LogFAQs > #926609452

GuessMyUserName posted...

Pretty good Andrew Yang interview earlier going over his climate change plan which I'm loving for actually addressing some terrible realities we need to face.

Yang's climate plan is complete trash, I'm sorry. The major reason is that he makes no mention of the 2030 50% global emissions deadline. You have to understand that this is immediately disqualifying. This is huge, this is what the scientific consensus says we need to reach this number to prevent worst-case-scenario outcomes and snowball effects. If you skip this, the 2050 goal (which appears to be Yang's only target) becomes harder to reach AND the damage that will be done is worse. In 2030 Yang's plan appears to be...making sure new cars are zero emissions after having just started to build nuclear plants in 2027. Completely laughable. He wouldn't even be in office for most of this.

The OTHER thing wrong with Yang's climate plan is his doom and gloom argument about how the worst is already here. He's trying to paint himself as the only one who REALLY understand how boned we are. And then he...proposes the least ambitious climate plan of any candidate so far? This shows a complete lack of understanding that radical change is the only option to work here. His solution to the coast problem appears to literally be "use YangBux to move inland." I know you were shitting on Bernie's plan for being too idealist, but this is the exact opposite - a plan so pragmatist that it does nothing to address the real problem.

This is part of why I cannot stand Yang as a serious candidate. He likes to present himself as this smart, data-driven dude, he appeals to pop science (nuclear! geoengineering!) in this and other plans, but he is dramatically misinformed on this issue and pretty lackluster outside of his core issues as well.
---

DPOblivion was far more determined than me.