The mutually beneficial war between Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg, explained

Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks during a campaign rally at University of Nevada in Las Vegas. | Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Two candidates who really want to portray the election as a two-way race.

Michael Bloomberg has spent hundreds of millions on television ads, but he understands the value of free media as much as anyone else and has made an aggressive push in recent days to define the Democratic presidential nominating contest as a race between himself and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Sanders’s campaign has responded in kind, working aggressively online to portray Sanders as the anti-Bloomberg and Bloomberg himself as a kind of mini-Trump.

Sanders has called out Bloomberg on the campaign trail, but overall the spat has played out largely via Twitter, a platform on which few undecided voters get their news but on which very many journalists find leads for stories to write about. Consequently, in a crowded field, the tit for tat helps both campaigns to suck the oxygen away from other candidates — including Joe Biden whose poll numbers still seem pretty good but whose fundraising is flagging, the well-financed Pete Buttigieg who is still not very well-known nationally, Elizabeth Warren whose campaign is frustrated about being written off even as she’s won a number of delegates, and Amy Klobuchar who’s obscure but widely seen by insiders as someone who’d be well-liked if more people heard of her.

The fight itself is revealing a number of themes that are in the mix as Democrats weigh their options. But it’s also heavily layered with irony. Bloomberg’s candidacy is fueled by anti-Sanders panic, but objectively, his entry into the race and rise in the polls has only served to make a Sanders nomination more likely. And Sanders’s camp is so eager to attack Bloomberg in part because the former New York mayor’s tenuous historical connections to the institutional Democratic Party make him an ideal foil for Sanders, who is himself aloof from the institution.

It’s a fight that suits both men and their campaigns, in other words, and is thus likely to continue.

Two campaigns are arguing on Twitter

It all started, more or less, when Sanders decided to directly take on the claim that Bloomberg’s extremely deep pockets meant he could run a uniquely strong campaign against Trump in November. If I were trying to undermine the electability case for Bloomberg, I’d probably have cited things like his efforts to ban large sodas, but Sanders instead argued that his campaign “will not create the kind of excitement and energy” that he believes he himself can unleash.

Bloomberg’s team shot back with a web video citing “Bernie Bro” tweets in which various Sanders supporters articulate the idea that they are more interested in intra-factional warfare than in beating Trump in November.

We need to unite to defeat Trump in November. This type of "energy" is not going to get us there. https://t.co/bPuUZMs2d6 pic.twitter.com/Tdp6mpWjcX

— Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) February 17, 2020

Bloomberg’s message is an idea that has probably not penetrated mass consciousness but that looms extremely large in the minds of people who spend a lot of time online.

Most rank and file Democrats have broadly positive feelings toward everyone in the field and strongly negative feelings about Trump. According to Morning Consult, for example, 74 percent of Democrats have a favorable view of Bernie Sanders while 66 percent have a favorable view of Joe Biden. Bloomberg and Elizabeth Warren are at 61, and Pete Buttigieg is at 60.

But many Sanders supporters, taking the cue from thought-leaders at pro-Sanders media outlets like Jacobin, Current Affairs, and the Chapo Trap House podcast see things differently — they are very excited about the prospect of a Sanders presidency, very down on other Democrats running (and the Democratic Party writ large), and have little interest in clapping and cheering for the idea that the important thing is to win in November no matter who the nominee is. Many people who spend enough time online to be heavily exposed to this discourse also find it to be incredibly alienating and wrongheaded — and believe to an extent that negativity toward Hillary Clinton from Sanders-aligned media did serious damage to her presidential campaign in 2016.

This critique is one level somewhat paradoxical.

On paper, if you believe the differences between Sanders and the rest of the field are overblown but that Sanders’s fans are uniquely invested in exaggerating the stakes, that is a reason to see nominating Sanders as the best path to party unity.

But most voters act emotionally rather than strategically, and if they are mad at the Sandersverse for sabotaging Democrats, that will make them disinclined to vote for Sanders. So the Bloomberg campaign is playing up the idea that Sanders is running a kind of anti-party movement of assholes, both to hit Sanders and to try to shield their own candidate from criticism.

Sanders’s national press secretary, Briahna Joy Gray, shot back with a tweet referencing both the NYPD’s Bloomberg-era stop-and-frisk policies and also the idea that Sanders has a multiracial political coalition behind him.

I guess Bloomberg isn’t done beating up on Black and Brown people. ‍♀️#BernieBeatsTrump https://t.co/VwNvWWRjKs

— Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) February 17, 2020

Gray herself is a perfect flashpoint for these arguments because she’s said she voted for Jill Stein in 2016. In many Democrats’ view, Stein voters are bad people so a campaign that would hire a bad Stein-voting person in a prominent role is itself a movement of bad people that should be resisted. A more optimistic take would be that to win in 2020, Democrats need the votes of people who did not vote for them in 2016 so having people like that help craft the candidate’s message is smart. Bloomberg himself, meanwhile, prominently endorsed George W. Bush in 2004 so neither camp here is exactly a paragon of party loyalty.

The final round of tit for tat involved the Bloomberg campaign issuing a statement comparing Sanders’s tactics to Trump, followed by the Sanders campaign tweeting a photo of Bloomberg golfing with Trump.

https://t.co/XwB74v3u0w pic.twitter.com/UID9vVK1yi

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 17, 2020

In other words, everyone is having a rollicking good time.

Bloomberg’s candidacy has been good for Bernie

Back on January 18, Sanders was about 7 points down in FiveThirty Eight’s national aggregate polling average. By February 18, he had roughly a seven-point lead.

That improvement in his relative position (and concurrently elevated odds of becoming the Democratic Party nominee) has involved just a 4 percentage point increase in the share of Democrats who say they are backing Sanders. The other 10 points worth of swing come purely from Joe Biden’s fall in the polls, a fall that has come largely thanks to Bloomberg and Pete Buttigieg.

This multi-way fragmentation of the moderate vote is helpful to Sanders not just in the mathematical sense, but because strategically Biden — even as someone who seems to have lost a step or two — is fundamentally a more difficult rival for Sanders to beat.

Biden, unlike Bloomberg, has a deep reservoir of affection in the African American community that we know is robust enough to withstand the re-airing of some of his not-so-woke political positions from the 1980s and 1990s. Bloomberg so far is doing fine nationally with black voters based on having introduced himself to them through his own television ads, but it’s far from clear that will stand up to scrutiny. Bloomberg has also been marketing himself as an ally of Obama’s, which is an effective strategy in a Democratic Party primary. But unlike Biden, Bloomberg did not, in fact, have a close relationship with Obama — delivering only a very late, churlish endorsement of his reelection campaign in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

Perfunctory is putting it kindly!

— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) February 18, 2020

The fact that Bloomberg got his start in electoral politics as a Republican and only registered as a Democrat in 2018 after openly flirting with third-party presidential bids in 2012 and 2016 also serves to neutralizes the critique that Sanders is not a real Democrat.

Bloomberg’s one real edge over Biden is that he’s incredibly rich.

That’s not nothing as his recent rise in the polls illustrates. But Bloomberg’s wealth, recent history of center-right positions on a range of economic policy issues — pre-Trump he was critical of the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill, against raising the minimum wage, skeptical of the Affordable Care Act, and a fan of cutting Social Security and Medicare — makes him a perfect foil for Sanders’ message and also lets Sanders position himself as a stalwart Democrat versus the heterodox Bloomberg, a much better positioning for him than running as a left-wing critic of the popular Obama administration.

Bernie’s candidacy is good for Bloomberg

This roster of policy positions is why Bloomberg didn’t wind up running for president in 2016.

He took an honest look at his own record and the enemies he’d made in New York and concluded that there was no way he could win a Democratic Party primary. He also did the math on a third-party bid and concluded it would be hopeless and would most likely just end up helping a Republican. So despite evident ambition, he took a pass.

It’s the resilience of Sanders’ campaign that’s changed that calculus, by creating a bogeyman that so terrifies many Democratic Party elected officials and consultants that Bloomberg’s record no longer seems like a total nonstarter. The billionaire mayor has basically disavowed all those old positions in favor of standard Democratic Party ones, while Sanders is pushing big new left-wing ideas that frighten many Democrats. That context uniquely creates the circumstances in which Bloomberg (as opposed to Biden or Amy Klobuchar or some other normal Democrat) looks like a reasonable option to party regulars.

So between now and Super Tuesday, expect a lot more back and forth between the billionaire and the anti-billionaire, as they attempt to erase everyone else from the contest.

Some Oracle employees plan to walk off the job to protest Larry Ellison’s Trump fundraiser

Getty Images

Oracle activists are calling the Thursday plan: “No Ethics / No Work.”

Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison’s decision to host a fundraiser for Donald Trump on Wednesday has awoken the usually passive workforce at his company, angering some employees who are going public with their disgust over Ellison’s actions.

On Thursday, some Oracle employees announced plans to stop working for a few hours in order to protest their boss’ fundraiser, Recode has learned, part of a push described as “No Ethics / No Work.” A group of activists at Oracle are calling on employees to spend their afternoons volunteering with community or advocacy groups, technically part of a “log off” since so many employees work remotely.

Having failed to pressure Ellison into canceling the event, these workers are now calling on Ellison and Oracle’s board to “host a fundraiser or commit funds to a humanitarian cause of their choice” and to issue a statement “denouncing the administration’s reckless, divisive political tactics, reaffirming our company’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, and committing to diversifying the Board of Directors.”

The Oracle employees’ reaction reflects how toxic Trump remains in Silicon Valley — and the ire that top tech executives can draw when they align themselves with the president. And it’s revealing that it’s happening at Oracle, which employees say has a conservative culture that has not been touched by the current bouts of workforce activism sweeping major tech companies.

“It signals what I and many others have always feared,” one current Oracle employee told Recode. “Culturally, Oracle is the type of place where you’ll work with many lovely people who you share common ideals with, but those ideals have to be left at the door in service of the company.”

Employees in touch with Recode in recent days have described bubbling frustration at Oracle. They said they were privately complaining to colleagues in their offices and sharing links about the fundraiser to friends on Facebook Messenger and slowly began to organize in a Slack channel over the holiday weekend. But while many say that their coworkers are also upset, assessing the full scale of their anger is difficult because of Oracle’s culture: It discourages employees from talking about politics. That’s also why it is unclear how substantial the plans to protest Ellison will become.

On Friday, employees began circulating a petition addressed to Ellison that now has almost 6,000 signatures, although non-Oracle employees can sign it as well. The petition calls on him to cancel the fundraising event. Oracle employees are also adding the link to the petition in their email signatures and are publicizing it in internal Oracle forums, trying to drum up pressure in a company not known for activism.

“Larry Ellison’s personal implicit endorsement and financial support of Donald Trump not only damages our brand perception and misrepresents the diverse views of our company, but it adversely affects the morale of the individuals and communities who comprise Oracle,” said the group behind the petition, called Oracle Employees for Ethics. “We are signing this petition because we want our voices heard and we refuse to be complacent and complicit in Larry Ellison’s support of such a divisive person.”

Oracle has repeatedly declined to comment on this new activism.

Ellison, the fifth-richest person in the US, surprised the tech industry last week when news broke that he would host Trump for a golf-filled fundraiser at his estate in California’s Coachella Valley. The event on Wednesday is, by far, the most significant public display of support for Trump 2020 by a tech titan.

Or as another Oracle employee, granted anonymity like others because they were candidly discussing their boss, told Recode: “Oracle is not supposed to be political but yet our CEO is doing something very political, no?”

“This fundraiser is a slap in the face to all of us, especially as Larry champions the environment and is building a hospital,” this employee said, referring to Ellison’s personal philanthropy. “This shows that he cares about money over all else. And that is what matters. But what is the average employee to do?”

The petition and the walkout are small but bold steps for employees at Oracle. Companies like Google are famous for fostering an open culture that leaves room for rabble-rousers and vigorous political debate during the workday. Other tech giants have proven much more outspoken about Trump policies like the ban on immigrants from Muslim countries and the debate over letting DREAMers stay in the United States.

But Oracle, from C-suite on down, is basically the anti-Google, some current and former employees say. Politics rarely comes up in the office. And there is very limited cross-team communication on internal forums about political matters; plus, employees are concerned that any posts critical of management would be monitored.

Compared to other tech companies, employees at the business-to-business software company say their colleagues skew older and more conservative (although Oracle’s workforce relies heavily on immigrants who have come to the US on H-1B visas, a program that Trump has cracked down on.)

That explains why despite some employees’ frustrations with Ellison, they have been slow to mobilize en masse.

Plus, some employees say they feel resigned because they believe that Ellison will do whatever he likes — regardless of his employees’ frustrations.

“Everyone I spoke to had the general attitude of, ‘It sucks but we can’t tell Larry anything,’” said one former employee, who recounted his conversation with five of his colleagues.

“There’s a thoroughly defeatist culture within Oracle,” one current employee said. “Won’t be any institutional challenge internally.”

It is not as though Ellison’s support for Republicans is a total shock. Oracle has been one of the Silicon Valley giants that has worked hardest to cultivate ties to the Trump administration. Other tech giants have tried to keep at least some distance from the administration, but Oracle CEO Safra Catz has reportedly been under consideration to take senior roles within the White House, and she has hired several former senior Trump aides at Oracle.

Oracle’s ties to the administration led one executive in 2016 to resign from the company and blast it on the way out — but he was an exception to the rule.

And not all of Oracle’s workforce is upset over Ellison’s plans to fundraise for Trump. One current employee told Recode that he was proud of Ellison’s decision.

“I personally love that Ellison is willing to stand up for what he believes in even though it goes against the grain of what most people in the field and employees at his company believe politically,” this employee said.

But one of the ironies of Ellison’s public display of support for Trump is that he is not a dyed-in-the-wool Trump backer. Ellison was particularly close to Bill Clinton, once attending a ritzy dinner fundraiser in Silicon Valley for the Clinton campaign’s reelection race for about a dozen of Clinton’s top California donors. He once joked that the Constitution should have been amended to give Clinton a third term.

He was backing Democrats like Harry Reid as recently as 2013. In 2015, he hosted Barack Obama at the same golf course that Donald Trump will visit on Wednesday. Ellison didn’t even donate to Trump in 2016. (He was a major donor to a Super PAC backing Sen. Marco Rubio in the Republican presidential primary.)

That’s what makes Ellison’s decision perplexing to at least one person who was once close to him.

“He is a huge, huge liberal Democrat,” said this person. They described Ellison, a registered Democrat, as having been “so proud of the fact that he was one of the few [Fortune 100] CEOs who didn’t put greed before everything.”

“Larry looked down on Republicans of all stripes — especially the conservative evangelical ones,” the person said. “This Trump stuff makes no sense.”

Nevada Democratic debate: February 19, 2020

Democratic candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Sen. Bernie Sanders on stage at the eighth Democratic debate in New Hampshire in February. | John Tlumacki/Boston Globe via Getty Images

Six candidates, including billionaire Mike Bloomberg, will take the stage ahead of the Nevada caucuses Saturday.

With early voting in the Nevada caucuses already underway, six of the remaining eight Democratic candidates for president will take the stage in Las Vegas, Nevada, on Wednesday, February 19, for the ninth Democratic primary debate of the 2020 presidential election.

The debate will start at 9 pm ET and run for about two hours; it will stream live on the NBC News and MSNBC websites.

Former Vice President Joe Biden; Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar; former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg all qualified for the debate.

Every candidate except Bloomberg was also onstage for the eighth primary debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, earlier this month; Bloomberg only qualified for the Las Vegas debate after the Democratic National Committee revised the qualifying standards — a move that prompted some consternation from the rest of the field.

The debate criteria for Las Vegas stipulate that candidates had to win at least one pledged delegate to the Democratic National Convention from Iowa or New Hampshire, poll at 10 percent or better in four national polls, or poll at 12 percent or better in two Nevada or South Carolina polls to make the stage.

Follow along below for Vox’s debate coverage, including how to watch, breaking news updates, analysis, and more.

Trump’s latest pardons show how quickly he’s normalizing corruption

Trump exits Air Force One in Los Angeles on Tuesday. | Photo by Michael Kovac/WireImage

They’re aimed at the very sorts of obstruction of justice and financial crimes he’s been implicated in.

The notion that arguably the most personally corrupt president in American history has good-faith concerns about corruption has always been absurd. But whatever shred of plausibility it had was dealt a death blow on Tuesday when President Donald Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of a veritable who’s who of corrupt public figures.

Trump commuted the sentence of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), who was convicted of fraud and conspiracy charges related to his efforts to basically sell a US Senate seat. He pardoned former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty to tax fraud and lying to investigators. He pardoned billionaire financier Michael Milken, who pleaded guilty to insider trading. He commuted the sentence of Judith Negron, who, according to the Justice Department, “masterminded one of the largest fraud schemes ever prosecuted by the Medicare Fraud Strike Force.” Also receiving a pardon was former San Francisco 49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo Jr., who was convicted of failing to report a bribe.

Those names highlighted the list of 11 people who were suddenly granted pardons or commutations. Each of them, with the exception of two women whose sentences for drug-related crimes were commuted, were implicated in corrupt dealings.

Mother Jones ticks through the rest of the pardon/commutation list:

Ariel Friedler hacked into his competitors’ computers. Paul Pogue filed false income tax statements. David Safavian is a Republican lawyer who was convicted of perjury in connection with the Abramoff corruption scandal. Angela Stanton “spent time in Georgia prisons for things like felony embezzlement, theft and fraud” but since her release in 2005 has become a best-selling author and the creator of Reclaim It Albany.

The backdrop to all of this is Trump’s recently completed impeachment trial — one stemming from the president getting caught trying to leverage congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine into politically motived investigations of the Bidens.

Trump tried to justify his actions by arguing that as president, “I have an absolute right, perhaps even a duty, to investigate, or have investigated, CORRUPTION.” That logic was echoed by his legal team during the trial. But it was belied by the fact that a top Defense Department official told Congress last May that Ukraine had made good enough progress on anti-corruption efforts to merit the aid — not to mention the glaring hypocrisy stemming Trump’s refusal to divest from his business, one that enables foreign governments, corporations, and US politicians to curry favor with him by patronizing his properties and directly enriching him.

Then, in the hours following Trump’s string of pardons and commutations, the Daily Beast reported that family members of one of the men Trump pardoned, Paul Pogue, donated lavishly to his fundraising committee and campaign in the months leading up to the pardon — a chain of events that appears to be about as corrupt as it gets.

From Justin Baragona and Asawin Suesbsaeng’s report:

According to FEC filings, Pogue’s family has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct contributions and in-kind air travel to the Trump Victory Committee. Beginning in August 2019, Ben Pogue—CEO of Pogue Construction and son of Paul Pogue—and his wife Ashleigh made over $200,000 in contributions to the campaign.

In August alone, Ben Pogue donated $85,000 to Trump Victory while Ashleigh Pogue contributed $50,000 that month. The following month, Ben Pogue made an in-kind air travel contribution of $75,404.40. The couple also made several large donations to the Republican National Committee and each donated $5,600 to Donald Trump for President Inc.

Trump, of course, is not the first president to use the pardon power in politically questionable ways. George HW Bush pardoned Iran-Contra felons, and Bill Clinton pardoned fugitive billionaire Marc Rich on his last day in office.

But in those cases Bush and Clinton at least pretended to have principled reasons for the pardons. In contrast, the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman and Michael Shear reported that Trump didn’t follow Justice Department vetting process before making the announcements, which they described as “mostly aimed at wiping clean the slates of rich, powerful and well-connected white men.” And statements released by the White House listed a number of Fox News personalities as character witnesses.

Meanwhile, in comments to reporters, Trump erased the DOJ by describing himself as “the chief law enforcement officer of the country.” He went on to suggest that any prosecution in which former FBI director James Comey was even indirectly involved is fair game for pardons.

Trump on commuting sentence for Blagojevich: "It was a prosecution by the same people -- Comey, Fitzpatrick -- the same group." pic.twitter.com/gXigT20Fdc

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 18, 2020

In short, the true purpose of Trump’s pardons and commutations appears to be threefold: consolidating power; dismissing the sort of obstruction of justice and financial crimes he’s been implicated in; and laying the groundwork for pardoning or commuting the sentence of longtime confidante Roger Stone, who’s scheduled to be sentenced on Thursday.

The events of Tuesday shouldn’t have been necessary to establish that Trump doesn’t actually have good-faith concerns about corruption. Tellingly, however, when Trump and his legal team argued just that during the impeachment process, Republicans such as Ted Cruz pretended to buy it with comments like, “A president is always justified, and in fact has a responsibility, to investigate credible accusations of corruption.” Those remarks are aging worse than ever now.

---

The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.

What to expect at the Nevada Democratic debate

Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Bernie Sanders and Amy Klobuchar on stage at the eighth Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire. | John Tlumacki/Boston Globe/Getty Images

What happens in Las Vegas … could have implications for the Democratic primary.

With early voting already underway in Nevada and the primary race still fluid, there could be more than a few fireworks when 2020 Democrats take the debate stage again.

The ninth Democratic debate of the primary takes place this Wednesday, February 19, at 9 pm ET at the Paris Theater in Las Vegas. It will be hosted by NBC News, MSNBC, Noticias Telemundo, and the Nevada Independent, and will be moderated by a panel of five journalists from those outlets.

This will be the third 2020 debate hosted by NBC. It will be available to stream live on the NBC and MSNBC websites, as well as from Noticias Telemundo and the Nevada Independent.

The debate, which is expected to last about two hours, will be a chance for the six Democratic candidates set to appear on stage to make their final case to voters before the Nevada caucuses this Saturday, February 22.

Those six candidates are:

• Former Vice President Joe Biden
  


• Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg
  


• Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
  


• Sen. Amy Klobuchar
  


• Sen. Bernie Sanders
  


• Sen. Elizabeth Warren
  

There are also two candidates still in the race who won’t be on stage: California billionaire Tom Steyer and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

Every candidate to qualify except Bloomberg was also on stage for the eighth primary debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, earlier this month; Bloomberg qualified for the Las Vegas debate after the Democratic National Committee revised the debate criteria last month — a move that prompted some consternation from the rest of the field.

The new criteria gave candidates two paths to the stage: delegates or polling. Candidates had to either earn at least one pledged delegate to the Democratic National Convention out of Iowa or New Hampshire, or achieve at least 10 percent in four qualifying national polls or 12 percent in two qualifying early-state polls to qualify for the debate.

That sets up an interesting dynamic: Bloomberg is the only candidate who has yet to appear on a ballot or the stage, but he’s on the rise in national polls. That could be an incentive for other candidates to take aim at him on Wednesday — but if the recent New Hampshire debate is any model, they’ll also be looking to land a hit on rivals who performed well in the first two states to vote.

The state of the race, briefly explained

Sanders is ascendant: After a win in New Hampshire and a close-run second-place finish in Iowa, the Vermont senator has cemented his status as frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president and in Nevada. Sander is leading in the RealClearPolitics national polling average by almost 8 points, and he has a 14-point lead in the Nevada average (albeit with limited polling in the state). Politico reported Monday that advisers for at least three campaigns have already acquiesced to a Sanders win in Nevada and are instead playing for second and third place.

Bloomberg is a question mark: The New York billionaire has climbed to second place in recent national polls of the Democratic primary on the strength of more than $400 million in ad spending (and some honeyed brie). He hasn’t, however, been on a debate stage yet, and how he’ll perform Wednesday night is a mystery. He’s likely to be the subject of intense scrutiny over old comments about stop-and-frisk policing, redlining, and a slew of other topics. If Wednesday night goes poorly for Bloomberg, though, he has time to bounce back — his name won’t appear on a ballot until Super Tuesday on March 3.

Candidates face a more diverse electorate: Unlike Iowa and New Hampshire — two of the whitest states in the country — Nevada is quite diverse. For several candidates — notably Buttigieg and Klobuchar — that could pose a problem. Both have done well in the first two primary states, but in a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, Klobuchar registered at 3 percent with African American voters, and Buttigieg did only slightly better at 4 percent. If either candidate wants to have a real shot at the nomination, they’ll need to show strength with voters of color down the stretch; Nevada will be a test of their ability to do so.

The four crucial questions Jeff Bezos needs to answer about his $10 billion climate pledge

Jeff Bezos talking with Kanye West at a charity ball in 2019. | Kevin Mazur/MG19/Getty Images for The Met Museum/Vogue

The answers you deserve to know.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, the wealthiest person in the world, has earned many rounds of applause for the commitment he made on Sunday to give $10 billion to combat climate change, but he still isn’t answering many basic questions.

The $10 billion he pledged for the Bezos Earth Fund is an unprecedented contribution that affords a private citizen great power over the world’s response to the climate crisis. It’s also a donation that deprives Americans of tax dollars since it’s subsidized by the tax code. And it comes amid mounting pressure on both Amazon for its environmental impact and on Bezos for his paltry prior philanthropy.

So there’s a clear public interest in knowing exactly how Bezos plans to spend this money. There are not, however, clear answers on some very important details. Such as:

• Over what time period will Bezos administer this $10 billion? Many of today’s philanthropy advocates — and the billionaires that have signed The Giving Pledge — want to see donors give away their money to solve today’s problems, rather than setting up perpetual foundations sustained by an endowment well after the benefactor has died. That’s especially true given the deadline the world is facing on climate change. If the plan is to merely administer about 5 percent — the standard amount that most foundations give away in a current year — that would mean distributing about $250 million a year to grantees. If the plan is to eventually spend the $10 billion down to nothing, then maybe Bezos could give as much as four times that each year over the next decade. But we don’t know how he plans to dole out the money.

Teddy - It would also be worth knowing if the plan is to spend the money down over a few years (I hope so!) or hold it in an endowment (which would be dumb, while the world boils away). Please, Jeff: Get it out the door in an effective way!

— Alan Cantor (@Al_Cantor) February 18, 2020

• Will any of this $10 billion be eligible for policy advocacy or political campaigns? The announcement on Instagram said that Bezos would fund “scientists, activists and NGOs” and that Bezos is focusing solely on charitable giving, rather than for-profit investments. But some advocates feel that the real way to solve the climate crisis is through electing different people to Washington — or at least by pressuring politicians to take different actions once they’re in office. Bezos himself has grown more comfortable with political donations. While that’s not how people traditionally think of “charity,” it could make Bezos into a political mega-donor depending on how he defines his terms.

This is good and: Any super-wealthy person who says they want to make a meaningful impact on an issue should also be directing money & attention to electoral efforts — otherwise, they’re not serious about actually making a difference. https://t.co/RhqmThsuAA

— Amanda Litman (@amandalitman) February 17, 2020

• Who exactly is in charge of this program? The heads of large philanthropic efforts have enormous power — and yet they are largely anonymous figures. The person that Bezos chooses will largely be acting in lieu of the Amazon founder, who has a day job. And will the Bezos Earth Fund have a board of advisers who recruit and vet possible grantees, just like Bezos’s anti-homelessness charity effort has? Who will serve on that panel? There will be many, many people who will make a gold rush for the Bezos money. The gatekeepers at his new charity will play an influential role in determining what gets funded and what doesn’t.


• And lastly, here’s an easy one that Amazon isn’t answering: What legal structure does this philanthropy take? Is the Bezos Earth Fund a private foundation, a donor-advised fund, an LLC; or part of Bezos’s personal holding company, Bezos Expeditions; or something else entirely? Those all have different implications for the amount of tax dollars that the US government is deprived of since the donation is tax-deductible; the amount of money that Bezos’s philanthropy will be required to spend each year; and, importantly, the amount of disclosure that the Bezos Earth Fund will be required to offer to reporters, critics, and academics.

We asked Amazon all of these questions to try to gain clarity into what could safely be considered one of the most important tech gifts ever. It is hard to believe that at least some of the questions don’t already have answers. But Amazon declined to offer them:

“We just don’t have further details to share on announcement at the moment,” said a company spokesperson. “Please stay tuned.”

In Bezos’s defense, this fits a pattern. In September 2018, he announced on social media his first large philanthropic commitment, $2 billion for homelessness and early childhood education work, but he didn’t fill in the details with a website and the advisory committee until November. Bezos says that we’ll hear from the Bezos Earth Fund this summer, so perhaps that’s when we’ll get some answers.

But it is not unreasonable to expect answers for these questions from the get-go. Bezos is enjoying some rare positive headlines about his personal wealth, but with that should come some transparency and accountability about how exactly he will spend it. Philanthropy, at this scale and with this mission, is not merely a personal matter that is none of our business. It affects us all and deserves scrutiny.

How 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls want to help communities vulnerable to climate change

Bela and Jaques Sebastiao begin the process of cleaning up their home after it was heavily damaged by Hurricane Michael in Mexico Beach, Florida on October 17, 2018. | Raedle/Getty Images

Elizabeth Warren says she’ll expand infrastructure to protect vulnerable communities from extreme weather events.

To find out how 2020 Democratic candidates would use their presidential powers to address climate change, we sent six key questions to every campaign. This post includes seven candidates’ answers to the fourth question. You can find answers to the other five questions on the landing page.

---

Some communities are more vulnerable to climate change than others. Some communities depend on fossil fuel industries more than others. What will you do to ensure that vulnerable communities are protected during the transition to clean energy?

Joe Biden: [I understand] how vulnerable communities — particularly communities of color, tribal lands, and low-income communities — are disproportionately impacted by the climate emergency and pollution.

We cannot turn a blind eye to the way in which environmental burdens and benefits have been distributed unevenly along racial and socioeconomic lines — not just with respect to climate change, but also pollution of our air, water, and land.

The evidence of these disproportionate harms is clear. According to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, African Americans are almost three times more likely to die from asthma related causes than their white counterparts. And, nearly 1 in 2 of Latinos in the US live in counties where the air doesn’t meet EPA public health standards for smog according to Green Latinos.

And according to the federal Government, 40 percent of the 567 federally recognized tribes in US live in Alaska where the rapid pace of rising temperatures and melting sea ice and glaciers threaten the critical infrastructure and traditional livelihoods in the state. We cannot let this continue. [I] will reinstate federal protections, rolled back by the Trump administration, that were designed to protect communities. He will make it a priority for all agencies to engage in community-driven approaches to develop solutions for environmental injustices affecting communities of color, low-income, and indigenous communities.

[I] will:

• Hold polluters accountable. Under the Trump administration, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has referred the fewest number of criminal anti-pollution cases to the Justice Department in 30 years. Allowing corporations to continue to pollute — affecting the health and safety of both their workers and surrounding communities — without consequences perpetuates an egregious abuse of power. [I] will direct [my] EPA and Justice Department to pursue these cases to the fullest extent permitted by law and, when needed, seek additional legislation as needed to hold corporate executives personally accountable — including jail time where merited.


• Ensure access to safe drinking water for all communities. Communities across America are experiencing a water crisis, in water infrastructure, contamination, accessibility and so much more. Here in the US, from rural areas to cities, from Flint, Michigan to Merrimack, New Hampshire to Martin County, Kentucky, many Americans cannot safely drink their tap water. In much of the southwest and west, the problem is a lack of sufficient water, expected to exacerbate with a changing climate. [I] will make water infrastructure a top priority, for example, by establishing systems to monitor lead and other contaminants in our water supply and take necessary action to eliminate health risks, including holding polluters accountable and support communities in upgrading their systems.


• Ensure that communities harmed by climate change and pollution are the first to benefit from the Clean Economy Revolution. Low-income communities and communities of color don’t equally share in the benefits of well-paying job opportunities that result from our clean energy economy. For example, African Americans hold only 1 percent of energy jobs. As President, [I] will make sure these communities receive preference in competitive grant programs in the Clean Economy Revolution. And work to fulfill our obligation to all workers impacted by the energy transition and their communities, including coal miners and power plant workers.

In addition, [I] will work to fulfill our obligation to all workers impacted by the energy transition and their communities, including coal miners and power plant workers. These communities powered decades of American economic growth, and they deserve our respect and support as we shift our country away from coal as an energy source. [I] will protect the pensions and health benefits that these workers have earned and invest in communities impacted by the climate transformation so that they, too, can succeed in the 21st century clean energy economy. More on [my] plan for coal and power plant communities is available at joebiden.com/climate.

---

Elizabeth Warren: I support the Green New Deal, which seeks to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers. Specifically, I support the Green New Deal commitments to create high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hire local workers, offer training and advancement opportunities, and guarantee wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition to a non-fossil fuel economy.

My plan for green manufacturing would inject a massive $2 trillion into green research, manufacturing, and exporting. An independent analysis found my plan would create 1.2 million good jobs right here at home. I also believe we need to work with farmers and ranchers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, invest in sustainable farming and land use practices and build a more sustainable food system so everyone has access to healthy food.

We must also invest in hardened infrastructure to protect people, particularly vulnerable communities, from extreme weather events. I also believe it is essential to respect the government-to-government relationship between the federal government and tribal governments and to engage in meaningful consultation with tribal nations on policies affecting their lands. My plan for public lands includes a commitment to restoring national monuments targeted by the Trump Administration and formally incorporating tribal stakeholders in the management of public lands.

I’m also a sponsor of the Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands Equitable Rebuild Act — a comprehensive plan for investing in and rebuilding these islands, including by making their electrical grids more renewable and resilient and making significant investments in infrastructure.

---

Bernie Sanders: [My] Green New Deal is not only a serious climate plan, but an opportunity to uproot historical injustices and inequities to advance social, racial, and economic justice, including redressing the exclusion of black, brown, Native American, and other vulnerable communities from the programs that made up the original New Deal.

As president, [I] will ensure an inclusive, comprehensive process from start to finish. Workers and communities on the frontline of fossil fuel extraction, transportation and use and those most vulnerable to climate impacts must be involved from the creation and implementation of regulations and protocols to the distribution of funds and carrying out the work of the Green New Deal. And we will follow the Principles of Environmental Justice adopted at the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit. The goals and outcomes of the Green New Deal should continue to be developed under the Jemez Principles for Democratic Organizing with strong and consistent consultation with the communities most affected by the currently unequal enforcement of environmental laws.

[I] will ensure justice for frontline communities – especially under-resourced groups, communities of color, Native Americans, people with disabilities, children and the elderly – to recover from, and prepare for, the climate impacts, including through a $40 billion Climate Justice Resiliency Fund. And providing those frontline and fenceline communities a just transition including real jobs, resilient infrastructure, economic development. [I] will invest $238 billion to clean up Superfund sites and $150 billion to clean up and revitalize brownfields, and other areas and communities that have been polluted by the fossil fuel, chemical and mining industries. We will spend $100 billion on fossil fuel well and mine cleanup. We will provide targeted regional economic development to communities especially in need of assistance during our transition to a clean energy economy. We will provide $130 billion for counties impacted by climate change with funding for water, broadband, and electric grid infrastructure investments.

We will extend civil rights protections to ensure full access to the courts for poor and minority communities to seek legal protections by overturning the Sandoval Supreme Court decision that set an unreasonable burden of proof of racism for claims of environmental racism, including disparate and cumulative exposure to environmental health risks. We will fully survey and track pollution in vulnerable communities, ensure the creation and implementation of the Green New Deal is accessible to people with disabilities and non-English speakers, ensure equitable hiring standards, expand nutrition and home energy assistance programs, and much more to ensure that environmental justice is front and center as we transition to a 100 percent sustainable economy.

And this plan will prioritize the fossil fuel workers who have powered our economy for more than a century and who have too often been neglected by corporations and politicians. We invest $1.3 trillion in a just transition to guarantee five years of a worker’s current salary, housing assistance, job training, health care, pension support, and priority job placement for any displaced worker, as well as early retirement support for those who choose it or can no longer work. We will do all of this and much more to ensure a just and equitable future for frontline and fence line communities including real jobs, resilient infrastructure, economic development.

---

Pete Buttigieg: I believe that we’ve got to build a coalition to effectively combat climate change. There are some estimates that through better soil management, soil could capture a level of carbon equivalent to the output of the entire global transportation industry — we need to make sure farmers and rural America are a part of this solution. I would eliminate tax credits for fossil fuel companies, but dedicate funds to training workers in the industry for new careers. We also need to focus on resilience in vulnerable communities and build stronger infrastructure that can better withstand extreme weather.

---

Tom Steyer: My Justice-Centered Climate Plan will not only provide clear air and water, but also honor the contributions and sacrifices of workers in fossil fuel industries and prioritize justice for communities that have been treated as environmental dumping grounds for far too long. While climate change affects us all, it hurts low income communities, indigenous peoples, and communities of color first and worst.

I will implement a sustainable transition to clean energy that begins with creating a 50-state, community-led process to develop tailored local approaches that respond to the unique needs of communities. These community-led plans would see support from all levels of government. For example, the creation of a Civilian Climate Corps will effectively create 1 million jobs for young Americans, underemployed people, and displaced workers, and will work to diversify state and local economies currently dependent on fossil fuel revenues. Building a regenerative, diversified economy requires inclusivity that works to protect unions and workers entering new industries.

---

Amy Klobuchar: As part of [my] sweeping climate change legislation, [I] will make sure climate resilient infrastructure investments will be targeted towards communities that are disproportionately affected by climate change, including communities of color and tribal communities. [I] also believe that we must fulfill our responsibility to our communities and workers who have helped power this country as we address the climate crisis and [my] legislation will include targeted financial support, job training, and direct federal investment that will create new jobs in communities that depend on fossil fuel industries.

---

Mike Bloomberg: We will work to ensure no one is left behind by the transition to clean energy, including Americans in coal country and the low-income communities and communities of color who have been disproportionately affected by pollution from fossil fuels and the impacts of climate change.

Coal helped to power America’s rise, but coal’s days are numbered and coal jobs aren’t coming back – and President Trump has given people in coal country nothing but empty promises. We’ll support career education and apprenticeship programs that help people in communities that have been dependent on fossil fuel jobs. We will work with cities and towns in those regions to invest in infrastructure, support small businesses, and create new jobs that pay good wages. And we’ll require that fossil fuel companies honor their benefit and pension promises to employees.

We’ll also work to make every community resilient to the impacts of climate change, prioritizing environmental justice and starting with those that are most vulnerable. We’ll make sure that low-income communities see the benefits of a clean energy economy, including jobs and reduced pollution. We’ll create an Infrastructure Resilience Finance Corporation to strengthen communities against flooding, storms, and wildfires – and we’ll work to restore and strengthen our natural defenses, like wetlands and floodplains.

How climate change ranks as a priority for 2020 Democratic presidential contenders

Climate change protesters disrupt Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden during a campaign event in Manchester, New Hampshire, on October 9, 2019. | Scott Eisen/Getty Images

Several candidates say they would take action on day one of their administration.

To find out how 2020 Democratic candidates would use their presidential powers to address climate change, we sent six key questions to every campaign. This post includes seven candidates’ answers to the first question. You can find answers to the other five questions on the landing page.

---

A president has only 100 days or so in which to pass a few key priorities. Where does climate change fall on your list of priorities when you step into office?

Joe Biden: [I] know there is no greater challenge facing our country and our world today than climate change. [I have] been clear that the United States needs to raise our ambitions on an epic scale, and lead the rest of the world to do the same. [I] would take immediate action on day one of my Administration to meet this challenge and ensure the US achieves a 100 percent clean energy economy and net-zero emissions no later than 2050. If we don’t get this right, nothing else matters.

---

Elizabeth Warren: Climate change is a threat to the safety and health of Americans — and it disproportionately impacts our most vulnerable communities and communities of color.

I will keep talking about plans to confront the crisis and a comprehensive, bold approach to addressing climate change would be a top priority in my Administration. I’ve already made clear that on my very first day as president, I will sign an executive order banning new fossil fuel leases and drilling offshore. I’ve put forward several proposals to confront our climate crisis head-on including my plan to make a $2 trillion investment over the next 10 years in green research, manufacturing, and exporting. It will also spur the kind of worldwide adoption of American-made clean energy technology needed to meet the international targets of the Green New Deal.

And let’s be clear: Right now Washington works great for Big Oil but not for communities across the country concerned about the climate crisis. We need to rein in the economic and political power of giant corporations, their lobbyists, and the wealthy and well-connected. The first thing I would do as President is pass my anti-corruption bill to end lobbying as we know it and make our government and democracy work for everyone.

---

Bernie Sanders: [I] believe climate change is the single greatest threat facing us today. According to top climate scientists, we must act immediately to dramatically cut our greenhouse gas emissions, or we will suffer irrevocable environmental and economic damage. We are long overdue for taking this threat seriously, due in large part to the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by multinational fossil fuel corporations to protect their profits and inaction and even denial from Republicans in Congress. [I] will do what it takes to avert climate disaster.

We have many crises facing our country, from health care to education to income inequality, and [I] believe we must be able to “walk and chew bubblegum” at the same time in combating them. But climate change must be at the top of the list. We have a moral responsibility to leave our kids a planet that is healthy and habitable. We cannot afford to wait any longer.

---

Pete Buttigieg: The timeline on climate has been decided by science, and the right time to get to net zero carbon emissions was yesterday. The next president can reverse the trajectory toward climate ruin that we’re on today. That’s why I will take immediate action to tackle this challenge head-on.

---

Tom Steyer: Climate change is a crisis as big and urgent as any other that this country and our planet has faced. It demands our immediate attention on all levels of government and society. Our country needs a strong president who will make this a top priority. On my first day in office, I will declare the climate crisis a national emergency and use the emergency powers of the presidency to implement a plan to build a safer, more sustainable world, with or without Congress. This is truly a global crisis and it is long past time for the United States to take the lead in solving it.

---

Amy Klobuchar: [I have] said climate change will be a top priority of [my] administration. In [my] announcement speech, [I] said that [I] will get the United States back into the international climate agreement on day one of [my] presidency, and [I have] announced several more immediate actions [I] will take in [my] first 100 days including restoring the Clean Power Plan, bringing back the fuel-economy standards, and putting forward sweeping legislation to combat the climate crisis. The legislation will include:

• A massive investment in green jobs and infrastructure


• Climate research and innovation


• Environmental justice programs


• Rural energy development and better, greener transportation


• Carbon pricing


• State, local, and private incentives for the immediate adoption and deployment of clean energy technologies


• Incentives and support for tougher building codes, appliance standards, buy clean, and climate resilience.

It will put our country on a path to achieving 100 percent net-zero emissions no later than 2050 and fulfill our responsibility to our communities and workers who have helped power this country.

---

Mike Bloomberg: Fighting climate change will be a top priority during my first 100 days in office and every day after that. My first act as president will be to re-join the Paris Climate Agreement. I will also take immediate executive action to reverse the damage done by President Trump, speed the transition to clean energy economy-wide, and put America on track to cut carbon emissions by 50 percent by 2030.

I will nominate committed climate leaders to head agencies and departments, and direct them to propose new pollution and energy standards to move our power and transportation and buildings toward clean energy. I’ll work with Congress to pass a budget with new funding for building energy upgrades and electric vehicle deployment, and quadruple investment in clean energy research and development. And I will work with Congress to pass infrastructure legislation that prioritizes electrifying our transportation system and buildings, expanding access to mass transit and other alternatives to cars, and converting our power system to clean energy.

Are 2020 Democratic candidates ready to scrap the filibuster to fight climate change?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrives at a rally outside the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on September 24, 2019. | Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

At least four candidates are in favor.

To find out how 2020 Democratic candidates would use their presidential powers to address climate change, we sent six key questions to every campaign. This post includes seven candidates’ answers to the second question. You can find answers to the other five questions on the landing page.

---

If Democrats win a narrow majority in the Senate, will you advocate for reforming or scrapping the filibuster?

Joe Biden: [I do] not support ending the filibuster.

---

Elizabeth Warren: As I’ve said before, if Republicans continue to [use] the same playbook they had under President Obama and try to block progress, we should get rid of the filibuster.

---

Bernie Sanders: As was the case with workers’ rights, the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the gay rights movement and the environmental movement, the only way transformational change happens is when millions of people stand up and demand it.

Before we even get to the issue of the filibuster, we need 50 senators who are prepared to do what we, as a nation, have a moral obligation to accomplish - and that is to pass Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and other major reforms we need.

Once we have — and [I] believe it will be sooner than later — a Democratic majority that is prepared to take on the greed and the corruption of the fossil fuel industry and vote for these major reforms in the House and the Senate, we will pass them. That means enacting real filibuster reform, including the return to requiring a talking filibuster. It is not right that one senator can grind the entire legislative process to a halt.

Further, the budget reconciliation process, with 50 votes, has been used time and time again to pass major pieces of legislation and that under our Constitution and the rules of the Senate, it is the vice president who determines what is and is not permissible under budget reconciliation. While a president does not have the power to abolish the filibuster, a vice president in [my] administration will determine that a Green New Deal can pass through the Senate under reconciliation and is not in violation of the rules.

---

Pete Buttigieg: Yes. With the filibuster in place, any meaningful action to combat climate change will be even further out of reach.

---

Tom Steyer: I will certainly advocate for scrapping the filibuster. This legislative roadblock is preventing us from fixing an inadequate healthcare system, boosting lagging wages, controlling student debt, and ending gun violence. The filibuster only serves to maintain the status-quo and uphold a broken political system.

---

Amy Klobuchar: [I] would be willing to advocate for getting rid of the legislative filibuster if legislation is blocked. None of this will matter if Democrats don’t retake the majority Senate and [I am] focused on that.

---

Mike Bloomberg: The filibuster has been overused and misused, and it is probably time to get rid of it.

How 2020 Democrats will address climate change through foreign policy

A woman walks to her eroded shelter home near the Meghna river in Bangladesh on September 12, 2019. | Zakir Hossain Chowdhury/Barcroft Media/Getty Images

Several ideas for improving climate security.

To find out how Democratic 2020 candidates would use their presidential powers to address climate change, we sent six key questions to every campaign. This post includes seven candidates’ answers to the sixth question. You can find answers to the other five questions on the landing page.

---

The Pentagon has called climate change a “threat multiplier” in international conflict. At the same time, climate change stands to have the worst impacts on countries that contributed least to the problem. How should the US brace for global climate chaos? And what will you do to help other countries prepare for the impending disruption?

Joe Biden: To address our defense and intelligence leaders’ warnings about the threats climate change poses to global stability and security, [I] will elevate climate change as a national security priority. Specifically, [I] will:

• Commission a National Intelligence Estimate on national and economic security impacts from climate change, including water scarcity, increased risks of conflict, impacts on state fragility, and the security implications of resulting large-scale migrations.


• Direct the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to report to [me] annually on the impacts of climate change on defense posture, readiness, infrastructure, and threat picture, as well as the Defense Department’s strategy to manage those impacts.


• Direct the National Security Advisor, working with the Secretaries of Defense, State, Homeland Security, and others, to develop a comprehensive strategy to address the security implications of climate change.


• Invest in the climate resilience of our military bases and critical security infrastructure across the US and around the world to deal with the risk of climate change effects, including extreme weather events that caused over $8 billion in damages to Department of Defense bases in just the last year. [I] will direct the Secretaries of Defense and Energy to develop specific inventories of the most acute vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure due to climate change, and prioritize upgrades, hardening, and resilience investments to mitigate them.

In addition, [I] will recommit the US to the Green Climate Fund, fulfilling America’s pledge and enhancing our security by helping developing countries better manage the adverse effects of climate change, including conflict, migration, and state fragility. The US will also work with international financial institutions to pursue shared debt relief for countries provided that they use those funds for climate-friendly development.

As president, [I] will rejoin the Paris Agreement. But simply rejoining is not enough. [I] will use every tool of American foreign policy to push the rest of the world to raise their ambitions alongside the US. Part of this effort includes providing “green debt relief” for developing countries that make climate commitments.

---

Elizabeth Warren: I support returning to the Paris agreement — and then using that as a basis to go further. My Green Marshall Plan is a commitment to using all the tools in our diplomatic and economic arsenal to encourage other countries to purchase and deploy American-made clean energy technology. It includes a new federal office dedicated to selling American-made clean, renewable, and emission-free energy technology abroad and a $100 billion commitment to assisting countries to purchase and deploy this technology.

In my plan to overhaul how Washington does trade, I will use all the tools of international trade to marshall global action on climate. I will re-enter the United States into the Paris Climate Accord and make being party to that agreement and fossil fuel subsidies preconditions for any trade agreement. I will push for a multilateral trade agreement to protect green policies like subsidies for clean energy and impose a border carbon adjustment to charge a fee to imported goods made using carbon-intensive processes. I also make clear that countries who can’t live up to these standards won’t be abandoned. I will commit to providing technical assistance to help countries improve.

I will also require the Pentagon to achieve net zero carbon emissions for all its non-combat bases and infrastructure by 2030 — consistent with the objectives of the Green New Deal. I will invest billions of dollars into a new, 10-year research and development program focused on microgrids and advanced energy storage and direct the Pentagon to produce an annual report evaluating the climate vulnerability of every US military base at home and abroad.

---

Bernie Sanders: [I] know the importance of American responsibility and leadership on climate change. As President, [I] will take that role seriously and bring a commitment to the rest of the world on behalf of the American people to promote peace and aggressively reduce our emissions in an effort to get the international community to agree to limit global emissions to keep us at or below 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming. This will ensure the US remains in a position of technological leadership and make us competitive on all sustainable energy technology to achieve our global goal of decarbonization by 2050.

The US has for over a century spewed carbon pollution emissions into the atmosphere in order to gain economic standing in the world. Therefore, we have an outsized obligation to help less industrialized nations meet their targets while improving quality of life. We will reduce domestic emissions by at least 71 percent by 2030 and reduce emissions among less industrialized nations by 36 percent by 2030 — the total equivalent of reducing our domestic emissions by 161 percent.

Despite the major shortcomings of the Paris climate agreement, one primary reason why the globe was able to come together to sign the Paris agreement was that major developed nations like the US finally recognized that they had an outsized role in the creation of the climate crisis, and an outsized obligation to less industrialized nations to help them achieve the same kind of carbon pollution emissions reductions while improving the quality of life in those countries. In order to help countries of the Global South with climate adaptation efforts, the US will invest $200 billion in the Green Climate Fund for the equitable transfer of renewable technologies, climate adaptation, and assistance in adopting sustainable energies. US leadership can ensure that the developing world secures reliable electricity, reduces poverty and pollution-related fatalities, creates greater net employment, and improves living standards — all while reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

[I] will bring together the leaders of the major industrialized nations with the goal of using the trillions of dollars our nations spend on misguided wars and weapons of mass destruction to instead work together internationally to combat our climate crisis and take on the fossil fuel industry. [I] recognize that the Pentagon is the largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases in the world and that the US spends $81 billion annually to protect oil supplies and transport routes. We are uniquely positioned to lead the planet in a wholesale shift away from militarism.

[I] also recognize that climate change will only accelerate the unrest and migration that we are seeing today. We must address the root causes of migration, including rewriting disastrous trade policies and implementing a humane foreign policy that strengths labor and environmental standards across the world. The US must live up to its ideals as a nation by welcoming those who seek refuge, including from climate disasters.

---

Pete Buttigieg: Climate is a threat multiplier and a threat shifter. Some of the most urgent threats the US faces today — from crises that originate in Syria, Sudan, and countries in Central America — are made worse by the extra stresses put on those states by failing crops and other effects of climate change. We have both an obligation, alongside other big emitters of warming gases, and a strong national interest in reducing those dangers. We can help by contributing fully to the Green Climate Fund and other funds that are putting resources toward helping countries adapt, and by integrating prevention and mitigation strategies into our own foreign aid. Over the long haul, the best and only way to manage these problems is to stop and reverse climate change through serious action at home and globally as part of our foreign policy.

---

Tom Steyer: Increased droughts and other climate-related disasters are spurring more violent conflicts and increasingly volatile political situations around the globe. Hundreds of millions of people around the world risk losing their homes and livelihoods to sea-level rise, extreme weather, and political conflict driven by climate impacts. The Commander-in-Chief must protect us from the immediate dangers of climate change and ensure our country’s prosperity but also help to reduce the causes of conflict globally and prevent mass human rights abuses that can arise in times of disaster or resource stress.

To create a safer and more secure America, we must secure our military bases against extreme weather, and improve our systems to prevent and recover from disasters. We also need to reestablish the United States as a global economic and moral leader by leading the worldwide transition to clean energy, redoubling our commitments to international agreements such as the Paris Accord, providing international aid for disaster relief and for countries that are transitioning away from fossil fuels, and helping protect the human rights of the growing number of people displaced by disasters.

---

Amy Klobuchar: As President [I] will elevate the voices of our military and security experts who have repeatedly warned that climate change will increase the risks of international conflict and humanitarian crises. [I] believe that we must work with our allies to support countries most affected by climate change, including addressing global food and water shortages, supporting climate resilient development, helping countries adapt to the effects of climate change, and preparing for the increased risk of natural disasters.

---

Mike Bloomberg: President Trump doesn’t just deny that climate change is real – he has also weakened our most powerful tool in the fight against climate change: our international leadership.

No single country can beat climate change, or handle its impacts – more refugees, more conflicts over water, more political instability – by acting alone. Confronting those threats requires strong alliances. President Trump has attacked and insulted our allies. I will work with them and restore our commitment to international cooperation, including on climate change. I have a robust plan with specific steps to restore U.S. leadership, rally the world to ambitious carbon reductions and cooperate to manage climate-related conflict that starts with rejoining the Paris Agreement, which I will do on day one.