BLOG—ENVIRONMENT AND FOSSIL FUELS
GRIST ARTICLE AND OTHERS, PRESENTED BY LUCY WARNER
April 16, 2016


Going strongly away from the use of fossil fuels and the serious problem of how those things are extracted from the earth – from fracking to mountaintop removal – we come directly to a warming earth in which drought and highly destructive storms become the new norm. Many conservative citizens have the belief that climate change is an “act of God,” rather than manmade and for some strange reason they think that this means we mere humans shouldn’t try to do anything about it, especially if it might involve eliminating some of the income of the 1%. Besides, a billion dollars just doesn't go as far as it used to! Shocking as that is, those are the “good” citizens. Even worse, there are the totally cynical, money oriented folks who only care about costs, taxes, and becoming ever richer. They often say they are Christians, but they rarely show any mercy. In their view, human needs aren’t serious enough to do anything about – a truly sad situation. See the several articles below.



TRUMP/COLBERT ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/colbert-rips-trumps-oddly-specific-plan-eliminate-fictitious-government-agencies

ELECTION 2016
Watch: Colbert Rips Trump's Oddly Specific Plan to Eliminate Imaginary Government Agencies
"It's only a matter of time before Trump fires all the wasteful departments we don’t need because they don’t exist.”
By Alexandra Rosenmann / AlterNet April 7, 2016

On Tuesday, the people of Wisconsin rejected Republican frontrunner Donald Trump. Analysts say Trump lost because of "things he said and done,” Colbert joked on his show last night. “Also—this is just as important—things he hasn’t said.”

Many people complain that Trump likes to talk big, but never comes up with any specific proposals, Colbert continued. “But on Monday, Trump finally put that criticism to bed by finally coming up with concrete examples of government agencies he would eliminate.”

“Would you eliminate any departments?” host Sean Hannity asked Trump in a Fox News town hall.

“Oh, absolutely,” Trump said. “Department of Environmental—I mean the DEP is killing us environmentally, just killing our businesses."

Colbert let that sink in for a minute. "The Department of the Environmental. We looked it up,” he said. “And the Department of Environmental does not exist, meaning Trump is either talking out of his ass or he’s already eliminated it! That’s very impressive and you know it’s only a matter of time before Trump eliminates all the wasteful departments we don’t need because they don’t exist. The Federal Bureau of Moneying, the U.S. Steak Department and the Department of the Inferior top that list, and they’re all fired."

Watch:
Alexandra Rosenmann is an AlterNet associate editor. Follow her @alexpreditor.



I’ve never watched Colbert past his cavorting around on the stage with the first guest. I prefer Saturday Night Live. This “news reporting” is really funny, though. “But on Monday, Trump finally put that criticism to bed by finally coming up with concrete examples of government agencies he would eliminate."



http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/04/15/sean-hannity-conducts-trump-related-interview-makes-news/

Sean Hannity Finally Conducts A Trump-Related Interview That Makes News
By: streiff (Diary) | April 15th, 2016 at 03:30 PM


A couple of days ago, I posted on Sean Hannity’s rather curious relationship with Donald Trump. One that enables — that word was chosen deliberately — Trump to be interviewed some 41 times by Sean Hannity and never, not once, get a newsworthy utterance. Hannity was not amused with us. We continued to be not amused with him.

Now it seems that we can reset the counter to zero because finally Sean Hannity has conducted an interview related to Donald Trump’s campaign that made news. That watershed event comes via the Washington Post, and a story titled Corey Lewandowski’s interview with Sean Hannity was a total joke. For the record, this is from the Washington Post, not Think Progress.

To review the story, at a Donald Trump rally in Florida, diminutive thuglet and Donald Trump campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski assaulted a reporter named Michelle Fields who then worked for the news outlet known as Trumpbart. The assault is not a subject of speculation. It was captured on video. Michelle Fields was injured. Corey Lewandowski was CHARGED with assault, ARRESTED and BOOKED. The event happened. There is no doubt about it.

“After reviewing the video recording, there is no reasonable doubt that Mr. Lewandowski pulled Ms. Fields back as she was attempting to interview Mr. Trump,” state attorney David Aronberg wrote in his decision not to pursue criminal prosecution, which was later obtained by the Washington Examiner.

While Aronberg acknowledges that Lewandowski did in fact grab the forearm of ex-Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields at a press conference at Trump’s golf course in Jupiter, Fla., last month, he claims not enough evidence exists to prosecute Lewandowski for criminal battery.

Donald Trump called the prosecutor and somehow the charge was made to go away.

During a press conference Thursday, Aronberg told reporters that Trump personally called his office and spoke with several employees, who he urged to “do the right thing.”

Lewandowski was neither “cleared” nor “exonerated”. He was simply not prosecuted because the case was not guaranteed of a win. It is called nolle prosequi and the prosecutor may reinstate the charges at any time.

Back to the news-making article:

Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, who pulled out of an interview on Fox News Channel two weeks ago, finally submitted to questioning on the cable network on Thursday — the day a battery charge against him was dropped. And after all that waiting, the interview was farce.

Sean Hannity devoted the first half of a 10-minute sit-down to the March 8 incident in which Lewandowski grabbed reporter Michelle Fields by the arm after a primary-night news conference in Florida. But he neglected to press for an explanation of the Trump campaign’s original denial of any contact or of Lewandowski’s efforts to smear Fields’s reputation. And he allowed the manager to get away with more false statements.

For instance:

Hannity lets Lewandowski get away with claiming Fields did not reach out to him over the incident when he has told Megyn Kelly that she did.

Hannity doesn’t mention that Fields was willing to let it go for an apology, which was promised to her, then the Trump campaign reneged on the agreement and attacked her.

Hannity lets Lewandowski get away with both claiming he doesn’t remember the event AND describing the event in the same interview.

Hannity says, “The tape shows that he might have touched her.” The tape AND the Jupiter, FL prosecutor confirm that he not only touched Fields, he manhandled her.

Hannity says, “Some have speculated there might be some type of defamation lawsuit.” Fields has said she plans on suing Lewandowski AND she has engaged in a publicize Twitter-spat with Fox’s resident Scientologist, Greta van Susteren, over the action. Van Susteren has, naturally, encouraged her to shut up about it.

The sad thing is that the facts here are not even in dispute. But, despite the video evidence, despite the on-the-record statement by the prosecutor, Hannity defends Lewandowski and acts as an enabler, letting Lewandowski insinuate several times that Michelle Fields is a liar. Hannity was covering for Trump’s campaign on an incident that should appall anyone with a sense of decency. (Were an actual human male running for nomination instead of Donald Trump he would have sacked Lewandowski.) He shamelessly whitewashed a shameful incident. But we can no longer say his interviews don’t make news.

When under scrutiny for his non-challenging coverage of Trump, Hannity had this to say:

I’ll be honest, I’m not sitting here — If I’m interviewing Hillary Clinton, it’s gonna be a hundred times harder than any Republican, because I believe the Republicans represent, and have a far better vision, one that I agree with, I just have less disagreement with them. I’m not a journalist, I’m a talk show host. I can’t think of any question that has come up, that I have wanted to ask these candidates, that was relevant to ask these candidates, that I haven’t asked them. I’ve asked them everything.

We’ve just expanded the scope of that agreement from politics to how gentlemen should treat ladies and women.

But now I realize that Donald Trump was not kidding:

“I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”

He certainly would not lose Sean Hannity.



“Lewandowski was neither “cleared” nor “exonerated”. He was simply not prosecuted because the case was not guaranteed of a win. [It is called nolle prosequi and the prosecutor may reinstate the charges at any time.” I wish I could be surprised by this, but after all “it’s not what you know, but who you know.” Apparently this law of human nature holds up in the courts as well as business. It sounds a little like double jeopardy to me, so I'm surprised it's legal.] …. While Aronberg acknowledges that Lewandowski did in fact grab the forearm of ex-Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields at a press conference at Trump’s golf course in Jupiter, Fla., last month, he claims not enough evidence exists to prosecute Lewandowski for criminal battery. Donald Trump called the prosecutor and somehow the charge was made to go away. …. Corey Lewandowski, who pulled out of an interview on Fox News Channel two weeks ago, finally submitted to questioning on the cable network on Thursday — the day a battery charge against him was dropped. And after all that waiting, the interview was farce. …. But he neglected to press for an explanation of the Trump campaign’s original denial of any contact or of Lewandowski’s efforts to smear Fields’s reputation. And he allowed the manager to get away with more false statements. …. Hannity doesn’t mention that Fields was willing to let it go for an apology, which was promised to her, then the Trump campaign reneged on the agreement and attacked her. Hannity lets Lewandowski get away with both claiming he doesn’t remember the event AND describing the event in the same interview. …. Hannity says, “Some have speculated there might be some type of defamation lawsuit.” Fields has said she plans on suing Lewandowski AND she has engaged in a publicize Twitter-spat with Fox’s resident Scientologist, Greta van Susteren, over the action. Van Susteren has, naturally, encouraged her to shut up about it. …. (Were an actual human male running for nomination instead of Donald Trump he would have sacked Lewandowski.) He shamelessly whitewashed a shameful incident. But we can no longer say his interviews don’t make news.”

Hannity had this to say: “I’ll be honest, I’m not sitting here — If I’m interviewing Hillary Clinton, it’s gonna be a hundred times harder than any Republican, because I believe the Republicans represent, and have a far better vision, one that I agree with, I just have less disagreement with them. I’m not a journalist, I’m a talk show host.” That is very much like a Rush Limbaugh statement, paraphrasing: I'm not a political pundit. I'm an entertainer!!!!

At least Hannity is honest about his shamefully unfair stances. I never could stand Hannity when I had cable TV. He’s like Glenn Beck. He makes no attempt to do the right thing. He only does the ultraconservative thing with the aim of kissing up to the 1%. And that is what makes the cable Fox channel the forum that it is for the biased and greedy Billionaires of the world/USA today.

“Nolle prosequi” is an entirely new term to me, but of course the situation is well known to me from my very frequently informative legal/crime novels. Murder mysteries are a cut above sex/romance novels, which will always sell because of our taste for smutty things. Mysteries, on the other hand, have novel ways of killing or random legal terms such as this one. It means a case in which the court rules it has too little proof to actually convict the criminal. It does not mean he/she is actually innocent. It does mean that the police can't hold him any longer. However, he is not deemed innocent either, and the DA can call him back for trial later if any new evidence comes to light. Much in the same vein is the fact that police are sometimes given to random harassment of such a person whom they couldn't touch legally. It serves as light humor for them, just like when teenagers bedevil a mentally deficient schoolmate.



http://grist.org/climate-energy/trump-wants-to-eliminate-the-department-of-environmental-colbert-points-out-a-problem/

We pass the popcorn for the greatest climate hits of the Bernie-Hillary smackdown
By Xian Chiang-Waren on 7 Apr 2016
By Grist staff on 15 Apr 2016


COMMENT -- WHY WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT ALL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FROM CLIMATE CHANGE TO THE LOSS OF OCEAN SPECIES, ONE OF THE MAIN SOURCES OF HUMAN FOOD. INSTEAD OF USING MUCH OF THAT KIND OF CATCH TO FERTILIZE FARMERS’ FIELDS, WE SHOULD THROW IT BACK INTO THE WATER TO GROW AND CREATE A NEW GENERATION. THOSE CREATURES ARE THE FOOD FOR OUR FAVORITE FOOD FISH, SO WE DESPERATELY NEED THEM.

EXCERPT, FROM GRIST -- “It’s not what you say about the issues, it’s what the issues say about you. And climate doesn’t rank in the first tier. Scott: Sanders compared them to 9/11 and WWII in terms of importance. Ben: I appreciated that analogy. In general, it feels like your average liberal, and increasingly your average moderate and sometimes even conservative, realizes that climate change is a terrifying long-term threat. They support a transition to clean energy, but have no sense of immediate urgency. Sanders is trying to convey the urgency with which it should be treated. …. Clayton: Clinton’s comment about natural gas as a bridge fuel — and bear in mind, she largely made the argument with respect to Europe, by which I assume she’s referring to Eastern Europe — is remarkably similar to the World Bank’s position on gas. If you’re looking for anything that epitomizes the “establishment” (read: “incrementalist”) approach to energy policy, it’s probably that.”

This very incrementalist thinking is one of things I dislike most about our New Democrats, or as Bill Clinton called himself, “progressives.” In my view, they are like “the salt of the earth which has lost its’ salt.” I don’t like the direction in which they are “progressing”. I Googled “progressive” for a definition, and it is one who is relatively liberal on social issues, thank goodness, but more conservative on economics. I think social liberalism is good and important, but we really need an economic shift of the kind that Sanders offers, and as Franklin Roosevelt put through in the 1930s. Middle Class people are experiencing, “even as we speak,” the ground dropping from under their feet. Lost jobs, poorer pay, inability to pay their mortgages or medical bills, and very few effective unions, which taken all together are dropping them rapidly down to the Lower Middle and the Poor levels. It’s really a disaster. We talk about the “underclass.” Well, we are all moving in that direction, so we’d better open our eyes and quit supporting conservative politicians of all kinds. Half the “Independents,” are actually very “conservative,” rather than moderates. There’s really nowhere to turn except Sanders in this election year.



EXCERPTS OF THE DEBATE FROM “GRIST”:

Ben: Yeah, Clinton is concerned about the general election and swing voters, Sanders isn’t. My strong suspicion is that Clinton doesn’t want to back a carbon tax because she fears being attacked for it in the fall. “Clinton would raise your electricity bills. You’d pay more to fill up your car,” etc.

Rebecca: Yes. I was confused at first (“baffled” was the word I used on Twitter) why Clinton didn’t come out and say she supports a carbon tax. A bunch of journalists on Twitter had a lot of smart things to say, basically that she has her eye on the general and doesn’t want to feature in an attack ad saying the word “tax” on endless loop. I think the same audiences apply for fracking — Clinton is thinking about the general; Sanders is thinking about his base.

Ben: I asked her campaign chair, John Podesta, about this in the spin room after the debate, and Jen Palmieri, a Clinton spokeswoman. They both said, essentially, that Clinton doesn’t support a carbon tax because she has other means of getting us to, in Podesta’s words, “deep decarbonization.” So they deny that it’s a political calculation, but I think it is — why open herself up to attacks with a policy proposal that won’t pass anyway?

Clayton: Clinton is all about the realm of political possibility — what can get through Congress, what offers the path of least resistance, etc. The bridge fuel argument says, “Let’s at least do better than coal.” Sanders doesn’t buy that argument, and says we need drastic change if we actually want to solve the climate crisis. (This is, of course, largely representative of their approaches to their campaigns more generally.)

Ben: Yeah, Sanders doesn’t care about any of that. He just endorses the optimal policy because he’s got to win a bunch more Dems to win the nomination, and that’s how he could do it.

Scott: So that seems to bring us to the place where Sanders struggled the most on energy last night, when the moderators challenged him on his all-out opposition to fracking, and whether that means we’d just have to go back to relying more on coal and nuclear. How do you think he came out there?

Rebecca: Oof, not good, though I don’t think it will matter to his supporters. He basically didn’t answer, only pointed to his 10 million rooftop solar initiative. This was as much a non-answer as Clinton’s was on a carbon tax.

Clayton: I mean, we have him saying, “We have got to lead the world in transforming our energy system, not tomorrow, but yesterday.” He’s right about that, but he also needs to deliver concrete policy solutions.

Scott: It was interesting how much Clinton tied herself to the Obama climate legacy — a legacy that, just a few years ago, many enviros considered a mixed bag at best. Is that a sign of how far the president has come on climate?

Rebecca: Well, this has been a broader strategy for her. She’s been tying herself to Obama’s legacy left and right. So I think it’s because he’s just very popular among Democrats, at about 87 percent approval rating. But maybe how far he’s come on climate is one of the reasons he’s so popular among Dems.

Clayton: I dunno. Clinton name-dropped Obama a lot, but she also softened the language she used on that front a bit. Compare last night’s “I worked with President Obama to bring China and India to the table for the very first time” to October’s “literally hunting for the Chinese.”

Ben: I agree with Rebecca. The other thing is that Clinton is trying to hint at is political feasibility. She’s trying to point out to Dem voters that they aren’t the whole electorate, that Republicans are suing to stop Obama’s Clean Power Plan, for instance, and that just protecting Obama’s progress will be enough of a challenge, and that more aggressive policies might run into legal challenges, or cost Democrats elections in swing states. But she doesn’t spell all that out, and I’m not sure why. It makes her sound timid instead of pragmatic.

Scott: This takes us beyond last night’s debate and looking ahead toward the general election: Do you think we’ve just hit the high-water mark for discussion of these issues?

Clayton: Well the nominee sure as hell isn’t going to have a more substantive conversation about energy policy with Trump.

Rebecca: I think this is the last engaging debate on climate we’ll see. Once we get to the general, whoever the Democratic nominee is will just have to highlight climate denial, not get into policy details of the what and how.

Scott: That’s depressing, isn’t it?

Rebecca: If you care about this issue, you get used to it.

Clayton: She said, depressed.

Ben: I actually think it’s possible general election debate moderators will ask about climate change because they like issues where the candidates disagree. They never ask about abortion in the Democratic primary debates, for example, because the candidates are both pro-choice. But I don’t think it will be nearly as serious a conversation about climate policy.

Scott: So let’s try to end on a high note: Anything last night that made you LOL — like you couldn’t believe that was coming out of a candidate’s mouth?

Ben: Nothing funny, but I was excited to see Sanders ask Clinton directly about a carbon tax. I wish debates were more direct interaction between candidates rather than each offering canned answers filled with irrelevant talking points to the moderators. They’re usually more like simultaneous interviews than actual debates.

Rebecca: Clinton burned Sanders pretty hard: “I don’t take a back seat to your legislation that you’ve introduced that you haven’t been able to get passed.”

Clayton: Re: Sanders not releasing his tax returns, she also said, “Well, you know, there are a lot of copy machines around.” Which was worth a small handful of lulz.
[WHAZZIS?? -- lulz, ləlz/, noun informal -- fun, laughter, or amusement, especially that derived at another's expense. Sounds like it probably has developed from the Internet slang “LOL,” with a “z” on the end rather than an s. Lots of young people use totally bizarre spellings on the Chats. I’m so glad I was born before 1970.]

Scott: I was convinced Wolf was going to end the climate conversation after the first question, just like the moderators have in so many previous debates this election cycle. So the fact that it went on as long as it did and we got so much from the candidates on the issue made me smile.

Ben: I loved how rowdy the audience was. That was NY representing.

What do Gristers do after the two remaining Democratic candidates for president spend a substantial chunk of time debating climate and energy issues? Pour a drink and obsess over the whole thing in an online chat, of course. The following transcript has been lightly edited.

Scott Dodd (executive editor): Wow, nine Democratic debates in and we got a whole — what, 15 minutes devoted to the most important issues affecting the future of human civilization? Was anybody surprised we got even that much?

Ben Adler (politics reporter): I was optimistic that they would ask some questions about climate change because it’s been a hot issue recently.

Scott: “Hot!” Ba dum ching. [For an interesting definition on the term “Ba dum ching” see “ttps://www.quora.com/Whats-the-origin-of-the-drum-roll-ba-dum-bum-CHING-after-a-punchline-joke.” -- BACK TO THE ARTICLE.]

Ben: Then I got pessimistic as they asked about the most unimportant campaign trivia during the first segment. So I was sort of half surprised when it finally happened.

Rebecca Leber (news editor): The funny thing is it didn’t even kick off with a particularly insightful question. Just Wolf Blitzer asking Clinton about Sanders’ attacks, and then “What are his lies?” But it got better. I felt like the moderators just let the candidates go at each other, only pushing back occasionally. By far the best moderation on climate we’ve seen in any of the debates.

Scott: Yeah, it often seems like the moderators focus on things only the political press really cares about, as opposed to the real issues. But I guess that’s a good question: We in the Grist offices were glued to our screens for the climate and energy stuff, but do voters care?

Clayton Aldern (senior fellow): I think this is something that Ben has touched on a good amount — that climate tends to rank reasonably low on the priority list across both parties, albeit more highly on the Democratic side of things. My understanding is that climate tends to be one of the issues that people love to harp on, but not one with which they vote.

Ben: Most voters form an opinion of which candidate they prefer based on broader themes and find proof in the issues to support them. It’s not what you say about the issues, it’s what the issues say about you. And climate doesn’t rank in the first tier.

Scott: Sanders compared them to 9/11 and WWII in terms of importance.

Ben: I appreciated that analogy. In general, it feels like your average liberal, and increasingly your average moderate and sometimes even conservative, realizes that climate change is a terrifying long-term threat. They support a transition to clean energy, but have no sense of immediate urgency. Sanders is trying to convey the urgency with which it should be treated.

Clayton: I think this is the first time we’ve seen anyone deploy that kind of rhetoric — the “enemy” rhetoric — for the security threat argument.

Rebecca: There are so many ways climate change can fit into the broader discussion, and not as a niche issue the political press usually treats it as. Sanders’ comments on combating an “enemy” got at that larger framework we’re usually missing.

Scott: So for those of us who do really care about climate, did we hear anything new last night from the candidates?

Rebecca: We got a sense of two different philosophies: Clinton pushing what Obama has already accomplished and how to expand on that, and Sanders wanting to go much further, condemning the status quo, by banning fracking and whatnot. I don’t think voters have heard much that would give them a sense of the candidates’ two visions before last night. Probably because previous debates mostly ignored it.

Scott: Ben, going back to Wolf’s first question to Clinton about her campaign donations from fossil fuel interests, which you wrote about this past week: Is that the kind of trivial stuff that just gets the candidates yelling at each other, or does it matter?

Ben: I think that to a certain segment of Sanders supporters, the fossil fuel dollars become one of those points that they glom onto because it reinforces their sense of Clinton as in hock to corporate interests. But I doubt any voters who were undecided between the candidates would choose Sanders when they find out Clinton has a handful of lobbyist donors who have fossil fuel corporations as clients. If you weren’t already a Sanders voter, why would that push you over? And that connects to my critique of that whole issue, which is that an enviro voter deciding between Clinton and Sanders should — and probably does — care more about their policy stances than their donors.

Scott: So then Rebecca, to your point about different philosophies, how much daylight is there really between Clinton and Sanders on climate and energy issues — and where are those major differences, if any?

Rebecca: Well, there were some surprising and not surprising differences highlighted yesterday — for one, Clinton repeating that natural gas is a “bridge fuel” and we “want to cross that bridge as quickly as possible.” Sanders certainly doesn’t agree it’s a bridge fuel. Also, Clinton not quite answering whether she supports a carbon tax and Sanders not quite answering how to make up for nuclear energy (which he wants to phase out) were easy-to-miss but important nuances. But on the basic point — do they think climate change is a problem that needs solving? — they agree.

Clayton: Clinton’s comment about natural gas as a bridge fuel — and bear in mind, she largely made the argument with respect to Europe, by which I assume she’s referring to Eastern Europe — is remarkably similar to the World Bank’s position on gas. If you’re looking for anything that epitomizes the “establishment” (read: incrementalist) approach to energy policy, it’s probably that.

Rebecca: True, Sanders and Clinton have different audiences in mind.

Ben: Yeah, Clinton is concerned about the general election and swing voters, Sanders isn’t. My strong suspicion is that Clinton doesn’t want to back a carbon tax because she fears being attacked for it in the fall. “Clinton would raise your electricity bills. You’d pay more to fill up your car,” etc.

Rebecca: Yes. I was confused at first (“baffled” was the word I used on Twitter) why Clinton didn’t come out and say she supports a carbon tax. A bunch of journalists on Twitter had a lot of smart things to say, basically that she has her eye on the general and doesn’t want to feature in an attack ad saying the word “tax” on endless loop. I think the same audiences apply for fracking — Clinton is thinking about the general; Sanders is thinking about his base.

Ben: I asked her campaign chair, John Podesta, about this in the spin room after the debate, and Jen Palmieri, a Clinton spokeswoman. They both said, essentially, that Clinton doesn’t support a carbon tax because she has other means of getting us to, in Podesta’s words, “deep decarbonization.” So they deny that it’s a political calculation, but I think it is — why open herself up to attacks with a policy proposal that won’t pass anyway?

Clayton: Clinton is all about the realm of political possibility — what can get through Congress, what offers the path of least resistance, etc. The bridge fuel argument says, “Let’s at least do better than coal.” Sanders doesn’t buy that argument, and says we need drastic change if we actually want to solve the climate crisis. (This is, of course, largely representative of their approaches to their campaigns more generally.)

Ben: Yeah, Sanders doesn’t care about any of that. He just endorses the optimal policy because he’s got to win a bunch more Dems to win the nomination, and that’s how he could do it.

Scott: So that seems to bring us to the place where Sanders struggled the most on energy last night, when the moderators challenged him on his all-out opposition to fracking, and whether that means we’d just have to go back to relying more on coal and nuclear. How do you think he came out there?

Rebecca: Oof, not good, though I don’t think it will matter to his supporters. He basically didn’t answer, only pointed to his 10 million rooftop solar initiative. This was as much a non-answer as Clinton’s was on a carbon tax.

Clayton: I mean, we have him saying, “We have got to lead the world in transforming our energy system, not tomorrow, but yesterday.” He’s right about that, but he also needs to deliver concrete policy solutions.

Scott: It was interesting how much Clinton tied herself to the Obama climate legacy — a legacy that, just a few years ago, many enviros considered a mixed bag at best. Is that a sign of how far the president has come on climate?

Rebecca: Well, this has been a broader strategy for her. She’s been tying herself to Obama’s legacy left and right. So I think it’s because he’s just very popular among Democrats, at about 87 percent approval rating. But maybe how far he’s come on climate is one of the reasons he’s so popular among Dems.

Clayton: I dunno. Clinton name-dropped Obama a lot, but she also softened the language she used on that front a bit. Compare last night’s “I worked with President Obama to bring China and India to the table for the very first time” to October’s “literally hunting for the Chinese.”

Ben: I agree with Rebecca. The other thing is that Clinton is trying to hint at is political feasibility. She’s trying to point out to Dem voters that they aren’t the whole electorate, that Republicans are suing to stop Obama’s Clean Power Plan, for instance, and that just protecting Obama’s progress will be enough of a challenge, and that more aggressive policies might run into legal challenges, or cost Democrats elections in swing states. But she doesn’t spell all that out, and I’m not sure why. It makes her sound timid instead of pragmatic.

Scott: This takes us beyond last night’s debate and looking ahead toward the general election: Do you think we’ve just hit the high-water mark for discussion of these issues?

Clayton: Well the nominee sure as hell isn’t going to have a more substantive conversation about energy policy with Trump.

Rebecca: I think this is the last engaging debate on climate we’ll see. Once we get to the general, whoever the Democratic nominee is will just have to highlight climate denial, not get into policy details of the what and how.

Scott: That’s depressing, isn’t it?

Rebecca: If you care about this issue, you get used to it.

Clayton: She said, depressed.

Ben: I actually think it’s possible general election debate moderators will ask about climate change because they like issues where the candidates disagree. They never ask about abortion in the Democratic primary debates, for example, because the candidates are both pro-choice. But I don’t think it will be nearly as serious a conversation about climate policy.

Scott: So let’s try to end on a high note: Anything last night that made you LOL — like you couldn’t believe that was coming out of a candidate’s mouth?

Ben: Nothing funny, but I was excited to see Sanders ask Clinton directly about a carbon tax. I wish debates were more direct interaction between candidates rather than each offering canned answers filled with irrelevant talking points to the moderators. They’re usually more like simultaneous interviews than actual debates.

Rebecca: Clinton burned Sanders pretty hard: “I don’t take a back seat to your legislation that you’ve introduced that you haven’t been able to get passed.”

Clayton: Re: Sanders not releasing his tax returns, she also said, “Well, you know, there are a lot of copy machines around.” Which was worth a small handful of lulz.

Scott: I was convinced Wolf was going to end the climate conversation after the first question, just like the moderators have in so many previous debates this election cycle. So the fact that it went on as long as it did and we got so much from the candidates on the issue made me smile.

Ben: I loved how rowdy the audience was. That was NY representing.