A Debate Worth Having …

It’s a damn shame.  It’s a damn shame that the lust for power takes precedence over the well-being of the inhabitants of planet Earth.  It is as if the house is on fire, and half the people living in it say, “Oh no, we cannot go out into the street looking like this … we must first put on nicer clothes and fix our hair.”  Helllloooooo … wake up people!  That fire isn’t going to go into a holding pattern while you get prettied up, and climate change cannot be put on hiatus until the politicians make up their minds to grow a pair of cojones!

The latest?  Washington State Governor Jay Inslee, who is one of the many democratic candidates vying for the office of president next year, along with at least five of the other candidates, requested of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) that at least one of the presidential debates be devoted to climate change.  Given that climate change is the number one problem facing every nation in the world today and given that our current excuse for a president has, bypassing Congress and using the power of his executive pen, accelerated and exacerbated the effects of climate change, then it makes perfect sense that it should be a major topic of the debates.  However, the DNC is cowering in the corner and says “no”.  WHY?

Because the DNC fears that such a climate-centric debate could force Democratic contenders to confront policy differences they have so far papered over, including how quickly they would push the U.S. to shift away from the fossil fuels that provide jobs — union jobs. The candidates would also face pressure to offer specifics on their position on the Green New Deal, the ambitious progressive climate resolution that Republicans have sought to tar as an expensive socialist boondoggle.  In other words, it is politics as usual.

Let’s get something straight here.  The purpose of these debates is to provide an opportunity for the candidates to share their ideas and platforms, and to help We the People to decide, based on where the candidates stand on a host of issues, which candidate is most closely aligned with our own views and values.  The purpose is not for the party to control the agenda and ensure we get ‘cookie-cutter’ choices that all look basically the same.

There will be a total of twelve … yes, count ‘em, twelve … democratic primary debates during 2019 and 2020.  TWELVE.  And they cannot make the topic of one of those twelve, climate change???  In this, the Democratic Party is starting to act a whole heck of a lot like the Republican Party!

Not only is the DNC refusing to hold a debate where climate change is the main topic, but they have also threatened to punish democratic candidates who participate in such a debate hosted by other organizations!  Gestapo tactics?  According to Jay Inslee …

“Today, my team received a call from the Democratic National Committee letting us know that they will not host a climate debate. Further, they explained that if we participated in anyone else’s climate debate, we will not be invited to future debates. This is deeply disappointing. The DNC is silencing the voices of Democratic activists, many of our progressive partner organizations, and nearly half of the Democratic presidential field, who want to debate the existential crisis of our time. The next president must make defeating this crisis the top priority of the nation. And I will continue to do everything I humanly can to ensure the climate crisis is at the top of the national agenda.”

DNC Chairman Tom Perez justified his decision thusly …

“The DNC will not be holding entire debates on a single-issue area—we want to make sure voters have the ability to hear from candidates on all the issues. You have my word that I will do everything I can to make sure our candidates are able to debate all of the critical issues during this primary.”

First, with twelve debates scheduled, I really think that if one were set aside for climate change, the other eleven would still provide the candidates with ample opportunity to debate every other issue at some length.  Second, if we don’t address climate change, frankly there are no other issues, or at least none of the other issues will matter 50 years, 100 years down the road.

I have to concur with what freshman Representative Sean Casten of Illinois said …

“This is the most important issue that we face as a planet and a species right now. If you don’t want to have public debate, this is probably the wrong line of work for you.”

The survival of this nation depends on the democrats defeating Donald Trump in 2020, but this is not the way to go about it.  The democrats need to stand above the fray of the republicans, need to get their priorities straight.  While it is the strategy of the Republican Party to deny climate change in favour of corporate profit, the democrats cannot mimic this strategy.  The majority of people in this country, in the world, understand what the climate scientists are telling us … that this planet cannot continue to sustain life as we know it if we do not act now to stop the damage being done every day to our environment.  To eschew the issue is to condemn every living creature on earth to a near-certain death by the end of this century.  I suggest that every concerned citizen respond to Mr. Perez’ tweet, letting him know that he is wrong, that We the People want debate on climate change, that we need to know where the candidates stand in order to make an informed and intelligent choice.  We cannot afford to put political posturing ahead of life on earth.

31 thoughts on “A Debate Worth Having …

  1. When it comes to the topic of climate change, can anyone explain the difference between democratic and republican policies??? I see senior members of the DNC and speaker Pelosi criticizing vociferously along with republicans against the Green New Deal. I bet they haven’t even taken the time to read the proposal, the plan is adversarial toward Big Oil, Insurance co, Big Pharma and chemical industries etc.
    It’s obvious the DNC can’t make room for one lousy debate b/c they can’t risk derailing the money train, duh!


  2. No, no, no, no, no! Boys and Girls, you’ve got the little *@** on the ropes. Don’t do impression of the UK’s Labour Party and snatch defeat out of the jaws of certain victory!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Climate change, or more accurately, Climate Crisis, is an emotive subject. I have read a lot of data, and been following environmental issues for years. It is a subject that divides opinion as much as politics does.

    And the theories run from extreme (that it is natural phenomenon that will eventually reverse) with the few sceptics left, to the opposite extreme (that humans have set in motion feedback loops that are unstoppable and we will all be dead in a few short years).

    In truth, most reports have been either too conservative or almost on target (depending on which ones we read). One thing is clear… We have not acted on those reports for decades, thinking them to be either a conspiracy, or just a bit alarmist (and it won’t be nearly anything as bad).

    I have been looking at a couple of dated ‘extremist’ documents and find them to be absolutely correct in predictions.

    Professor Peter Wadhams is an aged Cambridge University (England) professor with some of the most respected, laudable credentials one can find. His specialty is the Climate effects in the Arctic, having studied the ice pack for many decades. He is a shy, retiring sort of person, most scientists are. He doesn’t jump up and down, or protest anything, yet this man, like many researchers have (some losing tenure), stuck his neck out to release a paper in 2012 that based on the melt rate of that year, he said the trend was to have an ice free Arctic in 4 years (This is anything less than 1 million square kilometers of sea ice for coastal ice is quite thick). Of course we haven’t quite got there, yet, but may do so in the next couple of years. Other researchers (mainly US Government ones, are quite hesitant to be drawn into that debate. A) because they don’t want to lose their job, and b) they don’t want to lose their funding. This makes life complicated, because it all comes back to politics.
    Peter Wadhams has nothing to lose now, so he tends to tell the truth and indeed speaks out often, via YouTube interviews.

    I have begun to read (in stages, because it is as dry as the paper it was printed on), the Agenda 21 put out by the United Nations in 1992. I am only on page 64 of 350.
    It is a very comprehensive and strategic set of initiatives to reduce poverty, create equality, reduce the use of harmful fossil fuels, chemicals (concern then was with the Ozone hole), and to boost regeneration of environment. It puts protections in place to keep wild places as wild as possible, creating specifics for construction of any type of building.
    It is encompassing, right down to the monies required to implement it, the first world countries footing that bill, and also providing the know-how, and the infrastructure to third world countries to bring them up to a level playing field. I am only on page 64, and I already know, that the expectation was that the Millennium year, 2000 was to be the turnaround. But that report also took into account the future too… Even then, it was promoting a world filled with green energy technology for the year 2020, when Human population will have grown to 8 Billion (there are currently 7.7 Billion today, so it was a good call as it was approximately 5.5 Billion then and population growth is slowing each year).
    That Agenda 21 plan, far as I can tell, has not met with approval from all member countries and so here we are. Still wondering why no one will talk about this, or more accurately, do anything. The plan is there… It has been for 26 years… A generation. A quick discussion from a few politicians vying for power will produce diddly squat. Just like Trump’s discussion with our Prince Charles, on the subject, produced diddly squat. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has brought climate proposals to the table at each conference for 31 years.

    Both the UN and IPCC strategies were formed by Government bodies, are international and have laid out comprehensive plans for implementation. So why have Governments ignored them for decades? Why have the discussions gone nowhere? There are bigger questions to ask here? Why does war, power struggles, limiting ourselves to dirty, polluting technologies, and mass destruction of the environment and its animals take precedence over the plans to do the opposite? I know that the scientists who do the research are at a loss to know why?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Greed, laziness, ignorance and apathy and perhaps a tipping point in the life cycle of any species towards self destruction….hopefully to make way for something better..
      It’s a very long view in time…millions of years…

      Liked by 2 people

    • Agenda 21 is serves the global industrialist agenda and the elite filthy rich and powerful class of special interests. These globalists have hijacked the UN to serve and carry out their political and economic policies.

      In principle, I’m not opposed to Agenda 21 policies, many of which makes sense… on the surface. Dig a little deeper and you’ll find who really control and dictate policy, who are the real winners and losers in this geo-political monopoly game, for certain it’s not we the ppl.

      Liked by 1 person

      • You may well be right, 1EarthUnited, and it is the suspicion of motives that divides public consensus. It is because of these theories, that I am reading through the agenda for myself. I have not decided yet, but certainly there is some scope in what is not said within those Agenda 21 proposals. Certainly, Agenda 21 has been the subject of a lot of skeptism, and conspiracy theory rumours. Nothing is exactly as it appears… And that is the big problem with politics.

        Liked by 2 people

    • My head is spinning. You are far more knowledgeable than I in this area! I can only address the question you conclude with … why does everything else take precedence over addressing the destruction of our earth? Because of three things: ignorance, arrogance and greed. Mostly greed, but the other two come into play as well. Those who discourage and ignore, even deny the reports from renowned scientists do so because to acknowledge them, to admit that they might just be right, would mean they have to do something that might cost them some of the money they have stockpiled, means they might have to make changes to their lifestyles that are “inconvenient”. So, better to ignore the future and live for today. Sigh. And with that attitude, unless something dramatic changes those attitudes, I suspect that life on earth as we know it today is doomed. Thanks much for the info … I will look up the work of Dr. Wadhams.


  4. Jill, the Dems need to openly and often talk about climate change to inform and prepare the public, including GOP voters. I will repeat what I said in 2016, my greatest fear in electing Trump was backtracking on climate change planning at the federal level. Fortunately, industry moved forward and solar energy is now cheaper to produce than coal energy and has 4X the jobs as coal. Cities are picking up the baton as well. Trump and the GOP need to get on board or get out of the way.

    It is more than an environmental issue, it is a jobs issue. Toyota announced today, they are accelerating their electric cars growth by five years AND will be getting the batteries from China. If Trump wants to look backwards at 1980s industry, we will get run over by those looking ahead.

    Dems should not back off and force the renewables and climate change discussion. If they don’t, they are throwing their advantage away. Keith

    Liked by 2 people

    • I agree. I am concerned that he is trying to override the rights of the states like California who are still fighting climate change with their own regulations, and he is ignoring companies who have said his policies will actually hurt them. He just seems hellbent and determined to destroy this Earth.

      As for the democrats … you’re right … if they let fear of political repercussions stop them from doing what is best not only for this nation, but for the world, then they will have lost the opportunity. Unfortunately, it will have serious repercussions. I hope people scream loud enough that the DNC has to sit up and take notice.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Totally agree, the DNC has lost touch with the ppl ever since the 80s when neo-liberalism took over. Now they are no different than the RNC, representing the interests of citizens about as much as the Chinese Communist Party….
        very sad.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Thanks. Their position is on the side of the Angels, so they need to push it. A Libertarian economist penned an op-ed that coal cannot be made great again (my current post references this). The other point is the White House had references to climate change suppressed in a risk assessment to Congress. George Bush and Governors Rick Scott and Scott Walker did this as well. Let me state plainly, I left the GOP twelve years ago, in part, because of their stance on global warming. If they are unprepared to address climate change, they need to get out of the way. We are entering a crisis period. Keith

          Liked by 2 people

    • Nope … not brainwashed, just greedy. They are thinking about how unpopular climate science is among their wealthy donors, and how talking about climate science is liable to make some people angry. Can’t have that, now can we? Sigh. Cheers!

      Liked by 3 people

        • Absolutely. Today we have many options that are better for the planet, but unfortunately some of the wealthy barons are stuck in the dark ages. The coal and oil industries both have much influence over our politicians here and that needs to stop. Money seems the key to everything. But that money won’t do them any good once they destroy the planet.

          Liked by 1 person

  5. DNC is running scared, wanting to take on Trump on his battlefield, not theirs. A SURE WAY TO LOSE AN ELECTION!
    Fight with all your might, Jill. Climate disasters are all around. They will not go away by letting voters hide their heads in the coal dust.

    Liked by 2 people

    • You’re right about that … they ARE running scared, and rightly so. They should have re-grouped and looked ahead after the 2016 elections, but instead they seemed to be in a daze, shaking their collective heads and saying, “Wha -what happened?” They’re still licking their wounds over that one, and instead of helping the candidates, helping the cause, they are doing stupid, restrictive stuff like this. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Trust me, I am in fight mode! I plan to keep this front and center. Bloody fools!


    • Spot on assessment. Unfortunately that’s the direction we’re headed unless the DNC wake up to the reality that they must do right by their constituents, and not cowtow to the big money donors. Selling out is definitely a losing proposition, have they learned nothing from Hillary’s example??? Feels like 2016 all over again *sigh*.


  6. Way to go DNC….I just don’t get it sometimes. The inner-workings of the political establishment never ceases to get in the way. I agree with you Jill. One damn debate out of 12 does not seem an unreasonable request. Maybe enough pressure will change Perez’s mind. One can only hope. Dems must….and I mean must….take control of this issue. The other party is off in la la land, hobnobbing with the corporate fossil fuel behemoths. Good on Inslee for at least trying to get the focus where it needs to be.

    Liked by 4 people

    • More and more I think the politicos on both sides view it as a high stakes game, with the 7.5 billion people on earth as pawns. We need, more than ever, to get the money out of politics. Sigh. Yeah, two thumbs-up for Inslee, but … unless people get mad and tell the DNC what we think, and use whatever leverage we can come up with, we don’t stand a chance of getting them to change their mind, to do the right thing.

      Liked by 1 person

        • Because they are not like us. They are power-hungry and greedy … eager to protect all that money they already have. We don’t want power, and we have no money, so that frees us up to care about people, since we don’t have to spend all our time monitoring our investment portfolios and fretting over how to make them grow faster. Sigh. I’ve become a cynic these days.

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s