What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bernie Sanders 16 trillion dollar plan to fight climate change. (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
Today Bernie Sanders has released a plan to fight climate change, similar to the Green New Deal, but far more specific:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/22/politics/bernie-sanders-green-new-deal-plan/index.html

This is VERY important, even if Bernie is not the nominee (which I don't think it's likely.) Its important because I believe that, as a leader of the progressive movement, any plan that Sanders has on this issue is going to come to reflect the Democratic Party, and probably the nation, in years to come. So here are some of the details:

Sanders' prime targets include meeting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's goal of 100% renewable energy for electricity and transportation by 2030; cutting domestic emissions by 71% over that period; creating a $526 billion electric "smart grid;" investing $200 billion in the Green Climate Fund; and prioritizing what activists call a "just transition" for fossil fuel workers who would be dislocated during the transition.

The Vermont independent would also cut off billions in subsidies to fossil fuel companies and impose bans on extractive practices, including fracking and mountaintop coal mining, while halting the import and export of coal, oil and natural gas. Additionally, he would use his Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission to pursue criminal and civil cases against energy companies that hid or withheld information -- over decades -- about the damage their businesses were doing to the environment.

The proposal is the most in-depth to date from Sanders, who says it will "pay for itself over 15 years" and includes new details on the potential funding sources.

The most significant, at an estimated $6.4 trillion, would come from revenue generated by the sale of clean energy -- which will be administered by publicly owned utilities -- between 2023 and 2035. Before that, Sanders would cut military spending used to protect global energy interests by more than $1.2 trillion while hitting up fossil fuel companies for more than $3 trillion in "litigation (against polluters), fees, and taxes." An additional $2.3 trillion, the campaign says, would be raised from the taxes paid on the 20 million new jobs it promises to create.

Part of that money would go toward mitigating the damage already done by climate change -- with $162 billion set aside for coastal communities under threat and an additional $18 billion going toward firefighters to combat a spike in dangerous wildfires like the one in Paradise.

Thoughts? I'll offer mine later after I study this a little more. 

 
I'd have to look into it a lot further to give an accurate opinion but I like that someone is trying to come up with a legit, detailed plan.

 
My VERY initial impression is that a lot of the money for this is going to come from removing subsidies for oil and coal, taxing oil and coal, and suing oil and coal for past actions. This reminds me of Bernie's previous calls for punishing Wall Street.

Putting aside everything else, this seems awfully problematic to me. The transition to a carbon free economy is already going to eventually put these companies out of business. Yet we expect to tax them dry at the same time? How long will they be able to sustain these sorts of penalties?

 
My VERY initial impression is that a lot of the money for this is going to come from removing subsidies for oil and coal, taxing oil and coal, and suing oil and coal for past actions. This reminds me of Bernie's previous calls for punishing Wall Street.

Putting aside everything else, this seems awfully problematic to me. The transition to a carbon free economy is already going to eventually put these companies out of business. Yet we expect to tax them dry at the same time? How long will they be able to sustain these sorts of penalties?
It's going to be a circle of problems getting worse and worse.

If you assume he can do it, as soon as you start hitting them (rightly or wrongly, no the point here) and they start losing money they are going to have to start layoffs and cost cutting measures.  That is going to lead to inefficiencies in their production, maintenance and upkeep operations.  If a plant fails, or there is a shortage of something, there will be more litigation (because there are always lawyers) and the cycle will repeat.  It will be basically a death spiral with blackouts and shortages while it is all going on.

It might be necessary.  It might be an overall good.  But it isn't going to be easy at all, and it will likely get much much worse before it gets better.

 
Today Bernie Sanders has released a plan to fight climate change, similar to the Green New Deal, but far more specific:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/22/politics/bernie-sanders-green-new-deal-plan/index.html

This is VERY important, even if Bernie is not the nominee (which I don't think it's likely.) Its important because I believe that, as a leader of the progressive movement, any plan that Sanders has on this issue is going to come to reflect the Democratic Party, and probably the nation, in years to come. So here are some of the details:
If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying that the perspective of the Democratic party on a key issue will be reflected in the policy proposal of a 77 year old politician who has never once in his 40 years as an elected official served a day as a Democrat?

That seems like a stretch.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FFS, just put a price on carbon.  it’s not rocket surgery.
Well personally I think we need to invest money on new technology.

But if your overall point is that we don't need the federal government to micromanage a technological conversion, you may be correct. History suggests that if a viable new technology arrives, society converts itself, without the need of government interference.

On the other hand, society has never had deadlines enforced on it, the way scientists are doing to us now.

 
If I'm reading this correctly, you are saying that the perspective of the Democratic party on a key issue will be reflected in the policy proposal of a 77 year old politician who has never once in his 40 years as an elected official served a day as a Democrat?

That seems like a stretch.
Yes. And no I don't think it's a stretch. Many of Bernie's previous proposals are already being accepted.

The Democratic Party is getting younger. Climate change, automation, globalization, are forcing us to look at more encompassing solutions. That indicates to me that the Democratic Party is moving towards Bernie. Not in 2020, in terms of a Presidential candidate (although that could happen too) but in a few years it will be a progressive party.

I don't like it much.

 
And let me make a further point: conservatives reading this shouldn't get too excited by the prospect of Democrats becoming a leftist, progressive political party, because where the Democrats go, the nation will follow.

 
Yes. And no I don't think it's a stretch. Many of Bernie's previous proposals are already being accepted.

The Democratic Party is getting younger. Climate change, automation, globalization, are forcing us to look at more encompassing solutions. That indicates to me that the Democratic Party is moving towards Bernie. Not in 2020, in terms of a Presidential candidate (although that could happen too) but in a few years it will be a progressive party.

I don't like it much.
The bulk of the Democratic party has embraced some Sanders ideas, and ignored others, by choice. That choice generally is a function of the the popularity of those ideas among its members.

You seem to be suggesting that they have no choice in the matter here- that because Bernie says it the party will be defined by it. That has never been the case. Generally speaking only sitting presidents really shape the ideology of the party in a meaningful way, and even that is a dicey proposition on the Dem side (eg I'd say the majority of party members who have an opinion disagree with Obama on immigration).

The party is moving to the left, I agree with that. But that's a function of a lot of variables, not just Sanders. Warren deserves some credit, as do the outspoken young members and the various activist movements like the people who organized the two major marches of recent years. Trump probably deserves more "credit" than anyone- he is so passionately despised, and has revealed so much ugliness about America's supposed meritocracy, that he's moved a lot of people to the left, including me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FFS, just put a price on carbon.  it’s not rocket surgery.
Agreed. Putting a price on carbon is the absolute starting point of addressing the climate change problem...because that is the ultimate source.

The negative environmental impacts of fossil fuel burning are simply not captured in the price of fossil fuel-based products. It is an economic externality taught in Economics 101.

Start with a price on carbon to correct the market distortions. Then rejoin the Paris Accord. Then put federal mandates in place like the Clean Power Plan (following the states' RPS examples). Then remove political obstacles to current renewable energy implementation (e.g. Lamar Alexander killing large-scale wind energy transmission projects).

Only after addressing the low-cost, low-hanging legislative fruit does it make sense to hit the piggy bank given our national debt situation.

Like Joffer says, it's not brain science.

 
Improvements in the grid are a no brainer. Put this in place with a carbon tax and dramatically increasing the NSF budget and you would do a lot of good. 
I like this post for a couple reasons.

1) Many improvements to the grid are not explicit dollar outlays...they are regulatory- and market structure-based changes that have to do with transitioning utilities away from a business model that perversely incentivizes them to produce more electricity (good for U.S. in the early days, not so much now).

2) As well as other things like tax code changes to put RE on a level playing field with fossil fuel sources (REITs and MLP entity structures), transmission line eminent domain issues and eliminating roadblocks for utilities to interconnect with and then build transmission lines close to RE sources.

3) NSF budget is one place...but I would agree that the very first government dollars spent should be massively bolstering open source R&D and then funding capital-intensive demonstration projects that present too big of a risk for VC and other private investors (as they learned too well in the 2000's).

4) Public-private partnership programs like C-PACE have fueled over $1 billion in clean energy improvements to commercial real estate in the last few years. All it cost was states implementing enabling legislation plus administrative costs that are paid for with each transaction. All project money is privately sourced.

So many ways we can tackle this without just blindly printing money and praying that "technology" will bail us out.

 
I'm certainly not anti-carbon tax, but I don't really take issue with Bernie's plan not including one. A big problem with carbon taxes is that people really don't like carbon taxes. Clean energy mandates, while more expensive in the short run, are viewed much more favorably - they can also accelerate the change to clean energy faster than a carbon tax might. That's extremely important for such a time-sensitive issue such as climate change. 

Inslee's massive climate plan is still my favorite and I'm bummed that he never gained traction, but Bernie's plan checks many of the same boxes. His top-line goals - full decarbonization by 2050 at the latest, developing a smart grid, helping fossil fuel workers make a secure transition - are right on. In classic Bernie fashion, he proposes to throw the most money at the problem, but these plans are so hypothetical that I'm not going to bother nitpicking specific numbers and bullet points. Dems need to win the presidency, keep the house, win the senate, and throw out the filibuster before any of these big plans are possible.

 
I like his ideas overall, except the suing part. In a perfect world those companies who broke laws should pay for what they've done, but as @Yankee23Fan mentions, you probably won't get the result you want that way. Subsidies should definitely be stopped, and all regulations should be strictly enforced from this point forward. And as @joffer said, we need the carbon tax - you have to make people feel it on the demand side to get them to move off of fossil fuels.

 
At the end of the day I've got no problem with whatever the Democrats do...since at least it will be in the right direction vs. our current path backwards.

But the more you go for the grand slam GND-type stuff the more you will face GOP opposition. So if you're going to go this route then you better get the Senate in 2020 and jam it through it quick...or we will have just wasted even more time with nothing to show for it.

 
Inslee's massive climate plan is still my favorite and I'm bummed that he never gained traction, but Bernie's plan checks many of the same boxes. His top-line goals - full decarbonization by 2050 at the latest, developing a smart grid, helping fossil fuel workers make a secure transition - are right on. 
Definitely agree with this.

This from the LA Times also makes sense if executed properly..."[Sanders] said he would also scale back military spending that’s aimed at maintaining oil dependence"

 
At the end of the day I've got no problem with whatever the Democrats do...since at least it will be in the right direction vs. our current path backwards.

But the more you go for the grand slam GND-type stuff the more you will face GOP opposition. So if you're going to go this route then you better get the Senate in 2020 and jam it through it quick...or we will have just wasted even more time with nothing to show for it.
I think the political theory of massive, GND-style climate plans goes something like this: the GOP is already firmly entrenched in its position against any sort of climate action, so there's no point in trying to assuage Republicans' concerns with some moderate, inoffensive policy that doesn't even fix the whole problem. You're just not winning over Mitch McConnell. Instead, by pushing for full solutions with large-scale investments in clean energy, infrastructure, and jobs - things people like - you still face fierce GOP opposition but earn a lot more *public* support than you would for more anodyne policies. I don't know if this theory is necessarily correct, but I can see how it's attractive given the GOP's behavior on climate.

 
I want a price on carbon. It doesn’t have to be a tax.  $$ returned as a dividend would garner more support with conservatives and still do a lot of good.

 
I think the political theory of massive, GND-style climate plans goes something like this: the GOP is already firmly entrenched in its position against any sort of climate action, so there's no point in trying to assuage Republicans' concerns with some moderate, inoffensive policy that doesn't even fix the whole problem. You're just not winning over Mitch McConnell. Instead, by pushing for full solutions with large-scale investments in clean energy, infrastructure, and jobs - things people like - you still face fierce GOP opposition but earn a lot more *public* support than you would for more anodyne policies. I don't know if this theory is necessarily correct, but I can see how it's attractive given the GOP's behavior on climate.
Perhaps. If there is indeed a political calculus even half as well though out as what you say I would be surprised.

IMO the end result will be a lot more effective and long-lasting by restoring a functional political process (e.g. Obama resorting to executive order for Clean Power Plan that Trump easily reversed) vs. basically going to war with the other side. But if that's what it takes then so be it let's just hope it's successful.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top