GreenPeace Finds Bernie Is The Best Candidate On Climate And Bloomberg The Worst

Bloomberg's campaign has been writing endorsement quotes for the elected officials who want to announce they are backing him. One talking point the campaign wants to float is that he's great on Climate. But he isn't great on Climate. The Sunrise Movement has vetted his plan carefully and doesn't seem impressed. And over the weekend, GreenPeace released an updated scorecard for all the presidential candidates. All of the Democrats did better than Trump, of course. Trump scored an F. But not all the Democrats have equally good plans and records. Bernie's at the top with an A+ and Bloomberg... way at the bottom of the pack.

Of Bernie, GreenPeace noted that he "has committed to take on the fossil fuel industry and enact a Green New Deal. He’ll halt new fossil fuel drilling and phase out existing coal, oil, and gas production. He’ll prioritize vulnerable workers and communities in a well-managed transition to a 100% renewable society. He’s championed climate justice in the Senate for years and has a detailed plan to continue his legacy if elected president."

At the other end of the spectrum, their comments on Bloomberg aren't great. "Bloomberg supports reaching 100% clean energy before 2050. He supports eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and halting drilling on public lands. However, he does not fully support a Green New Deal, nor has he put forward a detailed plan to phase out fossil fuel production for good while supporting working families and frontline communities along the way."

Klobuchar was also seen as lacking although she "supports ending oil and gas drilling on public lands and eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. She set a goal of reaching net-zero U.S. emissions by 2050. But her climate plan lacks the level of detail and ambition She co-sponsored the Green New Deal resolution in Congress but has called it 'aspirational.'"

Obama's Rib... Except For People Over 100, Voters Want More Than That

Imagine that Mr. Obama's Rib wins the primary and then the general and gets inaugurated. How many hours before Mr. Obama's Rib pardons Trump, Trump's family and most Trump enablers?

Yesterday, Matt Viser and Seung Min Kim wrote in a Washington Post piece, Compromise vs Combat-- Democratic Divide Grows Over How To Deal With Republicans, that Status Quo Joe "repeatedly touts the need to return to an era of bipartisan comity, saying that 'compromise is not a dirty word' and predicting that Republicans will have an 'epiphany' on bipartisanship after President Trump is out of office." No one has suggested Biden was drunk or had taken peyote buttons. Instead people recognize that "Biden's view is naive and harks back to an era of bipartisanship that no longer exists, rather than confronting the hardball tactics that have helped Republicans notch big political wins in recent years." Less sleepy Democrats aren't happy with Biden's perspective-- a perspective that Democratic voters over 100 who only want to hear positive news. Elizabeth Warren: "We’re done with two sets of rules, one for the Republicans and one for the Democrats."

Bernie is "against the incremental reforms that political compromise tends to yield. Warren and some other Democrats want to change Senate rules so they can usher in sweeping changes without needing help from the minority party, support that they say they would never get."

Democrats who favor a more aggressive approach argue that Republicans are rewriting the rule book. McConnell’s refusal to hold a vote, or even a hearing, for Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland continues to anger those who say that by rights it should be liberals, not conservatives, who are cementing their Supreme Court majority.

Trump, too, has upended many norms, including by largely rejecting congressional oversight and refusing to release his tax returns. In some states, Republican-led legislatures have reacted to a Democrat’s winning the governor’s office by reducing the power of the office.

The question facing Democrats is whether the right response to all this is to fight back with similar aggression or try to restore a greater sense of unity to the country. Some candidates think that voters have grown fatigued with the animosity and liken the political parties to children bickering in the back seat of a car.

...In the current presidential field, few have made bipartisanship as much of a centerpiece as Biden, who suggested this week at a fundraiser in Houston that the country’s polarization has been exaggerated, an assessment not shared by most of his rivals.

“America’s less divided today on issues than when I got to the Senate as a 29-year-old kid,” said Biden, referring to his election in 1972. “Then we were divided on everything from war to the women’s movement to civil rights, across the board.”

Biden represents a more genial way of fighting in the political arena, an approach in which a leader may question an opponent’s policies but not the person’s character. It is in part a testament to his time in the Senate, where a speaker might call a colleague “my good friend and one of this body’s most distinguished members,” before proceeding to excoriate that colleague’s ideas.

In March, Biden was criticized for calling Vice President Pence “a decent guy.”

Actress and liberal activist Cynthia Nixon tweeted at Biden, “You’ve just called America’s most anti-LGBT elected leader ‘a decent guy.’ Please consider how this falls on the ears of our community.”

Biden said in response that he was speaking in a foreign-policy context and that “there’s nothing decent” about Pence’s views on gay rights.

That was not enough for Nixon. “Please understand from where we sit,” she wrote, “his dehumanizing of our community disqualifies @MikePence for the honorific of ‘decent,’ regardless of the context.”

Biden’s stories about events that occurred more than 45 years ago highlight his detractors’ view that he is living in a bygone era, and some liberals say Democrats would be foolish to unilaterally disarm when facing a formidable opponent such as McConnell.

“It’s always an easy applause line to talk about your willingness to work across the line, but at this point, it’s just plain dishonest for any Democrat to go around acting like they will be able to clink glasses of bourbon with Mitch McConnell to get progressive legislation enacted,” said Brian Fallon, a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-NY).

allon, who was also a top aide to 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, took aim at Democrats who long for the days when President Ronald Reagan and then-House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill (D-MA) famously put aside their differences to work across party lines.

“The next Democratic president needs to have a plan to bring about structural change, because the days of Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neil are gone, and they ain’t coming back so long as McConnell is in charge on the Republican side,” Fallon said.

As more and more people under 100, really that the most important issue facing Ameri humanity is the Climate Crisis, Greenpeace just rated all the presidential nominees and gave Status Quo Joe a D-minus. Here are the rankings:

• Jay Inslee-- A-
• Bernie-- B+
• Cory Booker-- B+
• Kirsten Gillibrand-- B
• Elizabeth Warren-- B
• Tulsi Gabbard-- B
• Beto-- B-
• Marianne Williamson-- C
• McKensey Pete-- C
• Kamala Harris-- C-
• Eric Swalwell-- C-
• Amy Klobuchar-- C-
• John Delaney-- D+
• Andrew Yang-- D+
• Julian Castro-- D+
• Steve Bullock-- D
• Tim Ryan-- D-
• Joe Biden-- D-
• Frackenlooper-- D-
• Bill Weld-- F
• Señor Trumpanzee-- F

See, what have I been tellin' ya? Biden is better than Trump. He's even better than Frackenlooper and Bill Weld. That may be a low bar-- I mean it is-- but Biden isn't that much better than a garden variety Republican. He's lucky there's nothing garden variety about Señor T.

Hillary Caught On Tape Lying About Bernie Again-- In A Big Way

Donald Trump may be the biggest liar in the 2016 field but without that freak of nature in the campaign, it would certainly be Hillary Clinton in the #1 spot. She lies in a more standard politician fashion, like Cruz and Kasich. Her campaign is built on lies by professional liars (lobbyists). Her political career is built on lies. But all over the media ythis morning was her statement from yesterday: "I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me." Despite her bout of well-rehearsed anger, the problem is that she's, once again, full of crap. The Sanders campaign isn't lying about her. And the question she was responding to had nothing to do with the Sanders campaign. Greenpeace-- a non-partisan organization that doesn't endorse candidates-- has given each candidate from both parties a pledge asking them to reject future fossil fuel contributions, champion campaign finance reform and defend the right to vote for all. Bernie signed it. The 4 conservative candidates-- Trump, Cruz, Clinton and Kasich-- have not. Eva Resnick-Day, the young woman on the repelling in Purchase, New York who Hillary exploded at (in the video above) wrote an explanation of what happened and how the Clinton campaign has twisted it into an attack on Sanders. "I am an individual who deeply cares about tackling climate change and I’m deeply concerned about the state of our democracy," she wrote.  "I work for Greenpeace USA as a Democracy Organizer. I do not work for and am in no way affiliated with the Sanders campaign, as Clinton seemed to suggest in her response."

Greenpeace USA along with 20 organizations launched the pledge to #FixDemocracy, asking ALL presidential candidates to reject future fossil fuel contributions, champion campaign finance reform and defend the right to vote for all.

When we launched the campaign, Sanders signed the pledge immediately. Hillary’s campaign responded, but did not sign. Unsurprisingly, the Republican presidential candidates who won’t even admit that climate change is real, while real communities on the frontlines are already impacted, did not respond to our request.

While Greenpeace appreciated Hillary’s response, the first step a candidate can take to stop fossil fuels is to stop taking fossil fuel money. That money matters when we hear great things about climate in Clinton’s speeches, but want to be sure she’ll truly listen to the people when she is in office. For instance, she supports a Department of Justice investigation of ExxonMobil and yet she takes money from an Exxon lobbyist. That level of coziness makes voters like me who prioritize climate change uncomfortable.

To prove to people that she’s really serious about keeping fossil fuels in the ground, she needs to stop taking that money today.

Today, I said to Hillary, “Thank you for tackling climate change. Will you act on your words and reject future fossil fuel money in your campaign?” I was genuinely shocked by her response. But I want to make sure we are focused on the issue at hand: asking our candidates to take a stand to Fix our Democracy.  Rejecting  fossil fuel money sends a strong signal.

Greenpeace, 350 Action, and dozens of concerned activists have been attending events, rallies, debates, and fundraisers for many months asking Hillary Clinton to reject fossil fuel money in her campaign. This is by no means the first time that we asked Hillary Clinton the question. In fact, last night, over 40 activists gathered outside of a Hillary Clinton Fundraiser at the Dakota, asking Senator Clinton to come out and talk to the people she is fighting for. She did not cross the street to talk to us.

To be clear, we are talking about more than just individual contributions from oil and gas employees. According to data compiled by Greenpeace’s research department, Secretary Clinton’s campaign and the Super PAC supporting her have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry during the 2016 election cycle. Eleven registered oil and gas industry lobbyists have bundled over 1 million dollars to her campaign. If she takes the pledge, she’ll be sending a strong signal to our country and fossil fuel companies that it’s time to #Keepitintheground, not for the future of our planet, but for people that are living on it.

Cruz is certainly worse, but Hillary is connected to Big Oil and Gas in an unsavory way that bodes badly for America-- and the planet-- if she wins the presidency. Independent groups have shown that her wretched campaign has taken millions of dollars from the fossil fuel industry. Big Oil gives almost all it's campaign money to Republicans. Of the 20 senators and ex-senators who have taken the most in cash contributions-- legalistic bribes-- directly from Big Oil, 17 are Republicans and 3 are Democrats. One of those 3 Democrats was one term senator Hillary Clinton, who took $868,048 from Big Oil. Greenpeace, however, cast a broader net in looking to see how Hillary hopped into bed with the corrosive agents of Big Oil and Gas.

First there are the direct contributions from people working for fossil fuel companies to Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee. According to the most recent filings, the committee has received $309,107 (as of 3/21/16; source: Center for Responsive Politics) from such donors.

Next are the fossil fuel lobbyists, many of whom have also bundled contributions. These donations also flow to Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee. Greenpeace has tracked $1,259,280 in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil fuel industry. This number excludes donations from lobbyists who are employed directly by a fossil fuel companies, as those donations would have been included in the previous number.

Last are contributions from fossil fuel interests to Super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton. Greenpeace has found $3,250,000 in donations from large donors connected to the fossil fuel industry to Priorities Action USA, a Super PAC supporting Secretary Clinton’s campaign.

All told, the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 has received more than $4.5 million from lobbyists, bundlers, and large donors connected the fossil fuel industry.

In response to the widely-publicized Clinton lie in the video up top, Greenpeace Director Molly Dorozenski issued a statement that says "Secretary Clinton is conflating Greenpeace with the Sanders campaign, but we are an independent organization, and our research team has assessed the contributions to all Presidential candidates. We have not and will not endorse candidates... Secretary Clinton cannot ignore the voices of activists asking her to reject fossil fuel money, or explain away the more than one million dollars she takes from fossil fuel lobbyists. We would welcome a statement from Clinton saying that she plans to stop taking this money going forward to prove to young people like Eva that she;'s listening to them, not her biggest donors."

Greenpeace doesn't endorse in presidential races. Normally neither does Blue America. This is the first presidential election in which we have ever endorsed a candidate or raised money for a presidential candidate. That's because the differences are so immense and so clear and the gaggle of status quo candidates doesn't come anywhere near the once-in-a-lifetime progressive in this race. Please, for the sake our our country and our children, dig deep for Bernie:

Clinton Refuses to Pledge Not to Take Fossil Fuel Money

These are the agents of money. We call them lobbyists today, powers behind the throne. Size is a clue to relative importance (source; click to enlarge).

by Gaius Publius

Hillary Clinton has rejected a Greenpeace challenge to pledge not to accept campaign contributions from the coal, oil or natural gas industries. The Greenpeace pledge is here. In part it reads:

I will prove that I work for the people by refusing money from fossil fuel interests...

While her response to Greenpeace affirms the general goals of the pledge, she has refused to take it.

Greenpeace had argued (my emphasis):

“While Secretary Clinton’s commitment to reversing Citizens United and restoring the Voting Rights Act is admirable, she doesn’t have to wait that long to have an impact on our country’s money in politics crisis. She can start right now by rejecting fossil fuel money,” said Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard. “That bold move would prove to everyone that Clinton not only knows that our democracy is broken, but that it is fixable.”

Instead, Clinton offered this:

In Clinton’s statement to Greenpeace, she says, “The fossil fuel companies know my agenda is to stop their agenda. I will take them on and win—and make sure America leads the fight against climate change.”

You can read Clinton's full statement at the end of the Greenpeace report.

How Much Money Has Clinton Taken from the Fossil Fuel Industry?

In these dark money days, it's hard to know for sure how much she's taken. According to OpenSecrets.org, in her career Ms. Clinton has reportedly received $1,784,943 in individual and PAC contributions. This does not include contributions to super PACs supporting her three elections. (According to a recent Maddow show, Clinton at the moment has roughly the same cash on hand from campaign donations and as from super PACs — roughly $35 million from each source — implying that the contributions to each may be somewhat roughly balanced.)

And then there's her strong ties to fossil fuel lobbyists. From Paul Blumenthal writing last July at the Huffington Post (my emphasis throughout):

Hillary Clinton's Biggest Campaign Bundlers Are Fossil Fuel Lobbyists

Nearly all of the lobbyists bundling contributions for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign have at one time or another worked for the fossil fuel industry.

A list of 40 registered lobbyists that the Clinton camp disclosed to the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday revealed a number of Democratic Party lobbyists who have worked against regulations to curb climate change, advocated for offshore drilling, or sought government approval for natural gas exports.

Clinton, the former secretary of state, has called climate change the most “consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges we face as a nation and a world” and says it would be a major focus of her administration if she wins the White House. But having so many supporters who have sold their services to fossil fuel companies may complicate her emphasis on pro-environment policies.

About those lobbyists, Blumenthal writes:

Scott Parven and Brian Pomper, lobbyists at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, have been registered to lobby for the Southern California-based oil giant Chevron since 2006, with contracts totaling more than $3 million. ...

The two Clinton bundlers also were part of a much-criticized campaign by Chevron to manipulate Congress into inserting language into the Andean Trade Preferences Act that would require Ecuador to dismiss a longstanding lawsuit against the company for polluting the Amazon jungle. Democratic lawmakers pushed back against the campaign and the lawsuit is continuing.

About the natural gas industry:

One prominent lobbying topic embraced by Clinton bundlers is the expansion of liquefied natural gas exports and federal approval of new LNG [liquified natural gas] terminals.

Ankit Desai, vice president for government relations at top LNG exporter Cheniere Energy, bundled $82,000 to the Clinton camp, with much of it coming from Cheniere Energy executives. Cheniere executives, including Desai, have donated $38,800 to Clinton’s campaign.

The company has lobbied hard in Washington and maintains close ties to the Obama administration. The company won the first approval to export gas to countries outside of U.S. free-trade agreements. The company is seeking approval to open additional terminals to export LNG, and will likely need a friend in the White House come 2017.

ExxonMobil is not left out:

ML Strategies’ David Leiter lobbied in 2014 on behalf of Sempra Energy when the company received approval for its LNG export facility in Hackberry, Louisiana. Leiter, who bundled $36,550 for Clinton’s campaign, also is a lobbyist for ExxonMobil. Steve Coll noted in a New Yorker article derived from his book on the oil giant, Private Empire, that Leiter, an ex-staffer to former Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), was retained, along with a host of others, to increase the company’s reach into the Democratic Party it had ignored for years.

ExxonMobil’s top lobbyist in Washington, Theresa Fariello, may not be a bundler for Clinton’s campaign, but she is a donor. Fariello, who was a Department of Energy official in President Bill Clinton’s administration, gave $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign. Another Washington-based Exxon lawyer, Judith Batty, donated $2,700. ...

Does Hillary Clinton know that "Exxon knew," that in fact that whole industry knew? So far we don't know. But do read the rest. There's more like this in the piece than I can reasonably quote.

Hillary Clinton, Fossil Fuel Lobbyists & the Donald

Yet Clinton gives us her word: "The fossil fuel companies know my agenda is to stop their agenda."

It's entirely possible she means it, but I guess we'll have to wait until after she's elected to see those words, that agenda, in action. I hope if she's the nominee, she gets that far.

Fair warning, though — it's not just the left that's all over this seeming contradiction. This is grist for the higher-traffic right-wing sites as well (example here). I can't imagine, therefore, that this won't be brought up — again and again and again — in a campaign against Donald Trump.

(Blue America has endorsed Bernie Sanders for president. If you'd like to help out, go here; you can adjust the split any way you like at the link. If you'd like to "phone-bank for Bernie," go here. You can volunteer in other ways by going here. And thanks!)

GP
 

Screw Greenpeace, can't we still pretend that the upcoming energy "reform" bill does more good than harm?

Under the Bush regime, the EPA's environmental mission was turned from protection to ravagement. Now the idea seems to be to make sure it can't ever be part of the solution.

“Although we appreciate the Senate’s efforts to reduce global warming pollution, it’s clear that polluter lobbyists have succeeded in hijacking this climate policy initiative and undermined the ambitious action necessary.”

-- Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford, in a statement announcing that the group will oppose the energy "reform" bill soon to be taken up by Congress

by Ken

Politico's Jeanne Cummings reports, in "Greenpeace says no to energy bill":

Among Greenpeace’s chief objections are the measure’s “inadequate emission” reduction goals, a provision that strips authority from the Environmental Protection Agency, and the billions set aside for the coal and nuclear industries for research and expansion.

“We call on the president to push leaders in Congress to get back to work and produce a climate bill that presents a clear road map for significantly reducing greenhouse emissions,” he added.

I have a feeling I'm not much different from a lot of folks on the left when it comes to environmental issues. As hard as I try, which in truth isn't all that hard, I don't have more than the most general grasp, and even though I know it isn't going to happen, deep down I keep hoping those issues will just go away.

This is, note, very different from the way folks on the right deal with these issues, which they understand a lot less well than I do -- a terrible thing to say, I know, but I have no doubt that it's true. Over on the Right they learned their catechism of reality from the ultimate saint, Ronnie of Raygun, who taught them that the only test of reality you ever have to apply is whether it makes you feel good. By that test, of course, all inconvenient environmental issues are fake, part of the liberal-socialist conspiracy.

In a feeble attempt to bridge my knowledge gap, I try to keep an eye on the people I've come to trust on the subjects of energy and the environment. Of course those folks do often disagree, but their disagreements are usual particular. For example, with the oh-so-harmoniously named American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, the only question was whether the thing had been so compromised by agents of the polluting industries that it was worse than doing nothing.

Once again that seems to be the standard. There seems no hope of bringing a bill to the floor of either house of Congress which might actually attempt to deal with all that stuff we have less and less time to try to deal with. The only question in play: Will what's being offered do more harm than good?

Greenpeace’s pre-emptive move surprised some in the environmental community for its timing but not its final judgment. Greenpeace was among a handful of major environmental groups that didn’t participate in the discussions that have gone on as the bill was being drafted.

Contacted on Friday, leaders of other green groups said they would wait to make their assessment of the legislation until after it is unveiled.

“We are not going to make any decisions on our views of the bill and our support until we see the details of it. There are a lot of moving pieces still and those pieces are really important to us,” said Josh Dorner, a spokesman for the Sierra Club.

That’s not to say, however, that other environmentalists don’t share Radford’s concerns and could wind up opposing the legislation.

Here's the complete Greenpeace statement:

WASHINGTON - April 23 - Greenpeace has highlighted crucial elements of the draft climate bill necessary to address the catastrophic effects of global warming pollution. Senator Kerry, in a teleconference Thursday, organized by the We Can Lead coalition, outlined specific details from the draft Climate Bill expected to be released Monday that had not previously been publicly available. In response Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford issued the following statement:

"Although we appreciate the Senate’s efforts to reduce global warming pollution, it’s clear that polluter lobbyists have succeeded in hijacking this climate policy initiative and undermined the ambitious action necessary.

"We cannot support this bill unless the following elements change:

"Inadequate Emissions Targets: The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has shown that to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, the United States and other developed nations must achieve emissions cuts of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80-95 percent by 2050. But this legislation only sets the goal of reducing emissions by some 4 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Rapid reductions in the short-term are critical to avoiding catastrophic impacts from global warming. With this weak start, it is clear that achieving the needed reductions would be impossible

"Eviscerating the Clean Air Act: The bill is expected to strip the authority that the Environmental Protection Agency has to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act and the states' authority to set tougher emissions standards than the federal government.

"Money for Dirty technology: The bill is expected to include financial incentives for, among other things, nuclear power, offshore oil and gas drilling, and coal fired energy. This includes billions for "clean coal" technology development, as well as free permits for heavy emitters like manufacturers, oil refiners, and merchant coal generators.

"We call on the President to push leaders in Congress to get back to work and produce a climate bill, that presents a clear road map for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, transforms our economy with clean, renewable energy technology, generates new green jobs and shows real leadership internationally. None of this is accomplished by giving billions of dollars to the coal and petroleum industries.”

Uh-oh!

#