I’d like to first annotate and summarize the most significant parts of Beto’s policy plans that I read.

Part I - First day plans

Paris agreement reentry - very cool.

“rapidly phase-out hydrofluorocarbons, the super-polluting greenhouse gas that is up to 9,000 times worse for climate change than carbon dioxide” - what aerosol-related variable is multiplied 9,000 times? Is this like how HF ingestion is 9,000 times worse than HCl ingestion?

Part II - Second day plans (Money and TAXES)

This section sounds plausible if only because of tax increases for big companies and the 1%. Whether or not a $1.5 trillion investment will turn into $5 usable trillion dollars with interest is a shaky outcome that Beto should not base his campaign promises on.

Good news for climate scientists: $50 billion would go towards oceanic and atmospheric climate research.

I like his focus on the community impact of climate change. Beto hopes to allocate public health resources to communities with unclean water and air (which he estimates to be about half of Americans).

Part III - Vague upkeep

Beto promises to keep tabs on climate goals once policies have been written into law. Thanks Beto, you won’t forget about these lofty promises.

Part IV - Sensible considerations (disaster prevention and aid)

This is a good section for him to end with, it includes considerations for disaster prevention (which is cheaper than disaster aid), and bolstering communities that have already been affected by natural disasters so they don’t remain vulnerable to extreme weather.

In general I think the overall plan is a step in the right direction. I’m not sure if Beto believes in incrementalism enough to compromise on executive actions or tax code changes. And passing this legislation is terribly dependent on a mixed-party congress [Republicans have more seats up for grabs in both the house and the senate in 2020 but it’s still anyone’s game and they could very well keep the Senate]. That being said, I do believe that were Beto able to implement the entirety of his plan, we would have “net-zero emissions by 2050.” It’s good that he left that backdoor open for himself on the net part of zero emissions, accounting for carbon sinks or climate interventions in whatever form they might take.

The Washington Post thinks that there’s a “right reason to dislike” Beto’s plan. Apparently Beto’s tax incentive idea is buried too deep in his proposal and should be featured more prominently since economists agree that it’s the way to go. Otherwise the OpEd raves about how Beto’s plan is more feasible than the Green New Deal ever was. Good news for Beto.

The Texas Tribune also reviewed Beto’s plan. They were more focused on how Beto has waffled on climate policy in his 2016 votes. Thankfully, Beto was only in the house for 6 years so he didn’t really get the opportunity to accrue a history with the issue. Reactions from political peers were mixed, the article also noted.

Beto needs to back up this policy plan with interactions with voters and experts. When on the debate podium he will have to appeal to viewers ethos and pathos. The logic of climate change is fact, whether or not it applies to the Average Joe is something Beto has more control over. Why not tell a story about a voter he met living adjacent to California wildfires or a Houston voter affected by hurricanes and floods. Besides that, Beto’s a regular Smokey the Bear, cute, likable and the harbinger of catastrophic climate disaster.

What I will say about Beto, at large, is that he chose a very opportune time to run for president. His most prominent peer hopefuls are all mired in house and senate business that takes up a majority of the time they could spend campaigning (Beto could very well visit all 3100 counties of the U.S. in the 542 days till the 2020 election). The number one complaint from all of my Democrat friends about Beto has been that he doesn’t have specific policy positions posted. This is a wonderful problem for Beto to have! Because he can wait and gauge reactions to other candidates plans and then produce the most agreeable iteration thereof.

I love Beto, I really do. Mostly because I’m from Texas but also because he’s consistently worn the most positive and grateful attitude I’ve observed in a politician since maybe Obama. Pantone 292 also runs pretty deep.

This past summer I had the opportunity to swing the vote of one of Beto’s target demographics; college-educated, suburban, Republican women. To sum up my mother in one sentence, she’s 49, and if she found out today that she was pregnant she would carry the child to term no matter the cost to self. I convinced my mom and sister to accompany me to a Beto concert rally with Willie Nelson. Beto displayed his inspiring rhetoric and emphatic tone with the constant refrain “What if….” we lived in a society in which teachers are paid a living wage, among others, etc. He then proceeded to play guitar and sang on stage with Willie.

Having heard Beto in the flesh, my mother became even more curious about this Texas DEMOCRAT. On the drive to the polling station, I made my last appeal “there’s only one senate candidate that stands for people who look and speak like you [a woman born and educated in Mexico City], one candidate that’s visited all 254 counties of Texas, one candidate that will stand up to Trump on immigration and one candidate THAT SPEAKS FLUENT SPANISH. A vote for Cruz is a vote for Cruz but a vote for Beto is a vote for Texas.” Knowing the social pressure my mother faces and the shame she would feel in admitting to conservative friends that she voted for a Democrat I asked her a favor; “vote for Beto. But tell me you voted for Cruz.”

My younger brother later asked her who she voted for. “That’s none of your business,” she retorted.

https://betoorourke.com/climate-change/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/29/beto-orourke-has-new-climate-plan-heres-right-reason-dislike-it/?utm_term=.187b243f8ea6