The front runner is making it extremely difficult for a great many of us

A candidate who can pick up the never trump repubs is what it takes to defeat trump.

though, and I doubt that rating Biden as a D- would help him with those. And certainly not with us.

It's a pernicious attack that must be intended to hurt Biden in both directions. The midterms showed desire across the nation for responsible and competent government. I believe the people you're talking about these days would mostly like Biden's real record, which has averaged solidly environmentally aware and responsible over 5 decades, but this is trying to hide that from everyone.

averaged solidly environmentally aware and responsible over 5 decades. I wonder why.

The weaponization of healthcare, indifferent to how many innocents were stabbed in the battle, was despicable enough, and now it's climate with the planet and everyone's wellbeing at risk.

To attract those who voted for Trump?

After we get back in power all ideas can be front and center. To battle left vs right is what trump wants.

He can win if we fight among ourselves.

mostly played musical chairs with Democratic seats...and the most success we have had was a 50 state strategy in 08. The country is center left...Biden is in my opinion the only candidate who can beat Trump and help retain the house and who has a snowballs chance of having coattails for the senate.

on environmental issues and how he compares to others. Because I have checked Biden's long record on environmental issues, I know this OP is very misleading and believe it to be very irresponsible. At best.

Biden's voting and positions on environmental issues, including climate change, have been displeasing conservative colleagues and voters for decades. Trying to weaponize this critical issue against a leading candidate with a proven environmental record is anything but environmentally responsible. The Republicans will be doing that. And as we see, others.

Reality is, Biden's record over the last five decades of development of climate crisis averages far, far, far better than the typical oblivious American's, far better than even most Democratic legislators, and on a different planet from Republican legislators' after the early 1970s -- as HONEST evaluations by environmental groups show.

The League of Conservation Voters gives Biden an 83% lifetime score, which may not sound that good but his score begins in 1973 and it does not include the years after 2008 when he left the senate. During these recent years the national explosion of awareness has occurred, and Democratic legislators across the nation have been newly empowered to act. Biden's 83% lifetime compares extremely well against hundreds of scores like 0, 17, and 43. (There are LOTS of 0's, btw.)

Note that Democrats NOW virtually all have 100% annual LCV scores and that some new members get to have 100% lifetime scores. That last's genuinely wonderful for what it says about our party, but does that really require greater commitment, or is it more like they were "born" on a third base of awareness and action, when 100% doesn't require much more courage or initiative than going with the crowd ever does?

Biden, the other candidates in congress, other legislators, and congress's record as a whole are evaluated here. http://scorecard.lcv.org/overview

It would be interesting to give all our candidates a surprise quiz and find out how they rank for knowledge of the many, many, many complexities involved. Biden has been dealing with them for decades, and I'm pretty sure he'd surprise even those who like him.

Is Biden the candidate most passionately focused on the climate battle? No. That's Inslee, of course, who has a record of tremendous substance on this subject.

Is Biden, whose main issue is saving our nation so it can address climate, a wrong choice for president in spite of his life of proven concern for and responsibility on environmental issues? Ridiculous question.

that we'll get everything we want if our preferred candidate is elected POTUS?

is that we won't get what we want if our next D president won't even ask for it.

It is the job of Congress essentially. Yes, the President puts together a budget but it requires work from Congress too.

the other candidates have done...and most of the policy coming out from Warren and others has no chance...I would prefer to get something done...

The proverbial re-arranging of deck chairs on the Titanic.

Our previous president hoped / aimed for a "2 degree course correction." I don't think it was enough then and would be wildly insufficient now. Back to the future is not a viable option here.

dream. We will be really lucky to win the Senate. And losing will not serve us...in fact it will destroy the party and the country.

And IMHO we will not win elections at any level without promising big changes... because big changes are desperately needed on any number of fronts. Pushing pragmatism and baby steps will shoot us in the foot. We've tried that before.

Try living in the present. Give it a whirl.

Give it a whirl.

Two economic crises, the Great Depression and the Great Recession. Compare and contrast the measures taken to deal with them and the popularity, longevity and transformative nature of those policies.

A million years ago...can't live in the past.

It will take years to undo a lot of the damage.

Anyway, after the debacle in London, we need Joe for the next U.K. State dinner for a US President.

It will be much easier to read.

1970s: Voted against the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. (Nov 2009)
Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Sponsored bill raising CAFE by a 4% per year until 2018. (Jul 2006)
Rated 83% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Jan 2007)
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)

https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/joe-biden

I will be happy to let the voting public decide on Biden's environmental record, and not some heavily biased group

The OP's score is probably more relevant, since it's scoring same period of time for the same things, and it's current, and it's everyone. It's what they propose or believe NOW.

But all their scores are good, compared to Republicans. Devin Nunes' score is 3%.

far more accurate.

Andrew Yang D+. No way. Beto O'Rourke a B-? While Beto O'Rourke says he supports the new green deal, he prefers something else less ambitious. In fact O'Rourke's record is very mixed on this, from fracking to the used of fossil fuels. Andrew Yang on the other hand is 100% behind the new Green Deal, and he gets a D+

I don't buy Green Peace's rating system at all. 1.5 Climate test for Biden? Biden has always believed in global warming, and a reduction in green house gasses.

The LCV rating system is much more objective, and I believe accurately reflects the candidates views on the environment.

The Greenpeace "letter grade" system is hyperbole in my view

We have a difference of opinion

I am only concerned right now about supporting my candidates in the primaries. It’s disturbing to see Biden where he is, but not surprising. If he becomes the nominee, I’ll hit the button against Frump. But we have a long way to go before the election so for now, I’ll stick with who I support. It’s what makes the primaries so exciting.

environmental voting record, and Biden was on top of environmental issues and global warming years before it became “fashionable”

It is going to make it really hard for you to vote for him

now he's behind. Now it's back to Obama's policies and the Paris agreement...and an "all of the above" approach to energy.

It is not enough. The worst-case scenario in climate models is never "worst" enough, and has to be continually revised. The Paris agreement with its target of 2 degrees Celsius max. was doomed from the start: if every nation fulfilled its commitments, temperature rise would be closer to 3 degrees.

Presidential candidate Joe Biden, 76, seems to have a very different understanding of the climate crisis than the world’s leading climate scientists. Several top advisers to the former vice-president previewed his “middle of the road” plan on the issue for Reuters on Friday. He’ll have the US rejoin the Paris agreement, which Trump has said he will leave exit as soon as that document’s terms allow in early 2021. He’ll preserve existing regulations on emissions and fuel efficiency that the current administration has targeted. Like Obama, he’ll embrace an “all of the above” energy strategy, with plenty of room for new natural gas development and exports as well as carbon capture and storage, to indefinitely extend the life of the coal industry.
<snip>
Scientific reality is a different story. A recent report from Oil Change International found that allowing the industry continuing to explore for and extract all the new fuel deposits they intend to would run directly counter to the goals inscribed in the Paris agreement. As the IPCC report indicates, meeting those will mean that global natural gas usage decline by 74% by mid-century – and arguably much faster in the US. Staying below 2C means keeping 80% of known fossil fuel reserves buried underground.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/13/joe-biden-is-a-climate-denier

Lies about Biden on the environment


Just their jackass headline from your link, "he is a climate change denier" is a LIE

1970s: Voted against the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. (Nov 2009)
Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Sponsored bill raising CAFE by a 4% per year until 2018. (Jul 2006)
Rated 83% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Jan 2007)
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)

we will see what happens in the primaries, while the Biden haters continue to distort and misrepresent his record


https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/joe-biden

I care what happens to the planet, and my grandchildren that have to live on it.

great record...and BEHIND THE TIMES. Don't take it personally--damn near everybody is, all across the planet.

development of fossil fuel sources? Simple question.

nominee in 2016 would have won, we would be continuing the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy, and WHOEVER is the Democratic nominee in 2020, that will continue, even with those candidates that are saying that fossil fuels will be completely eliminated within a very short time, they know there will be a transition period, and it won't happen overnight

Biden will not, and politically speaking, the moderate voters he is aiming at don't want him to.

whatever that means, is flawed.

Biden, as all the Democratic candidates are aiming for the voters.


1970s: Voted against the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. (Nov 2009)
Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Sponsored bill raising CAFE by a 4% per year until 2018. (Jul 2006)
Rated 83% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Jan 2007)
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)



https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/joe-biden

It's being pushed by people like AOC who is not a moderate. Biden says he wants a "middle ground" that as far as I can see is not nearly enough to change the disastrous course we are on. Some union groups are against the Green New Deal, the exact demographic in the rust belt Biden is supposedly appealing too.

I disagree with Biden and agree with AOC on this. I am more of a climate alarmist than she is. I am not under the illusion that Biden, who has always had good instincts for sticking to the Democratic mainstream, will suddenly wake up on climate change and essentially drive the oil industry out of business. That is a radical solution, but that's what needs to happen. I am also not under the illusion people would knowingly vote for that.

I too believe that working to end the fossil fuel industry as we know it is beyond the former VP.

I'm really pretty pessimistic about the future. The human species just isn't that good at planning things more than a few years out. We evolved to deal with immediate dangers, not something that will happen decades from now. It's the same reason people smoke and don't save enough for retirement.

if you sign on to this...no chance of making this law...and it would hurt manufacturing...you can work on green policies and keep jobs...we only have one shot on climate change and the first job that is lost will see us kicked out of office and a decade before we can try again.

We actually can't have this one both ways. But we don't know how to handle a crisis like climate change, so politics trumps the environment... for now.

It was a simple yes or no question. Do you have an answer?

did answer your question, but you choose to ignore it

He is for a transition from fossil fuels to clean energy

You don't like my answer, fine

You want a simple yes or no answer

Go interrogate someone else who enjoys having a dialog with you

I don't particularly

but have a good day. I certainly don't have any ill feelings toward you

1970s: Voted against the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. (Nov 2009)
Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Biden not only believes that Climate Change and global warming is real, and we need to do something about it

Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Sponsored bill raising CAFE by a 4% per year until 2018. (Jul 2006)
Rated 83% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Jan 2007)
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)

https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/joe-biden

Obviously, I suspect you believe other candidates would do a better job, and I have no doubt you will express that during the primaries.

Biden's action on the environment are almost certainly going to be less aggressive than Inslee's. This is actually a selling point for Blue Collar Joe, because many blue collar voters oppose a Green New Deal. They want to keep drilling for oil and don't want to be retrained to install solar panels.

There are real policy differences here that have real world implications regarding who votes in 2020 and how our world looks in 30 years.

Maybe Biden's the best we can do politically, but that's unfortunate for our planet's future. It's just not as unfortunate as a Trump victory.

better on the environment than someone else, and perhaps in the process convince them to reconsider

daunting series of obstacles and changes ever required of humanity.

I’m looking for a candidate who has the information and desire to push for the kinds of solutions never needed before.

It was posted to express my concerns about the real possibility of our country’s, let alone the planet’s, most pressing issue being low-shelved by a leader with an unevolved pov on environmental issues.

1970s: Voted against the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. (Nov 2009)
Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Sponsored bill raising CAFE by a 4% per year until 2018. (Jul 2006)
Rated 83% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Jan 2007)
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)



https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/joe-biden

and we will see what the voting public believes

The League of Conservation Voters is as unevolved as VP Biden.

even look at his record objectively, and they give him a D-

seriously messed up, or they have a different agenda

I was told by people here O’Rourke had a terrible record on the environment that was not unlike a republican, yet he fares pretty well in this chart.

I guess those people didn’t know WTF they were talking about. What a surprise.

the same things will be said about anyone who presents a challenge to certain candidates and agendas.

Once again, I would refer to the latest science. One can either trust it, argue its accuracy, or flat deny it. Of those three, the last two support heavy agendas. I read and support the latest science. No agenda.

if Trump wins...talk is cheap. Any candidate can promise anything but can he/she deliver. It is unlikely unless we win the Senate we can get anything done but stop Trump and the judges...which is pretty huge.

Does that mean we simply don’t address the issues which concern us, or should we express our concerns supported with the info we trust—knowing that some of it is probably wrong?

I’m not sure how in the hell you got that from my post. My point was specifically about O’Rourke and how he fits into the table provided. Nothing else.

of many issues that the candidates need to address. If Greenpeace is credited for the chart, then it makes sense that those two issues would be charted.

.. are you saying someone who has a majority or plurality of voters behind him or her should drop out so that people polling at 1% would have a chance?

To answer your question: of course I don’t think he should drop out. I was expressing my concerns about his stance on a mortally immediate issue.

biased

Here is where Joe Biden has been on the issues:


1970s: Voted against the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. (Nov 2009)
Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)
Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
Sponsored bill raising CAFE by a 4% per year until 2018. (Jul 2006)
Rated 83% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Jan 2007)
Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)


https://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/joe-biden


Anyone who is naïve to believe that we can eliminate the use of fossil fuels in a very short time, is kidding themselves

There will be a transition period.

They talk about Europe moving quickly toward that direction, but do they realize where a lot of Europe's energy is coming from is nuclear energy

which incidentally Greenpeace is opposed to also

Which puts me at odds with most green voters. I think Biden might actually promote nuclear power, but it would be political suicide to say that.

insure either neutralizing the spent rods, or a environmentally safe way of disposal, and I don't believe they can at this time.

Nor can they ensure its operational safety from various disasters as TMI, Fukushima, and Chernobyl has shown us.

I also believe that business and environmentalist need to work in a more cooperative way, instead of adversarial, but unfortunately I don't think that is very likely at this time, since both sides have been at each other's throats for so long

I've seen some possible designs, but there needs to be more development.

The nuclear fuel disposal problem is, in my view, somewhat exaggerated. I think it is technically solvable. But nobody wants their great grandchildren to be the guinea pigs.

One either relies on the latest science or one does not.

But your post was twisted out of context. It has been that type of conduct since before the 2000 election that has done enormous damage to our efforts to build a clean energy economy, imagine where we would be if some of the people complaining had not helped Bush win in 2000 (Bush won because idiots attacked the Democratic Party nominee, just like they did Hillary in 2016). I don't want to hear the BS about stolen elections, the people complaining now did massive work to help elect republicans.

Edited to make what I was saying clearer.

have done that twice, 2000 and 2016, IMO.

You did an excellent post that detailed Biden's legislative record on clean energy and climate change action. People that post the type of stuff that you were refuting ignore the often relatives of occasional pieces of legistlation. A democrat may vote "yes" on something that turns our heads, but a deeper look at what happened in all cases show that the "yes" vote PREVENTED horrid legistlation from passing and being signed into law by a republican President. When the final bill is going to get 85 votes in the Senate, a Senator like Senator Sanders can go on record opposing it, but that does not make him a hero in my estimate. Year later groups like Greenpeace used a courageous and sound "yes" vote to beat democrats over the head and make it look like Senatot Sanders was the courageous one, when in fact the opposite should happen.

We have seen that movie before.

Maybe in Lousiana, but no where else.

The issue that Still_One touched on is whether we grind the economy to a halt. We can and should accelerate the change over to cleaner energy, but that is an effort that will take at least sixteen years, unfortunately the people complaining blow up every chance we have of electing a democratic President to follow 8 years of a democratic President and that has set us back massively across a broad spectrum of pressing issues, not just clean energy, although the damage has been grievous in that area.

to make Bernie look good and Biden look bad.

They think that by making Inslee a tad better than Bernie means they won't be caught.

Seems like some people are desperate to Swiftboat a highly respected democrat, and those people CLAIM to be on our side.

Not sure the average Democratic voter considers himself/herself to be a "Progressive Environmentalist voter".

It is that wing of the party (Progressive Environmentalist) which has rated the candidates on this graph,
and 'Media Bias/Fact Check' says about the graph's source

Grist:
"They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) ...

Due to their left leaning political bias regarding environmental policy we place them in the Left-Center category rather than Pro-Science."

The world has moved on; a massive bill has come due. I do believe you will find a not insignificant number of Democrats have my same concerns.

I assure you our time is not over.

is a losing electoral proposition. Greenpeace is a wonderful example of a group that makes the perfect the enemy of the good. They would prefer to lose everything rather than compromise on anything.

Cast that kind of shade on people who devote their lives to the welfare of next generations.

perfunctory attributes just to make Bernie look good and Biden look bad.

We have seen similar things done before to manipulate voters.

My guess is everyone of us will have to compromise some of our desires to achieve this goal. It is going to take everyone of us to vote for whomever the Democratic Party as a whole nominates. I don’t want to risk sabotaging any candidate, but getting wrapped up in anyone’s ideology. We can’t afford that now.

Nevertheless, it’s prudent to discuss our concerns in this primary season.

and we need to discuss what is true.

That the messages of their "scoring" vary so dramatically from those of League of Conservation Voters, an organization with a strong record of integrity, really should in itself make us wonder about their validity. As should positioning Sanders as #2 on climate. What a joke!

But hardly new. Greenpeace, in fact, has a well documented poor record for honesty in reporting. Facts and even science that get in the way of its political agenda are often discarded or outright denied.

Pertinent to our primaries, Greenpeace is also committed to the political promotion of "Green New Deal," a political agenda for amassing power rather than a real plan. No one expects it to be implemented.

Perhaps critically, Biden is not among those pretending that it could be. Our congressional caucuses have members who are expert on these issues, many of whom ran for office TO work on climate change, and who are committed to the plans they are developing along with thousands of outside experts.

But given Greenpeace's record we should be asking: Just how much is their scoring affected by how much a candidate seems to align with their agenda? Rather than their true environmental records? And, just what is their agenda here? (Obviously pushing Sanders up and Biden down, btw.)

If we don't get rid of him, nothing else matters.

citing Biden’s long record on criminal justice.

When the candidate actually pronounced a policy, it was quite acceptable, and more importantly had a chance of getting through Congress: Decriminalization, retrospective erasure of criminal records for possession with legalization remaining with the states. ‘No one should be in jail for smoking pot’.

Biden’s record on Climate Change misses (or should do) 2009 - 2019, the years he has been out of the Senate. He has yet to announce a detailed policy.

What his spokesperson has said is ““As president, Biden would enact a bold policy...to tackle climate change in a meaningful and lasting way, and will be discussing the specifics of that plan in the near future,” .
Biden’s campaign has dismissed the suggestion he will be proposing a middle of the road approach.

Anyone can cite (and characterise a voting record. Marking Biden’s record on the GND while he was not in the Senate is mendacious and speculative. Biden is getting zeros to policiy he is yet to announce. Greenpeace should know better, but perhaps they do.

than others.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1SG18G

It was previously reported that he did want to find "middle ground" but that was based on anonymous reporting. However, the article does say that potential Biden voters like trade unions don't want a Green New Deal, so if Biden goes too bold, he may lose support.

but I'm more than willing to give Democrats the benefit of reasonable doubt.

candidates you mentioned accomplished?

Of course, Greenspeace sees the Anendment only. What a bunch of fucking idiots.

I understand what you're saying. It's June 2019. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone can say with absolute certainty that front runner Joe Biden will ultimately become candidate Joe Biden.

Trump cannot win a second term.

If Inslee, Sanders, Gillibrand, Warren, or Gabbard become the nominee...or anyone else who has declared their intention to run...I will vote for them.

We are in a unique, unprecedented moment in time. I cannot place anything higher on my list of priorities than defeating Trump.

I encourage you to look at it this way...with a Democrat in the Oval Office, there will no longer be someone in power actively trying to subvert the initiatives that matter to you.

Compare that to where we are today, and even though it may not be an ideal scenario for you, I hope you'll acknowledge that it's light years ahead of where we are, right now, in this moment.

Based on what dare I ask, their last tweet?

no, nah, and HELL no.

warrior and make former VP Biden look bad. There wax no intention to reward Inslee and Gillibrand, that was collateral damage.

Ignore the chart, it is made up bullshit.

Better take cover!

p.s. thanks for confirming.

It's the first thing on his web page and it's just about all he talks about.

https://jayinslee.com/

Link to tweet

porch is on fire----

at length and posted it...we must win the blue wall back. Biden is our best shot.

I do not think our only shot at winning is to go backwards.

won states like Georgia, Arizona or Texas...how do we win without the blue wall...we need to go back to when we could win.

stop assuming only Biden can bring out the voters

Environmental issues are top priority for me, and the most important factor in determining my vote.

So the four people I would consider in the Democratic Primary are Beto O'Rourke, Jay Inslee, Elizabeth Warren and Corey Booker.

I had originally planned to support Jay Inslee but his position on for-profit surrogacy cost him my support.

If the election was today I would vote for Beto.

..Obama because he wasnt 'tough enough' on saving the wolves. I mean its like..come on man..no one can be everywhere for everybody.

Granted, the environment is an important issue, but none of the field is ignoring climate change; at the very least they believe it's happening and we must do something and fast. That's way better than the orange monstrosity.

That said, there are some that I trust more than others on climate change, but again, any one of them is better than Trump on the issue.

Purity is for cucks.

Sorry. She's not to be exalted for any reason IMO.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet