Climate Change

4 Memorable Moments From CNN's Climate Town Hall

From Joe Biden's call for high-speed rail to Kamala Harris' call for banning plastic straws, the Democratic presidential candidates pushed a hard-green agenda.

|

Last night's "Climate Town Hall" on CNN wasn't just long (seven hours!). It was deeply revealing about how Democratic presidential candidates think about government's power to regulate virtually all aspects of human behavior and how they approach policy and cultural change.

The Democratic contenders have laid out plans costing anywhere from about $1 trillion (Pete Buttigieg) to $16 trillion (Bernie Sanders) in direct federal spending on climate change over the next decade. About half of the candidates have endorsed the Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.), which could cost as much as $90 trillion to implement. As important as any specific policy or position outlined last night were the general attitudes that were widely shared by the participants.

A number likened fighting climate change to the effort to win World War II, a metaphor that perhaps says more about their comfort with regimenting society than the speakers intended. During World War II, all industrial production was overseen by the federal government, food and fuel were rationed, and civil liberties were sharply curtailed in the interest of defeating the Axis powers.

In a related way, the candidates all bought into the apocalyptic premises of the questioners, who took for granted the idea that the world is likely to end in a decade or so unless massive, transformational change takes place. The resulting conversations were thus long on the need for action and short on the need to build consensus or to fully assess the costs and benefits of particular actions.

Here are four memorable moments involving the leading candidates:

1. Joe Biden: Here's Blood in Your Eye.

Whatever the former vice president and Delaware senator actually said last night will forever be a footnote to the fact that his left eye apparently filled with blood during his time on the stage, leading Hot Air's Allahpundit to suggest that "individual Biden body parts are now generating their own gaffes."

The bloody eye won't help a campaign that has been plagued with questions about the 76-year-old's mental and physical health, but the less we remember about what Biden actually says on the campaign trail, the better. Indeed, the nation's only fully satisfied Amtrak rider had barely started talking when he announced, "We can take millions of vehicles off the roads if we have high-speed rail." That's a callback to President Barack Obama's high-speed rail plans, which went nowhere even when the Democrats controlled the White House and Congress. There's simply no reason to believe that high-speed rail will ever be successfully built in America (California alone has spent a decade and billions of federal, state, and local tax dollars while making effectively zero progress on its high-speed rail project)—and even if it does get built, there's little reason to expect it to yield meaningful environmental benefits.

2. Elizabeth Warren: "We only have 11 years to cut our emissions in half." So let's…stop using nuclear power?

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) famously has a plan for everything. While the former Harvard Law School prof sidestepped questions about whether the government would continue to dictate what light bulbs Americans can buy (so that's a yes), she stressed that we've "got, what, 11 years, maybe, to reach a point where we've cut our emissions in half." In suggesting that the world will end in 2030 unless we dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Warren is invoking Ocasio-Cortez's stunning misreading of a 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Far from declaring that the planet would soon be fried, the report theorizes that, as Reason's Ronald Bailey writes, "if humanity does nothing whatsoever to abate greenhouse gas emissions, the worst-case scenario is that global GDP in 2100 would be 8.2 percent lower than it would otherwise be."

Whether or not such a projection is reliable, Warren clearly believes in the 2030 apocalypse. That makes the stance she took last night against nuclear power puzzling, since nuclear is much cleaner than fossil fuels or coal. "In my administration, we won't be building new nuclear plants," she said. "We will start weaning ourselves off nuclear and replace it with renewables." Which is to say, she's in line with many progressives (including Bernie Sanders, Ed Markey, and AOC), who say simultaneously that the world is ending but nuclear power should remain off the table, even as they push "solar panels, [which] produce 300 times more waste for the amount of energy created than do nuclear plants," according to environmentalist researcher Michael Shellenberger. Staring down a supposed existential threat, Warren and her anti-nuke allies still have principles, or something.

3. Bernie Sanders: Aggressively fighting the phantom menace of global overpopulation.

A teacher at the town hall said world population was growing beyond the planet's carrying capacity and asked Bernie Sanders the following:

"Empowering women and educating everyone on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough to discuss this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address climate catastrophe?"

"Well, Martha, the answer is yes," Sanders said.

Pro-life right-wingers are hot and bothered over the Vermont senator's willingness to support taxpayer-supported birth control, including abortions, in his quest to defeat climate change. For those of us who believe in female autonomy and reproductive rights, that's far less troubling than watching him buy into the idea that global overpopulation is in any way a problem.

As the folks at Our World in Data note, "global population growth reached a peak in 1962 and 1963 with an annual growth rate of 2.2%….For the last half-century we have lived in a world in which the population growth rate has been declining." The United Nations has changed its projections for population growth; it now even suggests a 27 percent chance that global population will peak and start to decline by 2100. And there's this:

Demographer Wolfgang Lutz and his colleagues at the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) believe that the United Nations' projections are likely to be too high. In their 2018 demographic assessment, IIASA calculates a medium fertility scenario that would see world population peak at 9.8 billion people at around 2080 and fall to 9.5 billion by 2100.

If worries about the world ending by 2030 are overstated, so too are fears of a planet that can't support its population, especially given the incredible strides we've recently made in reducing global poverty and increasing general living standards.

4. Kamala Harris: "I think we should" ban plastic straws.

"Plastic straws are a big thing right now," said CNN's Erin Burnett to Kamala Harris. "Do you ban plastic straws?" "I think we should, yes," replied the California senator, who then proceeded to laugh uneasily as she said paper straws were not very good.

The moral panic about plastic straws exemplifies how discussions of environmental issues go off the rails. As Reason's Christian Britschgi revealed in January 2018, the erroneous idea that Americans used 500 million straws a day was based on a school project done in 2011 by a nine-year-old boy in California. America in fact contributes only a small portion of the world's plastic pollution problem, and straws represent just a tiny fraction of that. And yet by the end of last year, plastic straws were "an endangered species" around the country due to outrage over a made-up number.

But Harris wasn't simply trash-talking plastic straws. She also spent time attacking the eating of red meat, calling for the end of land sales for oil and gas drilling, and pledging to end fracking, the very technology that helped lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to record-low levels.

 

 

NEXT: Electoral Interference in Taiwan 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In a related way, the candidates all bought into the apocalyptic premises of the questioners, who took for granted the idea that the world is likely to end in a decade or so unless massive, transformational change takes place.

    So we’re back to this shit now? Didn’t AOC walk that back and say it was humor that dunderheads like us didn’t get?

    1. What a bunch of idiotic buffoons. Looks like Trump is safe.

    2. It’s funny how the original idea sticks around. If you’re cynical enough, it’s tactical:

      1) You make ridiculous statements/predictions.
      2) When called out on it, say it’s a joke
      3) Repeat it later, and see if people still rise up to protest. If so, it’s still a joke.
      4) Repeat until the people who don’t take you seriously have left, and your claim is no longer being questioned.

      1. So instead of Fabian socialism The US gets Colbertian Fascism.

  2. During World War II, all industrial production was overseen by the federal government, food and fuel were rationed, and civil liberties were sharply curtailed in the interest of defeating the Axis powers.

    Can we downplay this and focus back on the real threat to civil liberties: Orange Man?

    1. While I agree that sometimes it’s over the top, don’t you think that since Orange Man is currently president, he deserves the most scrutiny right now?

      1. Not if the Democrats want to finds someone who can beat Orange Man in 2020.

      2. he deserves the most scrutiny right now?

        No, the entire pack (including the guy running for re-election) deserves all the scrutiny we can give them. And while Orange man has some terrible policies, flails about publicly on twitter, I don’t get a ‘gulag’ vibe from him.

      3. No, I think both require equal scrutiny. Since the LP has no real shot in the near future, it would be best to focus equally on both sides shortcomings. Reason did do a better job of this under both Bush and Obama, then they currently do under Trump.

        1. You mean like euphemising the debate participants stances as a “hard green” agenda?

          1. “Communist” would be more accurate.
            “Totalitarianist” most accurate.

      4. We’ve given him a ton of scrutiny over the last three years. The media has also ensured we’ve seen every nasty, horrible thing about the man.

        And you know what? He’s not that bad. Not when you hold him up against everyone else.

    2. Yeah, the peanut gallery doesn’t understand that basic concept of libertarian journalism.

      1. Is that you putting people into tribes once again…

      2. LOL. Those of us with functional memories can remember this place during the Obama years and draw a meaningful comparison.

  3. good and nice information
    CLICK HERE►► businessinsider.com

  4. Warren is invoking Ocasio-Cortez’s stunning misreading of a 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

    AOC wasn’t “misreading” anything, she was telling a joke. She said so… repeatedly. So Warren is basing her climate policy based on a poorly-delivered punchline from a freshmen congresswoman who was crafted and marketed by a girl-band producer and promoter.

    1. Uhm, no – she misread it. And then she tried to cover that up by saying it was a joke.

      https://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/738/025/db0.jpg

  5. Nuclear power is pretty much essential to meeting their supposed goals and is safe but they don’t want to acknowledge that because?

    The threat of overpopulation subsided right around the time Soylent Green came out 45 years ago, but they still harp on this because?

    You have to wonder if these people are either completely out of touch, have fallen victim to their own propaganda, or both.

    1. Nuclear power is pretty much essential to meeting their supposed goals and is safe but they don’t want to acknowledge that because?

      It’s fundamental to the religion of “Deep Ecology.” Splitting the atom was the ultimate Faustian act that doomed the planet.

      The threat of overpopulation subsided right around the time Soylent Green came out 45 years ago”

      Coincidence? You be the judge.

      You have to wonder if these people are either completely out of touch, have fallen victim to their own propaganda, or both.

      It’s definitely both.

      1. Or they’re just evil.

        1. I think that grants them a level of intelligence I have never observed.

        2. Being evil is not incompatible with either being out of touch with reality or falling victim to their own propaganda.

          Evil Stupid party vs Stupid Evil party.

      2. The older zombies like Hiawatha Warren, Bolshevik Bernie & Death Warmed Over Joe might remember the famous book from the early 70’s, “The Population Bomb” by LIB professor Paul Ehrlich of Stanford. In the book he said governments must immediately forcibly order people to stop having kids because exploding populations will cause terrible wars & famines, droughts & lack of essential minerals that will wipe out 2/3 of humanity in gruesome fashion in the next 25 years!…Well, fast forward almost 50 years from his doomsday scenario & the population of the earth has almost doubled to 7 billion, standards of living are up across almost all nations, especially the 3rd world ones, where there are way less famines & much cleaner water! Yet, astonishingly, Ehrlich is still defiant & says he will be proved right eventually!…LOL!!! Nothing like the humility of a LIB/Prog-Tard when proved wrong, for they just double down!
        The same crap has happened for over 25 years with global warming /climate change predictions that have never materialized!

        1. Paul Erlich wrote his book just before the “Green Revolution” took off (The Green Revolution enormously increased worldwide crop yields). But the world population has more than doubled since Erlich wrote his book, and we can’t bank on technology bailing us out every time.

          1. Ehrlich is a big time dope & so are you if you defend him!!!!

          2. We can bank on technology. The only question is if the left will allow us to use it.

        2. ” Ehrlich is still defiant & says he will be proved right eventually!”

          Religion? From the Party of Science?

          I’m shocked.

          1. LOL!!!!!

    2. There was an interview in the 70s (helpful, I know–if I remember it I will find it) with an environmental activist leader. He was asked how he would view a hypothetical efficient nuclear fusion power plant–it would mean clean power for very cheap. He suggested that that would be terrible, since it would remove the driving issue to reorganize society as he likes.

      In short, I think that these types don’t really care about the environment that much. They see it as an excuse to maximize their own control.

      1. I’ve heard similar critiques of the New Deal from communists – it was terrible because it alleviated some of the suffering and deprivation of workers and thus postponed the Glorious Revolution. We’re never going to get anywhere if we keep working people fat and happy.

      2. Paul Ehrlich claimed that a cheap, clean source of power would be like handing an idiot child a machine gun– so maybe it was him.

        1. I think it was Jeremy Rifkin. But I also think that was in the 1989 (after those two guys in Utah announced that they had achieved room-temperature nuclear fusion) so maybe someone else also said it in the 70s.

          By the way, Ehrlich said in 1989 that fusion was “irrelevant” because “commercial applications are at least 20 years off” (true) and “the world will have long since succumbed to over-population, famine and acid rain” (false).

          1. Oh, maybe you are right and I got the decade wrong.

          2. commercial applications are at least 20 years off

            Still.

        2. Paul Ehrlich is a dumbass. I can respect someone who can admit to being wrong, but Ehrlich just sticks his fingers in his ears whenever it’s pointed out to him that his Population Bomb book was completely mistaken.

          1. Not just mistaken – its been reprinted several times and the first couple of reprintings pushed the date of the end of the world off from the original.

            I don’t know why anyone considers him to be any different than Camping.

            https://youtu.be/QynNpzqYt0Y?t=5

      3. In a modern society energy is wealth.

        And in every society wealth is power – social, economic, and political power.

        These people do not want you to have more/cheaper energy because it means you effectively have more of any sort of power.

        Calling it “hard green” is moronic. Gillespie is not a drooling idiot, so clearly understands this, but he’s not about to tell you Marxist Man Bad either.

        1. #NotREALCommunism
          #GlobalistsOfTheWorldUnite!

    3. Its propaganda to push socialism. They want people to give up freedom for security so they invent catastrophe.

  6. A teacher at the town hall said world population was growing beyond the planet’s carrying capacity and asked Bernie Sanders the following:

    A townhall with just regular folks who showed up in their dungarees to speak.

    1. regular folks who showed up in their dungareeslimousines to speak.

      FTFY.

    2. the population never grows beyond carrying capacity. it self-corrects. plus people have fewer kids as they get richer, and the whole world is getting richer and safer and cleaner.

  7. “We haven’t alienated voters enough with our combination of ignorance and elitism. What can we do about that?”

    “A seven-hour deep dive on how little we know about the science of climate change and how destructive we’re willing to be in acting on that ignorance?”

    “PERFECT!”

    1. I’m actively trying to figure not how likely it is that Trump can win in 2020, but instead how he could fuck it up causing him to lose.

      1. At this point, it’s definitely a race to see who can lose. The Dems are setting the bar really, really low. Like really low. It’s going to take a major recession for Trump to limbo under it and not win.

        1. It’s the most important election of our lifetime, therefore we must nominate Biden.

          1. Have sadder words ever been spoken?

            1. Or funnier, for that matter?

          2. If the Democrats want to win in 2020 they’ll need to nominate someone who hasn’t entered the primary race yet. None of their current crop of idiots have a chance.

          3. It’s the most important election of our lifetime, therefore we must nominate Biden.

            Owed by you to me: 1 new keyboard, dried and free of beverages.

        2. I doubt even a dead girl or a live boy could ruin it for him. And he can stave off a recession for at least a few months by lifting his tariffs on China.

          1. I almost wonder(ed) if this isn’t the play. Kinda like the TARP bailouts benefiting swing states.

        3. Have you seen the polling that shows Biden beating Drumpf by a comfortable margin?

          1. Oddly no, I have not.

            1. It’s the same poll 2 years out that had hillary plus 15.

        4. Big shocker: Trump’s biggest obstacle is, as always, going to be himself.

          He’s certainly savvy, but there’s also a chance he’s so insulated in his own bubble that he’s missing the copious amounts of ammunition the Dems have been handing him this year.

          I don’t know who the libertarians are going to nominate but they NEED to be keeping a running list of every insane and destructive policy idea that’s being tossed around. Get a libertarian into an actual presidential debate and make Republicans and Democrats defend themselves against rationality.

          1. You really had me going for a second. Then I got to “Get a libertarian into an actual presidential debate” and I LOLed.

            Firstly because of the (astronomically low) likelihood of getting an actual libertarian (as opposed to some warmed over re-tread of a failed Demopublican party politician.

            And secondly, from the notion that such event might be an actual debate (as opposed to a glorified Q&A session on topics controlled by a gaggle of leftstream media usual suspects.)

            1. I was actually paraphrasing Ron Paul’s words from 2008, where he said, in more or less terms, that his goal was to poll high enough that he’d be invited to the Presidential debate because politically engaged Americans deserve to hear libertarian ideas.

      2. “I’m actively trying to figure not how likely it is that Trump can win in 2020, but instead how he could fuck it up causing him to lose.”

        Putin’s Puppet has a 0.0% chance of winning in 2020. Trust me. Bookmark this topic if you want.

        1. Just like he had a 0% chance of winning this time 4 years ago, right?

        2. Are you willing to wager your immortal soul on this bet?
          I know of someone who wears a red suit, has a tail, has horns and is very interested in people’s souls who would love to make that wager with you.

          1. Pretty sure he already sold his immortal soul to Milhouse for a quarter.

      3. Never underestimate the Democrats’ ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

        1. That’s the problem, I don’t know if I CAN underestimate it.

        2. I’ll never forget an editorial I read in a Saudi paper in 2003 saying, in summary, that everyone’s excitement over the polls showing a faceless Democrat beating Bush II soundly was very premature, since once a face got put on that Democrat, victory would become far less certain.

          And along came John Kerry.

          1. It was the same for Unnamed Republican, who would have defeated Obama by 15 points, had he won the nomination in 2012

            1. IIRC Clinton wasn’t looking too hot in 1996, either.

              1. Pretty sure Reagan looked done for in 1983 as well.

                1. And boy the face they put on that Democrat!

                  *shudders*

                  1. The sad thing is how much different is Sanders or Warren from Mondale? Policy wise?

        3. there are no jaws of victory. notice none of those polls bother to figure out the electoral vote.

        4. Which only begs the question what will be the grand conspiracy theory used to explain that loss and justify another attempted judicial coup?

    2. To be followed up with a 7 hour lgbt woke competition.

  8. For those of us who believe in female autonomy and reproductive rights, that’s far less troubling than watching him buy into the idea that global overpopulation is in any way a problem.

    It’s increasingly not about reproductive “rights”. It seems to be more about putting the machinery in place to make abortion and other population control measures mandatory.

    1. I am not how abortion is going to lower the population more than it already does by individual choice.

      Of course, with the sorts of regimes Sanders admires individual choice has not necessarily been at issue.

      1. I am not how abortion is going to lower the population more than it already does by individual choice.

        If it was mandatory?

        1. It wont be ‘government’ mandatory.

          But look at what is happening right now with guns – from Wal-Mart getting away from the business to all sorts of major corporations declaring themselves gun free zones (CVS, Walgreens, etc.)

          And many of these same corporations through their “association” declaring that shareholders are no longer their primary concern.

          It isn’t too hard to imagine these businesses, through their ‘voluntary associations’ deciding that the “insurance” they offer their employees should only fully cover the first child, with subsequent child coverage decreasing incrementally (or entirely.)

          So, sure, abortions remain entirely ‘voluntary.’

      2. It wouldn’t be so much about lowering the population, at least not in the US, but ensuring only the “correct” people are having and raising children

        1. Ah yes, a good birth program, if you will.

          1. The sad thing is many of them would support that idea, thinking they will always be in charge of it. I’m pretty sure Robespierre thought he’d always be in charge to, until the walked him up on that platform. Or Trotsky thought for sure he’d be Lenin’s replacement right up until he felt that ice pick slide into his skin in Mexico.

        2. What was it that the Notorious RGB said on the topic? Something about it being good because we’re not having too many of the “wrong” people being born? Given the demographics of abortion, I wonder who she could possibly been talking about?

    2. The Marvel Movies told us overpopulation is a problem, and then they followed it up by subtly hinting that the world was a much better place after half the world population was summarily executed.

    3. abortion is the opposite of reproduction

  9. “For those of us who think killing our offspring is birth control..”

    Fixed it for you Gillespie.

  10. Are these people dumb, evil or both?

    1. Yes.

  11. Reported in Grabien, Kamala showed her true self when criticizing red meat:

    Sen. Harris said she would update government food guidelines to try to phase out eating red meat: “The answer is yes. I’ll also say this. The balance that we have to strike here, frankly, is about what government can and should do around creating incentives and then banning certain behaviors.

    There you have it, folks.

    1. Sen. Harris said she would update government food guidelines to try to phase out eating red meat

      Life without bacon cheeseburgers is pointless. We will just have to hope that they shoot the cows before the kulaks so that we get a good last meal.

      1. Cowmala Harris

        1. Soon Harris Beef will have a new meaning.

  12. For those of us who believe in female autonomy and reproductive rights, that’s far less troubling…

    Can we at least go off a little about the taxpayer-funded part?

    1. Can we at least go off a little about the taxpayer-funded part?

      ^This^

    2. What kind of right is it if it’s not government provided?????????

      1. Oh and Dear Reason,

        For the ten thousandths time, I DO NOT FUCKING WANT WIDEVINE INSTALLED IN MY BROWSER.

        You and Google and can fuck off.

  13. If these were the only four takeaways from last nights debate, then that must have been the most excruciating seven hours of television ever broadcast…

    1. Don’t feel too bad. Since this was a CNN pay-per-view event, only the “right people” (and media interns) had to watch.

      1. Pay per view? Wasn’t it on cnn – at least a portion.

        I’m certain cnn lost money if it was ppv.

        1. It will be like when HBO started losing money because Tyson was knocking out a bunch of no names during the first round. Little to no entertainment value. That is until Tyson decided to gloat over Buster Douglas rather than return to a neutral corner like he was instructed and Douglas was able to beat the county and knock Tyson out a couple rounds later.

  14. every Liz Warren still-shot is funny.

  15. How many people do they expect to impoverish or outright kill by bringing their ignorant plans to fruition?

    1. As many as it takes. It’s the socialist’s way.

    2. How many people have we got?

      1. Killing, not too many. As the saying goes- shoot one and the rest will straighten up. As for impoverishing, that’s the point. It’s much easier to rule and oppress people who are so busy with barely surviving that they have no time or energy for anything else.

    3. This sounds like a good-faith argument.

      1. The second order effects of all these notions will result in higher energy prices which will everything more expensive especially heating and cooling. The notion that you will be able to do these things without harming people on the margins is fantasy.

        1. The notion that you will be able to do these things without harming people on the margins is fantasy.

          You know, the harming people is not just a feature of the program, it’s the entire purpose of it. These people are veritable Agent Smiths, they loathe the human race and its disgusting drive to acquire more. Material well-being is a low and vulgar standard by which to judge the quality of one’s life, not like the noble and pure life of the mind such as our betters enjoy. See, all you miserable cretins are concerned with is how you’re going to live, where your next meal is going to come from, whereas people like Elizabeth Warren ponder the matter of how you should live, of what makes the life worth living. Of course, Elizabeth Warren can afford to ponder such questions because she already knows where her next meal is coming from – she just sends a text to an aide and they bring her meal to her. And then she’s nauseated by the fact that her meal was probably touched by some loathsome creature who didn’t even go to Harvard.

      2. How much damage can occur to people’s lives if we put Bernie Sanders at the head of an executive command-and-control economy that will be in the hands of an unknown Republican every 4 to 8 years?

        That better?

      3. This sounds like a good-faith argument.

        It *can’t* be a good-faith argument, The Pope is on *your* side.

    4. they’ve already said there are too many people. they’re anti-human.

  16. Nothing about Yang’s plan to force a buyback on your CARS and force you to buy electric ones (because, God knows, our grid can handle the impact of EVERYBODY driving electric cars…and I bet there is no pollution with that).? I thought of him as somewhat close to sane….that has ended.

    1. You have not really been paying attention to him on his signature issue then. His expectations for how that will work and what the effect would be demonstrates a certain disconnect with reality.

      1. Oh I have. I don’t disagree that UBI and his “the government has infinite money” are fucking idiotic. But he seemed, along with Gabbard, to be the best of an unbelievably terrible bunch.

        1. Oh I have. I don’t disagree that UBI and his “the government has infinite money” are fucking idiotic. But he seemed, along with Gabbard, to be the best of an unbelievably terrible bunch.

          Maybe not drinking horses but at least capable of being led to water.

          1. Hell, I’d like Tulsi as Trump’s NSA personally. We need somebody who seems to feel that if the problem isn’t worth sending several hundred thousands of troops to deal with, then it might not be worth dealing with at all.

            We’ve fought wars on the cheap for too long because we have fought for no good reason.

            1. Or because we refuse to actually to make the sacrifices necessary to actually win. Wars require you to be willing to absorb casualties and hardships in order to win. If we divorce this we end up fighting these endless wars with no clear objective and no clear victors. We have made war to painless for everyone but the small percentage that actually have to fight them, and their families.

              1. Ah, yes.. total war certainly separates the wheat from the chaff, regarding the “imperatives” that drive the call to war from the insulated punditry, and the bloodthirsty, yet uninvested. A lesson we conveniently forgot around ~1946..

      2. The fact that Tulsi wasn’t there was a gift to her. She wasn’t forced to spew out semi-retarded and unscientific platitudes towards an audience of a CNN producer’s carefully-chosen automatons from the basement of a CNNWorld Warehouse.

        1. The fact that Tulsi wasn’t there was a gift to her.

          Especially since no climate-believer is going to react to any of this with anything but “NONE OF THESE PLANS GO NEARLY FAR ENOUGH, YOU FASCIST PIGS!!!”

    2. I thought of him as somewhat close to sane….that has ended.

      The whole thing was an impossible proposition, and I’m now beginning to wonder if CNN is really a Republican organization, designed as a false-flag operation and a grand narrative scale.

      They invited the eleventy thousand Democratic candidates in a pre-fabricated, scripted town hall meeting to demand answers on how America can stop beating its wife. Not one of those candidates wants to be the single candidate who denies America’s wife is being abused. He has to put forward a grand proposal for The People’s Temple, or he’ll look like a pariah.

      The Democrats and the establishment media have become a grand cult, and either you angrily shake your fist during the two-minutes hate, or you’re a counter-revolutionary capitalist roader.

      The whole thing seems designed to literally re-elect Trump in 2020.

    3. EVERYBODY driving electric cars…and I bet there is no pollution with that

      Fun fact: battery + heat = explosion. Plus, the pollution from battery manufacturing and recycling will kill a lot more people than nuclear waste.

      1. “Fun fact: battery + heat = explosion. Plus, the pollution from battery manufacturing and recycling will kill a lot more people than nuclear waste.”

        Cher made a movie three decades ago. Didn’t you see it?

    4. building 50 million new electric cars is worse for the environment than everyone just continuing to drive their old clunkers.

    5. Consequences are of no consequence to the nomenklatura.

  17. “The bloody eye won’t help a campaign that has been plagued with questions about the 76-year-old’s mental and physical health”

    Ugh, of course conservatives are pouncing on this as if it’s a big deal. Reminds me of 2016 when they blew Hillary Clinton’s minor fainting incident way out of proportion.

    It’s like Republicans know the only way they can win is by lying and misleading. Oh, and Russian interference.

    1. Biden needs some rest in his home of Barad-dur, that red eye thing will clear right up.

      1. Where is the Sean Bean meme when you need it?

    2. Besides, the one bloody eye adds a touch of viciousness Uncle Joe lacks. I think he should don a hook hand to complement it.

      1. I’d vote for him if he did that.

    3. Ugh, of course conservatives are pouncing on this as if it’s a big deal. Reminds me of 2016 when they blew Hillary Clinton’s minor fainting incident way out of proportion.

      Remember when Nixon debated Kennedy? Good times.

  18. “During World War II, all industrial production was overseen by the federal government, food and fuel were rationed, and civil liberties were sharply curtailed in the interest of defeating the Axis powers.”

    And it worked! Also, it created modern civilization as we know it.

    How would libertarians have felt about nationalizing much of our national industry for a government purpose?

    1. “And it worked!”

      LOL

      Go fight the russians and the sea level rising on your own time and stop suggesting others risk their lives because you like to jerk off to Rachel Maddow

      1. Just as soon as you stop relying on fossil fuels.

        1. “Just as soon as you stop relying on fossil fuels.”

          Shithead, here, want someone else to return to the neolithic.

        2. Tony, please show all of us how important this is by giving up all fossil fuel actions, including all petroleum derived things like plastics. Only then will any of these folks deserve even a little attention.

          But it’s Do as I say, not as I do from all these ignorant thugs.

        3. “Just as soon as you stop relying on fossil fuels.”

          You first.

        4. Shall we go back to whale oil and horses then?

    2. So you’d be OK with strict rationing within the framework of a nationalized healthcare system, right? It’ll “work”, right?

    3. And it worked! Also, it created modern civilization as we know it.

      LOL

      1. Yes, it was a totally bloodless war, won by strict rationing.

        1. 100 million dead and Europe and Japan destroyed. What’s not to like?

          1. It was like a hundred hurricanes, breaking millions of windows and leading to prosperity from all the reconstruction

    4. Also, it created modern civilization as we know it.

      This is one of the dumbest things you have ever said.

      1. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

        1. Fair enough.

          This is really dumb even for Tony?

          Hmmm.

          This is just dumb.

    5. And it was essentially the fascist economic program. It was in large part, shoddy, wasteful of resources, abusive of workers (that is how we got employer insurance, because the government would not allow pay increases for in demand workers, so the employers had to find a way to attract workers), horrible for the environment (how many Superfund site were first contaminated under military projects from WWII?). It was not a decent set of policies and it was bad that it had to be done.

      But at least we know what sort you are.

    6. So, killing tends of millions and laying waste to an entire continent was a GOOD thing? Interesting.

      I thought it was a necessary evil, but hey, YMMV.

      “How would libertarians have felt about nationalizing much of our national industry for a government purpose?”

      How, uh, would you feel if Trump did it?

    7. And it worked!

      HAhahahHAHAhehehehehehe!

      The Navajo nation and the people of southern Utah would like to have a word with you about repercussions of government energy programs.

      1. Hanford, Washington as well.

        1. Oh and a couple hundred thousand Japanese-Americans and Japanese-Canadians, and a bunch of Aleuts who were relocated during the Aleutians campaign.

    8. Tony
      September.5.2019 at 5:02 pm

      “And it worked! Also, it created modern civilization as we know it.”

      Shitbag, here, who is constantly whining about the US medical care market is also too uneducated to understand the mess we have is directly attributable to Truman’s hopes that HE could control prices at the end of WWII.
      But then shitbag is stupid about many, many things.

  19. I like the part when they said we should avoid eating meat and using fossil fuels while their sponsors were airline and steakhouse companies.
    Hilarious!

    1. We. You. At some point what difference does it make?

  20. “A number likened fighting climate change to the effort to win World War II”

    The effort of the Allies or the Axis?

    1. The Soviets

      1. It’s only a five year plan. What harm can it do to try, right?

      2. Well done.

  21. The other way of putting Bailey’s argument on the effects of GW have more punch… You quoted

    “”if humanity does nothing whatsoever to abate greenhouse gas emissions, the worst-case scenario is that global GDP in 2100 would be 8.2 percent lower than it would otherwise be.”

    People are still going to see that “8.2” and think “that’s a lot”. Granted, not “we’re all extinct”, but you need to explicitly call out that that is 80 years from now… As Ron explained (I was excited because I’d done this math prior to Ron pointing it out), with normal economic growth of 2-3%, what this is *really* saying is “if the most dire predictions of the IPCC are correct, in 2100 the world will be 4.5 times better off than it is today! If the IPCC is wrong, instead the world will be 5 times better off.”

    It really hammers home that *over 80 years*, a 10% cost is really about a .12%/year, which honestly is negligible in the bigger picture of the economy growing 2-3%/year.

    1. Especially if you factor in the cost of implementing the Green New Deal vs. the cost of not.

      1. And factor in that several Republicans are now willing to discuss Climate Change rather then deny it, but stupid shit like the Green New Deal makes that possibility far less likely. Even Politico kind of admitted that yesterday.

    2. unless you blow 1 to 16 trillion dollars you don’t have every year in a futile attempt to change the weather

      1. And that’s just for the 5 percent of the world population living in America.

    3. “I was excited because I’d done this math prior to Ron pointing it out”

      And with that OtB marks himself as an actual libertarian. Possibly a forty year old virgin too, but most decidedly a libertarian.

      1. “And with that OtB marks himself as an actual libertarian. Possibly a forty year old virgin too, but most decidedly a libertarian.”

        Or a PhD in Applied Math, but those are hardly mutually exclusive! 🙂

    4. The only thing that needs to be explicitly called out is the irrational idea that humanity can control the climate – and that humanity would do so correctly.

      Even if you accept the anthropogenic climate change idea, you have to accept that humanity is both cause and solution. Which is to say – “we f’d up before, but this time is different!”

      1. Those should be the only things one has to point out… but I think that reasoning is still beyond most people. Grabbing numbers from the IPCC report is using their own Bible to show the silliness of their panic.

  22. “…And yet by the end of last year, plastic straws were “an endangered species” around the country due to outrage over a made-up number….”

    As is any sanity regarding use of fossil fuels, including natural gas, the form which releases the least CO2.

  23. “About half of the candidates have endorsed the Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.), which could cost as much as $90 trillion to implement.”

    The front runners who haven’t specifically endorsed the Green New Deal are just offering a long time table. And what we’re really talking about is Biden. He wants to do it over 15 years instead of ten.

    Harris, Sanders, and Warren are all on board with the Green New Deal, and that means that if any one of the four (including Biden) wins the nomination, I won’t be voting for a Libertarian Party protest candidate. I’ll be voting for Donald Trump because my principled stance against authoritarian socialism–which is what the Green New Deal is–requires it. Because the Democrats’ endorsed authoritarian socialism in the form of the Green New Deal, they must lose to Donald Trump.

    1. Take comfort in the fact that at least half of them are lying outright, and the other half haven’t the foggiest idea how they’re going to implement these plans.

      1. But they’ll try anyhow. Or did you forget the ACA?

        1. “Or did you forget the ACA?”

          The fact that theses idiots are slapping the voting public across the face with their single-payer cocks, brazenly and unabashed, is testament to the undeniable fact that the ACA is working s intended. If this were $Hil’s regime, we probably would have been suffering under the yoke of her newfound single-payer wokeness pandering for about a year or so by now.

      2. If find that thought cold comfort.

        Mainly because I do not think Obama himself was directly responsible for most of what happened during his administration. Mostly what happened under Obama was a strongly left leaning Federal bureaucracy getting free rein.

        So it does not matter if “the other half haven’t the foggiest idea how they’re going to implement these plans.” All that matters is that that ‘other half’ would not do anything to block the imposition of such plans.

  24. “4 memorable moments” raises the question of whether or not anybody other than Joe Biden can actually remember something they never witnessed. I’m sure somebody’s going to crow about CNN’s ratings for the world’s least funny clown show, but double-digit ratings don’t normally count individual viewers and fail to mention the decimal point.

  25. The party of science right there on full display.

    “Pro-life right-wingers are hot and bothered over the Vermont senator’s willingness to support taxpayer-supported birth control, including abortions, in his quest to defeat climate change. For those of us who believe in female autonomy and reproductive rights, that’s far less troubling than watching him buy into the idea that global overpopulation is in any way a problem.”

    Why does being pro-life have to be ‘right-wing’? I don’t think abortions should be tax payer funded and I’m hardly in the hard right camp. I also reject this notion if you’re pro-life you’re anti-female autonomy. It’s a sophomoric position. My sister is a 60s liberal hippie and old-school feminist and she’s disgusted by what she sees regarding the subject these days. Try and tell her she’s ‘anti female autonomy’. She’ll grab you by the collar.

    Also, abortion can be seen as a form of population control. Depending on how Bernie would control the population. Being a socialist, I’m sure it involves killing people. Abortion, one would think, could be a method to curb population growth.

    1. No doubt Gillespie has never heard your cogent arguments before.

      So I am certain he will correct his rhetorical excesses in the future.

  26. Cost of GND: 90 trillion.
    USA GDP: 21 trillion.
    World GDP: 78 trillion.

    “We’re short!”

    “What’s the problem? That’s 99 trillion! 21 + 78 = 99. Simple math!” Idiot from the Bronx.

  27. Wow, promising to spend trillions we don’t have on plans that won’t work. come to think of it, that’s Warren’s whole platform, basically. no wonder she’s the front-runner.

  28. What’s all the to-do about paper straws anyway. It takes trees to produce paper straws. Children love trees. Why do you hate children?

    1. “What’s all the to-do about paper straws anyway.”

      We’re saving the plastic trees.

  29. BTW, even the Chron, for pete’s sake, gave this jaw-flap-fest about 2-3 column inches on some inside page.

  30. As the folks at Our World in Data note, “global population growth reached a peak in 1962 and 1963 with an annual growth rate of 2.2%….For the last half-century we have lived in a world in which the population growth rate has been declining.”

    This is misleading language. Population growth has not been declining at all. Quite the opposite. It took all of human history until the year 1820 to hit 1 billion people. Then it took only 127 years to hit 2 billion in 1927. Then it took only 33 years to hit 3 billion in 1960! You get the idea. Today we are at 7.7 billion and still growing. Here’s another way to put it: anyone who was alive in 1970 (which includes me) has seen the world’s population double in his/her lifetime.

    It’s true the “growth rate” is lowering, but that means very little when population is still increasing. That’s like saying speeding over 100 mph in a car is not a problem because while the driver is still accelerating, he’s not accelerating as fast as he was before. OK, but he’s still accelerating, and he’s still not braking!

    And that population growth still has enormous momentum behind it, and will for a long time. It makes the problem worse that the highest amount of growth is in countries that can least afford it.

    1. It wasn’t at all misleading, unless you count “I didn’t read an important qualifying word” as misleading. I get the difference between the first and second derivative.

  31. While you might ridicule a comparison of Climate Change to WWII the analogy is good. In the end combating Climate Change and adapting to its effects will change the entire world. The process is already started and it will continue. Renewable energy will become a larger source of energy. We will seek efficiency. Despite what the Trump administration thinks we are not going back to coal, incandescent lights, typewriters, or Betamax VCRs.

    1. Renewable energy will become a larger source of energy. We will seek efficiency. Despite what the Trump administration thinks we are not going back to coal, incandescent lights, typewriters, or Betamax VCRs.

      Renewable energy is a lie and we sought efficiency long before green energy was a thing and will still seek it long after future generations have stopped laughing at our idiocy. You seem unaware that electric cars predate the Model T and that, at the time, it was believed by many of the world’s top scientists, fathers of GHG and modern climate theory, that we’d have to burn fuel to offset global cooling whether we got any useful work out of the deal or not.

      1. “Renewable energy is a lie”
        This is true with regards to physics. What we are talking about is how we derive energy from the sun as all energy on the planet, with the exception of nuclear energy(*), comes from the sun. Renewable energy through direct collection (solar collectors) or near direct collection (wind power) does not physically use up material. The sun will be available as long as humans are on the planet, so for our purposes forever. Sun energy collected as chemical energy in fossils (coal/petroleum) are limited and produce a increasing amount of waste.

        (*)- nuclear energy is from a sun just not our own sun.

  32. “”For those of us who believe in female autonomy and reproductive rights, that’s far less troubling than watching him buy into the idea that global overpopulation is in any way a problem.””

    Except Bernie has no problem using the government to force things upon it’s citizen. Female autonomy may fall to government demands.

  33. In a related way, the candidates all bought into the apocalyptic premises of the questioners, who took for granted the idea that the world is likely to end in a decade or so unless massive, transformational change takes place.

    https://bandarsamkong.net adalah situs poker online, bandarqq, dominoqq terpercaya dengan permainan player vs player tidak ada bot ataupun admin bermain

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.