Current Events > Bernie Sanders unveils $16.3 trillion Green New Deal

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://berniesanders.com/issues/the-green-new-deal/

As President, Bernie Sanders Will Avert Climate Catastrophe and Create 20 Million Jobs

As president, Bernie Sanders will launch the decade of the Green New Deal, a ten-year, nationwide mobilization centered around justice and equity during which climate change will be factored into virtually every area of policy, from immigration to trade to foreign policy and beyond. This plan outlines some of the most significant goals we have set and steps we will take during this mobilization, including:

Obviously the price tag is huge, but I'm not necessarily against a plan to move away from fossil fuels in a big way. Theoretically a plan like that would pay for itself eventually. In fact the website claims this would pay for itself by 2035.

This is makes me very wary of his plan, however

Phase out the use of non-sustainable sources. This plan will stop the building of new nuclear power plants and find a real solution to our existing nuclear waste problem. It will also enact a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States to protect surrounding communities. We know that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technologys benefit, especially in light of lessons learned from the Fukushima meltdown and the Chernobyl disaster. To get to our goal of 100 percent sustainable energy, we will not rely on any false solutions like nuclear, geoengineering, carbon capture and sequestration, or trash incinerators.

When will we get a "Green New Deal" that isn't against nuclear power?
---

Other than the nuclear power, it's a brilliant plan. That is a significant demerit, but Bernie's plan is a lot better and more ambitious than anyone else's.

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Other than the nuclear power, it's a brilliant plan. That is a significant demerit, but Bernie's plan is a lot better and more ambitious than anyone else's.

i doubt republican's would be on the idea. cuts into their business and they can't have that.
---

kingdrake2 posted...

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Other than the nuclear power, it's a brilliant plan. That is a significant demerit, but Bernie's plan is a lot better and more ambitious than anyone else's.

i doubt republican's would be on the idea. cuts into their business and they can't have that.

Republicans aren't going to be into doing anything on climate change, that much ought to be obvious.

Before I read it is this an actual Green New Deal that deals exclusively with climate related issues or is it like AOC's "Green New Deal" that was mostly a hodge podge of general progressive wish list items.
---

Easy.

Just propose new taxes!
---

AlephZero posted...

Before I read it is this an actual Green New Deal that deals exclusively with climate related issues or is it like AOC's "Green New Deal" that was mostly a hodge podge of general progressive wish list items.

1st one. i didn't agree with AOC's version it was too extreme totally one-sided.
---

Nuclear power is becoming much more safe and sustainable.

---

Garioshi posted...

Nuclear power is becoming much more safe and sustainable.

until there's a meltdown. chernobyl levels. place is inhabitable for many more years.
---

If climate change was a serious issue or Bernie really cared about it like he claims, then he would allow for nuclear power and clean coal along with wind and solar.
---

kingdrake2 posted...

Garioshi posted...

Nuclear power is becoming much more safe and sustainable.

until there's a meltdown. chernobyl levels. place is inhabitable for many more years.

No it really isnt.
---

kingdrake2 posted...

until there's a meltdown. chernobyl levels. place is inhabitable for many more years.

FEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
---

Phase out the use of non-sustainable sources. This plan will stop the building of new nuclear power plants and find a real solution to our existing nuclear waste problem. It will also enact a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States to protect surrounding communities. We know that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technologys benefit, especially in light of lessons learned from the Fukushima meltdown and the Chernobyl disaster. To get to our goal of 100 percent sustainable energy, we will not rely on any false solutions like nuclear, geoengineering, carbon capture and sequestration, or trash incinerators.

And that's why this is a stupid unachievable goal.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poPLSgbSO6k" data-time="

---

Nuclear energy is honestly pretty safe, and of course it goes without saying that so long as proper safety protocols are in place nothing truly egregious should occur.
---

AlephZero posted...

Before I read it is this an actual Green New Deal that deals exclusively with climate related issues or is it like AOC's "Green New Deal" that was mostly a hodge podge of general progressive wish list items.

It's a bunch of plans + how much each plan will cost.

That covers most of it, but there is also a list of fuel industry regulations/bans and plans that wouldn't cost money (such as no longer investing federal pensions in the fossil fuel industry).
---

fhqwhgads posted...

No it really isnt.

Yeah, Chernobyl is when you do something wrong from the start. Our standards actually exist

Three mile island is a scenario where the worst happens and you have safety in place. It's remarkable how well contained it is.

I forget if the Japan incident was built to our specs or not. I do know each plant is built to different standards depending on where it is and the potential for mother nature to run rampant.

I remember CNN interviewed the plant president at an Oklahoma (I think) plant and kept asking if that could withstand the same beating. He said it's not possible scenario...then they kept asking relentlessly if it could until he just snapped saying it would collapse in that exact scenario. Then they asked if he was safe knowing it, and he said yes. Then they asked why. So he said it's because a tsunami isn't gonna hit Oklahoma, so they asked why it wasn't tsunami proof. Then he walked off the interview. Then the announcer said 'well, I don't feel safe being around this. Then I think the president committed suicide

---

Reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization by at least 2050

Ending unemployment by creating 20 million jobs

Directly invest an historic $16.3 trillion public investment

A fair transition for workers

Declaring climate change a national emergency

Saving American families money
Supporting small family farms by investing in ecologically regenerative and sustainable agriculture

Justice for frontline communities
Commit to reducing emissions throughout the world

Meeting and exceeding our fair share of global emissions reductions

Making massive investments in research and development

Expanding the climate justice movement
Investing in conservation and public lands to heal our soils, forests, and prairie lands

This plan will pay for itself over 15 years

---

A good start
---

interesting ideas. mostly agree with him but i dont like his anti-nuclear stance. i dont get why so many folks on the left fear nuclear power.
---

Dont know enough about nuclear to be sure, so Im open either way on that.

The rest is fine.
---

kingdrake2 posted...

until there's a meltdown. chernobyl levels. place is inhabitable for many more years.

Chernobyl was a flawed reactor design, and then an experiment that played right into the reactor's flaws.

Damn_Underscore posted...

To get to our goal of 100 percent sustainable energy, we will not rely on any false solutions like nuclear, geoengineering, carbon capture and sequestration, or trash incinerators.

why do people support this clown?