>> Interesting in that maybe someone called
ironic because that 2020 presidential candidate
hopeful Joe Biden is looking for a middle
ground policy to battle climate change.
So looking for a middle ground policy to battle
an emergency but that's not my plan.
>> I love the way you framed it, before.
>> I love it that way right.
So I've got different thoughts on what kind
of a middle ground it is.
>> But I like the idea of like, my god, there's
a fire in the house.
Well, let's go to the middle ground first.
>> Can we just put out that's right.
Can we just put out half the fire?
Okay.
So we'll have the house burn down and put
out the other half.
No, sometimes the middle ground approach does
work, it depends on the situation
>> It never works in an emergency.
>> Yes.
Hardly ever in an emergency, right?
All right.
Hey, we're getting robbed here, let's go with
the middle ground approach, let me take half
of your money, you get the point.
And its line is in crisis and if you don't
recognize that.
There is a significant issue there.
I have a theory on where the real middle ground
is, but let's give you more of the details.
>> Yeah, so I'll give you some details, let's
take a look.
The backbone of the policy will likely include
re-joining the United States with the Paris
Climate Agreement and preserving U.S. regulations
on emissions and vehicle fuel efficiency that
Trump of course has sought to undo, according
to one of the sources.
There are two sources that are giving us this
information.
But Heather Zichal, is actually part of a
team advising Biden on climate change and
she previously advised President Barack Obama.
So this sounds good.
This so far, this sounds good.
Here is where a lot of people have a problem.
The second source, a former energy department
official also advising Biden's campaign who
asked not to be named, that's always a red
flag.
>> Yeah, that's right, totally.
Whatever you do, do not tell people who I
am.
>> Exactly.
>> Okay.
>> So they say the policy could also be supportive
of nuclear energy and fossil fuel options
like natural gas and carbon capture technology
which limit emissions from coal plants and
other industrial facilities.
And so of course, this is likely to upset
climate change activists, environmental groups.
More than half of the crowded field of course
of democratic contenders including Elizabeth
Warren, Kamala Harris, Ben Aurora, Cory Booker,
Jay Inslee and Pete Buttigieg have backed
the The Green New Deal and many have also
called for a moratorium on drilling on federal
land.
But back to the first source, Zichal said,
here's the deal, that Biden hopes to be able
to use his climate policy to bridge the gap
between younger and more progressive Democrats
who want bold action on global warming and
the working class demographic that fear losing
jobs.
As the economy shifts away from fossil fuels.
So essentially people are saying he is already
starting with the fight for Trump.
Like almost like he feels like he has the
Democratic fight.
Just in the bag already.
>> Yeah, I don't accept that paradigm at all.
Let me just make a quick point and then I
wanna hear you out and then get back to middle
ground.
So, Reuters wrote this article and they're
a pretty good organization, I would argue
even better than most of the rest of the journalism
down America.
But, they say this repeatedly throughout the
piece.
I'll quote another sentence here, Biden's
middle ground approach to environmental policy
could put him in a better position than his
rivals to take on Trump if it accommodates
blue collar voters.
I don't agree with the assumption and another
part of the piece, another mainstream media
assumption is that, well this will cost trillions
of dollars.
Well you're leaving out the part where it
saves trillions of dollars from all the economic
disasters that we have through floods, fires,
hurricanes, extreme weather events.
That part of the equation is almost never
mentioned in the media or by corporate Democrats.
But more importantly in that context.
Wait, if we're spending trillions of dollars,
did it ever occur to you that's because we're
rebuilding the entire energy infrastructure
of America?
And hence, creating tons of jobs.
So it's not either or, it's not, hey we're
gonna save the planet but sacrifice blue collar
jobs.
No, we're gonna save the planet and in so
doing create potentially millions of new jobs.
So I do not accept your corporate ideology.
That no, you can either have the planet or
you can have jobs.
That's the oldest corporate myth there is.
And so for Biden to buy into it and even more
disturbingly for good media organizations
to buy into it is unacceptable.
>> I think, just interesting point, it just
reminded me it's something that I keep complaining
about and I forgot.
I forgot to complain, what?
But
>> Yeah, you pointed out that this is still
another hidden way of still assuming that
all of those people voted for Trump because
of economic anxiety.
>> Exactly.
>> So they're screaming, you know, shoot migrants
at rallies because of economic anxiety and
so if you're soft on climate change, they'll
like you because they want fossil fuel jobs.
That's really what this was all about.
It just ignores this aspect and this reason
why Trump voters are Trump voters.
That people still are not fully willing to
accept.
I don't think I know so much about this.
>> Yeah, so it's a lose-lose in both of those
respects.
I mean, to go to a totally non-economic issue,
like Black Lives Matter, when right wingers
who support Trump say that that's a terrorist
organization as they have said on Fox News.
Well, that has nothing to do with economic
issues.
What on God's green earth are you talking
about, right?
So that's part of it, but the other part of
it is, well even if you alreadyaccept this
because of economic issues, Green New Deal
creates millions of new jobs, thereby giving
you an opportunity to reach out to those voters
in a much more effective way than, let's maintain
the status quo.
Because that appears to be Joe Biden's theme,
just like it was Hillary Clinton's theme.
Let's make sure we go back to doing pretty
much nothing.
So, look, on the good things, Paris Climate
Accord and look at the wording, preserving
US regulations on emissions and vehicle fuel
efficiency.
That's table stakes, that say, hey, let's
go back to 2016.
That's not gonna solve the climate change
issues.
Those are good steps but minor steps taken
in an earlier time.
For you to put us back to 2016 creates two
different problems.
One is that we have not gotten forward in
fixing the climate crisis that we have on
our hands now and we can't afford to lose
any time.
And same of all you created a political environment.
That was so bad, so toxic it created Donald
Trump.
No deal.
>> So for me, this is an example of what happens
far too often in our country, which is you
compromise before you even have an opportunity
to negotiate, which means to me, what Biden
is expressing here is not a statement actually
of his values.
But the fact that he's actually tethered quite
likely to corporate money, I mean as we see
literally in the story with the natural gas
industry insider as one of his advisers.
The Paris Accord is largely non-binding.
It doesn't go nearly far enough.
Most climate scientists and journalists like
Naomi Klein have made that point again and
again.
And on top of it, what happens here is there's
an objectifying of blue-collar workers and
their economic anxiety.
What people want are jobs and a social contract.
They want secure income for their families,
and to be able to work to get what they want
out of that work.
They need to be protected as we go through
these transitions.
The Green New Deal isn't about leaving these
people behind.
It's about giving them meaningful employment
in an industry of the future and it's really
important that as we go through these transitions.
And this is something that Bernie Sanders
has said very directly that we don't leave
anyone behind.
We should create more economic opportunities
out of the challenges that we're facing right
now.
>> So I've got to run through two more things
here at least, one as I promised you.
Well, what I think middle ground actually
means, I think middle ground in this case
means middle ground between the planet and
my corporate donors.
So let's be honest and let's have a conversation
we didn't have in 2016.
We said it on air but almost no one on TV
said it.
In fact, they asked Bernie Sanders in a very
skeptical and demeaning way, are you saying
that Hillary Clinton's donors affected our
policy?
God damn it, yes.
>> The answer is yes!
Are they affecting Biden's policies?
Of course they are!
That's why he's going with the so called middle
ground.
And so.
>> And they affected Obama's policies.
>> They did, they did and that's an uncomfortable
fact.
And Biden loves to hide behind Obama.
He's like, I'm not gonna doing nothing, but
so did Obama!
I'm gonna go back to the status quo, but so
did Obama!
Right?
And so hey, if you attack me, you're attacking
Obama, and you're not allowed to do that.
Wrong, I am allowed to do that, and we have
to be honest with people.
And remember, it's a different time.
If Obama was ahead of his time, which I don't
think he was, but even if you were to grant
him that, that still doesn't get you to today,
you have to go forward, you can't go backward
and hide behind Obama.
And so now, speaking of going backwards, I
mean look at his policies, right, it smacks
of Hillary Clinton.
So here's a quote, tell me if Biden said it
or Hillary said it, right now, to be fair
neither one of them said it, it's one of their
advisors.
>> Anyway, right now we need a little bit
more reality around this dialog.
Remember when Hilary would say, let's be real.
Let's be real, let's be real, we're not gonna
help you, okay?
The reality is there isn't anything we can
do and the status quo.
How did that work out for us in the general
election?
And Biden constantly reaching out to Republicans.
Not interested in, misunderstands the political
dynamic at hand.
You know, one of his advisors is Obama's energy
secretary Ernest Moniz.
You might think, hey, Obama.
I'm hiding behind Obama, wonderful.
Obama's energy secretary just wrote an op-ed
in March, with a Bush administration official,
calling for a green real deal.
Meaning, no, let's keep it real.
We're not gonna do anything.
Me and the Bush guys agree.
No, in that case I'm not for a real deal,
I'm for a no deal.
No deal on Joe Biden.
So it's not personal.
I like Joe Biden, he's a likable guy, I met
him a couple of times, it's not like he's
my uncle, he seems like a fine enough guy,
it's not personal at all.
But if your policy plans are, I promise to
march backwards, and at best maintain the
status quo.
And I promise a word with Republicans like
Dick Cheney, who he complimented, Mitch McConnell,
and the others.
No deal, not interesting.
So, right now, he's got the do nothing Biden
campaign.
And that's how we lost the general election
last time.
Can I make one quick point which this is reflective
of not having any vision at all, right?
I mean, Trump was clear about his hateful
and hypocritical vision.
Bernie Sanders was clear about his vision
in the last go around.
What is Biden’s vision?
Is it to soothe everyone while the climate
crisis gets worse, while people become more
economically insecure?
What is the vision?
>> Yeah.
>> And if you don't have a vision, you lose.
>> And so to that point Ramesh, he says, well
I call it a climate change, an existential
crisis, an existential threat to our planet.
So first of all let me know that I don't care
what you call it, I care what you do.
Second of all if you think it's an existential
treat, that means life or death.
To Brooke's original point, would you go with
a middle ground approach to an existential
treat?
No, that means you don't mean any of it.
You don't think it's an existential threat.
You're not going to act like it's an existential
threat.
The only thing that you view to be an existential
threat is if your corporate donors back out
of your campaign.
That's the reality.
That's the real deal.
