Thread by @ShellenbergerMD

Your Green New Deal would

- cost $17 trillion & increase energy bills, hurting poor & working people most

- replace thousands of high-skill high-pay jobs with low-skill low-pay installation/maintenance jobs

- kill nuclear, 55% of all US clean energy, and increase pollution

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1232874260068290560

- Nuclear & nat gas provided 56% of all US electricity in 2019

- Nuclear & nat gas reduced CO2 six times more than solar/wind.

- Nuclear provides electricity ~92% of year

- solar & wind do so 10-30% of year

- solar & wind often require 100% nat gas back-up

You oppose nuclear for bad ideological reasons

In 1980, news reported you as saying, "it might be possible that a socialist society, with health and safety as its primary concerns, would run [nuclear] plants for public good"

6 years later: Chernobyl

snopes.com/uploads/2020/0…

Your dogmatism against nuclear and natural gas is a sharp contrast to both @BarackObama & @HillaryClinton who both favored the technologies

Indeed, Clinton defended nuclear plants from your maniacal anti-capitalist-nuclear crusade in 2016

theguardian.com/environment/20…

@BarackObama @HillaryClinton Your anti-nuclear and anti-nat gas agenda means nobody can take you seriously when you say that climate change is an "existential threat"

If you believed that, you wouldn't be worried about some used fuel rods, or insist on socialist revolution to continue running nuclear plants

Democrats should be warned

The numbers don't lie. The pro-nuclear & pro-natural gas agenda by @GOPLeader is objectively more effective at reducing emissions than the Green New Deal proposed by @BernieSanders

forbes.com/sites/michaels…

If Democrats make @BernieSanders their nominee, they will trash whatever political advantage they now enjoy among Millennials concerned about climate change.

If Democrats make @BernieSanders their nominee, journalists, even those in the tank for Democrats, will be forced to report that nuclear and natural gas massively outweigh solar and wind when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions.

The numbers are simply too stark for hand-waving.

If Democrats make @BernieSanders their nominee, he will be in a bind. If he attempts to moderate his position for the general election, Trump will accuse Sanders of pandering, which would undermine Sanders’ reputation as a straight-shooter.

If Sanders sticks to his guns, he will have to explain how someone who views climate as an “existential threat” favors shutting down 55 percent of US low-carbon electricity

If Dems want to destroy whatever credibility they have on climate, they should vote @BernieSanders

/END

“Sanders’ agenda reflects the ‘progressive’ wing of America’s upper-middle class & its perspective from the faculty lounge, not the shop floor. He is willing to override working class interests & even destroy their jobs to pursue his brand of ‘socialism’”

spiked-online.com/2020/02/27/ber…

“If enacted, his backward-looking green policies would be a disaster for workers. In France, Emmanuel Macron’s imposition of green taxes and austerity was a key spark to the gilet jaunes protests. A similar reaction among workers in the US could happen if Sanders got his way.”

“For all of Sanders’ alarmism, he rejects natural gas & nuclear, which have done far more to reduce emissions than renewables. But admitting that they can play a role in transitioning to cleaner energy would take away the looming threat of apocalypse.”