James Hansen on Hillary Clinton's climate change proposal: "It's just plain silly"

[marmar]

(Guardian UK) Hillary Clinton’s pledge on Sunday to support renewable energy and boost subsidies for solar panels was set up as a great unveiling – the Democratic frontrunner’s first public remarks on how her presidency would tackle climate change.

“I personally believe climate change is a challenge of such magnitude and urgency that we need a president who will set ambitious goals,” she said in a video posted to her campaign website.

It wasn’t difficult to draw a sigh of relief from the progressive electorate that has heard only climate change denial – loud and triumphal – from Republican frontrunners. (Ted Cruz proudly announced in May that he had just come from New Hampshire, where there was “ice and snow everywhere”. Trump took up the issue with typical savoir faire on Monday, declining to call climate change by name: “I call it weather.”)

.....(snip).....

Environmentalist Bill McKibben said that while Clinton’s support for solar was necessary, it was far from a comprehensive energy policy. “Much of the impact of her climate plan was undercut the next day by her unwillingness to talk about the supply side of the equation,” he said. “Ducking questions about the Canadian tar sands or drilling in the Arctic makes everyone worry we’re going to see eight more years of an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy, which is what we do not need to hear in the hottest year ever measured on our planet.”

.....(snip).....

“It’s just plain silly,” said James Hansen, a climate change researcher who headed Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies for over 30 years. “No, you cannot solve the problem without a fundamental change, and that means you have to make the price of fossil fuels honest. Subsidizing solar panels is not going to solve the problem.” .............(more)

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/29/hillary-clinton-climate-change-plan

[Fred Sanders]

1. The headline is the title of the link you snipped from which itself is a snip.

Here is another one from the article, for balance:

*snip*

Michael Oppenheimer, professor of Geosciences and International Affairs at Princeton University, who advised the Clinton campaign informally on its energy proposal, said the solar plan has to be part of a larger scheme to “crack the back of fossil fuels”.

Oppenheimer took issue with Hansen’s climate change paper in the Washington Post last week for lacking specifics on how rapidly sea levels would rise, but he said there’s no doubt “humanity better get its collective foot off the accelerator”.

Oppenheimer, a longtime participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said a combination of a strong set of incentives like solar credits have to be supported by regulation: “Just as a solar program, it is very good and it is ambitious. If you look at the bigger picture – which is, what are we going to do on the whole about fossil fuels and reducing and eliminating eventually our dependence on them? – that’s a larger question.

“What we don’t have here yet is what is the regulatory scheme going beyond the Obama scheme,” said Oppenheimer. “In fact, we’re going to have to accelerate the downward track if we’re going to beat the climate problem.

[misterhighwasted]

3. Second Hillary bashing article from the Guardian posted this week.

The first gotcha post referred to her paying of interns ssssscandal.

[Historic NY]

4. Its the fucking paper Greenwald worshiped....

sort like NY POST here, what would you expect.

[marmar]

8. The Guardian is like the NY Post?

Umm, okay.

[Historic NY]

19. Ever read then.............try

[Luminous Animal]

72. ……. and try…… and try….. and try…… Ever read then.

[misterhighwasted]

16. Exactly my point. Greenwald/Guardian

NYTimes little brother.

[rhett o rick]

25. So what news outlet do you prefer? nm

[RufusTFirefly]

39. In what respect, rhett?

[rhett o rick]

63. It's easy for to criticize the Guardian, but harder to be honest about what news outlets

are considered acceptable. It seems that non-progressives hate the Guardian, hate whistle-blowers, hate protestors, hate all opposition to the authoritarian state. But they do love General Clapper. He represents the authoritarian power that some here need so desperately. They would have hated the Declaration of Independence.

[Luminous Animal]

73. Straight forward question… what news outlet do you prefer?

Provide your own perspective.

[RufusTFirefly]

74. Sorry. My answer was supposed to be a joke

The question wasn't directed at me.
I was imitating Sarah Palin. ("In what respect, Charlie?&quot
I like the Guardian and (horrors!) Glenn Greenwald.

Sorry I left off the sarcasm smiley.

[Fairgo]

95. I got it

And it have me my first guffaw of the day, thanks!

[RufusTFirefly]

37. You mean (thanks in great part to Greenwald) the Pulitzer Prize-winning Guardian?

You have very curious journalistic standards.

The Guardian has long been recognized as a left or center-left newspaper. And, incidentally, if you're not familiar with UK politics, center-left would be considered solid left in this country.

The New York Post, on the other hand, is owned by this guy...



Do you see the difference?

[Divernan]

60. Great Pic of bffs - a match made in,well,not in heaven.

Just a lovely couple! Who are they? Oh, right. We're not supposed to talk about that.

[LondonReign2]

38. You have no fucking clue what the Guardian is if you think it is remotely like the NY Post

[RufusTFirefly]

42. They're just throwing stuff up against the wall and seeing what sticks

Comparing the Guardian to the NY Post is risible, but it creates chaos, shoots the messenger, and delays facing facts.

It's in the same league as "Bernie Sanders is the Donald Trump of the left."

If it weren't so frickin annoying, it might almost be pathetic.

[840high]

53. Very obvious you don't know

what the Guardian is.

[Luminous Animal]

69. Greenwald gable garble.

[Comrade Grumpy]

92. That's a ridiculous comparison. The Guardian does good journalism.

And that sometimes involves critiquing American presidential candidates.

If any British rag compares to the NY Post, it's the Daily Mail.

[George II]

6. The Guardian has zero credibility these days.

[rhett o rick]

26. So which news outlet do you support? nm

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Wow, ok then.

[BillZBubb]

45. Yeah, Zero credibility from right wingers.

For those on the left, it is a pretty damn good source.

[840high]

55. BS

[Luminous Animal]

70. Indeed. Can you remind me specifically when the blew their credibility?

[Comrade Grumpy]

93. Hhhmmm, who is more credible? A Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper or George II?

Not a difficult question.

[BeyondGeography]

2. Unfortunately, if you want to win a national election in this country

Hansen's idea is even sillier:

Hansen said a credible candidate on climate change would be talking about policy that would allow the price of fossil fuels to rise gradually. “You have to recognize that as long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest energy, we’ll just keep burning them,” he said.

[Adrahil]

11. Yup... and more than that....

with the economy struggling to find 3rd, there will be NO support for raising energy costs at the moment.

I'm not actually happy about that. We DO need to have fossil fuels rise to enable the transition to a post-petroleum economy. But it's not happening right now, I'm afraid.

[BeyondGeography]

17. Agreed on both counts

Lower gas prices are the only breather a lot of folks have enjoyed these past few years. I do think people have been pocketing the savings and not driving more. Either way, they'll push the trap-door button in a heartbeat on any candidate that talks about encouraging price increases.

[kristopher]

61. That isn't true at all. There is a very good way to do it.

Wealth redistribution through fossil fuel taxes works like this.

Tax the coal, natural gas and petroleum at the source. The cost gets packaged into the wholesale price and collection of the tax creates little to no disruption of routine at the distribution, retail or consumer levels.
Come tax time, the bulk of the funds are rebated to lower and middle income to assist in funding energy saving or alternative energy technologies. So, as the price of heating oil rises, those consumers most impacted are refunded their contribution and then some. With this lump sum they are in a position to invest in things that reduce the amount of heating oil they consume, such as better windows and home insulation.
Ditto for gasoline automobiles to higher mileage vehicles or electricity and LED lighting or solar.

[JaneyVee]

7. Did this guy even read her plan??

Apparently not.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/29/this-critic-of-hillary-clintons-climate-change/204652

[sheshe2]

12. Those conservatives...shame on them.

In a July 27 Sun op-ed, which was also published on conservative news sites NewsMax and Reason.com, Stoll lectured Clinton that her goal of installing more than half a billion solar panels by the end of her first presidential term isn't a "serious" climate change strategy. According to Stoll, if Clinton "really wants to fight climate change," she should abandon her solar panel goal and instead pursue other policies, such as "fund[ing] research and development for battery storage" or "set[ting] emissions goals and let[ting] utilities or states decide the cheapest and best ways to meet them" (emphasis added):

[Thinkingabout]

58. Just more let's jump on this and expect the links never to be read and the truth located.

Nothing new here again but more discredit to the guardian.

[RufusTFirefly]

9. James Hansen has zero credibility!

After all, he has only been conducting global temperature analyses for 34 years.

When it comes to expertise, he's clearly no match for anonymous posters on a message board.

[marmar]

14. :)

I find it kind of amusing. .... Hansen has no credibility....The Guardian is a rag akin to the NY Post. ..... Amazing how awful they become when they start picking on Hillary.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. And *immediately* so.

Pretty transparent.

[reddread]

30. and they have known and understood the problem all that time

This crime of the last century will be the death of us.

[Armstead]

71. He's an ally of Glen Greenwald. They are in cahoots. I just know it.

[RufusTFirefly]

75. And I'll bet he's got boxes stored in Comrade Eddie's garage!

It's all Nader's fault!!!

[Cheese Sandwich]

10. Hansen is right. Hillary is following down the same path as Obama on energy

Falsely selling the idea that solar or wind help us in any way on climate.

The only thing that matters is decreasing coal, oil and gas extraction. And that's not something most liberals have been willing to face up to so far. But most are still stuck with their head in the sand.

Keeping fossil fuels in the ground would mean we need a big radical transformation starting now. And that's not going to happen without taking on the fossil fuel industry along with their allies on Wall Street and in DC.

Obama did some good on coal, but it was mostly easy since we are in the middle of a gas boom. We need to do much much more and much faster.

[sheshe2]

18. Well....

Hansen is right. Hillary is following down the same path as Obama on energy

Falsely selling the idea that solar or wind help us in any way on climate.

The only thing that matters is decreasing coal, oil and gas extraction and will not help us in any way on climate change? And that's not something most liberals have been willing to face up to so far. But most are still stuck with their head in the sand.

Solar and wind will not help us decrease coal, oil and gas extraction? You are kidding, correct? solar or wind will not help us in any way on climate? You are making a joke, correct?
I am sure you have the articles to back that up.

I have to ask, you do believe in climate change, correct?

[Cheese Sandwich]

21. sure

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2014/06/09/9-reasons-why-oil-prices-may-be-headed-for-a-bust/



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas_in_the_United_States



http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=8490

[sheshe2]

27. So because you can not change your chart tomorrow....

You would prefer to do nothing at all. Got it all or nothing for you. If I can't have it all now I WANT NOTHING.

Well, we in MA are going to be way the hell ahead of you. Driving along the Pike a few weeks ago I saw all these solar panels waiting to be set up. We are going to rock and you will be left behind.

Solar
The sun's rays supply an abundant amount of solar energy, which can be converted into electricity or heat. It has many benefits: Solar energy is free and does not add to the production of global greenhouse emissions, acid rain, or smog. Also, the cost of solar energy technology has been decreasing significantly as the technology and market mature globally and within Massachusetts. The goal to achieve 250 megawatts of solar power installations was met four years early; an aggressive new goal was set of 1,600 MW by 2020.

http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy-utilities-clean-tech/renewable-energy/solar/

Energy and Environmental Affairs

Wind
Wind energy is fueled by an infinitely renewable resource - moving air. It can be generated locally and does not release any carbon dioxide or other emissions. It also contributes to our energy security and creates economic development. The Commonwealth's goal is to install 2000 megawatts of wind energy by 2020.

http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy-utilities-clean-tech/renewable-energy/wind/

So, go with your antiquated facts and never look toward the future. Hey, MA is going to leave you in the dust.

[Cheese Sandwich]

28. uh...climate is an emergency. We can't wait and pray for the free market to fix it.

I'm all for solar panels and wind power.

But yes that is completely useless as long as we keep increasing carbon extraction.

Elected Democrats and Republicans agree on this one thing: drill baby drill.

Bad idea though.

[daleanime]

41. +1

[Historic NY]

50. Your expecting just the US to do something...

what about the rest of the planet? Don't they play a role? Your all about one issue and one country and that won't work unless others cooperate. Even Hansen recognizes that. Your cocksure that your Democrat will win, I'm not and where does that play.

[Cheese Sandwich]

51. I think China should limit fossil fuels.

Happy?

[rhett o rick]

23. The question is, does Clinton really believe in climate change? Is she willing to

tax the oil companies? Or does she want the lower classes to pay for solar? Ask Goldman-Sachs.

[reddread]

31. there is no believe or disbelieve

there is only understand or/and deny

[Maedhros]

87. Imagine if the nation would have actually listened to Jimmy Carter?

We might have been positioned to solve this problem by now.

[dsc]

13. So is he saying that if we made the cost of solar energy lower than that of fossil fuels

that would have no effect on the use of fossil fuels? I find that hard to believe.

[Cheese Sandwich]

29. We can't limit carbon by price and market incentives alone.

Price of energy is set in a "free market" so we can't control it.

Investing in renewable energy is not enough. We must also limit carbon extraction by rejecting it. We can't simply build solar panels and pray to the free market to handle the rest. For one thing we can't even predict what other events might affect the market. For another thing, it's a huge emergency and we need a direct solution.

The way to limit fossil fuels is clear. Stop extracting them out of the earth. Start reducing it. Reject large new fossil fuel investments in favor of renewables. We don't just give financial incentives to people to stop committing violent actions like assault and battery. We just make it illegal. Much more direct and to the point.

I think that is what Hansen is getting at.

Edit: I guess Hansen is saying we need a carbon tax. Also a good idea.

[kristopher]

65. And how do you propose people will be convinced to "reject" fossil fuels?

Pixie dust?
Mass hypnotism?
Magic Wand?
Creation of an authoritarian dictatorship?

Frankly your rejection of the tools for accomplishing the goal in favor of a magic hand wave is naive in the extreme. Your heart is in the right place, but please gain some in depth understanding of the topic if you have the time.

[Cheese Sandwich]

66. The government has to approve major fossil fuel infrastructure...

For example tar sands pipeline. Start by not issuing the permits for that stuff.

Or slow down the permits over time to put us on course to where we need to be.

Start limiting coal exports and reduce them over time. Limit permits for drilling and reduce over time.

That's not "authoritarian dictatorship" jeez louise.

Tax carbon at the point of extraction and use the money to fund renewables, and insulation.

It sounds like everyone agrees we should aggressively build solar and wind. I'm just saying we also need to get deliberately reducing the carbon side. Same like James Hansen says.

[kristopher]

76. That isn't what you were "just saying"

You were endorsing some sort of pie in the sky horsepuckey while dismissing real and effective solutions. The things you've now mentioned are nothing more than nibbling around the edges of this global issue even if you could get the required US political support to do them - which you aren't. Then there is the 95% of the global population that isn't part of the US...

The way to make people stop using fossil fuels is to use policies designed to improve the economics of renewables relative to fossil fuels.

The BEST way to do that is to increase deployment of renewables to drive investment in manufacturing capacity which will, in turn, drive down the cost of the renewable products.

There is no other way besides economics unless you can get some form of global autocratic government established. But don't despair so much. We are making excellent progress as solar and wind are steadily becoming the least cost option in more and more of the world. That is especially true in the developing world where massive investment in infrastructure is only just beginning.

World Bank rejects energy industry notion that coal can cure poverty
World Bank’s climate change envoy: ‘We need to wean ourselves off coal’
Bank has stopped funding new coal projects except in ‘rare circumstances’

...“Do I think coal is the solution to poverty? There are more than 1 billion people today who have no access to energy,” Kyte said. Hooking them up to a coal-fired grid would not on its own wreck the planet, she went on.

But Kyte added: “If they all had access to coal-fired power tomorrow their respiratory illness rates would go up, etc, etc … We need to extend access to energy to the poor and we need to do it the cleanest way possible because the social costs of coal are uncounted and damaging, just as the global emissions count is damaging as well.”

The World Bank sees climate change as a driver of poverty, threatening decades of development.

The international lender has strongly backed efforts to reach a deal in Paris at the end of the year that would limit warming to a rise of 2C (3.6F)....

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/29/world-bank-coal-cure-poverty-rejects

This World Bank article shows another way to change the relative economics - stricter accounting of the external costs of fossil fuels.

[Cheese Sandwich]

77. I certainly think we should be building and investing in renewable energy like wind and solar...

As far as I can tell, everyone conversing here agrees with that. So there is no dispute on that. We should build up renewable energy to make it a more attractive choice in markets.

The disagreement seems to be over whether we should also take additional measures to reduce fossil fuel extraction. For example by taxing carbon extraction. Or a tax on oil company profits where the money could be used to build up solar or weatherize homes.

Another question is whether governments should try to slow carbon extraction by resisting permits for big new projects like pipes for transporting Alberta tar sands.

[kristopher]

79. Taxing is an economic solution

It is justified by the fact that fossil fuels have external costs that are not part of their market price - climate change, health effects from particulate pollution, environmental degradation during extraction etc.

The other question you pose is discussing desirable policies, but they are the type of policies that can't change the global trends of consumption. If you deny the keystone pipeline, then the price of crude will not go down a bit. But that same higher price will justify investment in extraction and marketing from some other location. Net gain is not enough to change the global trends in carbon emissions. It is good, but it is more of a 'feel good' than a 'real good' approach.

Get lots of public transportation and affordable electric vehicles on the road that cost 1/6th the cost per mile of fossil fuel to drive and then people will stop buying gasoline and the producers of petroleum will be forced to curtail pumping.

Raising the gas tax in the meantime will help make that alternative happen.

The early days of ramping up deployment might seem like nothing is happening, but the charts show very steep upward curves for the new technologies. Just bear in mind the old "double-a grain-of-rice story demonstrating exponential growth and don't give up the fight.

[BainsBane]

15. Is Bernie proposing a hefty gas tax?

I haven't heard him say that. That is what the environmentalist means by making the price of fossil fuels honest. How many here are willing to pay that tax?

[rhett o rick]

24. Absolutely not. He proposes a windfall profits tax on the major oil companies. nm

[SunSeeker]

34. How is that going to make drivers move away from gas cars? nt

[rhett o rick]

64. The question was, "Is Bernie proposing a hefty gas tax?" and the answer is no. nm

[SunSeeker]

68. That was not my question. nt

[rhett o rick]

78. Why is it necessary to ask that question? Why don't you simply state your opinion? nm

[SunSeeker]

80. Got it. You don't want to answer my question. nt

[rhett o rick]

81. I think it's a logical fallacy to try to make ones point via insinuating questions.

If you have a point, just say it.

[SunSeeker]

85. Project much?

[AtheistCrusader]

36. First off, that's not even the biggest problem.

But it shouldn't be hard for you to discover how he wants to tax the oil industry.

What we need, is coal Taxes first and fast. Transportation is only 31% of our co2 output. Gas AND diesel together.

Make coal and nuclear non-competitive to renewables, and you can make some headway. Taxing them reduces consumer demand and increases consumer interest in efficiency/conservation.

A gas tax WILL help but it's a small piece of the puzzle.

[BainsBane]

43. So the answer is no

Bernie isn't supporting what the guy complains about either, but use it as an excuse to trash Hillary. . . just because.

It's easy to blame everything on corporations. That fact is we as American consumers are responsible for consumption. Of course no one actually wants to look at their own role in any of it. They want to keep driving their SUVs, heating and lighting their big houses, and point fingers.

If fossil fuels start to reflect real their actual costs, it means they are more expensive for us--whether that tax is applied at the corporate level or the pump. But of course a politician trying to get elected won't talk about any of that. He'll talk about the Koch brothers as red meat to his supporters.

Tonight I heard him promise to over turn Citizens United. Chances are good he won't live long enough to see the changes in the court and the laws filter up to be overturned, let alone "overturn it" as president. Nor is overturning that decision enough to solve the problem of money in politics. As of yesterday, he had no environmental policy. I doubt that's changed in the course of a day, and really, I don't need to listen to more speeches filled with empty promises.

Moar guns. That's all that really matters anyway, right? At least those Sandy hook families were put in their place, trying to upset those virtuous gun companies. http://www.guns.com/2015/04/23/aurora-theater-victims-family-may-owe-280000-in-lucky-gunner-lawsuit/ Corporate Murder Inc must be protected against the unscrupulous families of victims of mass murder harassing gun manufacturers about illegal arms sales.

[Cosmic Kitten]

54. It's easy to blame everything on corporations!!!1!1!111!111

Really? Blame those creating the problem
is easy to do? DO tell

Wait.
It's the consumers fault!

Blame the victim, right.

If people didn't want plastic,
corporations wouldn't make it, right?

Wait!
If people didn't want GMO's
corporations wouldn't make them.

Wait...
If people didn't demand fraudulent investment instruments
Wall St would never consider such a transgression, right?

BECAUSE...
That fact is we as American consumers are responsible for consumption.

We were just begging to have the environment destroyed,
to be poisoned, and robbed or taken advantage of, right?

Don't blame the A-Holes who run corporations,
don't hold sociopathic CEO's or their YES Men accountable.
Blame the victims...
We were asking for it weren't we.

Remember when CORPORATIONS told people
cigarettes were "healthy"?
Blame the smokers, right.
Efffffffff

[DisgustipatedinCA]

67. She's lecturing the everloving f**k out of several people on multiple threads & subjects

If you people will just learn that she's right every time, none of us would need to go through this tedious exercise. Just feel some guilt over lions or Bernie Sanders' candidacy or the nasty things you said about corporations, make a public apology, and put it behind you.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Coal is a fossil fuel. Do we burn more gas (co2 ton for ton) or coal?

You brought up a gas tax, your hill to explain, if not defend.

I don't personally know Bernies position on coal, or gas, but I wager I can look it up as easy as you can.

[geek tragedy]

20. If that's the extent of her plan, he's absolutely right.

Is it?

[SunSeeker]

35. Of course not. He does not appear to have read Hillary's plan.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/29/this-critic-of-hillary-clintons-climate-change/204652

[Kablooie]

22. The more I hear about Hillary the farther away I get from wanting to vote for her.

I haven't listened directly to Hillary or Bernie because there is plenty of time left to do that later but from the snippets I'm picking up I sure feel like Hillary is dedicated to old, traditional ideas that desperately need changing as soon as possible.

[LondonReign2]

40. The more I hear from Hillary's supporters the father away I want to get from her

[jalan48]

44. I'll go with James Hansen on this one. He has a proven track record.

[Adrahil]

46. So, tell me the political strategy for implementing those policies...

Sorry, but right now, there is no freaking way we're gonna get carbin taxes passed. Will. Not. Happen. At least not until Congress gets a huge makeover.

[jalan48]

49. Well, Hillary needs to at least propose or lead a discussion about it.

If a Democrat can't at least broach the subject we are in deep you know what. That's why she wants to be President-to work on the nation's problems, at least I think that's why she wants the job.

[Adrahil]

52. I don't necessarily agree.

She's a smart lady. I think she knows how to thread the needle.

But I've always been a pragmatist.

[jalan48]

57. There are lots of smart people who don't seem overly concerned about climate change.

I think she's just another in a long line of politicians that is passing the buck to future generations. I wish she was as concerned about mother earth as she is about women's issues.

[Adrahil]

86. I suspect she is just a politician...

and like lots of politicians, she's able to read the landscape and push for what is attainable.

As with the marriage equality debate, I suspect if the political terrain changes, you see her bring up a bunch of stuff she's not mentioning right now. It's called political strategy.

[jalan48]

88. Somehow comparing marriage equality with climate change seems a bit ludicrous.

[Adrahil]

89. I'm not comparing the subject matter, but rather political environment. nt

[jalan48]

90. Mybe some things are more important than others-a sense of urgency maybe?

[Adrahil]

91. I don't necessarily disagree in principal....

... I think Climate change is an EXTREMELY important issue. Maybe even our MOST important issue.

But the political landscape remains. A political leader needs to read the landscape and plot a course. Sometimes, that means setting off in a direction that is not quite where you hope to end up. The reality is that things like carbon taxes, or pretty much anything that makes energy more expensive in a sluggish economy is simply NOT going to pass, and might result in the proposer of such a thing as being "out of touch" with what "everyday Americans" want and need.

You may, ultimately, disagree with that strategy, but I think it is pretty savvy, so long as there is a plan to exploit openings whenever possible.

[jalan48]

94. It all sounds good.

Some of us who have been around awhile look at Obama's approval of drilling in the Arctic and ask why? I'm sure he has a strategy, but I'm not sure it's one that I agree with. Perhaps he is simply indebted to the oil industry and is doing them a favor.

[Cheese Sandwich]

82. Republicans will never vote for it it. But if Democrats won't vote for it that's even worse.

At least if one major party would support these issues we can hope for progress by electing that party.

If Democrats can't get on the right side of these issues like Keystone, like a carbon extraction tax, like taxing oil companies, then we are truly screwed.

[Adrahil]

84. Well, there is a lot of stuff, I'd vote for...

But will never realistically get implemented.

I don't think you can assume that just because she didn't propose it, she is against it. She simply thinks it's wiser to put political capital against a more reasonably attainable goal.

For example, I am FOR carbon taxes. But they are not in the realm of possibility right now, so I don't waste much breathe on them.

[Cosmic Kitten]

47. Wait, What!?! Hillary was pandering...

Nooooooo, say it ain't so!

What will her corporate friend say?

Carbon Tax! yes? no.?

Someone call a focus group, pronto.

[840high]

56. Not our queen Hillary - lol

[Vattel]

48. Maybe I am too cynical, but I expect Clinton will soon be strongly supporting biofuels.

That will up her green street cred (with the uninformed) and will help her in Iowa because biofuels = corn.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

59. "...we need a president who will set ambitious goals."

She's endorsing Bernie?

[Zorra]

83. Hillary will do or say anything in order to ensure she can represent her wealthy

bankster and other corporate supporters.

She will not take a single step to improve the condition of the environment unless she gets permission to so from the wealthy billionaire corporate donors who bought her services.

She is Third Way and has no intention of protecting us from the greed of predatory corporations that has destroyed our environment.

[beam me up scottie]

96. Another right wing hit piece on Hillary?

When will it end?

It's obvious that Bernie and the GOP are trying to sabotage Hillary's campaign.

Because someone has to take the blame and we all know bad press is never Hillary's fault, she's perfect.

[reddread]

97. !

[L0oniX]

98. K & R