Trump, Clinton – neither of them have a safe nuclear weapons policy
Trump, Clinton and our nuclear wake-up call By Kingston Reif, August 13, 2016 (CNN) The possibility of Donald Trump winning the presidential election this November has renewed media and public interest in one of the most important responsibilities of the president: commanding America’s massive nuclear arsenal and averting nuclear war.
Yet what has been lost in the angst that Mr. Trump might soon have the authority to launch nuclear weapons is the equally unnerving reality that the U.S. nuclear posture is already unnecessarily dangerous and redundant. Neither Trump nor Hillary Clinton have explained how they would seek to put U.S. doctrine on a safer footing and reduce global nuclear weapons risks……
Hillary Clinton flips back and forth on nuclear power
Hillary Has Flipped On Nuclear Power 8 TIMES While Running For Office ANDREW FOLLETT, Daily Caller, 14 Aug 16 Energy and Environmental Reporter, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has flipped on nuclear power eight times while running for office, according to an analysis of her public statements and policy positions by The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Clinton has consistently opposed nuclear power during her campaigns, but supported it once she actually got into office, TheDCNF’s analysis shows.
Clinton’s current energy plans, outlined in her 2016 platform, make no mention of nuclear power, but discuss wind and solar energy in glowing terms.
When Clinton was running for the Democratic nomination in 2008, however, she started off from a pro-nuclear power position, saying “I think nuclear power has to be part of our energy solution”……
As her 2008 race with Obama got tighter, Hillary migrated to an even more vehemently anti-nuclear position, explicitly excluding the industry from her platform.”I don’t include nuclear power in my energy policy, which I think is an appropriate approach given the problems we have with it,” Clinton told SentinelSource.com during an interview in late 2007.
After Clinton lost the Iowa caucus she said that, “I have a comprehensive energy plan that does not rely on nuclear power,” in a January, 2008, debate in Las Vegas.
When Clinton again ran for the Democratic nomination in 2016, she rarely directly discussed nuclear energy, though one of her campaign fact sheet claims she favors “advanced nuclear,” which requires, “expand[ing] successful innovation initiatives, like ARPA-e, and cut those that fail to deliver results.”
By the time Clinton pulled ahead of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in March, her policy director told a local Idaho news source that, “nuclear energy has an important role to play in our clean-energy future.”
After locking down the Democratic nomination, Clinton shifted back to opposing nuclear power.
Clinton’s current platform for 2016 calls for having the nation run “entirely on clean energy by midcentury,” with a goal of “getting 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources within a decade.” The platform never defines clean energy, but other sections clearly indicate that it excludes nuclear. The phrases “nuclear energy” or “nuclear power” never appear in the platform……http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/14/hillary-has-flipped-on-nuclear-power-8-times-while-running-for-office/
Climate change – not much to worry about – Donald Trump
Trump: Climate change won’t be ‘devastating’ http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/291231-trump-climate-change-wont-be-devastating Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said Thursday “there could be some impact” from a changing climate, “but I don’t believe it’s a devastating impact.”
In an interview with The Miami Herald, Trump reiterated he’s “not a big believer in manmade climate change,” and while he acknowledged problems such as rising sea levels, he attributed them to “a change in weather patterns, and you’ve had it for many years.”
Trump has long said he doesn’t believe in the science behind climate change, even though there is broad agreement among researchers that human activity has contributed to the phenomenon.
Florida is expected to struggle with rising sea levels induced by climate change, and Miami recently undertook a $500 million push to prepare for it. Asked about that effort, Trump said, “That’s probably not the worst thing I’ve ever heard.” But he said local governments should take the lead in preparing for climate change, not federal officials who have looked to regulate the underlying causes of it.
“[We] have so many environmental regulations that, you go to other countries, where they don’t have that, it puts us at a tremendous disadvantage,” he said.
Trump’s position on climate change is in direct contrast to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. She told a Florida audience this week that “we’ve got to stand against the deniers” and work to prevent climate change in the future.
Donald Trump promoting fossil fuel industries, gets it very wrong about energy in Americaq
What Trump gets wrong about energy in America, WP, By Chris Mooney August 8 In his economic speech in Detroit Monday (transcript here), Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump laid out a series of energy proposals that, in stark contrast to those of Hillary Clinton or the Obama administration, would try to shore up traditional industries centered on coal, oil, natural gas.
The most striking thing about the plan is that it seems premised on a world in which these energy sources don’t have this major environmental drawback called climate change. Trump himself has told The Washington Post he is “not a big believer in man-made climate change,” and the divide between himself and Clinton on this matter is one of the sharpest policy differences of the present campaign, clearly wider than the split in views between Obama-McCain (2008) or Obama-Romney (2012)…..
although Trump says coal jobs have been lost, he never mentions that vast numbers of clean energy jobs have been gained, and indeed, this has been part of the whole goal of Obama energy policies.
According to the Solar Foundation, for instance, the solar industry has added 115,000 jobs over the past six years. A recent study in Energy Policy similarly found that while coal lost 50,000 jobs between 2008 and 2012, wind and solar added 79,000 and natural gas added over 94,000……https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/08/what-trump-gets-wrong-about-energy-in-america/?utm_term=.b5e006a1ec69
Policies of the American Presidential Candidates on the Nuclear Weapons Madness
Hiroshima, Presidential Campaigns and Our Nuclear Future Common Dreams, by Robert Dodge, August 06, 2016 “………… the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has moved their Atomic Doomsday Clock representing the apocalyptic countdown to nuclear annihilation to three minutes till midnight. This is the closest it has been since 1953 at the height of the Cold War after the first hydrogen bomb was exploded.
Our quadrennial presidential campaign, either unaware of the current scientific evidence on the heightened risk on the use of nuclear weapons or not caring in presenting a false veil of strength has brought the full spectrum of response to the issue of nuclear weapons.
Candidate Trump has suggested that since we have nuclear weapons he would consider using them in Europe and elsewhere and that he is okay with an arms race in Asia.
Candidate Clinton has indicated she would continue the current policies of the Obama Administration with its trillion dollar buildup.
Only former candidate Sanders proposed working to eliminate nuclear weapons, cancelling the trillion dollar funding of the new arms race and supporting the congressional S.A.N.E., Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures act to reduce nuclear spending by $100 billion over the next 10 years.
President Obama also has an opportunity to lead in the final months of his presidency by declaring a “no first use” policy by the United States and taking our weapons off of hair trigger alert. These symbolic moves would send a signal to the world and provide an opportunity for our next president to build upon in realizing a world without nuclear weapons.
The ongoing existence of nuclear weapons is no longer a political issue, either Democratic or Republican; it is a survival issue. When the leaders refuse to lead, then the people must act…….http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/08/06/hiroshima-presidential-campaigns-and-our-nuclear-future
The power to order a nuclear strike
Debate Over Trump’s Fitness Raises Issue of Checks on Nuclear Power, NYT By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER AUG. 4, 2016 Hillary Clinton has fueled a debate over whether her rival for the presidency, Donald J. Trump, is fit to command America’s atomic forces. “Imagine him in the Oval Office facing a real crisis,” she said in her address at the Democratic convention last week. “A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.”
The short answer is no, though history suggests that in practice, there may be ways to slow down or even derail the decision-making process. No one disputes, however, that the president has an awesome authority.
The commander in chief can also order the first use of nuclear weapons even if the United States is not under nuclear attack.
“There’s no veto once the president has ordered a strike,” said Franklin C. Miller, a nuclear specialist who held White House and Defense Department posts for 31 years before leaving government service in 2005. “The president and only the president has the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.”Washington keeps details of the nuclear chain of command and its workings secret. The spokesman for the National Security Council, Ned Price, refused to say whether any other member of the chain of command could stop a presidential order to use nuclear weapons………..
rather a vast complex of rules and equipment, including careful procedures for the military to authenticate th
e identity of the commander in chief. The president’s emergency satchel — a black briefcase full of war plans, authentication codes and communication devices — follows him (or her) just about everywhere, carried by an aide trained in the procedures.
The president’s authority over nuclear decision-making challenges the Constitution’s clear declaration that only Congress holds the power to declare war. In practice, the arrival of the nuclear age dismantled the traditional rules by rewriting the timelines of war. It would take 12 minutes or less for weapons fired from submarines to reach Washington, and 30 minutes for warheads from most intercontinental missiles. Bombs dropped by aircraft, if they could pierce the country’s air defenses, would take only hours.
As a result, Congress began delegating the powers of nuclear war-fighting to the president, starting with Harry S. Truman — the only president who has ever ordered a nuclear strike against another nation.
….In practice, the arrival of the nuclear age dismantled the traditional rules by rewriting the timelines of war. It would take 12 minutes or less for weapons fired from submarines to reach Washington, and 30 minutes for warheads from most intercontinental missiles. Bombs dropped by aircraft, if they could pierce the country’s air defenses, would take only hours……..http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/science/donald-trump-nuclear-c
The mindless media bashing of Donald Trump is a dangerous mistake
The Danger of Excessive Trump Bashing http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/38405-the-danger-of-excessive-trump-bashing , Consortium News 04 August 16
The prospect of Donald Trump in the White House alarms many people but bashing him over his contrarian views on NATO and U.S.-Russian relations could set the stage for disasters under President Hillary Clinton, writes Robert Parry. Widespread disdain for Donald Trump and the fear of what his presidency might mean have led to an abandonment of any sense of objectivity by many Trump opponents and, most notably, the mainstream U.S. news media. If Trump is for something, it must be bad and must be transformed into one more club to use for hobbling his candidacy.
While that attitude may be understandable given Trump’s frequently feckless and often offensive behavior – he seems not to know basic facts and insults large swaths of the world’s population – this Trump bashing also has dangerous implications because some of his ideas deserve serious debate rather than blanket dismissal.
Amid his incoherence and insults, Trump has raised valid points on several important questions, such as the risks involved in the voracious expansion of NATO up to Russia’s borders and the wisdom of demonizing Russia and its internally popular President Vladimir Putin.
Over the past several years, Washington’s neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment has pushed a stunning policy of destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia in pursuit of a “regime change” in Moscow. This existentially risky strategy has taken shape with minimal substantive debate behind a “group think” driven by anti-Russian and anti-Putin propaganda. (All we hear is what’s wrong with Putin and Russia: He doesn’t wear a shirt! He’s the new Hitler! Putin and Trump have a bro-mance! Russian aggression! Their athletes cheat!)
Much as happened in the run-up to the disastrous Iraq War in 2002-2003, the neocons and their “liberal interventionist” allies bully from the public square anyone who doesn’t share these views. Any effort to put Russia’s behavior in context makes you a “Putin apologist,” just like questioning the Iraq-WMD certainty of last decade made you a “Saddam apologist.”
But this new mindlessness – now justified in part to block Trump’s path to the White House – could very well set the stage for a catastrophic escalation of big-power tensions under a Hillary Clinton presidency. Former Secretary of State Clinton has already surrounded herself with neocons and liberal hawks who favor expanding the war against Syria’s government, want to ratchet up tensions with Iran, and favor shipping arms to the right-wing and virulently anti-Russian regime in Ukraine, which came to power in a 2014 coup supported by U.S. policymakers and money.
By lumping Trump’s few reasonable points together with his nonsensical comments – and making anti-Russian propaganda the only basis for any public debate – Democrats and the anti-Trump press are pushing the United States toward a conflict with Russia.
And, for a U.S. press corps that prides itself on its “objectivity,” this blatantly biased approach toward a nominee of a major political party is remarkably unprofessional. But the principle of objectivity has been long since abandoned as the mainstream U.S. media transformed itself into little more than an outlet for U.S. government foreign-policy narratives, no matter how dishonest or implausible.
Losing History
To conform with the neocon-driven narratives, much recent history has been lost. For instance, few Americans realize that some of President Barack Obama’s most notable foreign policy achievements resulted from cooperation with Putin and Russia, arguably more so than any other “friendly” leader or “allied” nation.
For instance, in summer 2013, Obama was under intense neocon/liberal-hawk pressure to bomb the Syrian military supposedly for crossing his “red line” against the use of chemical weapons after a mysterious sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2103.
Yet, hearing doubts from the U.S. intelligence community about the Assad regime’s guilt, Obama balked at a military strike that – we now know – would have played into the hands of Syrian jihadists who some intelligence analysts believe were the ones behind the false-flag sarin attack to trick the United States into directly intervening in the civil war on their side.
But Obama still needed a path out of the corner that he had painted himself into and it was provided by Putin and Russia pressuring Assad to surrender all his chemical weapons, a clear victory for Obama regardless of who was behind the sarin attack.
Putin and Russia helped Obama again in convincing Iran to accept tight restraints on its nuclear program, an agreement that may mark Obama’s most significant foreign policy success. Those negotiations came to life in 2013 (not coincidentally after Secretary of State Clinton, who allied herself more with the bomb-bomb-bomb Iran faction led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, had resigned and was replaced by John Kerry).
As the negotiating process evolved, Russia played a key role in bringing Iran along, offering ways for Iran to rid itself of its processed nuclear stockpiles and get the medical research materials it needed. Without the assistance of Putin and his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, the landmark Iranian nuclear deal might never have happened.
Obama recognized the value of this Russian help but he also understood the political price that he would pay if he were closely associated with Putin, who was already undergoing a thorough demonization in the U.S. and European mainstream media. So, Obama mostly worked with Putin under the table while joining in the ostracism of Putin above the table.
Checking Obama
But Washington’s neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment – and its allied mainstream media – check-mated Obama’s double-talking game in 2013 by aggressively supporting a regime-change strategy in Ukraine where pro-Russian elected President Viktor Yanukovych was under mounting pressure from western Ukrainians who wanted closer ties to Europe and who hated Russia.
Leading neocon thinkers unveiled their new Ukraine strategy shortly after Putin helped scuttle their dreams for a major bombing campaign against Assad’s regime in Syria. Since the 1990s, the neocons had targeted the Assad dynasty – along with Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq and the Shiite-controlled government in Iran – for “regime change.” The neocons got their way in Iraq in 2003 but their program stalled because of the disastrous Iraq War.
However, in 2013, the neocons saw their path forward open again in Syria, especially after the sarin attack, which killed hundreds of civilians and was blamed on Assad in a media-driven rush to judgment. Obama’s hesitancy to strike and then Putin’s assistance in giving Obama a way out left the neocons furious. They began to recognize the need to remove Putin if they were to proceed with their Mideast “regime change” dreams.
In late September 2013 – a month after Obama ditched the plans to bomb Syria – neocon National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman wrote in The Washington Post that Ukraine was now “the biggest prize” but also was a steppingstone toward the even bigger “regime change” prize in Moscow. Gershman, whose NED is funded by Congress, wrote:
“Ukraine’s choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”
By late 2013 and early 2014, with Gershman’s NED financing Ukraine’s anti-government activists and journalists and with the open encouragement of neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and Sen. John McCain, the prospects for “regime change” in Ukraine were brightening. With neo-Nazi and other Ukrainian ultra-nationalists firebombing police, the political crisis in Kiev deepened.
Meanwhile, Putin was focused on the Sochi Winter Olympics and the threat that the games could be disrupted by terrorism. So, with the Kremlin distracted, Ukraine’s Yanukovych tried to fend off his political crisis while limiting the violence.
However, on Feb. 20, 2014, snipers fired on both police and protesters in the Maidan square and the Western media jumped to the conclusion that Yanukovych was responsible (even though later investigations have indicated that the sniper attack was more likely carried out by neo-Nazi groups to provoke the chaos that followed).
A Successful Coup
On Feb. 21, a shaken Yanukovych agreed to a European-brokered deal in which he surrendered some of his powers and agreed to early elections. He also succumbed to Western pressure that he pull back his police. However, on Feb. 22, the neo-Nazis and other militants seized on that opening to take over government buildings and force Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives.
The U.S. State Department and its Western allies quickly recognized the coup regime as the “legitimate” government of Ukraine. But the coup provoked resistance from the ethnic Russian populations in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, political uprisings that the new Kiev regime denounced as “terrorist” and countered with an “Anti-Terrorism Operation” or ATO.
When Russian troops – already in Crimea as part of the Sevastopol naval basing agreement – protected the people on the peninsula from attacks by the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists, the intervention was denounced in the West as a “Russian invasion.” Crimean authorities also organized a referendum in which more than 80 percent of the voters participated and favored leaving Ukraine and rejoining Russia by a 96 percent margin. When Moscow agreed, that became “Russian aggression.”
Although the Kremlin refused appeals from eastern Ukraine for a similar arrangement, Russia provided some assistance to the rebels resisting the new authorities in Ukraine. Those rebels then declared their own autonomous republics.
Although this historical reality – if understood by the American people – would put the Ukrainian crisis in a very different context, it has been effectively blacked out of what the American public is allowed to hear. All the mainstream media talks about is “Russian aggression” and how Putin provoked the Ukraine crisis as part of some Hitlerian plan to conquer Europe.
Trump, in his bumbling way, tries to reference the real history to explain his contrarian views regarding Russia, Ukraine and NATO, but he is confronted by a solid wall of “group think” asserting only one acceptable way to see this complex crisis. Rather than allow a serious debate on these very serious issues, the mainstream U.S. media simply laughs at Trump’s supposed ignorance.
The grave danger from this media behavior is that it will empower the neocons and liberal hawks already nesting inside Hillary Clinton’s campaign to prepare for a new series of geopolitical provocations once Clinton takes office. By opportunistically buying into this neocon pro-war narrative now, Democrats may find themselves with buyer’s remorse as they become the war party of 2017.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
Trump’s loose talk about nuclear weapons – not that far from USA’s official position
Trump’s nuclear nightmare His loose talk on the ultimate weapon isn’t so different from official doctrine, but it plays into Clinton’s attacks on his temperament, nonetheless, Politico, By Michael Crowley 08/03/16 “…………Trump’s comments about nuclear weapons, which many experts call dangerously glib and uninformed, and which play into the Democratic strategy of portraying him as unfit to handle the nuclear codes.
Donald Trump’s upsetting statements about nuclear weapons
9 Terrifying Things Donald Trump Has Publicly Said About Nuclear Weapons, THINK PROGRESS
BY JUDD LEGUM
AUG 4, 2016 On Wednesday, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough passed on an intriguing piece of gossip: Donald Trump, speaking with a “foreign policy expert,” repeatedly asked “why can’t we use nuclear weapons.”
Scarborough’s claim was thinly sourced. He didn’t reveal the identity of the expert advising Trump or even where he learned the information. Information attributed to anonymous sources is inherently suspect.
But one need not rely on anonymous sources to glean Trump’s views on nuclear weapons. He has broached the subject repeatedly on the campaign trail. Several of his public comments are similar to Scarborough’s account while others are terrifying in their own way.
Trump said he might use nuclear weapons and questioned why we would make them if we wouldn’t use them [VIDEO]….
Trump said he was open to nuking Europe because it’s a “big place” [VIDEO]……
Trump said that “you want to be unpredictable” with nuclear weapons [VIDEO] ,……
Trump had no idea what the “nuclear triad” was [VIDEO]…….
Trump started talking about nuclear weapons in Pakistan and made no sense at all [VIDEO]…….
Trump said he’d be OK with a nuclear arms race in Asia [VIDEO]…..
The time he said it didn’t matter if Saudi Arabia acquired nuclear weapons because “it’s going to happen anyway” [VIDEO] …. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/08/04/3804985/7-terrifying-things-donald-trump-publicly-said-nuclear-weapons/
Anti war protest at USA’s Democratic Convention
A Revealing Moment at the Democratic National Convention https://bracingviews.com/2016/07/28/a-revealing-moment-at-the-democratic-national-convention/by wjastore W.J. Astore
Yes, there was a revealing moment at last night’s Democratic National Convention. No, it wasn’t President Obama’s soaring speech, or Joe Biden’s heartfelt appeal, or Tim Kaine’s “believe me” lampoon of Donald Trump. All these were scripted.
It was the anti-war protesters who spoke out against drone assassinations and war while former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta spoke.
Good for them. This democratic convention has been at pains to please the military. Last night, Panetta called the U.S. military our greatest national treasure. Obama repeated his claim that the U.S. military is the finest fighting force since Cain slew Abel. Tim Kaine opened his remarks by mentioning the Marines and shouting Semper Fi.
The Democrats are the new Republicans: they’re going “all in” on military boosterism and ra-ra patriotism.
Which is why the anti-war protest was so refreshing. End the wars — end the killing — what’s wrong with these protesters for expressing such crazy sentiments at a Democratic political rally? (An aside: my favorite sign read “Fauxmocracy.”)
The DNC response was swift. Apparently, they cut the lights to the section where the main body of protesters sat (the Oregon delegation), but the protesters simply pulled out their Smart phones for light. Panetta, of course, ignored them, carrying on with his prepared speech that vilified Trump for his remarks about Vladimir Putin and hacking. (Pretty dumb by The Donald, but the man is an empty barrel, an Archie Bunker who loves to make lots of noise.)
Most interesting of all was media response. I was watching MSNBC (I think) when a commentator attacked the anti-war protesters for undercutting Panetta’s speech against Trump. Yes, it was the protesters who were TOTALLY in the wrong! How dare they chant “no more war” at a former CIA Director and secretary of war? How dare they challenge an olympian like Panetta while he’s on the stage? How dare they organize and exercise their first amendment rights?
Expect more unbounded praise of the U.S. military tonight by Hillary Clinton. Expect more talk of war. Just don’t expect any honest talk about the cost of America’s wars or any vows about ending them in our lifetimes.
Update (7/28):
I just endured General Allen’s jingoistic speech/scream and all the “USA! USA!” chants, followed by a short speech by a Medal of Honor recipient in favor of Clinton.
After which Brian Williams of MSNBC said, “Sadly,” you could still hear faintly the voices of protesters shouting “No more war.” Why is that so sad, Brian Williams? Why is it so sad for Democrats to be against war? Why must they shut up when a general speaks, a general who boasts of making the U.S. military stronger with even better weaponry with which to kill?
That’s the real “sad” part, Brian Williams: How the Democratic Party has become the war party.
Forcible removal of Code Pink activist from Democratic Convention
Code Pink Activist Kicked Out of Democratic Convention
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/code_pink_activist_gets_kicked_out_of_dnc_20160729on Jul 29, 2016 On the final night of the Democratic National Convention, the mainstream media repeatedly focused on the convention hall full of compliant Hillary Clinton supporters. What they didn’t show was the peaceful protesters dragged out by security. Although aCode Pink’s Medea Benjamin made headlines by interrupting proceedings at last week’s Republican convention, such protests at the Democratic convention did not garner the same attention.
Truthdig’s Sonali Kolhatkar caught one such moment on film when Ariel Gold, a Code Pink activist, was forcibly ejected from the convention hall by Secret Service. Kolhatkar spoke with Benjamin to learn the details of Gold’s ejection.
“She interrupted Governor Cuomo because of the legislation that he has been promoting, to make BDS [the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement] illegal, basically,” said Benjamin, before going on to explain why Palestine is such a crucial issue this election season. “Hillary Clinton is so bad on this issue…we feel she is really pandering to the Israeli government.”
USA Democrats will mobilise huge action on climate change, if elected
US Democrats endorse WW2-scale mobilisation on climate challenge http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/07/28/us-democrats-endorse-ww2-scale-mobilisation-on-climate-challenge/ 28/07/2016, If elected president, Hillary Clinton will convene a climate summit in the first 100 days, according to platform endorsed at Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia By Megan DarbyHillary Clinton will mobilise a global effort on a scale not seen since the second world war to tackle climate change, if elected US president in November.
Gov. Jerry Brown: ‘Climate change is the existential threat of our time
That became official Democrat policy on Wednesday at the party’s national convention in Philadelphia.
Within 100 days of assuming office, Clinton promises to bring together engineers, scientists, policy experts and activists “to chart a course to solve the global climate crisis”. The party called for a clean energy revolution and a federal investigation into fossil fuel companies accused of misleading the public about the risks of climate change.
It did not embrace all the most climate hawkish proposals, rejecting a carbon tax, fracking ban and climate test for new energy infrastructure.
California governor Jerry Brown used his speech to drive home the divide between Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump on global warming. “Combating climate change, the existential threat of our time, will take heroic efforts,” he said. “You would not know it to listen to Donald Trump.”
Trump did not mention climate change once in his 76-minute speech to last week’s Republican convention and recently denied that California was experiencing a drought, Brown noted: “Trump lies.”
Brown also rejected the idea there is a trade-off between economic growth and green policies, pointing out California is outpacing the US economy while embracing carbon cutting plans.
Philadelphia march of 10,000 protestors demanding climate action
Over 10,000 Climate Protesters March in Philadelphia on Day Before Democratic National Convention DeSmog Blog By Sharon Kelly • Monday, July 25, 2016 Thousands of climate activists, public health advocates and others arrived in the streets before the first day of the Democratic National Convention, despite blazing heat that was just one degree shy of the hottest July 24 on record in Philadelphia. With temperatures in the mid-90s, a crowd that organizers estimated included over 10,000 marchers converged on Independence Mall near the home of the Liberty Bell.
“We’ve just wrapped up a Republican National Convention filled with climate denial and extreme energy talking points. Tomorrow we start the Democratic Convention, and the question to all these leaders and politicians is: Are you willing to take the action that science demands, or are you just another kind of climate denier?” said Drew Hudson, Director of Environmental Action. “Science tells us we need to keep 80% or more of fossil fuels in the ground: that means a ban on fracking, a halt to dirty trade deals like the TPP, and no more use of eminent domain for polluter gain. I’m marching today to tell all elected officials, if you’re not down to #KeepItInTheGround, you’re just another climate denier.”
Many of the protesters were local — noteworthy in a city long regarded as a Democratic stronghold. ……..
The protests in Philadelphia were already larger than those that confronted Trump and the Republican party in Ohio, according to those who attended both events. No arrests were reported on Sunday in Philadelphia, though one person was transported by ambulance to receive medical care for heat exhaustion.
At one point, the crowd of marchers nearly stretched the full length of the route between City Hall and Independence Mall.
“Our elected leaders must listen to the people,” said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, one of the main organizers of the protest, “which is why over a thousand groups from all 50 states endorsed the March for a Clean Energy Revolution and called for the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground and focus on renewable energy options that will create jobs, not destroy lives.” http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/07/25/over-10-000-climate-protesters-march-philadelphia-day-democratic-national-convention
Climate change will drive voter turnout in America
DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION: Steyer: Climate change will drive voter turnout EE News Evan Lehmann, E&E reporter ClimateWire: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 PHILADELPHIA — Billionaire climate advocate Tom Steyer believes young Americans will cast more votes this year based on rising temperatures than in past presidential elections.
In an interview with ClimateWire last night, the founder of NextGen Climate also downplayed the idea of placing a price on carbon dioxide and dismissed the notion of swapping the Clean Power Plan for a carbon tax.
That’s a huge wedge issue,” Steyer said of young voters’ concern about climate change. “I think it’s a critical issue as to whether they turn out.”
NextGen is spending more than $25 million to encourage millennials to vote in November. Young adults currently account for the largest and most diverse population in the United States, and Steyer believes that could help Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump on Nov. 8.
Separately, Steyer’s group is partnering with five different unions to canvass working-class and minority neighborhoods, where the issue of climate change could help compel young voters to turn out this fall. Large percentages of African Americans and Latinos believe that global warming is occurring, and Steyer’s group is trying to turn those concerns into electoral action.
We’re spending a lot of time trying to do voter-to-voter contact in the swing states, trying to make sure they are aware of the facts, know the difference between the candidates and know how important their vote is,” Steyer said.
Inside the Wells Fargo Center last night, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and other speakers raised their own concerns about climbing temperatures on the first day of the Democratic National Convention.
“This election is about climate change, the greatest environmental crisis facing our planet,” Sanders told the audience packing the basketball arena.
“Hillary Clinton is listening to the scientists who tell us that — unless we act boldly and transform our energy system in the very near future — there will be more drought, more floods, more acidification of the oceans, more rising sea levels. She understands that when we do that, we can create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs,” he said. “Donald Trump? Well, like most Republicans, he chooses to reject science. He believes that climate change is a ‘hoax,’ no need to address it.”
Trump aims for Bernie supporters
Last night’s program also included a short video on climate change and its impact on the Everglades.
“The effects of climate change can no longer be ignored,” the narrator in the video said, noting that warming threatens seagrass and mangroves in the Everglades, which absorb carbon. It touted the Obama administration’s $2.2 billion funding for restoration of the Everglades, which among other things will help improve the local drinking water supply.
The video was followed by a speech from Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the lone senator to endorse Sanders during the presidential primary campaign. He said Sanders “emboldened us” to push for 100 percent renewables but added, “We need to fight together with Bernie and Hillary.”…..Reporters Josh Kurtz, George Cahlink and Mike Soraghan contributed. http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060040774
Climate change a focus for the USA Democrats election policy
Finally, Climate Change Gets Stage Time At The Democratic Convention“This election is about climate change, the greatest environmental crisis facing our planet,” Sen. Bernie Sanders said. Huffington Post, 26/07/2016 Just one night into the Democratic National Convention, things are looking a whole lot brighter for the environment under a potential Hillary Clinton presidency than anything we heard in Cleveland last week.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), long a champion of climate action, dedicated a large portion of his speech in Philadelphia on Monday addressing “the greatest environmental crisis on our planet.”……
Those sentiments were echoed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) just moments earlier. In her keynote address, Warren called out the fossil fuel industry while praising Clinton’s inclusion of climate action as a key part of her campaign……..
The inclusion of climate topics at the DNC is a far cry from the almost nonexistent mention of climate change and fossil fuel money at last week’s RNC. Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax” and said he isn’t a “great believer” in man-made global warming, didn’t mention the environment onceduring his acceptance speech.
The only person to speak about the issue on the RNC stage was Harold Hamm, a fracking mogul who said, “climate change isn’t our biggest problem,” and instead called for more oil and gas production, Grist reported.
Scientists have long called for extreme action to halt the worst effect of climate change. Representatives from 195 nations reached a landmark deal in Paris last year pledging to lower greenhouse gas emissions…….http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/climate-change-dnc_us_5796e480e4b0d3568f84585a
1 This Month
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (227)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 