Skip to main content

2020 Democrats are getting more confrontational with the fossil fuel industry

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) (R) speaks while South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg listens during the Democratic Presidential Debate at the Fox Theatre July 30, 2019 in Detroit, Michigan. Sen. Bernie Sanders repeatedly called out the fossil fuel industry as the adversary in the fight against climate change, during the second round of the Democratic presidential debates. | Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

It shows just how much the party has moved on energy and climate change.

In a stark shift since the last campaign cycle, a significant number of Democratic candidates for president are now aggressively treating the fossil fuel industry as an adversary in the fight against climate change.

During Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) called out coal, oil, and natural gas producers in five separate instances.

“We have got to be super aggressive if we love our children and if we want to leave them a planet that is healthy and is habitable,” Sanders said. “What that means is we got to take on the fossil fuel industry.”

Other 2020 candidates are also confronting major greenhouse gas emitters — and pushing for policies to hold them accountable. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has proposed targeting carbon dioxide emitters directly with a carbon pollution fee. New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand wants fossil fuel companies to pay for climate change-related damage. Former Vice President Joe Biden has pledged to “take action against fossil fuel companies.”

It’s a big shift in rhetoric since the Obama years, when the United States experienced a surge in domestic fossil fuel production with the advent of hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas. Democrats at that time were saying natural gas could serve as a bridge fuel to a low-carbon future. President Obama himself bragged about low gasoline prices during his 2015 State of the Union address.

And leaked emails showed that the last Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Clinton, defended fracking and disparaged environmental activists. “They come to my rallies and they yell at me and, you know, all the rest of it,” Clinton said in a 2015 speech. “They say, ‘Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?’ No. I won’t promise that. Get a life, you know.”

Since then, the climate crisis has worsened, the Trump administration has abdicated all responsibility, and climate scientists have sounded a shriller alarm about how little time we have left to avert catastrophic warming. In response, climate activists, like the Sunrise Movement, have been pushing for more ambitious climate policies. And the Green New Deal, which most of the Democratic candidates endorse, has emerged as a powerful framing device for decarbonizing the US economy.

All of this momentum — plus polls showing Democratic voters are worried about climate change — appears to have propelled many of the candidates into making it a top-tier issue. The push to prioritize climate change — and more directly challenge the political power of the fossil fuel industry — has been so strong that it’s carried almost all of the candidates along with it.

Even candidates from big oil and gas states have pledged to refuse donations from the fossil fuel industry. To date, 21 candidates have signed a “no fossil fuel money” pledge.

But not all the 2020 Democrats appear ready to lock horns with dirty energy. Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, who is pitching himself as a Democrat who won in a state that voted for Trump, said he feared losing support from workers in those industries. “As we transition to this clean energy economy, you have got to recognize there are folks that have spent their whole life powering our country,” he said during the debate. “And far too often Democrats sound like they’re part of the problem.”

Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper’s climate change proposal doesn’t mention “fossil fuels” once, but touts his record of working with the oil and gas industry to limit emissions of greenhouse gases like methane.

The question then is whether this rhetoric in the primary will still carry on through the general election, and if it will translate into any concrete action against companies that extract and sell fossil energy.

So if debate moderators want to highlight how candidates stand apart on an issue that’s a high priority for many primary voters, it would behoove them to ask how contenders see the fossil fuel industry fitting into their visions for the future.

Vox - All https://ift.tt/2LVB5xR August 01, 2019 at 03:10AM

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Explaining models with Triplot, part 1

[This article was first published on R in ResponsibleML on Medium , and kindly contributed to R-bloggers ]. (You can report issue about the content on this page here ) Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't. Explaining models with triplot, part 1 tl;dr Explaining black box models built on correlated features may prove difficult and provide misleading results. R package triplot , part of the DrWhy.AI project, is aiming at facilitating the process of explaining the importance of the whole group of variables, thus solving the problem of correlated features. Calculating the importance of explanatory variables is one of the main tasks of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). There are a lot of tools at our disposal that helps us with that, like Feature Importance or Shapley values, to name a few. All these methods calculate individual feature importance for each variable separately. The problem arises when features used ...

The con behind every wedding

With her marriage on the rocks, one writer struggles to reconcile her cynicism about happily-ever-after as her own children rush to tie the knot A lavish wedding, a couple in love; romance was in the air, as it should be when two people are getting married. But on the top table, the mothers of the happy pair were bonding over their imminent plans for … divorce. That story was told to me by the mother of the bride. The wedding in question was two summers ago: she is now divorced, and the bridegroom’s parents are separated. “We couldn’t but be aware of the crushing irony of the situation,” said my friend. “There we were, celebrating our children’s marriage, while plotting our own escapes from relationships that had long ago gone sour, and had probably been held together by our children. Now they were off to start their lives together, we could be off, too – on our own, or in search of new partners.” Continue reading... The Guardian http://ift.tt/2xZTguV October 07, 2017 at 09:00AM