EquALLity wrote:
Germany isn't doing as well as (nuclear) France, but it has done a lot to reduce emissions with non-nuclear forms of renewable energy.
Has it, or has it just exported all of its energy intensive industries, and imported energy, both electric and embodied?
These countries aren't self contained.
Keep in mind we can't just reduce our carbon emissions marginally or export them to other countries to produce like a cups game. We have to eliminate them and engage in net carbon capture.
EquALLity wrote:
Bernie also isn't calling it a hoax.
Trump happily flip flopped on that one in the debate, didn't he?
I don't think he actually rejects climate change.
Anyway, It's pretty much irrelevant if Sanders would halt our nuclear power generation.
EquALLity wrote:
He literally has, though. He recently received a 100% from the Humane Society Legislative Fund.
Are you talking about this?
http://www.hslf.org/assets/pdfs/humane-scorecard/humane-scorecard-2014.pdf
Sanders took an anti-animal position on one vote, and was the lead sponsor of nothing. They're apparently grading on a curve there, many people have over 100 points (
100+), and 100 points is relatively common among democrats.
http://www.hslf.org/assets/pdfs/humane-scorecard/humane-scorecard-2015-final.pdf
Here he got an 86, so it looks like his track record is getting worse, not better.
hslf wrote:Bernie Sanders: Like Clinton, Sanders has been a consistent supporter of animal protection.
As a House member, he earned a 58 on the Humane Scorecard for the 103rd Congress,
75 in the 104th, 60 in the 108th and 100 in both the 106th and 109th Congresses. As a
senator, he scored 100 in the 110th, 112th and 113th Congresses, 89 in the 111th and 86 in
the most recent session. He co-led a bill to phase out invasive research on chimpanzees and
retire them to sanctuary. Sanders is currently co-sponsoring legislation to protect pets from
domestic violence, ban horse slaughter for human consumption, create a felony penalty for
malicious animal cruelty and crack down on horse soring abuses.
It's not an unusual track record, and the things he sponsored are populist issues that represent a minute amount of animal cruelty. Clinton has done far more for animals:
hslf wrote:Hillary Clinton: In the U.S. Senate, Clinton was a strong
and consistent supporter of animal protection policies, earning
a score of 100 on the Humane Scorecard in the 108th Congress, a
perfect 100+ score in the 109th and an 83 in the 110th. Clinton co-sponsored legislation on
horse slaughter and animal fighting, as well as bills to stop the processing of “downer” livestock
and to crack down on abusive puppy mills. She also offered an amendment to curb overuse
of antibiotics on factory farms. As Secretary of State, Clinton led international efforts to
combat wildlife trafficking.
Much better average score.
http://www.hslf.org/may_june_2016.pdf
EquALLity wrote:
I'm not sure how you think Bernie is going to make farms small, but I don't agree with that analysis.
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-agriculture/
He's all about the family farms. And anti-GMO, of course, which will help destroy the environment. Not as bad as Stein, but pretty bad.
How has Bernie helped farmers?
As a senator, Bernie has been active in keeping family farms in business, fighting for fair prices for goods and encouraging access to healthy, local food. He has fought particularly hard for Vermont’s dairy farms, supporting numerous bills for their aid including the Farm Bill of 2014 — an effort to stabilize these farms by helping them manage risk and produce more efficiently. He has encouraged schools to use local products in meal programs and advocated for farmers markets. Bernie also supports the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2011, a bill that would expand and improve opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers as well as institute several responsible environmental provisions.
He IS one of those assholes who are using political pressure to put dairy into everything.
He's a steadfast supporter of animal agriculture. He just wants to close factory farms, offering subsidies and programs to promote animal agriculture to small farmers and get more people into killing animals, which will only result in lower environmental efficiency and more pollution.
If Sanders wants to make distributed small farms more viable than the larger ones, he's going to have to pour mountains of money into them through subsidies (more than is currently given to large farms), which seems to be his plan.
EquALLity wrote:
The financial power that factory farming has is why it isn't regulated. Smaller companies with less power would be regulated easier.
Voting blocks of farmers calling their representatives and supporting them with votes relative to the subsidies they get and the regulation they're defended from are why.
Numerous small farmers form trade associations to lobby with, but they also represent more
individual votes, which makes them inherently more powerful than corporations that can only rely on the votes of a handful of people. They are a
voting block, not just money. Grass roots is far less movable.
Nothing becomes easier when these things are decentralized, except cutting corners, evading regulation and hiding abuses because inspectors have too many farms to inspect that are spread out across the country.
A hundred thousand cows on one site is easy to inspect. A hundred cows on a thousand sites across the country is impossible.
EquALLity wrote:
Why does efficiency matter? They are efficiently destroying the planet.
And the small farms will more efficiently destroy the planet, as well as more efficiently desensitize people to animal agriculture. I don't believe the myth that they are more humane. This writer seems to, but recognizes other issues:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/small-vs-large-which-size-farm-is-better-for-the-planet/2014/08/29/ac2a3dc8-2e2d-11e4-994d-202962a9150c_story.html
The idea that we should replace the large, polluting farms with the small, diversified farms ignores what might be the best solution: Get the large farms to stop polluting.
The important point from a practicality perspective is that's something that can actually be done. I know you think money is everything and controls the government, but you're mistaken on that premise; constituents are far more powerful than industry, and when you organize them they'll dominate government and take what they want.
EquALLity wrote:
More regulations -> less money for the industry -> less meat.
More subsidies -> more money for the industry -> more meat.
More people working in the industry -> more votes for the industry -> more subsidies and more meat
This is Sanders' dream. Organic small family farmed meat on every plate, which he thinks is healthy, where people just ignore the abuses that occur to the animals because there's no possible way to provide oversight, and where nobody cares about the environment because it's natural so it must be clean and healthy.
EquALLity wrote:
I don't think that's so clear, because Bernie also plans to increase usage of things like wind and solar energy, and wants more strong climate treaties and doesn't deny climate change.
Yeah, wind and solar have issues and don't solve the problem on their own, but there is a step forward involved in his plan.
Trump expanding nuclear like Bush did would be better and faster. The payoff is much better with nuclear. Solar isn't really practical, and you know the intermittency problems with these alternatives.
EquALLity wrote:And I see no reason to consider Trump's statements about nuclear energy and his support of it reliable given his constant flip flopping.
He's pretty consistent on the issue, it's a standard Republican position, and he's actually right on that one thing, so there's no reason to think fabricated evidence against it would be persuasive.
EquALLity wrote:Other countries are a huge deal regarding this also. If the United States pulls out, why on Earth would China etc. stay in?
If the US abandons nuclear power and declares it dangerous, won't the world follow?