Hillary Clinton’s Climate Agenda Puts Republicans To Shame

Imagine an America where we are almost completely de-carbonized by the year 2050, and every home is powered with renewable energy by 2027.

Hillary Clinton’s proposal (her most detailed one so far) lays out a plan to achieve just that. More specifically, the plan calls for 33 percent of power to come from solar, wind and geothermal energies by 2027, and the rest with nuclear power. What’s even more ambitious about the plan is it exceeds the call from billionaire climate change activist Tom Steyer, who has demanded that each presidential candidate commit to reducing our dependency on carbon-emitting energies. Steyer’s plan called for only a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030.

Steyer applauded the proposal, saying:

“Clinton laid out an ambitious framework to put our nation on a path to a clean energy economy that will create millions of jobs—and in the coming months we look forward to hearing more details about her proposals to tackle climate change.”

How does Clinton plan on achieving this goal? By building 500 million solar panels, a 700% increase from what the U.S. is currently at. The new panels would increase the solar capacity to 140 gigawatts, which has the same equivalency of 140 nuclear reactors. Do the math. Five-hundred million times 140 equals approximately the same energy as 70 billion nuclear reactors.

That’s a lot of clean energy. However, Clinton did not specify how she plans to pay for the new panels, something that has irked the right. But that hasn’t stopped Clinton’s optimism, who said, “We still have a lot that we can do without getting congressional support.”

And on top of that, businesses will reap the benefits of a competitive market with the continuation of the Obama Clean Power Plan, and clean energy tax incentives through a program called the “Clean Energy Challenge.”

In the coming months, the Clinton campaign will also release details on the reduction of oil consumption and making the nation’s infrastructure and buildings more efficient and stabilized.

Clinton’s climate-energy plan is stark difference between the Republican contenders. Only one Republican, Lindsey Graham, accepts the science behind climate change, which is accepted by 97% of climate scientists. Clinton recently released a video montage lambasting Republican contenders Marco Rubio, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz for denying the very real threat of climate change, saying “Future generations will look back and say ‘what were we thinking? How could we be so irresponsible.”

Hillary Clinton has faced scrutiny for her earlier positions on fracking and the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Although she unveiled her new energy rollout, Clinton did not take any position on the pipeline, and nor did she take a position on fracking, something her adversary Bernie Sanders is staunchly against.

The comparison could not be any more stark: Democrats are committed to ending our dependence on fossil fuels and reducing our carbon footprint. Republicans “aren’t scientists,” so they have no plan in place to tackle what will be a very grave issue down the road.

Featured image via screen capture from an interview