4 ms·

I don't understand why politicians always put forth "plans" that would never pass. Why not put forth realistic options that would pass? It's not wonder we can't

I don't understand why politicians always put forth "plans" that would never pass. Why not put forth realistic options that would pass? It's not wonder we can't tackle anything, much less climate change. Everyone goes so far on the spectrum that they can't garner votes for anything. It's ridiculous. This pleases the base, it does nothing more. And even at that, I'm sure the far flungs will say this isn't enough. Come to the middle.

derg 7y ago
Starting negotiations from the middle never works out.
- asdkhadsj 7y ago
  Well, not never.. but with congress.... yea, I definitely agree.
rileyphone 7y ago
If the plan is further out, so is the middle to. It's a political mandate, if your plan is milquetoast congress will pull it to almost nothing.
m_ke 7y ago
You have to aim high and have room to make sacrifices.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
save_ferris 7y ago
Because politics is largely a negotiating game. It's really not that different from haggling. Formal bills are adjusted in order to be passed, which usually involves making members of both major parties happy. The other reason is that there's a large consensus that believes that we're not in a climate for moderate politics to thrive because some members of congress have a tendency to negotiate in bad faith. There's a widely held belief on the left that the GOP cannot be negotiated with, and any kind of call to the center requires giving them more power.
- partiallypro 7y ago
  Of course it's a negotiation game...but that tactic works a lot better when the stakes aren't so public. In this political world, you have now tainted your proposal and any future proposal you make because the media on the other side will paint anything and everything as a slippery slow toward your original goal or plan. So this particular tactic doesn't work here, not anymore.
  - save_ferris 7y ago
    > The media on the other side... If politicians like Sanders created their proposals based on what the other side was saying, we’d never have major discussions around our culture, policy, or anything else of consequence. In this hyper partisan, bifurcated media environment, we’re constantly bombarded with accusations of Nazism juxtaposed with accusations of Red-scare socialism. I don’t know many people that actually care what the other side is saying because we tend to focus on what our side is saying. The big problem I see is that people want proposals to be perfect on arrival, which isn’t possible because A) perfect is subjective and people disagree on details, and B) in our legal system, just like life, nothing ever goes exactly to plan. As I said earlier, legislation is often passed by making trade-offs, and the ideal is often a moving target. We shouldn’t look at proposals like this and expect them to come out exactly the way they’re advertised because our system has never, ever worked that way. Look at the early drafts of Obamacare compared to what was eventually passed. Was the ACA a failure because dems made serious concessions around several aspects of the bill? How often do you hear that Obama was a failure because he wasn’t able to pass the ACA as he originally envisioned it? Never.
    - partiallypro 7y ago
      No one expects a proposal to be perfect on arrive, they want it to be realistic and grounded in reality.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mc32 7y ago
It’s part of politics. You cannot put forth realistic plans because your opponents or competition would split the difference. Also at the early stages you have to appeal to your most fiery ardent base. Later on it’s time to “negotiate” and become more moderate and realistic.
xboxnolifes 7y ago
Instead of getting both votes for going middle, you get neither.
notJim 7y ago
> Why not put forth realistic options that would pass? The problem is, there's no "middle solution" to climate change. There was 30 years ago, but we didn't do it then, and now it's too late. There's nothing "realistic" about being too indecisive to save the planet.
- manfredo 7y ago
  There is always a middle solution, the problem is that many people aren't willing to do it. All US electricity generation could be replaced with nuclear power for 1/5th to 1/10th the cost of this plan. Realistically, probably ~70-80% since we might not want to build plants in earthquake prone zones. How's that for a middle ground?
  - krainboltgreene 7y ago
    Does switching the US to nuclear power bring back the lungs of the earth (Brazil's forests)? Does it stop carnival cruise ships from emitting 10x more carbon emissions than all of Europe's cars? Is it going to reduce the 640,000 tons of gear that are thrown into the oceans? If a middle ground is "not surviving" then it sounds pretty shit.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      > Does switching the US to nuclear power bring back the lungs of the earth (Brazil's forests)? Does it stop carnival cruise ships from emitting 10x more carbon emissions than all of Europe's cars? Is it going to reduce the 640,000 tons of gear that are thrown into the oceans? Wind and solar power do not do any of these things either. By comparison, maritime nuclear power could power cruise ships. Nuclear powered carbon sequestration can produce oxygen. I don't know why you're bringing up ocean waste dumping, since that's a waste disposal issue and has little to do with energy production. For the same amount of money it would take to build up wind and solar capacity to 100% (or even close to 100%) of electricity generation, we could build nuclear plants that put out 5x as much energy or more. And then use that excess energy to sequester CO2 out of the atmosphere. That's what it takes to actually stop global warming. Even eliminating all CO2 emissions won't stop global warming because the existing CO2 emissions are enough to keep temperatures rising for the next 100 years.

derg 7y ago

Starting negotiations from the middle never works out.

asdkhadsj 7y ago
Well, not never.. but with congress.... yea, I definitely agree.

rileyphone 7y ago

If the plan is further out, so is the middle to. It's a political mandate, if your plan is milquetoast congress will pull it to almost nothing.

m_ke 7y ago

You have to aim high and have room to make sacrifices.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

save_ferris 7y ago

Because politics is largely a negotiating game. It's really not that different from haggling. Formal bills are adjusted in order to be passed, which usually involves making members of both major parties happy. The other reason is that there's a large consensus that believes that we're not in a climate for moderate politics to thrive because some members of congress have a tendency to negotiate in bad faith. There's a widely held belief on the left that the GOP cannot be negotiated with, and any kind of call to the center requires giving them more power.

partiallypro 7y ago
Of course it's a negotiation game...but that tactic works a lot better when the stakes aren't so public. In this political world, you have now tainted your proposal and any future proposal you make because the media on the other side will paint anything and everything as a slippery slow toward your original goal or plan. So this particular tactic doesn't work here, not anymore.
- save_ferris 7y ago
  > The media on the other side... If politicians like Sanders created their proposals based on what the other side was saying, we’d never have major discussions around our culture, policy, or anything else of consequence. In this hyper partisan, bifurcated media environment, we’re constantly bombarded with accusations of Nazism juxtaposed with accusations of Red-scare socialism. I don’t know many people that actually care what the other side is saying because we tend to focus on what our side is saying. The big problem I see is that people want proposals to be perfect on arrival, which isn’t possible because A) perfect is subjective and people disagree on details, and B) in our legal system, just like life, nothing ever goes exactly to plan. As I said earlier, legislation is often passed by making trade-offs, and the ideal is often a moving target. We shouldn’t look at proposals like this and expect them to come out exactly the way they’re advertised because our system has never, ever worked that way. Look at the early drafts of Obamacare compared to what was eventually passed. Was the ACA a failure because dems made serious concessions around several aspects of the bill? How often do you hear that Obama was a failure because he wasn’t able to pass the ACA as he originally envisioned it? Never.
  - partiallypro 7y ago
    No one expects a proposal to be perfect on arrive, they want it to be realistic and grounded in reality.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mc32 7y ago

It’s part of politics. You cannot put forth realistic plans because your opponents or competition would split the difference. Also at the early stages you have to appeal to your most fiery ardent base. Later on it’s time to “negotiate” and become more moderate and realistic.

xboxnolifes 7y ago

Instead of getting both votes for going middle, you get neither.

notJim 7y ago

> Why not put forth realistic options that would pass? The problem is, there's no "middle solution" to climate change. There was 30 years ago, but we didn't do it then, and now it's too late. There's nothing "realistic" about being too indecisive to save the planet.

manfredo 7y ago
There is always a middle solution, the problem is that many people aren't willing to do it. All US electricity generation could be replaced with nuclear power for 1/5th to 1/10th the cost of this plan. Realistically, probably ~70-80% since we might not want to build plants in earthquake prone zones. How's that for a middle ground?
- krainboltgreene 7y ago
  Does switching the US to nuclear power bring back the lungs of the earth (Brazil's forests)? Does it stop carnival cruise ships from emitting 10x more carbon emissions than all of Europe's cars? Is it going to reduce the 640,000 tons of gear that are thrown into the oceans? If a middle ground is "not surviving" then it sounds pretty shit.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > Does switching the US to nuclear power bring back the lungs of the earth (Brazil's forests)? Does it stop carnival cruise ships from emitting 10x more carbon emissions than all of Europe's cars? Is it going to reduce the 640,000 tons of gear that are thrown into the oceans? Wind and solar power do not do any of these things either. By comparison, maritime nuclear power could power cruise ships. Nuclear powered carbon sequestration can produce oxygen. I don't know why you're bringing up ocean waste dumping, since that's a waste disposal issue and has little to do with energy production. For the same amount of money it would take to build up wind and solar capacity to 100% (or even close to 100%) of electricity generation, we could build nuclear plants that put out 5x as much energy or more. And then use that excess energy to sequester CO2 out of the atmosphere. That's what it takes to actually stop global warming. Even eliminating all CO2 emissions won't stop global warming because the existing CO2 emissions are enough to keep temperatures rising for the next 100 years.