Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 11:54 AM Apr 2016

Only One Candidate Fully Gets The Urgency

Both of the Democratic candidates for President believe in the science on Global Warming. Both believe that human activity is driving it, that it poses a threat to humanity, and that it is necessary that we do something to counter it. It qualifies as another of the issues where it is said that both Democrat candidates share a similar goal, differing only on which approach can best reach that goal. To me it is the issue that most starkly illustrates the true fundamental difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, between an approach sometimes characterized as pragmatic incrementalism, and bold action.To me it strongly illustrates the insufficiency of the former, and the necessity of the latter.

Our planet no longer has the time needed for incremental changes to rectify the crisis we are in. While the ongoing collapse of the American Middle Class conveys a similar message in regards to our own economy, nothing has reached as undeniably a catastrophic turning point as that presented by the imminent collapse of Earth's polar ice sheets.

Bernie Sanders clearly appreciates the severity of the environmental threat facing us and the potential consequences of it. He is not hesitant to speak of it in the most urgent of terms. Here is some of what he just said regarding it at the Brooklyn Democratic Debate (emphasis added):

SANDERS: ...Now, what I think is when we look at climate change now, we have got to realize that this is a global environmental crisis of unprecedented urgency.
(APPLAUSE) (CHEERING)

And, it is not good enough. You know, if we, God forbid, were attacked tomorrow the whole country would rise up and say we got an enemy out there and we got to do something about it. That was what 9/11 was about.
We have an enemy out there, and that enemy is going to cause drought and floods and extreme weather disturbances. There's going to be international conflict
...

LOUIS: I have a question for you. You've said that climate change is the greatest threat to our nation's security. You've called for a nationwide ban on fracking. You've also called for phasing out all nuclear power in the U.S. But wouldn't those proposals drive the country back to coal and oil, and actually undermine your fight against global warming?

SANDERS: No, they wouldn't. Look, here's where we are. Let me reiterate. We have a global crisis. Pope Francis reminded us that we are on a suicide course. Our legislation understands, Errol, that there will be economic dislocation. It is absolutely true. There will be some people who lose their job. And we build into our legislation an enormous amount of money to protect those workers. It is not their fault that fossil fuels are destroying our climate. But we have got to stand up and say right now, as we would if we were attacked by some military force, we have got to move urgency -- urgently and boldly...

SANDERS: What you do do is say that we are going to have a massive program -- and I had introduced -- introduced legislation for 10 million solar rooftops. We can put probably millions of people to work retrofitting and weatherizing buildings all over this country.
(CHEERING)

SANDERS: Saving -- rebuilding our rail system.
(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Our mass transit system.
(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS:If we approach this, Errol, as if we were literally at a war -- you know, in 1941, under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, we moved within three years, within three more years to rebuild our economy to defeat Nazism and Japanese imperialism. That is exactly the kind of approach we need right now.
BLITZER: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)

SANDERS: Lead the world.

What I find most striking here is the direct comparison Bernie Sanders makes between our current need to mobilize to fight Climate Change and the need America faced to mobilize against the Fascist threat in World War II. Sanders made more than a mere comparison, he drew a direct equation, and that equation could not be more revealing. The United States of America did extraordinary things to confront the existential threat posed to it by World War II. The people of the United States of America made an extraordinary effort, complete with requisite personal sacrifices.

Not only did millions of men and women enlist in the military to serve their nation in time of war, but scores of millions of Americans rationed gas, rationed rubber, and rationed various foods. Millions of Liberty Gardens were planted, millions of Liberty Bonds were purchased. Our entire manufacturing infrastructure was totally transformed from a peace time to a war time setting in less than the time that it takes to launch and pursue most modern presidential campaigns.

America did all of that under the leadership of Franklin Delanor Roosevelt, the very same President who rallied the American people to overcome the devastating effects of the Great Depression through his own bold vision, through the dramatic new programs he ushered in to confront America's challenges, and through the sweeping changes he introduced to regulate the American economy and protect American families.

FDR neither ran nor governed as a pragmatic “progressive”, pursuing “realistic” incremental changes. Virtually none of the ground breaking programs that he introduced, nor any of the heroic sacrifices he called on our people to shoulder, would have been thought of as “realistic' by the pundits of those times prior to Roosevelt's presidency. But they were exactly what those times called for, and America had it in it to rise to the occasion. Bernie Sanders asks no more, and no less, from our nation now. And shame on those who say that we just don't have it in us.

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

tk2kewl

(18,133 posts)
2. annual U.S. WWII aircraft production:
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:25 PM
Apr 2016

1939 2,141
1940 6,068
1941 19,433
1942 47,836
1943 85,898
1944 96,318
1945 46,001

http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-students/ww2-history/ww2-by-the-numbers/wartime-production.html

image what we can accomplish to transform energy and transportation infrastructure if we try

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
4. I was wondering where to look for data like that
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:38 PM
Apr 2016

Thank you for actually finding it!

Yes it is only a matter of political will and right now that governed by large political contributions. That would change with President Sanders.

 

tk2kewl

(18,133 posts)
7. you are most welcome
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:57 PM
Apr 2016

And Bernie nailed it at the Vatican today:

"The challenges facing our planet are not mainly technological or even financial, because as a world we are rich enough to increase our investments in skills, infrastructure, and technological know-how to meet our needs and to protect the planet. Our challenge is mostly a moral one, to redirect our efforts and vision to the common good. Centesimus Annus, which we celebrate and reflect on today, and Laudato Si’, are powerful, eloquent and hopeful messages of this possibility. It is up to us to learn from them, and to move boldly toward the common good in our time."

 

SoLeftIAmRight

(4,883 posts)
3. Climate change and the sixth global mass-extinction event is happening now
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:27 PM
Apr 2016

our bodies are toxic

many systems (economic - agricultural - transportation - healthcare) are not sustainable

he knows and she is not the one

PufPuf23

(8,755 posts)
5. Some politicize global warning and look for ways to benefit in the short term.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:46 PM
Apr 2016

Those that look to benefit in the short term tend to dominate in political success.

Global warming is happening and cannot be avoided, only mitigated in terms of humanity.

We are past the tipping point and the fact is Earth is in the midst of a great extinction even that will determine geologic epochs.

Look what happened to Now Orleans and Katrina?

Global warming does not only mean high temperatures but also weather extremes.

Many had their lives ended or upended by Katrina.

To others Katrina was an opportunity for profits, urban renewal, and gentrification for the already blessed.

I do not know how to answer the question of how to deal with those that seek to profit from global warming as a mitigation for a train that has left the station.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
6. The scale of the great extinction event is what remeains in doubt
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:55 PM
Apr 2016

The train has left the station but a lot still depends on the upkeep of the tracks in front of it how great a disaster lies before us.

If this is not seen as at least the equivalent of a World War there is little to hope for. Every year matters in how slowly we respond.

PufPuf23

(8,755 posts)
8. Great extinction event none the less.
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:05 PM
Apr 2016

My career and education was as an environmental scientist.

Your statement regards to "upkeep of the tracks" is what I would term mitigation.

Agree that the scope is analogous to that of a World War.

There is going to be human suffering and a reduction in population; the question is how fast and how abrupt.

The extinction event is abrupt, corresponding globally as commencing with the industrial revolution and going on steroids with the internal combustion engine powered by oil.

Our leadership, wealthy, and finance communities acts to preserve or enhance their positions and tread water rather than directly address mitigation.

World war as never seen before may occur as a result.

Gloomy.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
13. He is a hell of a lot more specific than Hillary on bold moves to fight Globa Warming
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 04:56 PM
Apr 2016

Everything from backing a carbon tax to banning fracking to halting fossil fuel exploitation on federal lands. They both call for more solar but Clinton is lacking in strong measures against the Fossil Fuel industry, and it is the burning of fossil fuels that is driving this crisis.

 

Onlooker

(5,636 posts)
10. He gets the urgency more than Hillary, but I don't how his plan will work
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:07 PM
Apr 2016

... He is sort of against everything, without clear solutions on how we will meet our energy needs. He has lofty goals, as does Hillary, but the goals for both of them are based on the hope that we find more good renewable sources of energy. Bernie is against nukes, coal, fracking, etc. While, ideally, that's great, it doesn't really seem workable. I think nuclear energy and possibly natural gas may be short term bridges to a cleaner environment, while development of alternative sources takes place.

Tom Rinaldo

(22,911 posts)
11. It is doable, a matter of overcoming obstructions
Fri Apr 15, 2016, 01:30 PM
Apr 2016

Far less difficult to accomplish than winning WWII.

The price for renewables has been falling at an accelerating pace. It would be falling much faster were it not for fracking. Renewables in many instances have become a cheaper option than nuclear already. Ban fracking and money will flow toward renewable research, significantly further lowering their price. If a tenth of the money our Federal Government had invested in nuclear development, both for power and for military purposes had been devoted instead to Solar, the per unit price for Solar energy would have plummeted long ago.

To a large extent solar and wind, and certainly conservation in general, are decentralized ways to address our energy needs, and thus difficult for large scale energy providers and construction consortiums to monopolize. Scale of production brings down cost but the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries are organized to impair any government role in speeding up the conversion to renewables.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Only One Candidate Fully ...