I have wrestled with publishing a diary on this story on Amy Klobuchar’s answer to whether she supports the New Green Deal at a CNN Town Hall.
I don’t want this story to be the first primary war. It is not my intention to cause any discord because our focus has to be on getting rid of Donald Trump. Because I shun conflict, it is just not part of me.
So I am sharing this news as informational only so that her position will be a part of our process of choosing a candidate.
As most of you know, I am generally a green diarist at this site. A gloom and doom type of Kossack when it comes to climate change, but a believer that if we throw everything we have at the problem we might be able to make the damage a little bit less severe.
The news for the climate is awful as most of you know, civilization ending calamity is on the horizon if we do not entirely restructure how we power our homes and industries and a myriad of other issues. But it is much more complicated than just energy, and cars. It includes the exploitation of our aquifers, land use issues, agriculture and the rise of authoritarianism sowing discord (but those are issues for a separate diary).
I will admit to it, I am a one issue voter, and that issue for me is going all out to eliminate fossil fuels within a decade and to aggressively begin to shore up our defenses as best we can to protect us from more and more deadly natural disasters.
The IPCC stated that we have 12 years (10 now) to accomplish decarbonization before the best of the "worst” case scenario’s plays out.
So I am disappointed with Senator Klobuchar’s answer to a question on the Green New Deal. To be clear, she did state that she will vote for the GND when Mitch McConnell brings it up for a vote in the Senate. But she called it aspirational. That worries me that she doesn’t get it. I understand what an overwhelming challenge it will be to reverse direction quickly. Herculean in fact. But no action or incremental action is to accept that we have chosen a mass extinction event for our future. That sounds horrific to me.
We need action, not starting the debate. We’ve been “debating” this for decades. Time is up, it’s either now or never. If not the Green Deal than what are your plans?
Capital View writes:
1. Klobuchar says she doesn’t support all of the ‘Green New Deal.’ Sen. Amy Klobuchar said Tuesday that the “Green New Deal” proposal is merely “aspirational” and that she would likely oppose specific elements of the plan if they came up for a vote. Klobuchar’s comments during a Fox News interview made her one of the only 2020 Democratic presidential contenders to openly cast doubt on the Green New Deal’s viability. Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Cory Booker, D-N.J., all co-sponosored the Green New Deal resolution. “The Green New Deal? I see it as aspirational. I see it as a jump-start,” Klobuchar said.” “So I would vote yes [on the Green New Deal resolution], but I would also — if it got down to the nitty-gritty of an actual legislation, as opposed to, ‘Oh, here’s some goals we have’ — uh, that would be different for me.”
Eugene Robinson provides a concise perspective on why we need to act now.
Yes, the Green New Deal is audacious. But we have no choice but to think big.
The laudable aim is to play offense, not defense, in the fight to limit climate change. We are going to have to wage that battle one way or another. Why not do it on our terms, before Miami slips underwater and the yet-unburned parts of California go up in flames?
The best historical analogy is not the New Deal but World War II, when mobilization of the nation’s vast productive capacity not only defeated Germany and Japan but also generated unprecedented domestic economic growth, hugely expanding the middle class. Once again, the planet faces a dire threat. Once again, the United States can help lead the world to victory.
It’s a massive overreach, critics of the Green New Deal say. But any effort to address climate change that is commensurate with the scale of the problem is going to look like an overreach. Worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases — the cause of global warming — are beginning to level off, but they need to start falling, and fast, if we are to spare our grandchildren and great-grandchildren an ecological nightmare.
snip
Can we really shift entirely to clean energy sources within 10 years, as the resolution pledges? Well, certainly not if we don’t try. In 1961, when President John F. Kennedy announced the goal of sending an American to the moon and back by the end of the decade, NASA scientists had only a vague idea how to do such a thing. They figured it out, and succeeded in 1969.
snip
Look at the big picture. Unless you deny the science of climate change, you have to believe that we need to take bold action. Stop all the nitpicking. Enough with the posturing. Let’s talk about what to do.
Of course, if the Senator is our nominee, I will fully support her.