Thread: BERNIE SANDERS and FAREED ZAKARIA.

Looking at CNN, a couple of nights ago, I watched Fareed Zakaria make an effective attack on the climate change policy put forward by, Democratic presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders.
He argued the policy was wildly optimistic and I must say I agree with his analysis.

So what part of Sanders' climate change policy was "wildly optimistic" in your view?

Originally Posted by geordief

So what part of Sanders' climate change policy was "wildly optimistic" in your view?

Zakaria suggested the time scale put forward for large-scale CO2 reduction was very optimistic.
He also said Sanders was wrong to dismiss important energy sources, such as nuclear power, that do not produce CO2 emissions.
It is easy to find accounts of Zakaria's views on the net.
One source is the Washington Post where his analysis is printed in full.
There are also sources showing the CNN video of him criticising the Sanders policy
I live in an area where broadband speed is glacial so I haven't looked at these videos, but they simply show what has already been said on CNN.

Originally Posted by Halliday

Originally Posted by geordief

So what part of Sanders' climate change policy was "wildly optimistic" in your view?

Zakaria suggested the time scale put forward for large-scale CO2 reduction was very optimistic.
He also said Sanders was wrong to dismiss important energy sources, such as nuclear power, that do not produce CO2 emissions.
It is easy to find accounts of Zakaria's views on the net.
One source is the Washington Post where his analysis is printed in full.
There are also sources showing the CNN video of him criticising the Sanders policy
I live in an area where broadband speed is glacial so I haven't looked at these videos, but they simply show what has already been said on CNN.

I am personally not interested in discussing third and fourth party views on anything. I would rather know your views on the subject.

I too reluctantly support nuclear power since they do have a lesser carbon footprint than some other technologies, but I see them as a stopgap and feel there are better alternatives which should be pursued with greater conviction than nuclear.

In my view it is very wrong to claim that nuclear power does not produce CO2 emissions -everything ,even wind turbines as an example produce CO2 in their manufacture and end of life disposal.

Nuclear power may need to be in the mix but is very far from a panacea...

I have watched and listened to Zakaria, many times, on CNN. I tend to agree with his views on many topics; for example, his thoughts on Trump!
This does not mean I have ever decided, in advance, to agree with what he says, on CNN, or writes in other media.
I did not hear anything I disagreed with when he talked about Sanders, and his climate policies. If I had I would have mentioned the fact.
I am not being modest when I note Zakaria's opinions carry rather more weight than my own and will form a more effective rebuttal of Sander's ideas.

You seem to be saying , "I disagree with Sanders' views " and rather than say why this is so" I will delegate my argumentation to someone whose ideas I respect instead of presenting them myself."

I doubt you will find any serious interlocutors in this "debate".

This is not to disagree that Zakaria's published opinions may indeed carry weight but this is a discussion forum ,not a discussion about discussions forum.

I don't agree with what you say. This is a discussion forum and I have a perfect right to mention opinions, from respected sources, and put these up for discussion altho@ this approach might not appeal to you.
Zakaria does say there are disadvantages with nuclear power.
He also states Sanders' policy for CO2 reduction is wildly optimistic. I agree with this and I am not under any pressure to go into detail as to why. I also understand many forum members are often reluctant to read long posts!
Take an example.
Suppose a top physicist, such as Kip Thorne, presents a paper where he argues he now believes Einstiens theory of General relativity contains many massive flaws.
There is absolutely no reason why I should not put his ideas onto the forum and await replies from a number of members who I believe have a deeper understanding, of physics, than myself, even if they are generally not on a par with Kip Thorne.
I may well feel I am not competent to question Thorne's paper apart from possibly mentioning the fact General Relativity has been respected, and admired, for many years altho' IMO few believe it is a fully complete answer.