On AOC, as much as I have defended her in this forum, I’m going to have to call her out here as apparently not knowing fully what she is talking about and the exposure of her inexperience as a Washington politician.
AOC is already criticizing Beto’s plan because it isn’t as ambitious as her Green New Deal’s goal of 100% reduction in all CO2 emissions by 2030, and incorrectly stating hers is more in line with IPCC goals (the U.N. report). The IPCC goals actually push for a reduction of 50% of NET CO2 output by 2030 and a reduction of 100% of NET CO2 output by 2050, which is what Beto’s plan also pushes.
Furthermore, AOC’s plan is a grand design that also calls for a guaranteed living wage for all Americans, guaranteed health care, guaranteed affordable housing, guaranteed work leave, and guaranteed retirement income. Beto’s plan has none of these added perks, as they do not have anything to do with reducing CO2 emissions, at least directly.
This is where inexperience as a politician comes in. AOC’s plan will have a much harder time passing through Congress than Beto’s because of these over-encompassing ideals, whereas Beto’s sticks primarily with the IPCC goal of keeping temperatures below the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold, not to mention his goals (and that of the IPCC) are a bit more gradual and realistic, and still allow for some CO2 emissions (as long as the net output is reduced).
I’d take the political compromise a step further in allowing for nuclear power plants and carbon retrieval technologies (both talking points of the right who are sensible minded about climate change). When trying to convey the urgency of the issue, one must be willing to compromise with an open mind on solutions if one truly does indeed have genuine concern over such urgency.
To be close minded on solutions, and especially to be unwavering on moving aside unrelated issues in the legislation of such solutions, demonstrates political agenda over genuine concern, in my opinion.