The Clinton-Sanders exchange on climate change was a dumpster fire
David Roberts, April 17, 2016 (VOX)
Editor’s note: It is worth clicking through to read all of this lengthy debate summary.
“…[C]limate change finally got a decent chunk of time in Thursday night's Democratic primary debate…It was not particularly substantive…What it revealed, for the most part, are the candidates' flaws — Clinton's defensiveness and inability to articulate a broad vision; Sanders's monomania about money in politics and propensity to back whatever the left wants, even when it is mutually contradictory…[It included Clinton’s] long, complex, and not always pretty [history with the oil and gas industry and Sanders’ implication that the small difference in the donations they have received is] de facto evidence that the fossil fuel companies already think she's on their side…Next, Sanders pressed Clinton on whether she supports a [probably politically untenable] carbon tax, now widely seen as the sine qua non of serious climate policy…Then the discussion turned to fracking, which, for reasons unclear, has become a kind of stand-in for climate seriousness…
“Clinton remains temperamentally averse to absolutes and simple prescriptions, so she always ends up sounding lawyerly. She seems unable to mount a convincing case for incrementalism, unlike the current president, who can make incrementalism sing. She is the anti-Obama, all notes and no music…[Incrementalism] has accumulated for Obama into a serious climate legacy…Clinton wants to build on Obama's progress. Sanders wants to go for another grand legislative solution. She remains unable to articulate a compelling larger vision; he remains unable to explain how he would overcome the obvious political obstacles…When they grapple honestly with those differences — that will be the climate debate I've been waiting for.” click here for more