Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang unveiled his climate policy, which would both decrease heat-trapping pollution and adapt to the changing planet.
[quote=“Trolly, post:929, topic:91, full:true”]
I put in a decent-size bet that Tulsi wouldn’t qualify for the next debate; now its super exciting for me when these polls come in. Tulsi needs 3 more polls of >2% to get in, I’m feeling good but this is a sweat.[/quote]
Winner winner. Tulsi stans are my new favorite Predictit fish.
I’ve dug into the Yang plan. It’s basically line for line what econ nerds want to do about global warming. This is not a surprise to me.
In particular notice the carbon fee and dividend proposal. That’s the approach we’re probably going to take in real life to deal with climate change. It’s way way way better than the centralized approach favored by the far left. It’ll cost less to do and happen muuuuuuch faster.
EDIT: I hadn’t gotten to the second half of it earlier. This thing is really good. I think this climate plan is the closest thing to realistic I’ve seen from anyone. It’s both aggressive and feasible. You know someone has really thought it through when they talk about the need to reform flood insurance ASAP.
To the best of my knowledge the Green New Deal doesn’t have a carbon tax/dividend in it (which is the reason I’m against it), and neither does Bernie. I’m not sure if Warren does or not.
Results in this release are based on 298 registered voters who identify as Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party, which has a +/- 5.7 percentage point sampling margin of error.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s awesome that Biden is dropping, but sample size…eek.
Whenever we see a divergence between Iowa polls and national polls, the question is whether it has something to do with Iowa’s demographics or, rather, the fact that the campaign is more active in Iowa than it is nationally. If the differences are demographic in nature, then Biden might not have as much to worry about — the Democrats who turn out to caucus in Iowa are white and liberal, whereas he overperforms among nonwhite and moderate Democrats, who make up bigger parts of the electorate in states such as South Carolina and most of the Super Tuesday states. Alternatively, if Biden’s numbers are middling in Iowa because voters don’t like him as much upon prolonged exposure to him, that could mean it’s more of a canary in the coal mine, and that voters in other states will tire of Biden once they begin paying more attention to the campaign.
Anyone for massive green intervention but not for a carbon tax (usually because they plan to use green initiatives to massively undermine the free market like they did with agriculture in the 30’s… something I consider to be just about the worst thing the federal government has done in the last century in terms of impact on its citizens).
Basically if your first thought when confronting potentially apocalyptic climate change is to try to use it as an opportunity to end capitalism I think you’re pretty far left.
The green new deal had no plans at all to implement anything, carbon tax or otherwise. It wasn’t legislation. It was “meant to start a conversation”. You can argue that it was typical stupid dems being naive, thinking this is an episode of The West Wing and trying to start an honest conversation with people who are just going to strawman and mock you dishonestly. That’s a fair criticism of the green new deal imo, but the fact that it doesn’t mention a carbon tax is irrelevant because it didn’t mention any legislative solutions.
https://www.yang2020.com/blog/climate-change pic.twitter.com/azPcr4SxhO
