Bernie re: Hillary's Climate Change proposals "good, but not enough"

[99th_Monkey]

Last edited Wed Jul 29, 2015, 12:19 AM - Edit history (1)

Sen. Bernie Sanders sees a big gaping hole in Hillary Clinton’s newly released climate-change proposals: the Keystone pipeline.

“It is hard for me to understand how one can be concerned about climate change but not vigorously oppose the Keystone pipeline,” Sanders, who is challenging Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, said in a statement released on Tuesday.

The statement came in response to Clinton being asked during a town-hall event in New Hampshire about her thoughts on the pipeline. Clinton demurred when asked.

“This is President Obama’s decision and I’m not going to second-guess him because I was in a position to set this in motion and I do not think that would be the right thing to do,” Clinton said.

That response and Sanders’ attack came a day after the former secretary of state and Democratic frontrunner unveiled her ambitious set of goals for the environment. Clinton proposed a goal of producing a third of the nation’s electricity from renewable energy from 2027 as well as installing 500 million solar panels by 2020.

That wasn’t enough for Sanders, who said her proposals were a good idea but “not enough.” “We must make significant reductions in carbon emissions and break our dependency on fossil fuels,” Sanders said. “That is why I have helped lead the fight in the Senate against the Keystone pipeline, which would transport some of the dirtiest fossil fuel in the world.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-attacks-clintons-climate-plan-not-enough-120738.html?hp=l5_4

[AgingAmerican]

1. The Keystone tar sands

...are said to contain twice as much carbon as humanity has burned up to this point in history.

Bernie is right.

[Sheepshank]

2. Ahhh so he does change his mind and he does attack.

Bernista ideologies aside....i don't know how and why she isn't really answering the question. But with her plan to place 1/2 billion solar panels across the USA, that can't benefit the current energy companies that rely on oil and gas.

[djean111]

7. Disagreeing with stated policy or plans is not "attacking".

Bringing up old scandals is "attacking". Bringing up Benghazi or emails is "attacking".
It just looks silly and thin-skinned and, really, more unable to take criticism than Bernie's supporters are accused of being.
Criticizing Hillary is not "hate", either.

[AtomicKitten]

3. First of all bad link (fixed, ty). Secondly, that wasn't an attack.

He said it was good and went on to describe what in his opinion is better policy. Politely.

He opposes the Keystone pipeline. So do I.

As SOS, Hillary chose an industry associate of TransCanada to do the Environmental Impact Report. There are several YOUTUBE videos of both she and her husband promoting the pipeline. Some of her big donors and advisers are lobbyists for Keystone. Not a big mystery where she stands; she's just too much of a coward to own it.

[99th_Monkey]

4. I fixed that link, thanks for the heads-up

and you're right, it was the author of the article who put the word "attack" in the title line,
as click-bait I presume.

[AtomicKitten]

5. Thanks! I figured since it was Politico "attack" was their characterization.

The MSM is itching for a brawl.

[eridani]

6. Solar Ambitions Great, But Clinton's Climate Plan Well Short of 'Bold'

Still, it's a helpful start IMO. Next step-a commitment to phase out fossil fuels. (Not holding my breath here.)

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/07/28/solar-ambitions-great-clintons-climate-plan-well-short-bold

At the end of the day,' says 350's Bill McKibben, 'growth in renewables doesn’t mean enough if we’re simultaneously kicking the decarbonization can down the road.'

R.L. Miller, founder of the California-based Climate Hawks Vote PAC, told Politico that the plan is largely "remarkable for what it doesn’t say." Specifically, Miller pointed out there is "no effort to keep fossil fuels in the ground, no price on carbon; no word on Keystone XL, Arctic oil or other carbon bombs; no word on fracking."

"This is a credible commitment to renewable energy, and a recognition that the economics of electricity are changing fast," McKibben said of the proposal. "Now, we need Clinton to show she understands the other half of the climate change equation — and prove she has the courage to stand up against fossil fuel projects like offshore and Arctic drilling, coal leasing in the Powder River basin, and the Keystone XL pipeline. Because at the end of the day, growth in renewables doesn’t mean enough if we’re simultaneously kicking the decarbonization can down the road with more pipelines and more extraction on public lands."

Put another way, 350's communications director Jamie Henn tweeted, "Clinton says she'll lay out a plan for 'safe and responsible' fossil fuel production. In an age of climate catastrophe, that's an oxymoron."