HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Democratic Primaries (Forum) » What if we started expect...
Undecided 38%
Elizabeth Warren22%
Joe Biden14%
Bernie Sanders8%
Kamala Harris7%

Mon May 6, 2019, 12:23 PM

 

What if we started expecting our candidates to consider their planetary footprint?

What if we started choosing politicians who 'get it' enough to live in small-sized energy efficient homes. (And not multiple ones).

What if we considered the candidates' modes of transportation? Are they being as energy efficient as possible?

What if we considered the candidates' diets? Are they being good role models? (At least to the point of lowering meat consumption)

What if we considered the candidates' leisure activities and consumption habits in general? Are they thoughtful?

If not now, when? If not us - then who?

Snips from 'Human society under urgent threat from loss of Earth's natural life':

“…The report paints a picture of a planet in which the human footprint is so large it leaves little space for anything else. Three-quarters of all land has been turned into farm fields, covered by concrete, swallowed up by dam reservoirs or otherwise significantly altered. Two-thirds of the marine environment has also been changed by fish farms, shipping routes, subsea mines and other projects. Three-quarters of rivers and lakes are used for crop or livestock cultivation. As a result, more than 500,000 species have insufficient habitats for long-term survival. Many are on course to disappear within decades….

Our species now extracts 60bn tons of resources each year, almost double the amount in 1980, though the world population has grown by only 66% in that time. The report notes how the discharges are overwhelming the Earth’s capacity to absorb them. More than 80% of wastewater is pumped into streams, lakes and oceans without treatment, along with 300m-400m tons of heavy metals, toxic slurry and other industrial discharges. Plastic waste has risen tenfold since 1980, affecting 86% of marine turtles, 44% of seabirds and 43% of marine mammals. Fertiliser run-off has created 400 “dead zones”, affecting an area the size of the UK….


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/06/human-society-under-urgent-threat-loss-earth-natural-life-un-report
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Elizabeth Warren

13 replies, 488 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to bloom (Original post)

Mon May 6, 2019, 12:27 PM

1. Nothing prevents you or anyone from doing just that.

 

Not as far as I know, anyhow.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #1)

Mon May 6, 2019, 04:59 PM

10. The more people who do - the more difference it would make. n/t

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Elizabeth Warren

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bloom (Original post)

Mon May 6, 2019, 12:27 PM

2. policy is more important

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #2)

Mon May 6, 2019, 12:38 PM

4. Policies should also show an awareness of the problem. n/t

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Elizabeth Warren

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bloom (Original post)

Mon May 6, 2019, 12:28 PM

3. What is the chance of the human race surviving the 21st century?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000358s
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bloom (Original post)

Mon May 6, 2019, 01:18 PM

5. How about: don't unilaterally disarm?

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Pete Buttigieg

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #5)

Mon May 6, 2019, 03:17 PM

7. Yes. nt.

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bloom (Original post)

Mon May 6, 2019, 01:50 PM

6. What if we just recognize Trump as the biggest planetary threat of all time & vote Blue?

 

Work on tweaking the Democratic platform, fine. But right now I look at the entire cast of characters and see a bunch of great Democrats, any of whom would do more positive things for the environment than Trump. I'm not going to try to pick them off.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bloom (Original post)

Mon May 6, 2019, 03:18 PM

8. Funny they didn't mention - or you didn't snip - not contributing to overpopulation. nt.

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #8)

Mon May 6, 2019, 04:58 PM

9. overpopulation is part of the problem. overconsumption is at least equally the problem.nt

 

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Elizabeth Warren

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bloom (Reply #9)

Mon May 6, 2019, 05:18 PM

12. Nope. 100,000 people "overconsuming" to an extreme, would not hurt as bad as 8 billion consuming

 

at even a constrained level.

It's not that overconsumption isn't a problem at all. I just strongly disagree that it's an equal problem to overpopulation. It is arguably easier to solve, or at least to come up with palatable "solutions" to. It's pretty challenging to come up with acceptable solutions to over-population that has already occurred.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MH1 (Reply #12)

Mon May 6, 2019, 07:46 PM

13. You could have 50 trillion people consuming at the rate

 

people did in 1850 to equal what Americans consume now.

It is not reasonable for Americans to continue to consume resources and fuels at rates so much greater than most in the world (there are a few Middle East countries who need to consume less too).

It's the increase of China and India consumption per capita rates rising (to be closer to our own) which is the problem - more so than merely the population.

The US is at 15.5metric tons per person / 5000 million metric tons total (2015)

China is up to 6.9 metric tons per person / 9000 million metric tons total (2015)

Indian is up to 1.5 metric tons per person / 2000 million metric tons total (2015)

If China or India consumed at our rate - each country's emission would be up to 21,700 million metric tons total.


The countries with the largest cumulative CO2 emissions since 1750 - as of 2019

1) US – 397 GtCO2
2) CN – 214 Gt
3) fmr USSR – 180
4) DE – 90
5) UK – 77
6) JP – 58
7) IN – 51
8) FR – 37
9) CA – 32
10) PL – 27


In 2015, the United States emitted 15.53 metric tons of carbon dioxide per capita. China emitted 6.59 metric tons. India emitted just 1.58 metric tons. As these countries get richer, their per capita emissions are poised to rise further. This is why technology transfer from wealthier countries to less developed economies is shaping up to be a critical component of fighting climate change.

But ultimately the largest share of the burden in cleaning up this mess should fall to those who played the largest role in creating it.


https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/24/18512804/climate-change-united-states-china-emissions


It is true that the U.S. has put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other country, and that U.S. per capita emissions are among the highest in the world. But it is also true that the U.S. won't solve this problem alone (even if we weren't dropping out of global climate treaties).

Regardless of the actions taken by developed countries, the primary driver of carbon dioxide emissions in coming decades will be areas of the world with huge populations, but with low, and growing per capita emissions. A small increase in those per capita emissions can result in a huge increase in overall emissions -- amply demonstrated by Asia Pacific's skyrocketing emissions.

Thus, the most pressing need in the world today is to ensure that countries can develop without a heavy reliance on coal and other fossil fuels, because this is the reason for the status quo.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/01/china-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-than-the-u-s-and-eu-combined/#45d0fec9628c
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Elizabeth Warren

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bloom (Original post)

Mon May 6, 2019, 05:01 PM

11. Inslee may be the only who is taking this issue seriously. Anybody else?

 

I think all the candidates would do well to noticed Inslee's ideas.

https://jayinslee.com/issues/100clean?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=100clean&sc=fb_tr&fbclid=IwAR1jxpsV0Mwe4Ee0gjqPjWqAhqE1sPAd0hyP96eKhyqv6GwYO7ovqC_GuSs
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Elizabeth Warren

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread