Honestly re climate plans I'm not sure that bold faced doing literally nothing and flaunting the worrying scientific prognosis (Trump), is decidedly worse than doing virtually nothing and pretending that you're doing everything that you can or everything that can be expected of your office (which sounds like, in all likelihood, Bloomberg). I'd argue this because the former we expect to be odious or at least bluntly wrong enough that the arc of history will correct it pretty quickly at least presuming that society doesn't collapse or viciously regress to feudalism or something. While the latter is a lot more pernicious and might normalize or even codify a kind of climate apathy because it would presumably be out of peoples minds under a more supposedly competent 'technocratic' government that was simply keeping up appearances.
Which is to say we can't predict the future, really all we can predict is that both outcomes would be unambiguously bad. And not only does climate need to be tackled aggressively, but billionaires buying a ticket into and all but buying elections should for the sake of precedent and keeping any semblance of good faith with the electorate, be a complete non-starter. To say nothing of the whole hegemony of wealth and class/education within the US, and militaristic and corporate imperialism without, that is ultimately fueling much of the economy of climate change, and revealing even the two parties meant to be the objects of our political motivations more as private corporations propping up and seeking benefit from these failures than anything resembling a good-faith attempt at serving as organs of democracy. Bloomberg, by virtue of being an actual billionaire that might pass in polite society, is as much if not more of an embodiment of this crisis as Trump is. Someone else said this and I think it's true: If Trump is the first horseman of the apocalypse, then the DNC welcoming the likes of Bloomberg with open arms must be the second such portent.
theintercept.com
politics.theonion.com
