Bill McKibben is more like Hillary Clinton than you realize.

Bill McKibben

"I periodically remind myself of what President Franklin D. Roosevelt told labor leaders who urged him to enact progressive legislation after his 1932 election: 'I agree with you. I want to do it; now, make me do it.'” --Henry Weinstein

A POTUS represents about 320M people.  They cannot stray too far afield of what they perceive are the goals and interests of those 320M people.  In fact, it is their OBLIGATION not to stray too far.

All leaders must look to their constituencies to define the boundaries of what they can and should accomplish.  Sometimes this is frustrating.  In climate change, we want them to end oil, coal and gas, now...as in yesterday now.  But in asking them to do that, we must recognize the limits are not what they stand for.  The limits are in what we stand for.

This is true even among those that we hold as most principled.  Bill McKibben is a fierce climate activist.  His dedication to cutting carbon emissions cannot be in doubt.  Savvy, capable, driven, principled and fully committed.  However, like any leader, he is answerable to his constituency.  (He doesn't have the same constituency as a POTUS, of course.  His is made up of climate activists.)  He is answerable to that constituency, even to the point of having a different public stance from his private one:

"After McKibben gave his rousing speech to an enthusiastic audience, I was able to grab him for a moment in back of the little makeshift stage. I asked him about nuclear power. He admitted that nuclear was going to be necessary if we were ever to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. “Why don’t you come out favorably in public for nuclear power, then?” I asked. He surveyed the hillside, almost half the people crusading against Vermont Yankee. “If I came out in favor of nuclear,” he said, “it would split this movement in half.”

So there you have it. McKibben, like many other environmentalists, knows in his heart that there isn’t much chance of reducing carbon output without nuclear. But he does not want to be caught saying so in public."   http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2015/11/12/how_about_suing_bill_mckibben_for_racketeering_108880.html

Here is our reality.  We must move almost 320M Americans to stop using fossil fuels.  We must move 7.4B human beings across the globe.

We don't all agree on things.  We don't all share the same values.  This is not easy.  This is HARD.

And our leaders can only lead us where we will follow.  That is not their failure or success.  It is ours.

The Regulatory Hydra

Regulation of oil, gas and coal is like trying to cut the head off a hydra.   You do it, because the head is dangerous, but two more heads pop up in its place. The ongoing saga of fighting for reasonable regulation of gas is exemplified by the news out today that scientists are challenging EPA conclusions on fracked water.

At some point, the focus must be on the demand for these fuels. A growing number of experts identify a carbon tax is THE gold standard means for addressing that.  Other carbon pricing mechanisms can work too. We don't have one of those. Congress isn't really keen on passing one.  Yet.  (Citizens Climate Lobby and other groups have seen great progress on the Hill and Sanders' campaign just raised awareness and political will for a carbon tax immeasurably).

Carbon pricing is not the only way to send market signals, however. We have seen the impending demise of coal simply because we allowed gas to be utterly cheap. That happened by allowing frackers to pollute and create wanton destruction.

Lack of regulation keeps market prices low. Imposing regulation drives up market cost. The more we regulate gas, the higher its cost will be.

Yes. Back to the dreaded hydra. Because, at the end of the day, it comes to us to demand that private actors don't hurt each other. We have a police force because we recognize that. Private actors don't just use theft, trespass, rape and murder to hurt each other. They use things like fracking too, so long as it's profitable.

However, we'd better be careful. As we regulate gas, if we don't want to return to coal, we'd best be sure there is a cheaper alternative to them both.

Renewables are looking to be that. Some reports show that by 2020, renewables will be the cheapest means of energy production.  However, without transmission or storage, renewables will remain dependent on gas.

So, we must make transmission and storage and solar and wind work together more cheaply than gas. Quickly.

How?  Subsidize the corporations making renewables or give tax breaks to the people buying them.

Congress, last December extended the tax credits for solar and wind purchases. There are growing numbers of state programs supporting renewables as well. This is important to getting us to the 2020 mark when renewables will be cheaper even without these subsidies.

But transmission?  We need a national grid. (Hillary's got a plan for that, as part of her infrastructure plan.  And she is continuing to make it a key part of her campaign even when she is talking about the broad scope of her campaign.)

The market signals also impact another source of energy:  nuclear. At the moment, nuclear, like renewables with transmission and storage, can't compete with poorly regulated gas unless subsidized. This is not just true of newly built plants. This is true of maintaining current plants. Yes. Running already existing nuclear plants is more expensive than fracked gas. That's why they are closing.

If we want carbon free energy, we will subsidize it while also regulating carbon filled energy. It's really that simple.

Well, it could be simpler. We could ditch all that and enact a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend.

Thanks to CCL Canada for the Image

How long do we have until we must act on climate change?

Spoiler alert...the answer is both "no time left at all" and "however long it takes."

I am going to try to untangle the numbers that climate scientists and journalists throw around a bit, the very numbers that confused the heck out of me when I started to look seriously at climate change, and confuse many folks still.

First, let's start with all this 1C, 1.5C and 2C warming.  What exactly does that all mean? That means, if you average together all the temperatures around the surface of the globe before 1880, and you compare them to the average global temperatures between 2006 and today, they are warmer today.  Depending on which years you choose (2000-2010, 2005-2015, 2006-2016), our current warming is about 1C or 1.8F.  (This should not be confused with the more terrifying numbers of the warming we have seen when we average only January through July of 2016.  Those amount to 1.38C warming.  This is, we hope, a particularly high number because El Nino is taking extra stored heat out of the ocean and bringing it to the surface right now.  Keep in mind that even in that context, 1.38C is extremely high and should alarm everyone.)

In Paris, in December, almost 200 nations agreed that we need to limit warming to under 2C and as close to 1.5C as possible.  Why?  Well, the scientists are pretty clear that beyond 1.5C warming means utter disruption and severe devastation.  Island nations disappear, coral reef ecosystems cease to be (and the food that they provide for millions of people), extreme weather intensifies, water supplies disappear for many people, food crop yields drop.  We begin to see impacts that will themselves certainly bring greater warming (called a positive feedback).

IPCC's projections of damage at varying levels of warming

That warming is the result of the greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere up until about 40 years ago.  Keep in mind that greenhouse gases do not make heat.  They trap it like a blanket.  When you are cold in the winter, and you put a blanket on, it takes a while for the heat you are producing to build up, trapped by the blanket, to make you feel warm.  The same is true with global warming, except the heat source is the sun.  We are on a delay and will continue to warm even if we stop burning fossil fuels today.  Stop completely.  We will still warm for another 40 years.  We have "locked in" at least 1.5C warming (2.7F).

That makes it sound like we need to stop burning fossil fuels today.  Like, why am I typing this out on a computer if it is this urgent, today?  Even James Hansen, who arguably understands the urgency as well as anyone on the planet, is using fossil fuels.  Why do people who get the urgency keep saying, we have to cut emissions to zero by 2050?  Why not by tomorrow?

What gives?

Well, here is where the sociopolitical realities meet the physical realities.  The latter is immutable.  The former?  Only stubbornly slowly mutable.

No one is going to turn off the energy.  This isn't some demonstration of humanity's evil side.  Our technologies are things we rightly think should be accessible to the poor, who do not yet have it.  We don't see energy as an evil luxury of wealthy nations that the poorest are noble to go without.  Just consider hospitals and refrigeration alone.  These are not evil things.  And no politician is willing to tell a populace that they must go without them.  I would say, understandably.  Just the simplest example:  we travel to our jobs, where we earn money to care for our children, those same children we are endangering with warming.

The very values that would make us cut emissions are often the very values that drive us to continue to use fossil fuels.  

Here is the beautiful thing:  we could continue to use energy without causing warming.  Everyone should, at this point, agree that is what we need to do.  Continue to refrigerate, heat, cool, drive, but without carbon emissions.

We have the technology to decarbonize our energy systems.  The tools we have available for electricity are solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear.  Transport, home heating and cooling, and much of our industry can convert to electricity.  Agriculture can be done in a way that minimizes fertilizers and reduces meat consumption.  Almost all industry can be carbon free.  (There are some exceptions, and R&D into things like cement, a source of high carbon emissions, are essential).

We have the technology and means to cut almost to zero emissions now without halting all modern civilization.

Turning off technology is not an answer anyone can or will choose.  But decarbonization is.

BUT here is the thorny part.  We can't just turn off gas, oil and coal tonight and wake tomorrow and turn on solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and nuclear.  We can't just park our internal combustion engine cars tonight and drive off in EVs tomorrow.

It takes time and money to build the infrastructure.  That's right.  This is basically a question of time and money.

People say we must ban fracking.  I am all for ending fracking.  But to do that, we have to have something to replace it.  Solar and wind are excellent.  But they require sufficient storage and transmission.  (If those are not sufficient, then, when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, we use gas, which can be turned on and off easily, called "dispatchable.")  Thankfully, Clinton has plans to build up our electrical grid and our energy storage, which will, in fact, permit us to end gas use as a necessary complement to renewables.  But that takes time.

People say we must ban coal.  Coal produces more emissions than any other fossil fuel.  So it is rightly the first to go.  Because we don't have the infrastructure for transmission and storage to complement renewables built yet, when coal plants are shut down, they are often converted into gas plants.  The option?  No energy for the very families we are trying to protect from the ravages of climate change.  So gas comes online as we end coal.  Because gas has lower emissions, we have seen it as a step forward, albeit one rife with problems, not the least of which is fugitive methane.  (Keep in mind, this has been primarily driven by market, simply because gas is so cheap, coal couldn't compete).

People say we must ban nuclear.  This makes no sense to me.  Nuclear energy produces nearly zero carbon emissions.  Keeping our current plants running gives us one less source of energy likely to end up replaced by gas.

People say we must build solar and wind.  Absolutely.  ABSOLUTELY.  But these are intermittent.  Alone, they leave people in the dark if the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.  So as we push for renewables, we must also push for a national grid that can move the energy from where the sun shines or wind blows to where it does not, and we must also push for storage like batteries and pumped hydro to keep from when the sun and wind are productive to when they are not.

And we must push for the infrastructure necessary for transport.  Charging stations for electric vehicles, for example.

This all takes time and money.

So here is the bottom line.  We are not going to avoid 1.5C.  We won't.  We likely won't avoid 2C.  (Heck, discussion of staying under 2C was all but given up a few years ago, before Paris gave us newfound hope).  When the nations met in Paris in December, they each pledged to make changes that will allow us to avoid the 4C we are headed toward, and come in around 3C.  They agreed they would work to pledge more each five years, to "ratchet up" efforts.  Our ultimate warming is a moving target.

And THAT is what we need to take away.  Our ultimate warming is a moving target.  Our job is to get it to move as low as possible by building the infrastructure we need today.

We are now, finally, talking about building the very infrastructure we need to begin decarbonizing. (Hillary Clinton's plans incorporate many of these measures). We must continue to push for that infrastructure:  grid, storage, solar, wind, nuclear, EVs, efficiency, and, yes, lifestyle changes.  But we cannot stop to call our desire to raise our children with modern technology evil.  We must continue to value our children's welfare by working as quickly as we can toward cutting emissions.  At this moment, that simply means taking the first steps, and knowing we will be urging more after those first steps are taken.  And accept that we are chasing a moving target.

Infrastructure changes like those that Clinton is proposing will help move that target in the right direction.  And legislative actions like a price on carbon, brought by a progressive voting bloc in Congress, will help speed its movement in that right direction.

Your vote this November may be the single most important action you can take on climate change.  Not because we have no time left, but because we have this time left.

How can a candidate say they are serious about climate while supporting fracking?

Clinton, and now Kaine along with her, listen to climate scientists and understand climate change is dire, or so they say. Kaine has said it on the Senate floor, Clinton has said it there and, as Secretary of State, made it a constant part of her agenda.

But how, how could two people SAY they understand climate is dire, but still support fracking? Yes, they say we need to regulate it heavily, but no amount of regulation can truly stop fugitive emissions, seismic activity and despoiled water.

That is a fair question.

The answer is complicated, and certainly open to interpretation.

Here is my answer.

Everyone, other than the Koch brothers, loves solar and wind. Great stuff. Even the obstructionist Republican Congress renewed subsidies for solar in December. It is a winner politically. With good reason. My own Congressman, Chris Gibson, has described it as “democratizing energy.” Add the near zero carbon emissions, and we are talking about a solution that has broad appeal.

Wind and solar are intermittent. The sun isn’t always shining everywhere and at all times that electricity is needed, nor is the wind always blowing. There are several potential solutions to this problem. (1) Use electricity only intermittently, (2) store the energy for later use, (3) move the energy from one place to another-transmission or (4) have another energy source that can be turned on and off to complement the solar and wind.

(1) Intermittent electricity usage is NOT an option, politically or economically. Anyone suggesting this will never get into power long enough to implement such a policy. Nor would any of us really want this if we stop to consider things like refrigeration and hospital needs. We can shift usage around throughout the day to better coordinate with production and it is easy to imagine an app for that. However, we certainly cannot shift all usage to coincide with production. (2) Storage is building. Tesla came out with its powerwall, electric vehicles may be able to be used for storage to then use later for our homes, water can be pumped upstream. Lots of different storage possibilities. None of which are yet fully developed and ready to complement hundreds of thousands of solar panels or wind turbines. We are getting there, but we are not there yet. (3) Transmission would be fantastic. Moving solar produced electricity from Arizona to Wisconsin would solve a lot of the challenges. However, our current grid is AC, which is inefficient and the electricity just would not get across country efficiently enough. A DC grid could be built, and that would work well. We don’t have that now.

(4) Another energy source that can be turned on and off easily is called dispatchable energy. The primary source of dispatchable energy we have available now is gas.

Because choices (1), (2) and (3) are currently limited, we have been relying on number (4). Gas. At the moment, and until we have fully ramped up (1), (2) and (3), we will rely on gas if we want to build renewables. Now let’s be clear. Gas sucks. Fugitive methane emissions, seismic activity and destruction of our fresh water sources is not a good thing.

What are our options? Well, we could (1) continue to complement renewables with gas until we have a grid and storage and shifting usage fully in place, (2) ditch renewables and build nuclear, or (3) continue to sort of do both.

If I were queen, I would build renewables with complementary storage/transmission/usage shifting as quickly as possible. I would end all gas, coal and oil for electricity production. But because we don’t have enough renewables or the necessary complementary storage/transmission/usage shifting in place to end all fossil fuels immediately, I would also build nuclear. Nuclear is baseload, which means it can go 24-7 without needed complementary gas or storage/transmission/usage shifting. It, too, has near zero carbon emissions.

But I am not queen. And most people on the left don’t like nuclear. And people on the right don’t like the cost of nuclear.

The next president isn’t going to be queen either. She will be president. Now, what has she proposed, given the realities we are facing, both physical and political?

She is proposing to build up (1) usage shifting, (2) storage and (3) transmission as much as possible. She is proposing building out solar and wind. But she knows that without building up nuclear, while ending coal, we are left with a real possibility that we can’t get the complementary grid, storage and usage shifting in place as quickly as we need. And the only way to ensure the lights and heat and refrigerators and hospital equipment stays on then…is gas.

I don’t like it. But when the political reality is that you cannot say the word “nuclear” aloud, and the voters do not appreciate the value of “national grid,” “innovative energy storage” and “smart grid,” you cannot ignore gas if you are going to build up solar and wind.

Thankfully, Hillary has not just accepted gas’ inevitability as a complement to renewables. Her policies push for heavily regulating fracking. That will drive up the cost of gas… and, perhaps, hopefully, make nuclear a little more likely to stay competitive, giving us more time to build up that grid, that storage and the usage shifting that will make solar and wind possible. Many climate activists are approaching Clinton-Kaine as “well, they aren’t Trump.” But the truth is that Hillary Clinton has been listening very very carefully to those with expertise. And she is crafting policies to move us as quickly as possible off of fossil fuels, while also recognizing that there are political limitations. Not the least of which is failure of even climate activists to fully appreciate the challenges of our transition. I am grateful that Hillary has plans for a national grid. I am grateful that she has plans for building out renewables. I am grateful that she has resisted calling for closure of nuclear plants. I am grateful that she is calling for heavy regulation of fracking. I am grateful she is navigating this in a way that will keep the lights on for us all, and most especially those who are most at risk of being left behind. And I am grateful she is listening to those who understand the complexities of energy policy and those who understand climate science. I wouldn’t do it the same as she is doing...but then, I am not as skilled as she is at navigating the world of politics and policy.

Climate Policy and the Democratic Party Platform

[This Note was published in edited form as a guest blog on Greg Laden’s blog at http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2... ] It is time, now, for climate activists to get vocal.

As it becomes more clear that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, there is increasing talk about the importance of unifying the party. Negotiations are on the horizon…for VP and for policy platforms.

Now, we must be sure climate, and carbon cutting policy, is part of those negotiations.

Consider, for a moment, as Bernie Sanders begins to make demands in exchange for his support, what he will insist upon. What two or three or four policy platforms will he insist be incorporated into the Democratic Party platform?

His campaign’s latest email:

“What remains in front of us is a very narrow path to the nomination. In the weeks to come we will be competing in a series of states that are very favorable to us – including California. Just like after March 15 – when we won 8 of the next 9 contests – we are building tremendous momentum going into the convention. That is the reality of where we are right now, and why we are going to fight for every delegate and every vote. It is why I am going to continue to speak to voters in every state about the very important issues facing our country. Our country cannot afford to stop fighting for a $15 minimum wage, to overturn Citizens United, or to get universal health care for every man, woman, and child in America.” (Emphasis mine).

Notice what is missing?

The single most important issue of our day. The single biggest threat to national security.

Climate change.

It comes down to us to insist that meaningful carbon cuts are at the top of the platform.

Hillary Clinton critics are right. Hillary has wrongly called gas a bridge fuel. She absolutely needs to be pushed to make it her goal, and that of the Democratic Party, to END gas and all other fossil fuels. She has good solid plans to regulate fracking. Those policies will drive up the cost of gas and therefore send price signals that, in the absence of a price on carbon, will drive us toward other sources of energy. But it is essential that we have the stated goal of ending gas. That will set the stage for the essential conversations about how we will replace that gas without turning off the lights and heat. Efficiency, lifestyle changes, renewables, and, yes, nuclear.

Bernie Sanders has made it plain that he will allow nuclear licenses to lapse. If nuclear plants close now, they are likely to be replaced with gas. He has said that he isn’t closing the plants now, just allowing for them to close by attrition. This isn’t quite the reality of allowing licenses to lapse. The reality is that nuclear plants are already closing now, before their licenses lapse, because electricity is so cheap that regular maintenance ends up economically unfeasible. Part of that calculation is lifetime return. If you know you won't be relicensed in 2025, it is all the more reason not to do 2017's maintenance and instead close down. And once a nuclear plant is mothballed, it's done. You can't just refurbish and turn it back on, like you can with gas and coal. Unfortunately, there is little political will to take on the nuclear issue within the party at this point. Maybe that means that we can simply accept Hillary’s approach to leave nuclear alone. Perhaps her political calculation on nuclear was simply on target.

Perhaps the one thing all climate activists can agree to demand in these negotiations is a carbon tax. Hillary Clinton has had, for many months, a vague, buried reference to carbon markets in her policy platform.* People have made little mention of it, simply saying she doesn't support carbon taxes. Why not highlight that she seems to support carbon pricing, insist that she become more vocal about it, and push her to explain why she is supporting cap and trade over taxes? As that conversation unfolds, she will be forced to address the distinctions, and, at the same time, the electorate will become more knowledgeable about carbon pricing. At the end of the day, the party platform may end up with a clear carbon price plan.

Whatever climate policies end up in the Democratic Party Platform, it is clear that climate activists must put aside the horse race between Clinton and Sanders and remember that neither of them go far enough. Neither is prepared to get to zero emissions by 2050. Neither sees climate as the single most important issue to address.

It is time for climate voters and climate activists to demand that the Democratic Party serve up more than fiery rhetoric from Sanders and more than visionless bridge fuels from Clinton.

It is time to demand the best from each of them and ensure they don’t simply offer up their worst on climate.

The Nuclear Option

I will start with a little context. I grew up about five miles from Indian Point nuclear plant. My parents and their friends were protesting Indian Point when I was 9. I remember the leakage scares, the meltdown worries and heard about every event. As I made my way through my biology and law degrees, nothing I encountered was in conflict with that understanding. In fact, as to Indian Point, I am quite sure that the failures of oversight are dangerous and that Indian Point very likely should be shut down.

However, I am also keenly aware of carbon emissions. And the impacts, climate and otherwise, of gas, oil and coal. By 2030, we will have locked in 2C warming. That will result in the deaths of hundreds of millions of living creatures, many of whom will be human. There will be great starvation, thirst and war, as well as the destruction wrought by sea level rise and extreme weather events. On top of that, coal, oil and gas kill many through their own wastes and extraction. The sheer numbers far outweigh the numbers of fatalities from every nuclear accident totaled.

My first looks at climate change made it appear that the solution was simple: 100% renewables. In fact, Jacobsen out of Stanford says we can get to 100% renewables.

Unfortunately, he does not represent 97% of energy experts. He doesn't even represent a plurality of experts. Many of his colleagues question his conclusions as overly optimistic. He may be right, but there is a chance he is wrong. If he is, our futures may require us to rely on something other than renewables. That's either fossil fuels or nuclear. Even more unfortunately, when we close down a nuclear plant, the decommissioning is permanent. So if we must change our minds, we will have to build from scratch, requiring time we don't have.

Let's say we assume Jacobsen is right though.

Even still, we are facing a serious issue in the transition. Every time we close a nuclear plant in the northeast, we replace it with gas. Percent for percent. In real time. Gas is reported as lower emissions. However, it is increasingly apparent that the fugitive methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from fracking is under reported. Fracking has other problems too--more destruction of water than ever seen from Indian Point...by any measure.

So we are facing a very difficult set of choices.

I believe we are facing three separate questions. First, should we shutter currently running plants, if they are to be replaced by gas (which is what is happening, since gas is so cheap). Indian Point is rife with issues. However, Fitzpatrick is not. Yet it is being closed because the owners cannot afford regular maintenance work on it. Why not? Gas is so artificially cheap, it's driven down the cost of electricity. The choice we are making is to frack rather than continue to use an already existing nuclear plant. Fracking-with it's wanton destruction of water and land, fugitive emissions and weighty carbon footprint.

The second question is whether we want to invest in new plants. The plants that we could build now would be vast improvements over Indian Point. But the expense, and current unsolved issues make this a question that reasonable people could easily differ on.

The third question is whether we should invest in developing gen 4 reactors. If we develop fast reactors, we could use old stockpiled waste as fuel, killing two birds with one stone. Fast reactors exist in the world. The development questions are ones of developing commercially viable fast reactors. Likely a matter of investment rather than chance.

We face a stark reality. Nuclear is nearly carbon emissions free. Nuclear has had far fewer casualties (even problematic ones like Indian Point) than gas oil and coal, even before accounting for climate change.

At the very least, we must take seriously the question of how we will ensure shuttered nuclear is not replaced with gas.

How a Climate Voter Can Choose Hillary

[NOTE: this is a repost and collection of various thoughts I've had over the past weeks that I want to collect in one spot. It is not an invitation for Hillary slamming or Bernie slamming. It is simply an explanation of how I came to my decision. I believe that support of Bernie is fully rational and I will happily and proudly support either of them in the general election.]

Many of my climate activist allies think all serious climate activists support Bernie. (I do challenge that idea given a recent Quinnipiac poll that found 11% of dems rank climate as their number one issue and 66% of those support Bernie and 30% support Hillary).

But given the basic presumption that Bernie is better on climate, why do I think Hillary may actually be the better candidate on climate?

(1) Soul versus Trenches I agree that Bernie and Bernie's supporters are looking to redefine the soul of the party.

And I agree that that is worthy. And important.

But I disagree that it is all that is important.

Climate action must be NOW. Not in five years, not in ten. And it must occur in our current political system, not the one we may be able to create in 4 or 8 years.

And so, experience and skill and detail matter within our current political system.

Bernie has a clear vision that Hillary lacks. A vision beyond the horizon. But Hillary has a command of the horizon that has few equals. Beyond the horizon lies the soul of the party. But the climate relies before our horizon.

I think Hillary has the kind of natural executive skill that Obama has, but with a whole lot more experience than he had to start. Obama has managed to accomplish way more than a lesser skilled executive could accomplish. And the results may be the difference between 4C and 2.5C.

I see the weaknesses in Hillary as the other side of the coin of her strengths. She is ready for the trenches. She is prepared for the long slog. And that means she may not look beyond the horizon. Of course, it also means she is ready for the slog. I will give you a quick example. In her climate plan, buried deep, is a vague discussion of creating carbon markets to coordinate internationally with Canada and Mexico. Few recognize that she is talking about carbon pricing because she has buried it deep in her climate policy. That wasn't an accident. And it's not that she doesn't really want to price carbon. It's that she doesn't want to wave a red flag for the GOP bull that she is preparing for because she knows that bull and she knows how to fight it.

Less soul. More trenches. [Edited on April 14 to add the following: I think Hillary is beginning to incorporate climate into a broader vision, perhaps one that sees further to the horizon. Her new plan ties climate into the issues she has most consistently addressed. From her most recent plans: “[s]imply put, this is environmental racism. And the impacts of climate change, from more severe storms to longer heat waves to rising sea levels, will disproportionately affect low-income and minority communities, which suffer the worst losses during extreme weather and have the fewest resources to prepare. “ She goes on to explain how she intends to ensure that climate mitigation and adaptation and resilience all address climate’s disproportionate impact on minorities. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...

(2) Fracking, Nuclear and Keeping the Working and Poor Classes' Lights and Heat On.

Bernie wants to ban fracking. Sounds great. Fracking is destroying our water, leaking methane, causing seismic activity and earthquakes and produces carbon dioxide when burned. He does acknowledge that in the absence of legislative action, he will have to regulate fracking heavily. That is precisely Hillary's policy stance--heavily regulate fracking.

What's more is that Bernie wants to shutter nuclear plants. That is understandable. Nuclear's history is fraught with poor oversight and weak public support. However, every time we shutter a nuclear plant, it seems we replace it with gas. Moreover, once we shutter a nuclear plant, it cannot be simply refurbished and reopened. So if there's uncertainty about getting to 100% renewables , closing nuclear is a gamble even in the long term. It makes much more sense to first replace gas, coal and oil with renewables and then close down nuclear as it too can be replaced by renewables. (This is actually a simplification, since there are also issues of distributed energy versus centralized energy, but the gist of it remains--shuttering nuclear today results in more gas).

So let's say Bernie CAN ban both fracking and nuclear as he intends. If the renewables aren't up and running yet, then that simply means lights out. Heat off. For whom? The poor and working classes. The wealthy will happily make do with the solar and wind that we've gotten up and running.

Bernie will NEVER do that--it would devastate the people he cares most about. So...until we can get renewables 100% up and running, he faces a choice--gas, coal (once you shutter gas, it can easily be returned to coal), oil or lights out. He will be left with the same policy that Hillary is working toward.

(3) Entrenchment and Being Owned by the Establishment.

Hillary is completely tied to the Democratic establishment. She has ties.

That is true. But not all bad. The establishment includes Civil Rights activists from decades ago. Mothers of dead black children from today. Groups dedicated to women's reproductive freedom. Large environmental groups. Unions. I don't agree with everything the "establishment" stands for. I don't want Wall Street calling shots. But I don't want to forgo leveraging WalMart's consumer power to buy solar either. Or Unilever's interest in driving climate action. We have nearly 319 million people in this country and 7.2 billion people on the planet. It will take a lot to move everyone in the right direction. And THAT is precisely what we must do. Leveraging power to do that is not a bad thing.

(4) Political Will and the Revolution Bernie is inspiring and engaging. And it is about time we hear voices from the left. Every one of us--including private citizens and politicians--need to move left. But that is the POLITY that must move left and be engaged. Whether Bernie is POTUS or Hillary is, we will need to show up on Election Day and every day after that. Demanding more. More of Bernie (whose goal does not go as far as that of O'Malley, btw). More of Hillary. More of our legislators. More of ourselves.

[Here, btw, is her vague buried reference to clean energy markets:

"Clean Power Markets: Build on the momentum created by the Clean Power Plan, which sets the first national limits on carbon pollution from the energy sector, and regional emissions trading schemes in Canada, Mexico, and the United States to drive low carbon power generation across the continent, modernize our interconnected electrical grid, and ensure that national carbon policies take advantage of integrated markets." https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/23/hillary-clinton-vision-for-modernizing-energy-infrastructure/ ]