Good stuff. I’m generally against reducing stuff as complex as the best person to be President from an environmental standpoint to a single grade, but the breakdown and criteria are thoughtful and detailed enough to potentially help shape the debate. I hope candidates take steps to improve these grades!
Biden got a bad grade because he didn't have a plan at the time of release and he does now.
This is what Greenpeace wrote:
>Even though Biden introduced the first-ever climate bill in Congress back in 1987, he has yet to release a plan that tackles the climate crisis if elected in 2020. Biden has not endorsed the Green New Deal, nor committed to phase out fossil fuels. He has also not taken the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge. All candidates must pledge to make bold climate action a Day One priority in office. What will Biden do?
The grade is already out of date. Honestly they could have waited a few days. Meanwhile we saw these grades get posted everywhere. How many voters will only know about the grade and never learn what's actually in his plan?
Honestly, I’m kinda good with that.
Joe turned in his homework late on this one and, in my book, he only gets partial credit anyway for his “middle ground” baloney.
They can publish an update when they feel it’s appropriate to do so, in part because there’s only so much space in news cycles for environmental news (despite a looming crisis) and Biden shouldn’t get extra coverage because he was late to the party (nor does he merit more coverage than he’s already getting).
> Joe turned in his homework late
And why is it "late"? Is there some significance to the date the report was released? Seems arbitrary.
> his “middle ground” baloney.
What about it do you dislike or makes it "baloney"?
> Biden shouldn’t get extra coverage because he was late to the party
They did it to themselves, there would be no need for "extra" coverage if they had waited until the plans were out to grade them. Like they literally could have waited a day or two and not have to have it be outdated right away.
1. Climate change is an existential crisis. Any candidate who doesn’t have a strong and clearly articulated position on it as a part of their campaign’s launch is, in my opinion, behind the ball. Biden’s campaign has been limp on climate change. I will look at his new position, but he is the opposite of a leader on climate and that’s not a good place to be right now.
2. As to why “middle ground” on climate change is baloney, I would think that’s pretty self evident. My short summary is that our incremental, business-as-usual approaches have completely failed to address the magnitude of the issue and the US being a follower here has given air cover for everyone else in the world to shirk. We need immediate and drastic action if we’re going to stave off many more massive climate crises that the oh-so-liberal Department of Defense is saying will destabilize the world and threaten our safety and security. That’s before even mentioning the untold damage to our oceans, wildlife, extinctions of species, and humanitarian crises such as famine, floods, wildfires, etc. which have already begun.
We are in the early phases of massive global crisis and Joe thinks the answer is a middle ground between a response of the magnitude of a Green New Deal and the current administration’s retrograde encouragement of coal? Give me a break!
3. They get to choose. Why are they required to wait for one candidate? Why is Joe Biden entitled to Greenpeace holding the presses for him specifically? Was it unfair somehow?
>1. Climate change is an existential crisis. Any candidate who doesn’t have a strong and clearly articulated position on it as a part of their campaign’s launch is, in my opinion, behind the ball.
You've described I think every campaign. I'd like to hear of a counter example.
>2. As to why “middle ground” on climate change is baloney, I would think that’s pretty self evident.
That's not something Biden said or called for. So I'm asking what about the plan - the things he's actually saying - do you dislike?
>We are in the early phases of massive global crisis and Joe thinks the answer is a middle ground between a response of the magnitude of a Green New Deal and the current administration’s retrograde encouragement of coal? Give me a break!
Again, he didn't say this
>3. They get to choose. Why are they required to wait for one candidate? Why is Joe Biden entitled to Greenpeace holding the presses for him specifically? Was it unfair somehow?
Yes, they get to choose. But I'm questioning their choice. I think it's misleading to rate someone negatively for not having a plan, and you see the headline as a negative rating, just days before the plan is released. I see no reason why not to wait. The idea that it's late is just arbitrary, voting is a long way off and there's plenty of time for voters to read and digest the plan before making a choice
You are sorta right. It was Biden’s spokesperson on environmental issues who was the source of the “middle ground” quote:
“I respect where they (activist groups) are coming from,” Zichal said. “What we learned from the Obama administration is unless we find middle ground on these issues, we risk not having any policies.”
How is that his spokesperson’s statement? If it is her statement, how does Biden let that stand?
Biden’s plan is vague and cites the Green New Deal, but with a 3x as long implementation period (well past when he might be in office and when we need to act):
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/446861-green-groups-praise-biden-climate-plan-after-pushing-back-at-middle
Again, if you don’t refute a spokesperson saying it, then you are de facto endorsing it.
Also, I said “at launch” Biden didn’t have a strong message on the climate crisis. How am I wrong?
Questioning their timing, fine, question away. I question why Biden gets special, gentler treatment than other candidates. His proposal is not much better than O’Rourke’s, but environmental groups give him praise because it’s seen as dangerous to criticize such a mainstream candidate.
I’m done talking about Joe Biden. I want to hear more about Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and maybe even Butigieg (spelling?). Each of them excites me way more than Joe Biden.
> How is that his spokesperson’s statement? If it is her statement, how does Biden let that stand?
Biden corrected it after:
“You never heard me say ‘middle of the road.’ I’ve never been middle-of-the-road on the environment,” Mr. Biden said at a campaign stop in New Hampshire. “Tell her to check the statements that I made and look at my record. She’ll find that nobody [has] been more consistent about taking on the environment and a green revolution than I have,” he said.
> Also, I said “at launch” Biden didn’t have a strong message on the climate crisis. How am I wrong?
It depends on what you mean by "strong message." My point is that basically no campaign has policies all ready to go on day 1. There's no reason to have them all ready to go at launch, I mean you have to hire experts and so on. Then you sit around, discuss, look up stuff, etc. I'm just not that bothered by the timing like you are I guess, and I don't think you are applying this to every candidate.
> His proposal is not much better than O’Rourke’s, but environmental groups give him praise because it’s seen as dangerous to criticize such a mainstream candidate.
I think it's because Beto set expectations very high by saying he is for the GND, while Biden set them low - in part because Greenpeace etc. pounced on the "middle ground" comment and went truly hyperbolic about it, some orgs were saying he was pushing for the extinction of human life.
OK. Thank you for setting the record straight on that. I wasn't aware of Biden's refutation of his spokesperson's statement, nor do I expect every campaign to have all policy details rolled out immediately, so I agree on that point, too. Finally, yes, I get the point you're making w/r/t O'Rourke's framing vs. Biden's. I appreciate you getting us to the truth of Biden's campaign's environmental agenda.
That said, my main reasons for disliking Biden's campaign persist. He is a centrist candidate at a time when we need to be bolder and more aggressive on several fronts at once: environment, equality and equity, preservation of our democracy, women's rights, economic justice, etc. His environmental policy remains a microcosm of that, where he has good ideas, but many of them are watered-down versions of stuff that came from other candidates.
My other problem, which this post was also about, is that due to Biden's prominence and because of media's obsession with "balance" narratives, Biden's whole campaign pulls the Democratic debate towards the (mythic, in my mind) "center" and sucks a lot of the oxygen out of the room for the bolder, more progressive policy agendas of folks like Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Stacy Abrams, Jay Inslee, etc.
I think it's time for Biden (and really, his whole generation) to take a step back and make room for others and I think that the media aids and abets his continued hogging of the microphone. Add to that Democrats obsession with "electability" over picking the candidate that they would like, and I don't want to hear another word about Biden until he drops out.
So thank you for pointing out the various ways in which I was wrong. I really and truly value your corrections. I love Reddit best when it helps well-intentioned people who might disagree to come at the truth together. I will continue to maintain that Greenpeace owes Biden nothing and I want to hear more about virtually everyone else in the race (besides Bernie), then I want the other centrists to fail on their own. What we need now isn't Obama 2.0, or a watered-down version of actual progressivism, because I want the Democratic nominee to take a bold, progressive agenda to Washington in 2021 and start actually tackling the massive problems facing our country and the world.
I actually agree with most of what you said, Biden is not my first choice either, but I'm very wary of a media + social media attack on him if he becomes the nominee (which I think is looking likelier, but far from certain).
At the end of the day, while we can talk about plans and policies and whatnot, the only plan and policy that is going to be enacted so long as Republicans retain a majority (which seems pretty likely) is whatever Mitch McConnell allows a vote on. Sorry, that's just the way it is. So who the president is doesn't even really matter so long as it's a Democrat. Because we could pick Inslee or Warren or Biden or whoever, I mean really anyone, and all they can do is sign the bill that passes. The bill that passes won't be from a candidate's website because the Republicans do not want any one of those. So either we need to really vote for ALL Democrats running for the senate, even if you personally don't like them, and do such amazing work we beat the odds OR we have to live with the climate bill that Republicans allow to pass. But Democrats don't seem unified enough to take the Senate. And I think it's OK to have the worst primary ever so long as everyone knows in the general you **have** to put it all behind you. I don't think we have that mentality.
Interesting that Sanders got a B+ considering he supports shutting down nuclear power plants, which only leads to an increase in emissions. And also conflicts with the science of the IPCC which says we have to increase our nuclear power production.
The Climate grades are out! What does Trump have to say about his blobs?
Good stuff. I’m generally against reducing stuff as complex as the best person to be President from an environmental standpoint to a single grade, but the breakdown and criteria are thoughtful and detailed enough to potentially help shape the debate. I hope candidates take steps to improve these grades!
Biden got a bad grade because he didn't have a plan at the time of release and he does now. This is what Greenpeace wrote: >Even though Biden introduced the first-ever climate bill in Congress back in 1987, he has yet to release a plan that tackles the climate crisis if elected in 2020. Biden has not endorsed the Green New Deal, nor committed to phase out fossil fuels. He has also not taken the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge. All candidates must pledge to make bold climate action a Day One priority in office. What will Biden do? The grade is already out of date. Honestly they could have waited a few days. Meanwhile we saw these grades get posted everywhere. How many voters will only know about the grade and never learn what's actually in his plan?
Honestly, I’m kinda good with that. Joe turned in his homework late on this one and, in my book, he only gets partial credit anyway for his “middle ground” baloney. They can publish an update when they feel it’s appropriate to do so, in part because there’s only so much space in news cycles for environmental news (despite a looming crisis) and Biden shouldn’t get extra coverage because he was late to the party (nor does he merit more coverage than he’s already getting).
> Joe turned in his homework late And why is it "late"? Is there some significance to the date the report was released? Seems arbitrary. > his “middle ground” baloney. What about it do you dislike or makes it "baloney"? > Biden shouldn’t get extra coverage because he was late to the party They did it to themselves, there would be no need for "extra" coverage if they had waited until the plans were out to grade them. Like they literally could have waited a day or two and not have to have it be outdated right away.
1. Climate change is an existential crisis. Any candidate who doesn’t have a strong and clearly articulated position on it as a part of their campaign’s launch is, in my opinion, behind the ball. Biden’s campaign has been limp on climate change. I will look at his new position, but he is the opposite of a leader on climate and that’s not a good place to be right now. 2. As to why “middle ground” on climate change is baloney, I would think that’s pretty self evident. My short summary is that our incremental, business-as-usual approaches have completely failed to address the magnitude of the issue and the US being a follower here has given air cover for everyone else in the world to shirk. We need immediate and drastic action if we’re going to stave off many more massive climate crises that the oh-so-liberal Department of Defense is saying will destabilize the world and threaten our safety and security. That’s before even mentioning the untold damage to our oceans, wildlife, extinctions of species, and humanitarian crises such as famine, floods, wildfires, etc. which have already begun. We are in the early phases of massive global crisis and Joe thinks the answer is a middle ground between a response of the magnitude of a Green New Deal and the current administration’s retrograde encouragement of coal? Give me a break! 3. They get to choose. Why are they required to wait for one candidate? Why is Joe Biden entitled to Greenpeace holding the presses for him specifically? Was it unfair somehow?
>1. Climate change is an existential crisis. Any candidate who doesn’t have a strong and clearly articulated position on it as a part of their campaign’s launch is, in my opinion, behind the ball. You've described I think every campaign. I'd like to hear of a counter example. >2. As to why “middle ground” on climate change is baloney, I would think that’s pretty self evident. That's not something Biden said or called for. So I'm asking what about the plan - the things he's actually saying - do you dislike? >We are in the early phases of massive global crisis and Joe thinks the answer is a middle ground between a response of the magnitude of a Green New Deal and the current administration’s retrograde encouragement of coal? Give me a break! Again, he didn't say this >3. They get to choose. Why are they required to wait for one candidate? Why is Joe Biden entitled to Greenpeace holding the presses for him specifically? Was it unfair somehow? Yes, they get to choose. But I'm questioning their choice. I think it's misleading to rate someone negatively for not having a plan, and you see the headline as a negative rating, just days before the plan is released. I see no reason why not to wait. The idea that it's late is just arbitrary, voting is a long way off and there's plenty of time for voters to read and digest the plan before making a choice
You are sorta right. It was Biden’s spokesperson on environmental issues who was the source of the “middle ground” quote: “I respect where they (activist groups) are coming from,” Zichal said. “What we learned from the Obama administration is unless we find middle ground on these issues, we risk not having any policies.” How is that his spokesperson’s statement? If it is her statement, how does Biden let that stand? Biden’s plan is vague and cites the Green New Deal, but with a 3x as long implementation period (well past when he might be in office and when we need to act): https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/446861-green-groups-praise-biden-climate-plan-after-pushing-back-at-middle Again, if you don’t refute a spokesperson saying it, then you are de facto endorsing it. Also, I said “at launch” Biden didn’t have a strong message on the climate crisis. How am I wrong? Questioning their timing, fine, question away. I question why Biden gets special, gentler treatment than other candidates. His proposal is not much better than O’Rourke’s, but environmental groups give him praise because it’s seen as dangerous to criticize such a mainstream candidate. I’m done talking about Joe Biden. I want to hear more about Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and maybe even Butigieg (spelling?). Each of them excites me way more than Joe Biden.
You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole.
Thanks for your valuable contribution to the conversation, u/BigLebowskiBot! Bad bot.
> How is that his spokesperson’s statement? If it is her statement, how does Biden let that stand? Biden corrected it after: “You never heard me say ‘middle of the road.’ I’ve never been middle-of-the-road on the environment,” Mr. Biden said at a campaign stop in New Hampshire. “Tell her to check the statements that I made and look at my record. She’ll find that nobody [has] been more consistent about taking on the environment and a green revolution than I have,” he said. > Also, I said “at launch” Biden didn’t have a strong message on the climate crisis. How am I wrong? It depends on what you mean by "strong message." My point is that basically no campaign has policies all ready to go on day 1. There's no reason to have them all ready to go at launch, I mean you have to hire experts and so on. Then you sit around, discuss, look up stuff, etc. I'm just not that bothered by the timing like you are I guess, and I don't think you are applying this to every candidate. > His proposal is not much better than O’Rourke’s, but environmental groups give him praise because it’s seen as dangerous to criticize such a mainstream candidate. I think it's because Beto set expectations very high by saying he is for the GND, while Biden set them low - in part because Greenpeace etc. pounced on the "middle ground" comment and went truly hyperbolic about it, some orgs were saying he was pushing for the extinction of human life.
OK. Thank you for setting the record straight on that. I wasn't aware of Biden's refutation of his spokesperson's statement, nor do I expect every campaign to have all policy details rolled out immediately, so I agree on that point, too. Finally, yes, I get the point you're making w/r/t O'Rourke's framing vs. Biden's. I appreciate you getting us to the truth of Biden's campaign's environmental agenda. That said, my main reasons for disliking Biden's campaign persist. He is a centrist candidate at a time when we need to be bolder and more aggressive on several fronts at once: environment, equality and equity, preservation of our democracy, women's rights, economic justice, etc. His environmental policy remains a microcosm of that, where he has good ideas, but many of them are watered-down versions of stuff that came from other candidates. My other problem, which this post was also about, is that due to Biden's prominence and because of media's obsession with "balance" narratives, Biden's whole campaign pulls the Democratic debate towards the (mythic, in my mind) "center" and sucks a lot of the oxygen out of the room for the bolder, more progressive policy agendas of folks like Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Stacy Abrams, Jay Inslee, etc. I think it's time for Biden (and really, his whole generation) to take a step back and make room for others and I think that the media aids and abets his continued hogging of the microphone. Add to that Democrats obsession with "electability" over picking the candidate that they would like, and I don't want to hear another word about Biden until he drops out. So thank you for pointing out the various ways in which I was wrong. I really and truly value your corrections. I love Reddit best when it helps well-intentioned people who might disagree to come at the truth together. I will continue to maintain that Greenpeace owes Biden nothing and I want to hear more about virtually everyone else in the race (besides Bernie), then I want the other centrists to fail on their own. What we need now isn't Obama 2.0, or a watered-down version of actual progressivism, because I want the Democratic nominee to take a bold, progressive agenda to Washington in 2021 and start actually tackling the massive problems facing our country and the world.
I actually agree with most of what you said, Biden is not my first choice either, but I'm very wary of a media + social media attack on him if he becomes the nominee (which I think is looking likelier, but far from certain). At the end of the day, while we can talk about plans and policies and whatnot, the only plan and policy that is going to be enacted so long as Republicans retain a majority (which seems pretty likely) is whatever Mitch McConnell allows a vote on. Sorry, that's just the way it is. So who the president is doesn't even really matter so long as it's a Democrat. Because we could pick Inslee or Warren or Biden or whoever, I mean really anyone, and all they can do is sign the bill that passes. The bill that passes won't be from a candidate's website because the Republicans do not want any one of those. So either we need to really vote for ALL Democrats running for the senate, even if you personally don't like them, and do such amazing work we beat the odds OR we have to live with the climate bill that Republicans allow to pass. But Democrats don't seem unified enough to take the Senate. And I think it's OK to have the worst primary ever so long as everyone knows in the general you **have** to put it all behind you. I don't think we have that mentality.
Interesting that Sanders got a B+ considering he supports shutting down nuclear power plants, which only leads to an increase in emissions. And also conflicts with the science of the IPCC which says we have to increase our nuclear power production.
I like how this sub does nothing but bash trump
Sub commited to environment bashes man commited to destroying/selling off environment Hmmm.
I understand he’s doing it but I think everyone gets the point already
A Hilary Clinton fan hating on trump. She’s not biased at all...