In what almost assuredly will become a plank in the Democratic Party's platform heading into the 2020 president election, those seeking the party's nomination are speaking about the need to rein in climate change, with many endorsing the "Green New Deal" that calls for an economy powered entirely by renewable energy.
Some are offering plums for national park lovers, with Elizabeth Warren pledging to make parks free to enter and Beto O'Rourke promising to add more parks and monuments to the National Park System.
Positions held by politicians constantly evolve, and as the months, and primaries, slip by, we'll likely see movement in the candidates' stances as they jockey for support. Key among the issues facing the Democrats is whether they support the Green New Deal, a proposal to both address climate change drivers and reduce economic inequality across America.
Here's a glimpse of their positions as of April 30, according to 350 Action:
* Joe Biden: Has not taken a stance on the Green New Deal, has not signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge to not accept campaign donations from the fossil fuels industry.
* Cory Booker: Supports the Green New Deal, has not signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* Pete Buttigieg: Supports the Green New Deal, has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* Julián Castro: Supports the Green New Deal, has not signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* John Delaney: Opposes the Green New Deal, saying it would set the country back; has not signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* Tulsi Gabbard: Has not taken a position on the Green New Deal, has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* Kirsten Gillibrand: Supports the Green New Deal and has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* Kamala Harris: Supports the Green New Deal, has not signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* John Hickenlooper: Opposes the Green New Deal, saying the country can do better; has not signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* Jay Inslee: Supports the Green New Deal, has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* Amy Klobuchar : Supports the Green New Deal, has not signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* Wayne Messam: Has not taken a stance on the Green New Deal, opposes energy exploration in the Everglades, has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* Seth Moulton: Unclear on his stance on the Green New Deal, has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* Beto O’Rourke: Supports the Green New Deal, was removed from the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge list after accepting such money in 2018.
* Eric Swalwell: Supports the Green New Deal, has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* Bernie Sanders: Supports the Green New Deal, has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* Tim Ryan: His stance on the Green New Deal is unclear, he has not signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* Elizabeth Warren: Supports the Green New Deal, has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* Marianne Williamson: Supports the Green New Deal, has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
* Andrew Yang: Supports the Green New Deal, has signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge.
Warren also has said that if elected president, on her first day in office she would "sign an executive order that says no more drilling — a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases, including for drilling offshore and on public lands. I’d also reinstate the methane pollution rule to limit existing oil and gas projects from releasing harmful gases that poison our air, and reinstitute the clean water rule to protect our lakes, rivers, and streams, and the drinking water they provide."
For his part, O'Rourke has promised to "(S)et a first-ever, net-zero emissions by 2030 carbon budget for federal lands, stopping new fossil fuel leases, changing royalties to reflect climate costs, and accelerating renewables development and forestation..."
Comments
You are incorrect about Tulsi's position on the environment. She has been trying to get her OFF Fossil Fuels act through Congress for years and it is a great foundation for the GND, with the same goals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOXsobNWPxU
Check out Tulsi Gabbard's Off Fossil Fuels bill it would transition the United States to renewable energy for the grid and ground transportation 80% in 10 years 100% by 2035. Tulsi has also pledged to work with world leaders with a foreign policy based on cooperation and work together to fight climate change and protect the environment.
Tulsi HAS signed the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge
Tulsi Gabbard introduced her Off Fossil Fuels For A Better Future Act on 9/1/17. HR 3671 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3671 It is an actual bill, not just a resolution. It has been called THE most aggressive climate legislation ever. It is supported by 400 environmental groups and has 46 cosponsors. She is working on reintroducing it this Congress. Again, it is a bill which is binding; not a resolution.
Incidentally, the reason TULSI GABBARD's concerned about the Green New Deal is that it doesn't prohibit fracking and, more seriously, because it doesn't address the issue of nuclear energy (which Tulsi opposes because of the problem of radioactive waste disposal). Tulsi actually has her own bill, the OFF Fossil Fuels Act, which she will shortly be reintroducing and which has the endorsement of over 100 clean energy, climate change, and environmental justice organizations. https://gabbard.house.gov/OffAct
Reposted under the correct article this time
I think everyone is in favor of cleaner energy. The question is at what cost and what is actually cleaner?
Do we have enough nickel, lithium, copper and aluminum to convert all of our vehicles to electric without greatly expanding mining operations? I doubt it.
If we do expand mining are we going to drop the environmental impact studies and streamline the permitting process which already takes 10 years in many cases?
Where are we going to dispose of all those batteries used in some 270 million electric vehicles? Will we need new hazard waste landfills to accept all those batteries and their components?
What about our current electrical grid. The one that already results in rolling black outs in some places when the weather gets hot? How will that be expanded to handle the huge increase in capacity required?
Are you prepared for the expansion of power transmission lines? You know the same ones currently opposed by all the environmental groups?
What will our landscape look like when we replace a loan oil well with x number of wind turbines or acres of solar panels? Are we going to start damming our rivers again?
What is the useful life of an oil well vs. a solar panel or wind turbine?
And since we are talking about the evils of petroleum let's not forget that transportation is just one part of what petroleum is used for. The uses for petroleum products in our everyday life are endless from heating our homes to clothes and medicine. Petroleum is not going away.
Then there is the economic cost. We are already $22 plus TRILLION dollars in debt and growing rapidly. Social security is on track to be insolvent and many supporting this "green" deal also want to forgive student loans, offer free college, free medical care, guarantee a minimum income for people regardless of work and expand social programs. You think the National Parks have a funding problem now?
What is troubling to me is that anyone thinks this "green new deal" is even remotely realistic and more so that we have politicians and environmental groups that think this is a good idea.
So before you sign on to this perhaps ask a few questions before your good intentions create an even bigger problem.
Wild,Wild Wild (to be said in the manner of Moses, Moses, Moses - Ten Commandments). Don't muddy the kool aid with facts.
"The facts", like dropping EIS standards. It makes the plans of the right wing clear - and it is obviously profits over environment. By your scheme described here, profits over environment. It makes the kool aid of the right wing clear.