There needs to be a new Department of Climate Change. Inslee should be the first secretary.
2 Likes
I agree with this. I hope we elect someone who does exactly that.
| Ā | Were they in the last debate? | Appeals to | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beto | [center]X[/center] | centrists, the ladies | quite tall, elite hacking skills | couldnāt win senate election, not liberal enough |
| Biden | [center]X[/center] | Obama voters, readers of the onion | Obama nostalgia | too old, might have a #MeToo problem |
| Bennet | [center]X[/center] | centrists | loves to compromise! | just another boring-ass white dude |
| Booker | [center]X[/center] | centrists and the center-left | establishment support | establishment support |
| Bullock | Ā | All 57 Montanans | can win in a red state | Montanaās not even a real state, prove me wrong |
| Buttigieg | [center]X[/center] | young people, Rust Belt yambags | youthful, Midwestern cred, team Hufflepuff | inexperienced, silly name |
| Castro | [center]X[/center] | centrists | a least heās not Cuomo | silly voice, looks like a doofus |
| de Blasio | [center]X[/center] | no one, not even New Yorkers | he was a big-city mayor, I guess | basicaly nobody wants him to run |
| Delaney | [center]X[/center] | wait, who? | literally just some guy | for real, who the **** is this guy? |
| Gabbard | [center]X[/center] | fans of Bill Mahr and Glenn Greenwald | super liberal on lots of issues, kinda hot | unelectable, dubious statements about Islam and LGBT issues |
| Gillibrand | [center]X[/center] | New Yorkers, politics wonks | Blue Dog Democrat support | Flip-floppy Blue Dog |
| Harris | [center]X[/center] | Law And Order fans | good chops as a federal prosecutor | is a straight-up NARC |
| Klobuchar | [center]X[/center] | politics wonks, George Will | Minnesota nice, tough on grammatical errors, good aim | throws things at people |
| Mesam | Ā | FSU football fans | Might do well in Florida? | inexperienced, zero name recognition |
| Moulton | Ā | centrists | He was a a Marine, I guess | just another boring-ass white dude |
| Ryan | [center]X[/center] | Ohioans | Might do well in Ohio? | Easily confused with Paul Ryan |
| Sanders | [center]X[/center] | Millenials, Berniebros | socialist liberal cred, name recognition | too old, pisses off HIllary fans |
| Steyer | Ā | people who love hedge fund managers | has a *&%$load of money | might actually be Mitt Romney |
| Warren | [center]X[/center] | Berniebros | strong on banking regulation/consumer protection | āunelectableā |
| Williamson | [center]X[/center] | woo-woo people, Oprah | spiritual healing powers, charity work | kinda out there |
| Yang | [center]X[/center] | liberals, anime weirdos | lots of good ideas | creepy fan base |
1 Like
Did you just copy that in? How did you do that?
1 Like
Lol at Warren being unelectable when sheās the best non Asian political candidate.
This is infuriating. The crescendo to skepticism and Chris Hayesā question about trusting Warren, as though liberal politicians like Liz are responsible for unkept promises and the decades-long funneling of wealth to fewer and fewer. jfc
Shares
275
bernie sanders rally
Bernie Sanders has laid out an ambitious 10-year, $16.3tn national mobilization to avert climate catastrophe, warning that the US risks losing $34.5tn in economic productivity by the end of the century if it does not respond with the urgency the threat demands.
The Vermont senator has long spoken of the climate crisis as a existential danger to the US and the world, and he has previously endorsed a Green New Deal, which he put forward with the New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Sanders will formally unveil his proposal on Thursday during a campaign visit to Paradise, California, a town that was destroyed in 2018 by one of the deadliest wildfires in US history. After the tour, the senator will hold a climate change town hall in Chico, California.
1 Like
I donāt understand why the left doesnāt gather around the carbon tax and dividend model. Itās the easiest thing to get done, and would work the best. You want to decarbonize by 2050? Start with a 20$ a ton carbon tax in 2021 and increment it up 2.5 bucks a year from then on out. Offer to pay half the carbon tax amount for carbon capture. Then sit back and watch the public figure it out. I bet you hit net zero emissions by 2035.
Isnāt a carbon tax very regressive because just like tariffs corporations will add them to the consumer price?
2 Likes
Thatās why you go revenue neutral and give 90%+ of the money back as a UBI. That way you send the poor more money than it costs them in increased prices. The poor obviously consume a LOT less carbon than the rich, so them getting a UBI based on the total carbon tax raised is a pretty big win for them.
Carbon tariff? Tariff rates based on CO2/BTU in country of origin. Perhaps tied to Paris Goals or something.
Carbon tax is maybe flat, not regressive. Rich people consume way more energy and things like tiered energy rates and mass transit are quite progressive countermeasures.
I feel like I would be better at running for president than John Delaney.
Yeah this is what caused the yellow vest protests in france.
A lot of people would be. But itās his money to burn ldo.
They tried to take the carbon tax money and keep it. Big mistake. That is in fact extremely regressive and greatly limits how much you can charge for carbon. The point isnāt to raise money itās to change incentives and make businesses value carbon like itās money. Itās amazing how fast they can cut carbon usage when it costs something. A 40 dollar a ton tax would raise a lot of money to be sureā¦ but nowhere near as much money as the current carbon output * 40.
The poor spend a bigger percentage of their income on energy though.(I donāt have statistics to prove that, Iām guessing) That is why itās considered regressive as a tax alone.
That may be true, but itās not obvious to me. I look at a lot of utility bills and the rich certainly spend a lot. Thereās also travel and cars and the energy required to build their homes and all their stuff. Maybe itās somewhat regressive, especially gasoline. But anyway, there are tradeoffs and if you want policy to affect energy choices this is not going to be avoidable. Regulations against pollution from energy providers is just as regressive. Forcing oil companies to clean up spills is just as regressive.
Naive question perhaps, but wouldnāt it be best / least regressive to just throw all your resources into making cleaner energy more competitive? You can target additional taxes (e.g. to fund solar subsidies) to whatever subset of the population you want.