What happened at last night's Democratic Climate Forum?

Last night the Democratic Party Candidates for the 2020 presidential election participated in a climate forum conducted by a panel of journalists.  The event started at 2 pm Pacific Time to span for 7 hours until 9 pm Pacific Time.  There was a tremendous amount of information brought to the stage on behalf of each candidate.  Each unveiled their respective solutions to the threats of climate change.


For those who missed the event (myself included), Politico Energy sent out a newsletter this morning with a summary of the 7-hour event:

TOWN HALL TAKEAWAYS: We watched all seven hours of CNN's back-to-back climate town halls, where the leading Democratic candidates showed the first signs of weaponizing climate change in the primary campaign, as POLTICIO's David Siders and Zack Colman report.

Here were the key takeaways:

— Former Vice President Joe Biden sidestepped questions about his political centrism. He got heat for a scheduled fundraiser hosted by the co-founder of an LNG company, Pro's Zack Colman reports . Biden initially denied an assertion that Andrew Goldman, co-founder of Houston-based Western LNG, was involved in the natural gas industry, but eventually conceded he would look into the matter.

Biden later added that his staff told him Goldman did not have any responsibility related to the company, was not on the board and he was not involved in its operations. But David Turnbull, strategic communications director of Oil Change US — a member organization of the No Fossil Fuel Money coalition — said that while it's true Goldman did not technically violate the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge, "it pretty clearly goes against the spirit of the pledge." (Read POLITICO Magazine's "CNN's Climate Forum Went Badly for Biden")

— Biden also settled into the role of political and climate realist. He said he would support a carbon tax, but suggested passing one would be difficult; said achieving net-zero emissions by 2030 doesn't appear possible and getting Congress to pass a national fracking ban would be unlikely; and said if the U.S. did everything it could to eliminate emissions, it still wouldn't be enough if other countries don't follow.

— Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders called for a phase-out of nuclear energy and a nationwide ban on fracking alongside massive public utility investment in renewable energy. Sander reiterated his plan to expand federal utilities to deliver 100 percent renewable electricity by 2030 and said Congress could likely pass his ambitious agenda through the once-a-year budget reconciliation process. "If your question is if we're going to need 60 votes to save the planet, the answer is no we will not," he said.

— Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren wants to eventually get the United States off of nuclear power, Pro's Eric Wolff reports. "We're not going to build any nuclear power plants and we're going to start weaning ourselves off of nuclear energy and replacing it with renewable fuels," Warren said.

— Sen. Cory Booker took a different approach and argued that nuclear power is necessary to achieve ambitious zero-carbon electricity timelines.

— Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) articulated a defense of existing nuclear plants as a carbon-free source of power, while opposing expanding use of the technology.

— Beto O'Rourke said he supported a cap-and-trade system to help reduce carbon emissions — the first time the former congressman committed to a form of carbon pricing for his climate plan.

— South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg largely tracked with his climate plan, but also pitched a religious and moral argument for combating climate change, comparing the issue to "a kind of sin."

— California Sen. Kamala Harris put herself on the side of banning fracking and offshore drilling. She also said she would get rid of the filibuster in order to pass a Green New Deal, as Pro's Anthony Adragna reports.

— Former HUD Secretary Julián Castro said he would not support a nationwide ban on fracking for natural gas. Castro said he would ban oil and gas exploration on public lands and increase renewable energy to "get us to net zero [carbon emissions] by 2045."

— Entrepreneur Andrew Yang would end all federal subsidies for the fossil fuel industry but would not immediately seek to stop exports of fossil fuels, Anthony also reports.

The following infographic was included in the newsletter:

Politico Reporters David Siders and Zach Colman followed up this morning with a piece online which provided a little more depth into last nights debate.  The positive news was that the conversation has moved in the current election cycle from being presented to actual questions regarding National implementation (and costs associated with large-scale implementation).



A variety of reports on last night's long climate forum have appeared online today so far.  The reporters at Time magazine offered up a good overview of events.  You can read the 6 takeaways from last night in the article cited.  The video embedded in the column provided good sound bites.  From Bernie Sanders expressing the need to gather world support for combatting climate change to Andrew Yang suggesting a constitutional amendment as a start. There were, of course, lots in the middle...



Mayor Pete Buttigieg landed in the middle. He asked religious constituents of our nation: how a God could stand by and watch as dangerous gases are being injected into our atmospheres. The discussion hit a variety of constituent populations across the United States of America.  Beto O'Rourke boldly places a hold on all oil and gas leases -- along with exposing the actual cost of oil.  This includes all off-shore drilling.  Julian Castro asserted changes to the Civil Rights Act to include violations which result in environmental justice among low income (and vulnerable) communities.



Regardless of which plan goes into effect from either side of the aisle, combatting climate change needs a much higher priority than currently stands.  A national response is warranted given the severity of Hurricane Dorian on the East Coast now.  The cost of a solution stands at trillions of dollars over the course of decades.  Which is small in comparison to doing nothing and trying to deal with the threats which are presently arising from inaction.



Any solution involves creating new jobs which are suitable for the United States.  That may be difficult for the average American to believe now.  Although, as the progress toward a solution becomes more real, the evidence for benefits will become more apparent.




Related Blog Posts:


Senator Amy Klobuchar Announces Climate Plan

How is the NAFTA Trade Deal potentially threaten Climate Change?


Any Discussions of Climate Plans in the Second Democratic Debate in Detroit?

Listen to Democratic Candidates Answers Tonight Regarding Climate Science and Green New Deal


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!


Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???

What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!

20 Questions Politicians Answer Regarding Science Issues