        “While NAFTA’s overall financial impact has been generally positive, it has not lived up to the high expectations of its proponents. It has made many U.S. companies and investors rich – and their managements richer. But it has also cost many U.S. manufacturing workers their livelihoods while failing to raise living standards for most Mexicans. Any major market changes not dictated by market forces usually lead to both opportunity and loss, and this has happened with NAFTA.”
        
        http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free-trade-agreement.asp
        
        And discussed more here:
        
        http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_Problems.htm
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        “While NAFTA’s overall financial impact has been generally positive, it has not lived up to the high expectations of its proponents.”
        
        Now why?
        
        “But the plan failed to live up to expectations as … jobs moved to China.”
        
        The rest –
        
        “skills and productivity lagged behind labor costs” That would almost certainly have changed had China not come into the picture. The maquiladoras would have developed. The next generation of workers would have had access to the high school and college education needed to give them the skills. If nothing else factories would have opened their own training programs.
        
        But none of that was ever given a chance to develop. China.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        I think most people have no real information about NAFTA and the TPP. They’ve heard someone else (a “true progressive”) say that they were bad and took up the chant.
        
        Free trade is what lifts the world out of poverty. That’s a very progressive goal.
        
        Free trade does not mean that we have to allow unfair trade. Only the most greedy of us want regulations removed so that they can form monopolies and engage in harmful practices for profit.
        —–
        
        Something that I think we, Americans, need to understand is that we came out of WWII with our industry in excellent shape, we had massive natural resources, and we trained a very serious generation of people.
        
        Based on that and the fact that most of our competition was digging itself out of a deep hole we dominated industry and trade. It was our turn to live ‘on top’, like other countries have done throughout history. Little Portugal was the rich company for a while. Tiny England created a massive empire.
        
        We may never go back to the days where one person with a high school diploma could work a 40 hour week and support a family in a nice house with two cars and a boat.
        
        It’s not that the rest of the world is unfairly taking away that extra wealth. It’s more that we had a few decades of being king of the hill and now we’re becoming and equal among equals.
      - Zachary Shahan
        
        Raising the world to higher standards of living is, no doubt, tricky business. Here’s more specifically on the environmental catastrophes that come from sloppy “free trade” deals:
        
        WASHINGTON — A report due to be released Tuesday aims to offer an object lesson to President Barack Obama: Free trade deals have high costs in unintended consequences for the environment, people’s way of life, and local sovereignty.
        
        The report by the Sierra Club and other groups in Canada and Mexico, released on the 20th anniversary of the North American Free Trade Agreement, summarizes more than 100 nonprofit, government and scholarly studies of NAFTA, and draws a damning picture.
        
        Perhaps hardest hit is Mexico, according to the report, where expanded trade in agricultural products came at the expense of smaller farmers, who couldn’t compete with a surge in pesticide-heavy factory farms. Small farmers resorted to cutting down forests to farm more land, and still failed. A boom in mining came at the expense of local landowners, with subsequent industrial pollution.
        
        While the trade deal was billed as lifting all boats, the report argues that many of those displaced famers became undocumented migrants in the United States.
        
        In Canada, while the improved access to markets meant that exports to the U.S. soared by more than 200 percent from 1994 to 2008, wages stagnated. In the petroleum industry, Canada was contracted to continue shipping a certain amount of oil to the U.S., encouraging development of the high-cost tar sands in Alberta at the expense of alternative energy.
        
        Even in the U.S. — beyond the impact on jobs — NAFTA has meant pollution and obedience to foreign concerns. The report highlights Mexican trucking as the prime example. In spite of concerns over the safety and pollution of Mexican rigs, the Bush and Obama administrations have been forced to try and accommodate the vehicles from the south.
        
        The report estimates that a significant jump in pollution can be linked to NAFTA, with greenhouse gas emissions in the region increasing from 7 billion metric tons in 1990 to about 8.3 billion in 2005.
        
        The groups that contributed to the report want the White House to consider NAFTA’s lessons as it weighs new trade deals with Pacific nations and Europe, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the U.S. and 11 other nations.
        
        “Nearly 20 years into NAFTA and the evidence is in,” Ilana Solomon, director of the Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade Program, said in a statement. “NAFTA led to an expansion of deforestation and unsustainable water use in order to support export-oriented agriculture. It gave massive rights to corporations to challenge environmental and climate safeguards in private trade tribunals. It expanded exports in dirty fossil fuels in a time when we should be moving beyond these outdated fuels and investing in clean energy. Governments must take a page out of the history books and stop negotiating trade pacts that gut protections for our air, water, land, workers, and communities.”
        
        “If only NAFTA countries could learn from the fiasco, but they are busy signing more NAFTA-like deals around the world, further taking away our ability to protect the environment and merely crossing their fingers that our ecosystems can sustain all this new growth,” said Alejandro Villamar, a trade policy analyst with Red Mexicana de Acción Frente al Libre Comercio.
        
        Read the whole report here.
        
        http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/NAFTAReport.pdf
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Free trade between the US and Mexico would mean that the US would become the main grower of corn. Vast fertile fields which can easily be worked efficiently. Mexico can’t compete with that.
        
        The loss of small farms in Mexico should have been replaced with lower skilled manufacturing jobs but those went to China.
        
        Free trade does not mean that we have to accept products made in environmentally harmful ways or with child/slave labor.
        
        If we sign deals that allow bad environmental practices or unfair labor practices then bad on us. We can write trade agreements that don’t allow those practices.
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        We don’t vote in politicians to give away our wealth to raise the rest of the world and make the 1% even richer. NAFTA and TPP do that.
      - eveee
        
        Unintended? Or was it the goal of a capitalistic system to subjugate it a to its needs all along instead. I seriously doubt the leveling of the field resulted in uplifting workers in America. It resulted in American workers being as downtrodden as their foreign counterparts. That’s not progress. We have seen endless examples of Nike, Apple and all the corporate faces exploiting labor overseas. The jobs are lost here if they are a grind. NAFTA sounds good, but it doesn’t work that way. We should have learned that by now. Not saying we want the opposite, trade wars. Just saying look out for unintended consequences. It’s almost a sure bet that every major change gets corporate exploitation. It’s the nature of the system. And it’s been happening for decades.
      - Shane 2
        
        It’s not that the rest of the world is unfairly taking away that extra wealth. It’s more that we had a few decades of being king of the hill and now we’re becoming and equal among equals.”
        
        The hollowing out of the middle class in the USA is not just about foreign competition in foreign markets or the USA. There has be a major increase in economic inequality within the USA. More and more of the wealth being created by Americans is going to the top 10%, 1%, 0.1% etc.
      - bwollsch
        
        It’s not the rest of the world taking away the extra wealth, it’s the 1% in this country. Wages have been stagnant since the late 70’s for all but the 1%. Corporate profits have never been higher and yet, the average worker can barely make ends meet. If the 1% would give up maybe 10% of their income to be redistributed down to the working class (through jobs, not welfare), the whole economy would be in better shape.
      - John_ONeill
        
        The TPPA seems to have been devised as an ‘everyone but China ‘ treaty – along with the similar transatlantic one. Left wing parties are generally against it because it’s seen as a secretive deal negotiated by and for the big multinationals, with national sovereignty losing out to special tribunals with no democratic input. Sore points include the tobacco companies suing Australia for introducing plain packaging, the drug companies trying to prevent New Zealand’s state run Pharmac from negotiating cheap access to new medicines, the extension of copyright ( 50 years after the holder’s death ? ). Calling it ‘free trade ‘ when there’s thousands of pages of fine print is a bit of a misnomer.
        The world needs to come up with some universal mechanism for dealing with capital – so the rich don’t siphon all the cream off the economy to places with the least tax – and carbon, so savings here don’t just mean more emissions elsewhere. These trade deals don’t seem to have a word to say on either point.
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        Musk was already an illegal alien hiding away from the INS. More laws would have stopped him.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Don’t confuse NAFTA with the emergence of China as a humongous industrial power. NAFTA had nothing to do with our industry moving to China. China is not part of North America.
        
        What I’ve read is that NAFTA was probably slightly good for the US. What none of us can determine is how NAFTA would have played out had China not appeared on the scene.
        
        Trying to erect trade walls along our borders would be a losing action. Globalization is going to happen, we can either join in or get aced out. We have nothing the rest of the world really needs.
      - Ivor O’Connor
        
        “We have nothing the rest of the world really needs.” Especially after we’ve outsourced everything because people like you think raising the rest of the world by outsourcing our jobs and leaving Americans with nothing is a good thing.
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Here’s what we did. We bought goods from other countries because they sold to us at a lower price.
        
        We outsourced our own jobs.
        
        Americans certainly did not get left with nothing. Our living standard is still one of the highest. And it would be higher if we stopped overpaying the very few at the top and gave those at the bottom a decent return for the time they spend working.
      - Russell
        
        Agree except “We have nothing the rest of the world really needs”. I am in NZ and I need google + I am sure lots of other stuff from USA!
      - Bob_Wallace
        
        Those sorts of things can be replicated in other countries. We don’t own the only (something the world can’t do without) mines.
      - Ann456456
        
        I currently profit approximately 6k-8k dollars a month for freelance jobs i do at home. Those who are ready to work basic online work for 2h-5h daily from your living room and earn solid income while doing it… Then this work is for you… SELF40.COM
        
        gfhgfhf
- dcard88
  
  lol