Joe clearly disagreed. Do you?

Joe wasn't minimizing the importance. He *highlighted* the importance and Sanders blew it off, for reasons one can only guess.

Every other country in the UN is now in the accord. It should be a no brainer for any Democrat - or Independent who caucuses with the Democrats to rejoin the Accord.

I think Sanders' logic is that many - including almost all of the people who negotiated it - agree it is not sufficient. As it was agreed upon, John Kerry, the American who really did the most to make it happen said that it was not enough, but it was a big step to have the world clearly moving in the same direction, which would send a signal to companies that they should work to develop new technologies or improve the ones we have. Back in 2004, Kerry explained that climate change legislation could lower carbon faster and more cheaply than any one (at that time) would have predicted. He spoke of how exactly that happened with dealing with acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.

There is a big difference in saying that we need to do more -- and arguing that we should not bother to join the only pact that ever extended to the rest of the world. Biden is closer to Kerry - both have called for calling in all the experts and stake holder here to identify - beyond returning to Obama era cafe standards and EPA rules - what experts recommend domestically. Sanders refers to what ACTIVISTS are behind. I think the value of activists is immense because they generate the energy needed to move the country on the issue. However, it is hard to compare the expertise of people like Dr Moniz, Gina McCarthy ( in terms of what the EPA did and could do), John Kerry ( in terms of legislation and especially international diplomacy on this) to the expertise of Sunrise or AOC.

I think it is crazy to argue that Biden has the "weaker" plan just because the goals as written, but not backed by actual methods for accomplishing them are higher. You can't get to zero carbon by an earlier date just by editing a document!

NOT joining the Paris Accord is the first specific thing he has spoken of (not) doing. Just on that, I worry that he will fail to enlist the rest of the world in this fight. Biden will.

Biden is smiling because of Bernie's (condescending) response... claiming only he, Bernie, takes it seriously

It is the FIRST time every country agreed to work to the same goal -- to reduce carbon.

A hint of how big a deal and the amount of effort, intelligence, diplomacy and skill needed is how no one was optimistic in 2012 that ANY deal was possible. Copenhagen was a disaster and when Kerry in 2012 asked Obama if he could work on this as a signature issue - as Women's and chidren's issues were Clinton, he got Obama's support, even as he was told that no one in the administration thought anything possible. Kerry was instrumental in getting the US/China pact and then he and many others in the Obama administration lobbied many other countries for them to develop similar plans - these made the Lima Conference in 2014 a success and were the basis for the Paris Accord working.

No one seriously involved on this issue thinks that the agreement, which many countries have not met, is enough. However, what is Sanders intending to use globally instead of this? If he had an idea, he would have said it at that point. We do not need a second President who would not see that this global issue must be solved globally.

the Obama/Biden Aministration. Bernie did himself no favors by being so petty.

...it's really just a affectation, it does come off as flippant and unserious.

It does actually matter whether or not we rejoin the Paris Accord.

Behind beating Trump. I am confident Biden would Be the best President to get things done. Bernie was smiling while Biden was discussing healthcare. Why was he smiling? That is my number three issue!

enough to solve the climate crisis, and to offer up an alternative that more than likely will include advanced new nuclear technology.

Maybe I missed one or more.

The fact is that old nuclear technology saved nearly two million human lives that otherwise would have been lost to air pollution.

That is, again, a fact.

Early on, in his first term, President Obama's nuclear energy policies were quite enlightened, particularly when Steven Chu was Secretary of Energy - a worthy successor to the role fellow Nobel Laureate Glenn Seaborg played with 20th century Presidents.

Unfortunately, with pressure from Ed Markey, post-Chu, President Obama appointed Greg Jaczko to head the NRC. Jaczko was another one of those types who thought that it was OK for 70 million people to die from air pollution every decade because nuclear power is "too dangerous." It is amazing that someone with a scientific Ph.D. was demonstrably unable to count.

This is precisely Senator Sanders' take on nuclear energy. He thought that the amount of tritium equivalent to what's in a wrist watch was a good reason to turn Vermont from being the only state in the Union that did not release carbon dioxide to generate electricity to one that now depends on dangerous natural gas based electricity.

He also thought it was a good idea to tear up pristine wilderness in Vermont to turn them into industrial parks for wind turbines serviced by diesel trucks.

I do expect far better from Joe Biden. Unlike Sanders, Biden has shown, throughout his political career, flexibility.

I'm also very interested in who his VP will be. Although officially she's an anti-nuke, Senator Warren is very much focused on following observation and analysis of facts.

Anyone who cares about climate change but refuses to embrace nuclear energy will fail. Biden is hardly anti-science, that's for sure.

That's a fact. Facts matter.

In order to succeed to repair the damage done to our country in the last four years, we will need a President for whom facts matter.

stances on nuclear (pro) versus renewables (not remotely enough EROEI.)

Cheers

It's not simply a matter of EROEI, by the way.

Other issues are reliability, environmental impact (especially with respect to mining and land use) and long term sustainability.

I have been "swimming against the stream" on the left for 30 years. I get far less hostility than I used to get.

I’m here reading this thread, confirming I’m not alone here in my approval of nuclear technology. It’s the only way we’ll solve climate change, IMO.

Cleanest and plentiful energy. The risks can be minimized by engineering.

because you get it.

We really wanna get off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible? Not gonna happen with renewables alone. Not much choice but to ramp up nuclear fission and then get rid of those nasty things and replace them with nuclear fusion reactors ASAP. Hope it's sooner than later but if we don't start spending some bucks to give scientists and engineers a chance to work on it it'll be the latter and not the former...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/09/nuclear-fusion-on-brink-of-being-realised-say-mit-scientists

Wind turbines and solar panels are fine as far as they can go...but THIS makes me hopeful and optimistic. I'll have to look into this some more and see what kind of progress they've made lately since that article is 2 years old.

He wanted to spend trillions nationalizing utilities


Is that true?

...problem is to spit the word "corporate."

It is difficult to imagine that he, lacking a shred of engineering training can address issues in the energy field.

Essentially this is what he is saying. "I can do everything better than everyone else."

It's a little Trumpian, don't you think?

And I'm sure they'd say engineers should stay outta politics.

To my knowledge Hoover & Carter are the only 2 engineers who became President and neither of them worked out all that great...LOL.

...staying out of politics.

What scientists and engineers are able to work on is often a function of government support.

Since engineers and scientists describe and design the world, we need to be active in the decisions made.

The best Congressman I ever had in a long life was a physicist, Rush Holt. I miss his presence in the debate over the future, although I certainly disagreed with some of his positions.

A president who fails to embrace scientists and engineers will fail to be worthy of his people, something dramatically clear under the current circumstances.

and I agree with you. I am appalled at how Republicans have shunned science and have instead embraced uninformed dogma. Science and technology have helped get us into some of these problems we now face and only science and technology will get us back out. At least there's a glimmer of hope with Democrats.

I found these the other day and when I showed them to my partner she said they fit me to a T. You might enjoy them as well...

https://chummytees.com/products/im-an-engineer-im-always-right-t-shirt-hoodie-tank-top

https://chummytees.com/products/engineers-motto-t-shirt-hoodie-tank-top

https://chummytees.com/products/engineering-solving-problems-t-shirt-hoodie-tank-top

https://chummytees.com/products/people-call-it-magic-we-call-it-engineering-t-shirt-hoodie-tank-top

Nice to be able to exchange a few posts with a fellow techie...doesn't seem to be a whole lot on this forum sometimes.

...lack a sense of humor.

A common characteristic among our profession.

Scientists are the party animals.

Bernie Sanders Gets a D- for His Climate Plan

'Bernie Sanders released his climate change plan today, and Bernie being Bernie it was naturally the biggest, leftiest, most socialist plan out there. And that was the good part. The bad part is that it’s practically designed to fail.

If you’re going to propose a massive, $16 trillion plan, the first thing you should do is get as many people on board as possible. Instead, Sanders practically revels in pissing off as many stakeholders as possible. He’s going to tax the rich. He’s going to hobble the fossil fuel industry. He’s going to ban nuclear power. He’s going to nationalize electric generation and turn it over to the federal government.

And then there are the absurd promises. He’s going to create 20 million new union jobs. (No he’s not, unless he also creates 20 million new human beings.) He’s going to eliminate fossil fuels by 2030 at the latest. (I don’t think even the most optimistic environmentalist thinks we can build out solar and wind that fast.) Electricity will be “virtually free” by 2035. (Oh please.)'

'The Sanders plan looks to me like the worst kind of kitchen sink proposal: a “plan” that avoids making any hard choices by simply saying that we’ll do everything. Call me cranky, but I’m tired of this stuff. It’s a box-checking exercise designed to appeal to every possible lefty constituency rather than something that has even the remotest chance of building the public support needed to get it passed through Congress.'

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/08/bernie-sanders-gets-a-d-for-his-climate-plan/

This us the populist formula. I have lived in countries that tried it and see how the middle class and poor are left to carry the burden

During his '72 race for Gov. of Vermont he proposed bankrupting the local power company (too many out-of-state investors he said) by denying it rate increases. After which the state would buy it up at auction I guess. Then the new state owned power company would, per Bernie's dictates, issue each customer one share. What? Crazy. But he definitely wanted to bankrupt the power company. He didn't of course and later it was purchased by a huge Canadian conglomerate. Commerce pushes on, leaving its detractor in the dust.

Bernie would definitely leave the middle class holding the bag for his whacky plans. That's why his agenda is toxic to campaign on. No one runs on a middle class tax increase. It's suicide.

He could not get 60 Senators - even though he had some Republicans because some coal state Democrats wanted to "protect" coal.

Give me a break. Biden was laughing about a Bernie saying Paris Accord is no big deal.

Biden is not now, nor has he ever minimized climate change.

In the words of VP Biden on another subject, “It’s a big f...ing deal”. We need to get back into the Paris Accord

... reliance on renewable energy sources. It more than tripled under Obama/Biden due to the Stimulus:



Bernie has a talking point. Biden has a record.

But just to put things into a little perspective that big bar on the far right is a little over 1 TW (terawatt).

In 2016 the world consumed around 18 TW, and that number is constantly going up as the population increases and the standard of living goes up in more places around the globe. I wish that chart's vertical scale went to 20 TW to drive home just how far we have to go...and even that number will look puny in the not-too-distant future...

http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/howmuchenergy/

Hope Joe finds enough in his budget to provide a little seed money for fusion research. The engineering challenges involved are enormous but the sooner we start the sooner we'll get there. Probably a long way off but fusion is the ultimate power source for the planet and everything else that falls under renewable is very likely supplemental at best. Doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue them because that's all we got at the moment but often I get the impression that a lot of folks have no idea what's really involved or just how difficult (and costly) it's really gonna be.

is the way to go. Solar too. TX is the world's greatest proliferator of wind energy.

...and it suddenly seemed like every rooftop had solar. Solar installations more than tripled under President Obama. Bernie can talk aspirational goals, but Biden can point to actual results.

when I heard both of them tossing about numbers like $1 trillion or $2 trillion or even $3 trillion to solve climate change I was laughing at both of them...

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/527196/how-much-will-it-cost-to-solve-climate-change/

I am as much for attacking this problem as anybody else but we really need to go into this with our eyes wide open and not just our mouths.

here's what MIT was up to as of last year...

http://news.mit.edu/2019/progress-practical-fusion-energy-0124

Only three large countries have successfully shifted their economies away from fossil fuels, he said: Sweden, Belgium, and France. And all of those did so largely on the strength of hydropower and nuclear power — and did so in only about 15 years. “We’re going to have to do whatever works,” he said, and while conventional fission-based nuclear power may be essential in the near term, in the longer term fusion power could be key to weaning the world from fossil fuels.

Andrew Lo, the Charles E. and Susan T. Harris Professor of Economics at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, said that for large projects such as the development of practical fusion power plants, new kinds of funding mechanisms may be needed, as conventional venture capitalists and other traditional sources may not be sufficient to meet their costs. “We need to get the narrative right,” he said, to make it clear to people that investments will be needed to meet the challenge. “We need to make fusion real,” which means something on the order of a billion dollars of investment in various potential approaches, to maximize odds of success, Lo said.

Only a billion bucks sounds like a bigtime lowball to me but this is the kinda thing I was talking about...that's chump change seed money compared to what renewables would cost us to replace fossil fuels. I'd be shocked if they had anything online in 15 years like that link I posted in a previous post said but you gotta start somewhere and I'm glad that somebody is at least working on it a little even though it's likely a half-assed effort needing considerably more funding than what they have.

Here's a brief and somewhat pessimistic history of fusion research in this country over the last half-century or so...

Experts Testify Before Congress on Future of U.S. Fusion Energy Research and ITER

https://news.newenergytimes.net/2018/03/28/experts-testify-before-congress-on-future-of-u-s-fusion-energy-research/

Like I said, it ain't gonna be easy but this is what the world of the future will be using without a doubt in my mind. Whether it's in 50 years or 500 is TBD.

and you damn well know it.

To me, it seemed that Joe thought Bernie was just being outlandish with his series of cheap shots.

Honestly, do you think Biden was laughing like some maniacal person who doesn't care about climate change? Because that's what was insinuated.

As for your other comment about not helping him with younger voters, "indeed, even with me," it seems to me that these "younger voters" have little sense of the gravity of Trump being elected for four more years. I'm not sure if there is an argument to convince them.

Talk about disrespect!

But that's just a guess, and I saw what I wanted to see.

I truly don't understand the hostility.