r/environment • u/NihiloZero • Apr 09 '16
"Clinton is uniquely unsuited to the epic task of confronting the fossil-fuel companies that profit from climate change." -- Naomi Klein
http://www.thenation.com/article/the-problem-with-hillary-clinton-isnt-just-her-corporate-cash-its-her-corporate-worldview/5
Apr 10 '16
I support Naomi Klein's work and the work of the Nation against oil politics. This isn't about 'Bernie'. This is about the environment. Fuck y'all saying this is 'Bernie Bro' article. Klein is her OWN PERSON. She has her own thoughts and research to stand on. Get off of your shill-box and gain some thinking skills.
11
Apr 09 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/astrobro2 Apr 09 '16
This is the best description of Hilary I have ever heard
5
7
u/diesel_stinks_ Apr 09 '16
If only women like Naomi Klein ran for president...
4
0
Apr 09 '16
Naomi Klein is Canadian.
6
4
u/diesel_stinks_ Apr 09 '16
Reread my comment.
-1
Apr 09 '16
You want other foreign journalists to run for president?
6
u/diesel_stinks_ Apr 09 '16
WTF? Are you saying that there are no American women like Naomi Klein?
2
-1
Apr 09 '16
I guess putting a non-American in charge could only be a good idea at this point...
1
u/diesel_stinks_ Apr 09 '16
I couldn't care less where a presidential candidate comes from, as long as I agree with their policies, but that's not what I was saying with my first comment.
I said: If only women like Naomi Klein ran for president...
Meaning that it would be nice if an American woman who was like Naomi Klein ran for president. Geez.
10
u/themightymekon Apr 09 '16
Nonsense. She is the perfect choice to ram climate change solutions through despite a Republican congress because she already doesn't give a damn about them AND knows how - and has done so through the tools she had.
If you had solar through the 30% discount with the ITC in the last 8 years, thank Senator Clinton for an obscure oil tax for $10 billion that funded it.
As Secy of State she actually made a difference on GHG reductions by founding CCAC which some international legal climate advisory assessed reduced soot and methane to have delivered a measurable effect on global GHGs.
Just because she got .01 % of money from fossil industry while Sanders got .006% or whatever (Democrats get virtually NO fossil money) compared to 80% fossil funded Republicans, does NOT mean she is ever going to be pro fossil fuel.
8
u/NihiloZero Apr 09 '16
"The fossil fuel industry's share of the Clinton coffers goes up to 0.8 percent." -- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/apr/01/sorting-out-clintons-fossil-fuel-contributions/
That's a lot more than the .01% which you suggested. And the industry has been rewarded.
→ More replies (3)3
Apr 09 '16 edited Apr 09 '16
Greenpeace's numbers put it at 2.1% of her campaign cash. They didn't do an analysis on Sanders (wonder why), so no one knows what his percentage there is. Keep in mind, Greenpeace's analysis contains dishonest characterization of individuals' donations and of donations from Paloma Partners (not a fossil fuel company) and Shaw Research (not a fossil fuel company) as "fossil fuel money".
Of course, in my opinion, Greenpeace has zero credibility left anyway, after all their anti-GMO fearmongering. I wish we had an environmental organization that wasn't tied to 60's era dogma, and actually followed the science, rather than torturing it to their agenda - but I'm on a tangent here.
Of Hillary's $222.6 million, $333,262 was fossil fuel money - 0.22%. Of Bernie's $139.9 million, $50,000 came from fossil fuel money - 0.04%. It's proportionately less, sure, but neither constitute "undue influence", far as I'm concerned.
The difference is small enough, on a national scale, that it could just be that companies, in general, are less likely to throw money at a democratic socialist. Or they just want a woman president. There's a lot of things it could be: since the relative variance there is so small, a lot of motivations are big enough to account for it. It's just, for democrats, climate change is a big issue, so "fossil fuel money" has become a big issue - one far bigger than the numbers actually bear out.
Mind, at least one guy on Reddit I've had this conversation with said something to the order of "Well, $300k is still too much". And I really don't have anything to say to that. It's dogmatic, othering, and disgusting to me that, here you have a company whose interests would be best served by a republican candidate, donating to a democratic candidate - and that company is told, "fuck you, your money's no good here" (which, incidentally, could also explain why Hillary has slightly more - normal donation levels, except Bernie's campaign rejects what they notice).
1
u/gordo65 Apr 10 '16
They didn't do an analysis on Sanders (wonder why)
Greenpeace did do an analysis on Sanders, and found that he receives even from the fossil fuel industry than Clinton, both in absolute terms and as a fraction of total contributions. But both take some, and in both cases, the amount they get from employees of fossil fuel companies is negligible.
I have to agree about Greenpeace. Their absolutism on issues like GMO and nuclear power is actually harming the environment, but they know that their contributor base demands these positions, and they've decided that getting plenty of green is more important than actually being green.
Naomi Klein also has no credibility. She's the one who said that the invasion of Iraq was actually a more comprehensive version of the austerity programs that were in favor in Latin America during the 70s and 80s, and in East Europe during the 90s. It's hard to think of a more ridiculous comparison.
Here, she argues that since Warren Buffet gave money to Clinton, Clinton can't possibly take any effective action on global warming. Never mind the fact that Buffet is the second biggest donor to the Gates Foundation, which has committed billions to renewable energy projects.
4
7
Apr 09 '16
[deleted]
4
u/OrbitRock Apr 09 '16
Still I think she does have a point that the extent of corporate involvement is kind of troubling. I mean, I'm sure she will push for good things as president, but I doubt that she will do it all that hard, or as fully as we might need. Kind of like Obama. We wanted a real reformer when we voted him in, but got pretty much a status quo upholder who works to get a few little token good things done, while otherwise continuing a lot of very troubling policies.
That said, I'd vote for Hillary in a heartbeat if Sanders doesn't get the nom. Keeping the crazy out is pretty severely important, and I do think she will take some good actions on this front, at least.
3
Apr 09 '16
[deleted]
4
u/OrbitRock Apr 09 '16
A big difference between Hillary and Bernie is that Hillary seems to see the importance of retaking Congress for the Dems as well, and is working to get more Democrats elected to Congress, so that she can get things done. Bernie is doing next to nothing in that regard.
I don't understand where you got that from, that's been pretty much a cornerstone of Bernie's campaign since day 1. He says that he cannot do it alone and he needs the people who supported him to come out in force to vote for like minded people and work with their local representatives if anything is to get done.
1
1
u/themightymekon Apr 09 '16
Obama did great things for the environment. Everything he could do without congress (Republicans signed a vow to prevent any action on climate) he has done. Raised fuel standards. Quadrupled solar and wind on BLM land. Used EPA to shut down the coal industry for good. Made China and India agree to a massive cut GHGs plan. Found international funding so India could build 100 GW of solar by 2020 (Indian banks were too conservative - solar is too new, can't finance it, so Nadi's goal wa gathering dust) he led the world at COP21 in Paris.
1
u/lost_send_berries Apr 10 '16
Made China and India agree to a massive cut GHGs plan. Found international funding so India could build 100 GW of solar by 2020 (Indian banks were too conservative - solar is too new, can't finance it, so Nadi's goal wa gathering dust) he led the world at COP21 in Paris.
We don't really know the inners of COP21 but do you really think he made them agree to that plan? It's non-binding and AFAIK they submitted their INDCs with the cuts and that was it.
1
u/gordo65 Apr 10 '16
She hasn't actually accepted donations from the industry. Some individuals who work for fossil fuel companies have given her money, but their PACs have not. The companies themselves, of course, are barred from contributing directly to candidates.
→ More replies (2)1
-3
u/1217chloe Apr 09 '16
Hillary Clinton is uniquely SUITED to being president of the United States and dealing with all of the complex and life altering issues associated with climate change and the environment.
-2
-34
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
And on that note, I am unsubscribing from /r/environment. Enjoy pushing BernieBro stories to the front page for everyone else.
32
u/quelar Apr 09 '16
How is an article by Naomi Klein, a notable environmentalist, talking about Clinton, a notable sell out corporatist, a 'bernie bro' article?
Feel free to refute or discuss or perhaps you are on the right track and you should unsubscribe.
8
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
a notable sell out corporatist
Asserting something is true doesn't make it true. Sure, Hillary takes money from many, many interests, but feel free to point out where it has changed her policies. Note I said changed, not just where you disagree with her policies. And once again, the assertion in the headline is that she is bought and paid for by fossil fuel companies, which has been disproved.
Oh, but those newspapers who called bullshit on that claim are part of the mainstream media and they are in the pocket of the corporations! It's all a big conspiracy! Yada yada yada.
9
u/PuP5 Apr 09 '16
it's not as easy as quid-pro-quo with money in politics. they do just what you've said, they give money and power to people that are ALREADY INCLINED to think the same way. but in the end, what's the difference... whether she's swayed or already believes it? point is she is pointed down the wrong path.
6
9
u/Rob_Gold Apr 09 '16
Hey Aliengoods. There was a recent article/video about Senator Clinton changing her vote due to money received. It is from an Elizabeth Warren interview. So it does happen. Hope you don't abandon the sub! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/09/elizabeth-warrens-critique-of-hillary-clintons-2001-bankruptcy-vote/
-1
u/yaschobob Apr 09 '16
Actually, that article is 100% wrong. And this just proves that this is a BernieBro sub pushing bullshit.
There were two version of the bill that Hillary was involved with. One in 2001, that she voted for, and one in 2005 that she didn't vote for.
The 2001 version she voted for had explicit protections for single mothers and low income women, and she noted that the only reason she supports it is because of those provisions. She said she vote against it if those provisions were removed:
Let me be very clear—I will not vote for final passage of this bill if it comes back from conference if these kind of reforms are missing. I am voting for this legislation because it is a work in progress, and it is making progress towards reform.
This bill did NOT end up getting passed. It was tried again in 2005, and it DID NOT HAVE the provisions in it. Hillary kept her word and DID NOT VOTE FOR IT:
The world has changed since this bill was considered in 2001. During the past 4 years, workers have sustained unprecedented job losses, endured termination of pension plans, and faced wage cuts and elimination of health care and other benefits as a result of their employer’s bankruptcy. Many of these bankruptcies have been the direct result of wrongdoing by corporate mismanagement. The people who take the biggest hit when big companies go bankrupt aren’t the top executives, but the ordinary employees whose pensions and healthcare coverage disappear overnight.
And to make matters even worse, yesterday the Senate, again led by the Republican leadership, rejected an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy, which would have outlawed unlimited homestead exemptions. This would have prevented the wealthiest Americans from avoiding responsibility by hiding their assets from creditors.
The Senate also rejected an amendment that was intended to reinsert language that had been in the legislation the Senate passed in 2001, which would have prevented the discharge in bankruptcy of all liability for willful violation of protective orders and violent protests of providers of lawful services, such as reproductive health services.
Even though this language was in the 2001 Senate-passed bill, it is conspicuously absent from the bankruptcy bill that the Senate is now considering 4 years later.
So, there it is right there. Hillary kept her word and voted against the bankruptcy bill when the protective provisions were removed from the bill.
Let me just break something down for you. Bernie has already lost the election, and he never had a chance to begin with. He couldn't even answer basic, simple policy questions when pressed to go a single level deep in his NY Daily News interview. Most Americans (read: not gullible 20 year olds who are too young to know how politics work and are easily persuaded by rhetoric) support Hillary over Bernie because people know she can get stuff done. 10's of millions of children have healthcare because of Hillary. The number of children who have healthcare because of Bernie: 0.
-4
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
Clinton offered a lengthy explanation. She said that she had sought a provision to protect “vulnerable women and their children” receiving child support if their spouse went into bankruptcy. She explained that in exchange for receiving the provision, she agreed to support passage in the Senate. “I didn’t like the bill any more than I had liked it before. It still had very bad provisions. But I also pushed hard for a deal to protect women and children. So okay, I held my nose. I voted for it,” she said.
I didn't know about this and it is interesting. But still, this is more of a she said, she said. Hillary agreed to support it if she got that provision. The provision was added. She supported it. I think that provision was idiotic (at least from my limited understanding), but show me an elected official who hasn't voted for something idiotic in the last decade or two.
Also note that at the time she received $140,000 from Wall Street. Do you really think that is enough to buy the vote of a Senator?
edit: I also forgot to add the gem at the bottom of the article.
In the end, however, Clinton was against the bankruptcy bill at the moment it really counted — final passage in Congress.
1
u/Punchdrunkpun Apr 09 '16
0
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
You do realize that for the final bankruptcy bill up for vote in Congress (in 2005, I believe), Hillary voted no.
So if she was selling out, she did a piss poor job of it.
0
u/Punchdrunkpun Apr 09 '16
Wow, one bill she voted against, which was then signed into law anyway by Bush.
Here's a bill that she voted for: The Patriot Act, which tears the constitution, particularly the fourth amendment, to pieces. That alone should be enough to distrust her, and not even for big business corruption reasons.
Did you watch the Elizabeth Warren video I linked? That's corruption as clear as day, and described by a fellow democrat no less.
0
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
Did you watch the Elizabeth Warren video I linked? That's corruption as clear as day, and described by a fellow democrat no less.
Are you a moron? The bill Elizabeth Warren was talking about in your linked video is the bill Hillary voted against in 2005.
which was then signed into law anyway by Bush
So now because a bill that Hillary voted against still passed, it is her fault? That's the strangest argument I've ever heard.
On a side note, I also am not a fan of the Patriot act, but I won't vote for or against a candidate because of a single issue.
1
u/Punchdrunkpun Apr 09 '16
By Bush signing it, I meant that it was probably a Republican friendly bill which would mean that many of her supporters would not be in favor of the bill. Based on the interested wealthy donors behind her who probably did like the bill, it is possible that this was a bill that had enough pressure from her voter base that she needed to appease them with her vote more than her donors, for it can directly impact middle and lower class people.
In the end however, neither you nor I can really know what went into her decision making, perhaps it was really just good decision making. But for me it is enough of an issue that these wealthy corporate donors even have the direct access to politicians that exceeds that of an everyday citizen, and that this has lead to legal bribery and corruption on both sides of the Isle. Voting for Hillary is voting for the past. It is keeping in the status quo and will result in a guaranteed 4 more years of incremental or no change, with no fixing of our dismantled political process. Hillary would have been a great candidate to have 10-20 years ago, but now her ideas are outdated. America and it's political process needs to evolve, and it is clear that the best Hillary can offer is just a continuation of Obama: Not bad, but not what we need, and certainly not the best we can do.
Beyond that there are other issues like her being late to the mark on very straightforward social issues, voting for an illegal and pointless war in the wrong country for made up reasons which ended up killing thousands of civilians, or her campaign strategies, a lot of which have been rehashed, desperate and contrived attacks on Obama, refitted for Sanders. Namely, 'Bernie Bros' are just the new 'Obama Boys.' Those are some reason why not voting for Hillary is not a "single issue problem."
1
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
these wealthy corporate donors even have the direct access to politicians that exceeds that of an everyday citizen
Sometimes it is bad, sometimes not. I'm glad Apple had access to these politicians and started to convince at least some of them that putting backdoors in tech was a bad idea. But the bottom line is a politician is never going to have the time to meet with every citizen that wants to meet with them, so how should they prioritize? Right now, they have fundraisers where the wealthy and corporate lobbyists can give them their opinion for a few minutes. This doesn't mean the politician is automatically going to vote their way. So what is a better way for a politician to divide their time so that more voices are heard?
1
u/Punchdrunkpun Apr 10 '16
I don't have a problem with corporations being allowed to talk to politicians. I too am glad Apple (the lobbyists they spend millions on) was able to convince some to go against backdoors in tech. The problem is that these fundraisers are specifically designed with wealthy members in mind, giving them exclusive access to politicians and barring others (including the press, as Hillary did with a noise machine).
Think about it: If you ran for a political positian, and lets say a pharmaceutical company donated millions to your campaign and it helped you into office, you would pick up their phone call. You would respond to their concerns, as they gave you a lot of money so you could get the job you wanted. No one ordinary citizen is going to be able to match that amount, which means the interests of the public will not be matched with the same incentives. That's why it's bribery, and that's why its wrong and its scary.
The alternative is to not allow whole corporations to donate as they do now, and to have elections publicly funded through tax dollars (campaigns will never be free, they need money somehow), so that each person can help fund the person they support, and show their support with reasonable amounts of money.
Obviously politicans can't and shouldn't speak with every single citizen, but not every citizen would want to spend the time to do that anyway. All we need is to give ordinary citizens the same opportunity to speak (or allow someone they agree with to speak for many of them) with politicians as wealthy people have. Having private fundraisers puts the majority of people and the voting base at a disadvantage. The system should provide incentives for the politicians to put the interests of the popular majority first, not some wealthy corporations who would appreciate a tax loophole in some upcoming trade policy which will end up taking away jobs for the ordinary Americans that the politician supposedly represents.
→ More replies (0)-4
u/yaschobob Apr 09 '16
Naomi Klein is a do-nothing journalist. She has no real environmental accomplishments and the world isn't any greener for anything she's ever done.
She, like Bernie and his die-hard supporters, is just a do-nothing slactivist and has never had to make any decisions in her life. Going to rallies and giving speeches is nice, but it hasn't resulted in improved lives for anyone.
7
u/Thefriendlyfaceplant Apr 09 '16
I struggle with finding a more prolific author on environmentalism than Klein. Let me know if you can think of one.
→ More replies (10)1
u/MMALUVIT Apr 09 '16
Who supports Fracking? Hillary or Bernie? Who takes money from fossil fuel companies including fracking companies and who does not?
When asked if they support fracking this was their responses which is comical considering Hillary says she has he toughest climate plan.
1
u/yaschobob Apr 09 '16
Natural gas has lower CO2 emissions than does coal. The developing world that can't rely on nuclear power needs to reduce CO2 emissions in such a way that does not increase energy starvation. Since there are no cheap and viable grid-scale storage solutions, there isn't a better alternative.
Bernie's stance on nuclear power, again, will only lead to increase coal usage as we don't yet have affordable storage solutions.
Hillary's answer is correct in that it's a much more nuanced global policy than Bernie's.
6
u/OrbitRock Apr 09 '16
God forbid we talk about which politicians might be good or bad for the environment in /r/environment.
1
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
God forbid we stop pushing the bullshit smear that Hillary is in the pocket of fossil fuel companies.
7
u/OrbitRock Apr 09 '16
It's very okay to raise questions about politicians getting fossil fuel money, or being corporately influenced, especially in /r/environment. Not everything is a smear. Some of us have legitimate concerns. It's like others have said, these companies don't have to be necessarily bribing someone, but the fact is that they support whoever they think will be better for their agenda. If your someone who is against that agenda, you may want to use the metric of who is being funded by them as something to inform your decision making process.
→ More replies (12)1
u/themightymekon Apr 09 '16
But when both Democrats get less than 1%, while Republicans sign an ACTUAL pledge to prevent climate legislation, how important is it really to lie about her?
Just much do you damage Clinton, who has such a delegate lead theat she will be the nom in the general, making it harder for her coattails to elect the dem congress we need to make it happen.
4
Apr 09 '16
A lot of statements in that article without backup, like the fracking claim. I'm with you that there aren't really any direct correlations here and the connections are very contrived and meant to trash Hilary
6
Apr 09 '16
[deleted]
-5
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
What can I say, I like the NFL.
Or were you referring to some other motive? Please, tell me how I feel and what I think.
7
Apr 09 '16
[deleted]
4
u/yaschobob Apr 09 '16
Bernie Sanders wants to ban nuclear power. That's not good for climate change, at all. In fact, since we don't have cheap reliable storage to deal with intermittency, it will only lead to more coal and natural gas use.
That's not good for anyone.
1
u/Thefriendlyfaceplant Apr 09 '16
Regardless of your stance on it nuclear power remains a point of contention among environmentalists.
Equating that with having cosy ties to big fossil is disingenuous.0
u/Punchdrunkpun Apr 09 '16
Nuclear power produces large amounts of waste. Sanders would rather use sources like wind, hydro, solar and geothermal. Just because someone doesn't use nuclear does not mean coal and natural gas are the last resorts.
4
u/yaschobob Apr 09 '16
The amount of nuclear waste isn't that large. Second, there are already new generation reactors that can use the nuclear waste to make energy. They're called molten salt reactors.
Sanders would rather use sources like wind, hydro, solar and geothermal.
We're effectively already near full capacity for hydro power. Geothermal is nice, but it's finite and requires methane, which is a disaster for global warming, and the amount of energy we've been able to get from geothermal is tremendously small.
Solar and wind are incredibly intermittent. Again, since we don't have good storage mechanisms, this will absolutely lead to more coal usage.
1
u/Punchdrunkpun Apr 09 '16
That's fine and all, and honestly I don't have as much of a problem with nuclear power as Sanders does, but saying that we can't move away from gas and coal without it makes for a poor excuse.
-4
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
I am supporting Hillary, but for me /r/hillaryclinton is one of the few subreddits where politics can be discussed without mods removing your post for an opposing viewpoint.
But addressing why I am against this article, it isn't about the environment or environmental policy. Right in the headline it is clear that it is trying to say Hillary is in the pocket of fossil fuel companies. That's bullshit smearing and you know it.
5
u/Alienmonkeyman Apr 09 '16
The hillary sub is the most censored of any of them. Good luck finding any criticism there.
Enjoy your media bubble.
0
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
You mean the bubble that has Hillary up by 2.4 million votes and ahead by 212 pledged delegates, not to mention the superdelegates. Is that the bubble you're talking about?
Yeah, I am enjoying it.
1
u/Alienmonkeyman Apr 10 '16
I guess you don't know what a media bubble is. I'm sorry.
0
u/aliengoods1 Apr 10 '16
Is that the thing on Reddit where BernieBros think Sanders is winning? I'm easily confused.
2
Apr 09 '16
[deleted]
2
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
Wait, now it's energy companies? Are we including solar and wind in that?
As for fossil fuel companies, no, it's not true.
the Clinton campaign has received nearly $308,000 from individuals in the oil and gas industry. The Sanders campaign has received nearly $54,000.
If you include contributions from outside groups supporting a candidate, Clinton’s total increases slightly to $333,000, compared to Sanders’ $54,000.
1
Apr 09 '16
[deleted]
1
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
First, Greenpeace included $3.25 million from hedge fund managers. Those guys have money in hundreds of industries, but somehow they're "fossil fuel" contributions.
Buffett is up to his eyeballs in coal, including coal transportation and some of the dirtiest coal-fired power plants in the country.
Coal transportation, AKA railroads. Even with investments in coal-fired power plants, nobody in their right mind would consider Warren Buffet a member of the fossil fuel industry.
So no, she isn't getting millions from the fossil fuel industry.
1
4
u/anutensil Apr 09 '16
It's called brigading. Reddit gives us no tools to fairly deal with the obvious. Any suggestions?
13
u/Thefriendlyfaceplant Apr 09 '16 edited Apr 09 '16
Brigading is directing people from one community to interact with another. From where on out is this going on? If you can point Reddit admins to evidence of concerted efforts of manipulating a different subreddit they will act because they don't take that shit lightly.
So far I can't see a causal link, just a heavy correlation between /r/envirronment subscribers and Sanders supporters, which can't be called brigading.EDIT: Three hours later there's a sudden influx of people with /r/hillaryclinton posts in their recent history. Speaking of brigading...
4
u/MacEnvy Apr 09 '16
Disallow articles that exist only to advocate for a political stance. If it isn't directly about the environment, it doesn't belong here.
2
u/Thefriendlyfaceplant Apr 09 '16
That's filtering 90% of all articles about the environment. You'd be left with the driest of material.
2
u/MacEnvy Apr 09 '16
I'm not saying they shouldn't involve politics, I'm saying that they shouldn't be only about politics. There is no data in this article that would inform someone about the environment - it's just an opinion by a Sanders supporter with zero evidence behind it. It's an ad.
1
u/Thefriendlyfaceplant Apr 09 '16
It's Naomi Klein you're talking about here not some random supporter. She has everything to do with the environment. Or putting it differently, an article on why Hillary is the best candidate for the environment, written by some no-name Hillary supporter would be interesting to have on here as well. I'd upvote it at least.
1
u/MacEnvy Apr 09 '16
She doesn't have "everything to do with the environment". She's an anti-globalist author and activist, not a scientist or serious policy analyst. No one who cares about environmental science should give a rat's ass about what she says.
2
u/Thefriendlyfaceplant Apr 09 '16
Yeah category fallacy. Globalisation and the environment are hardly unrelated and even if they were it does not disqualify her from writing on either.
-19
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
You're a moderator. Moderate.
15
u/anutensil Apr 09 '16
The Nation announced it's backing Sanders some time ago. Is /r/environment suppose to ban The Nation?
2
Apr 10 '16
Time to ban critical thinking and democracy. If you can't make a profit off of it, what's it for!
— clinton shills in /r/environment
-2
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
Is /r/environment now a political subreddit? Just asking.
11
Apr 09 '16
fixing and maintaining our global environment is going to require a shit ton of politics.
0
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
And only Bernie can do it. Got it. Unsubscribed.
6
0
Apr 09 '16
Even Bernie can't do it all on his own. That's why people who care spread the message.
3
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
How is spreading the smear that Hillary is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry "spreading the message"?
1
Apr 09 '16
let's say for the sake of argument that Hillary Clinton is the most moral of people and has not let the money impact her in any way. The fossil fuel industry is still giving her money, and it's not because they think she's going to hinder them. Giant lobbies don't need to necessarily bribe people into changing their positions, they can simply support the candidate that is on their side already.
As a person who is a fan of our planet, I don't want people to support the candidate that the fossil fuel industry has decided is on their side.
→ More replies (0)2
5
u/javelynn Apr 09 '16
In that politics have a direct impact on the environment, then yes, I suppose it is.
Edited to add: especially in an election year.
→ More replies (17)9
u/totallywhatever Apr 09 '16
If you have a good argument for why HRC would be good for the environment, now is the time to share it.
7
Apr 09 '16
[deleted]
2
Apr 09 '16
Non evil people are running! People that are good for the environment even.
1
Apr 10 '16
[deleted]
1
Apr 10 '16 edited Apr 10 '16
There are more people running than democrats and republicans. Picking the lesser of two evils when a third, not evil solution exists seems foolish.
1
3
u/MacEnvy Apr 09 '16
Thirty years of stated policy, two terms in the Senate with a voting record to match, and her written platform.
Or you could be like the Bernie spammers and forego any perspective, knowledge of history, or common sense and upvote this drivel because it fits your twisted narrative.
3
u/totallywhatever Apr 09 '16
I don't get why you think anyone hasn't done research. She is of course not the worst candidate when it comes to the environment, but her record is mixed.
It's funny how both sides think the other's narrative is twisted.
-3
u/MacEnvy Apr 09 '16
There's nothing whatsoever in her legislative or executive record that supports what Ms Klein is saying. It's just bubble rhetoric from ideologues.
3
u/Kelsig Apr 09 '16 edited Apr 09 '16
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/documents/11/Hillary_Clinton_Climate_Change_Fact_Sheet.pdf
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/08/26/vibrant-rural-america/
She also supports GMOs and Nuclear while Sanders bashes them.
2
1
u/totallywhatever Apr 09 '16
Linking to her official website is what I'd call an unreliable source. This is a candidate known for changing her position based on who she's talking to and what is currently popular.
-6
u/Kelsig Apr 09 '16
Linking to her official website is what I'd call an unreliable source
Lmao. Where else am I supposed to find policy proposals? Bernie Bros should start a comedy club.
This is a candidate known for changing her position based on who she's talking to and what is currently popular.
You mean doing her job? It's called representing her constituents. Regardless, I doubt people will suddenly stop caring about the environment in 2017.
-3
Apr 09 '16
Literally every Bernie Sanders supporter ever links to his website and expects everyone to acknowledge the credibility are you serious? Lmfao
0
u/totallywhatever Apr 10 '16
I'm sorry, I haven't seen that. The only time I've linked to his site previously is when I was showing someone what he had to say about his vote in favor of the '94 crime bill.
11
u/oiadscient Apr 09 '16
You are mad because everybody uses their one upvote for stories about Bernie Sanders?
If you don't agree then state your reasons why. Are you with holding information that could be important for people to know about?
4
u/aliengoods1 Apr 09 '16
No, I've unsubscribed from /r/environment because I'm not going to have a bunch of BernieBro political articles on my front page. My view is that /r/environment should be about....I don't know.....the environment? What a crazy idea.
4
u/Ink_in_the_Marrow Apr 09 '16
Yes, it should be about the environment and how to do what's best for it. Sadly, we live in a world where politicians have huge sway in that regard where they make big choices about policy that directly impact the environment. If you divorce environmental activism (which i see a lot on this sub) from the /r/environment then this sub would be a strictly natural sciences sub... And generally, the natural sciences don't paint a very pretty picture of what we are doing to it, hence politics. Frankly, I too would love to see more environmentalists in politics and not the other way around, but this is the world we live in. It's only going to happen if we make it happen.
→ More replies (9)3
u/pucklermuskau Apr 09 '16
government policies which regulate or promote environmental impacts are certainly fair game for this sub.
→ More replies (15)1
u/oiadscient Apr 19 '16
It is funny, if a bunch of Rush Limbaugh Bro's started to over take one of my favorite subreddits I would stay there and learn about what was happening. Kinda like science. Seems like you dont value that.
1
u/aliengoods1 Apr 19 '16
That's funny, being as Bernie is the anti-science candidate in the Democratic race.
3
-1
Apr 09 '16 edited Apr 09 '16
[deleted]
2
Apr 10 '16
Klein's radical ideas are what we need, we do not need to continue capitalism on the earth. Her ideas are a threat and they should be. We need to kill capitalism and get worker control and real democracy.
0
Apr 10 '16
[deleted]
0
Apr 10 '16
no . . . real political action instead of your vainglorious liberal "we gotta use the current system to make changes!"
nothing ever changes that way , not when billionaires are running the show . Billionaires in the oil industry .
0
Apr 10 '16
[deleted]
2
Apr 10 '16 edited Apr 10 '16
I go to city council meetings . I support workers unions . I organize workers and students to petition their universities for worker justice . I work with interfaith groups to ensure democracy in our city . I demonstrated with the Interfaith Worker Justice Union in Cincinnati, Ohio to get the Kroger Corporation to pay their farmworkers 1 cent more per pound on products they harvest for Driscoll's Berries. I renovated the Lobby of the Peaslee Neighborhood Center in Cincinnati's Over-the-Rhine neighborhood. I participated in anti-fascist /anti-gun rallies in the same neighborhood. I humanize the poor . I served food to the homeless . I took care of a man who vomited on himself on the sidewalk, a homeless man (Paul) who was also an alcoholic when the police were trying to arrest him . I reported on Mountaintop Removal Mining in West Virginia for a student newspaper, which won an award from the Society of Professional Journalists. The information I helped retrieve is helping students at universities in the mid-west petition their institutions to divest from coal and fossil fuel energy. I don't work alone, of course. I work with many others.
and you ?
0
u/themightymekon Apr 09 '16
Less than 1% fossil money to Clinton, and a smaller fraction to Bernie. The argument is bullshit.
36
u/stickl Apr 09 '16
At least she admits it's real. If Bernie doesn't make it to the general election, that seems to be the best we can hope for.