We could help but removing the subsidies that the US gives to oil companies.
And charge them higher rates to use federal lands. That could drive up costs a bit.
Joe Walsh (thankfully, not the singer) will primary Trump.
Sharpe
4866
I agree with this but I am also sympathetic to the argument from the climate-prioritizers that when you look at the decades long history of inaction on climate change in the US, failing to make climate change the top priority does not create confidence that action is actually going to be taken on climate change. The answer IMO is to focus on winning without disregarding climate change, and then, most importantly, to actually work hard to achieve meaningful policy changes on climate, and not to just relegate climate change to the back of the bus. The whole issue of “mental priority” is very tricky and subjective but is also something with real world effects. It’s a very short step from saying “we cannot prioritize running on this issue right now for electoral reasons” to just giving the issue less priority in more general terms. I mean, I understand the necessity of winning, but I also understand the concern that climate change gets treated as secondary when the policy rubber hits the political road.
By all means, say it is a priority. But don’t voluntarily hold a my plan is even more extreme than his face-off extravaganza broadcast to the whole country. Don’t make it a debate topic for the primaries.
I think Joe Biden is taking your advice on this on a whole variety of issues. So if it’s the smart move, it should earn him the nomination. Of course, it also makes the rest of us nervous. If he does become President, will he actually prioritize it?
Matt_W
4869
Prices already are much higher in real dollars than at any point in the 20th century. We are absolutely running out of conventional oil sources and have already moved on to unconventional or “tight” sources, which are more expensive to extract and refine. As Chinese and Indian consumption ramps up, expect oil prices to be very volatile, with an upward trend. Add to that the political dimension of oil production, and it’s a recipe for body slamming the world economy over and over again with price shocks over the next couple of decades.
Have you checked out Bernie Sander’s recently released climate plan? It actually hits just about everything you’ve listed in the last few posts. I moderately prefer Warren over Sanders, but I have been impressed with many aspects of the plan he released this week.
PDF of plan:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1654-bernie-sanders-green-new-deal/761873c26ec4075c609b/optimized/full.pdf#page=1
Some media coverage:
If he makes the nominee, I won’t have any trouble voting for him.
Right now, I am torn between Pete and Warren.
New Monmouth national poll shows a 20-20-19 race at the top between Warren, Sanders, and Biden.
Which is a great result for two of them. :)
One massive caveat: this is a national poll with 298 respondents. Which…yikes.
But, don’t dismiss either. As Nate Cohn put it very well just now:
Timex
4873
The problem you’re going to run into is that you’re talking about increasing the cost of energy, and acting as though that’s a good thing.
Increasing the cost of energy is not a good thing. It will increase the cost of literally everything else. It’ll hit everyone in the economy, the poor most of all. It will not be popular.
If you want to solve the problem in a way that is politically advantageous, then you need to make more ecologically conscious choices cheaper, not make the current choices more expensive.
Nesrie
4874
Yeah… after getting elected the issue can be pushed towards the top, along with all the other promises / attentions mentioned prior to election.
You are right, increasing the cost of energy doesn’t seem like a good thing, but on the other hand, where are these subsidies coming from? We could instead take these credits and give them directly to the public. That would offset the increased cost of energy for most people. And then the consumer can decide to either pay hire gas prices, or go to one of the (still) subsidized more environmentally friendly options.
And the market will fix it.
Heck, we could do the same with cattle. Reduce the subsidies, put the money directly into the consumers pocket, and they can then make better choices. Maybe elect to eat more vegetables or other healthier alternatives.
Subsidies should only last if there is a public good for them. If there isn’t, they should go away, instead of just propping up established interests.
And then, let the market decide. Because that would be more efficient.
Things will cost what they actually cost, instead of the market being distorted by the evil hand of gubbermint picking winners and losers(formerly tm the GOP).
Energy should actually be quite a bit more expensive if the true cost of it - environmental damage, etc. - is priced into it.
Two new polls from two good pollsters (Quinnipiac and Suffolk) this morning kind of confirm the Monmouth poll that had folks hyperventilating about on Monday was an outlier. Both have Biden in low 30s, Warren second in the teens. Which…
-
Kudos to Monmouth for releasing that Monday poll. They do a terrific job. If you’re an honest pollster (as in, not Rasmussen or Zogby), you release your poll results and your methodology and you’re willing to be an outlier if that’s what your poll results say. Because it’s early, it’s volatile and fluid and if nothing else, it adds a marker to polling aggregation and a point of reference for your next poll, which is likely to correct if your previous poll was an outlier.
-
As Silver said (and he’s been excoriated by the left the last two days for having the temerity to point out the flaws in the Monmouth poll), if you see a poll with a huge and marked change in candidate placement where there’s been no motive external event, maybe consider that poll to be an outlier and don’t overreact until you get some confirming polling that shows the original poll wasn’t an outlier, but a trend.
-
Tom Steyer spent $12m on ads the last two months to try to get to the polling threshold for the September debates, and failed to do so. He won’t be on the stage. Dude is a billionaire, and had to solicit $1 donations from people as well. You could have just as easily taken that dollar and set it on fire.
-
Here’s the debate lineup:
-Joe Biden -Pete Buttigieg -Kamala Harris -Bernie Sanders -Elizabeth Warren -Cory Booker -Beto O’Rourke -Amy Klobuchar -Julián Castro -Andrew Yang
And it’s a one-night thing, all 10 on the same stage.
Oh, and here’s who’s still “in” the race, but missed the debate:
Gabbard
Williamson
Steyer
Bullock
de Blasio
Gillibrand
Messam
Sestak
Delaney
Ryan
Uh…that’s a good thing. The front-runners will now all be together. It’s likely to be a Joe Biden firing squad.There are going to be more debates, with fewer candidates. The field is being culled, and pretty organically.
Is it twice as long? There’s not enough time for people to talk in this format. Did you see the graphs of total talking time from the first couple debate night pairs? Yang had like 2.5 minutes total his first night. That’s not enough for anyone to form an opinion.
God I hope not. Sitting through 90 minutes of these things is an exercise in tedium to the extent that I haven’t watched anything but clips of them so far.
It’s enough time. Adding more just means “Let’s give these candidates more time to pivot off the question asked and onto their respective stump speeches.” Meh.
Yep.
Yep, and probably 2.5 minutes more than Andrew Yang needed to have, but OK.
Eh, show me the the voters who are so interested and so unformed right now that they’re going to watch, say, 3 hours of debate to form an opinion about the candidates…but aren’t willing to just go google some stump speeches and candidate policy white papers instead to form an opinion.
