This Lease Option Agreement - Wind Watch: Fill & Download for Free

Thanks for the A2A, Rick.After skimming the article, two things first jumped out at me:The drivers (at least, the one's named in the USAToday article) are all Hispanic. Not to stereotype, but the abuse of illegal immigrants by shady employers, who are often themselves Hispanic, is fairly common.They also seem to be port drivers. This means that they're local or at best, intra-state, potentially giving the employer a lot more leeway in HOS rules, not to mention ports have been rife with corruption since before colonial days.And lease-to-own? That's one of the biggest and oldest scams in business (Don't believe me? Try buying a house full of furniture from Rent-A-Center(tm) or Aarons(tm) and add up the total of all the payments and compare to the price if you buy straight up).So, while I think a lot of these claims are likely overblown for financial and political reasons (remember the recent fight in Cali over “mis-classification” of contractors at the ports?), I'm reluctant to call a lie on all of these claims.All that said, do I think it's a widespread issue? No.Do I think it's more prevalent in trucking companies? No.Here's why:Trucking is one of the most heavily regulated and closely watched industries in America. If this was a widespread problem, RICO accusations and subpoenas would be flying. None of the reputable companies would engage in these practices, simply because a multi-billion dollar reputation isn't rebuilt overnight, and there's a lot of competition waiting in the wings eager for you to make such a major mistake so they can gain market share.Now, to some of the specifics mentioned in the article, and at least one that didn't get talked about.Leasing is a baaad idea. Experts say that in most cases, leasing a car makes little or no financial sense. Even less when your talking about a used semi-truck! Think about it. Have you ever seen a port driver driving a new truck? Most of the ones I see are at least 10 years old (you should see the shit they’re running for drayage across the border in El Paso). Why would anyone lease a truck they could buy for less than $20,000? Answer: because they have lousy credit (or can't legally go through a bank). These men made the cardinal mistake many going into business for the first time make: they failed to do their due diligence. The first rule in signing any contract is to make sure to read and understand all of the terms and conditions. If everything was clearly spelled out in the lease contract and they signed voluntarily……I feel for ‘em, but it's on them. And that’s not “indentured servitude”, as USAToday claims, just shitty business practice and employee abuse. The claims of forced labor? I'm not privy to enough information to hold an informed opinion, but that sounds more common with human smuggling operations, where coyotes and snakeheads work with ethnic businesses to bring workers in, who then have to “work off” their trip to the U.S.One domestic situation that could be seen as a type of indenture is the practice by some companies offering “free” driver training and a “guaranteed job”. That is, they will train you, at their expense, so long as you agree upfront to remain with the company for a minimum amount of time (usually 1 year). This is a less-than-ideal arrangement for the driver, but if they don't have the resources to attend an accredited school to earn their CDL, it can be an option. And these programs are nowhere near like the situations reported in the article.Long winded, Rick, I know (sometimes my thumbs get away from me). Bottom line, it sounds to me like these drivers are working off what they owe the coyotes for bringing them into America, and the “lease agreements” amount to nothing more than window dressing for the money laundering.

Oh boy, this one’s a doozy, and kind of a long story, but here it is.At the time that my husband died in 2009, we had three very modest rentals that we managed ourselves, as they did not generate enough profit to hire a rental management agency. Economically, it was a pretty rough time for everyone, including my tenants, and I’d always tried to be understanding and accommodating, within reason. I had been renting one of the rentals to a woman and her two teenage sons for a year and a half or so. Initially, she moved in with her “fiancé” along with her sons, but her fiancé wasn’t on the lease. Within a couple of months, he disappeared, soon to be replaced another “fiancé”, and then another after that.She had fallen behind on rent after the first fiancé moved out, and I had worked with her on letting her catch up over a few months. This became a pattern, and over time, she fell further and further behind on rent, and the house wasn’t being taken care of. I had it listed for sale, along with my other rentals. I was having a hard time making my own mortgage, let alone those of the rentals. I always gave her at least 24 hours notice before showings, and I asked her to please see that the house wasn’t too messy when prospective buyers came to see it, and that the house would be empty at the appointed time of showings. Without fail, she never, ever tidied up, and various realtors would tell me that people were there when they showed up, the house was a disaster, dirty, and her sons were hostile and even threatening. All this while she was months behind on rent, and owed me thousands of dollars.I finally told her that I was sorry, but if she didn’t catch up on back rent, she would have to find another place to live, I wasn’t in a position to keep paying her rent (my mortgage) for her. She knew I was recently widowed (at 37) and was struggling myself. She got really hostile, but managed to come up with a few hundred dollars, then nothing, for another month or two. I called and told her she needed to move out, and gave her a 30-day notice to vacate the premises. She screamed and yelled and called me horrible names, told me I was so cruel to be evicting a poor single mother with her children, etc. Meanwhile, I was just trying to get through each day, in deep grief, worried I might wind up in foreclosure on my own house, as well as the rentals, even bankruptcy. It was a truly horrible time in my life.I told her I would be coming over to see the house and to look into a reported problem with the kitchen sink (with 24-hour notice, as law dictates). She said she wouldn’t be there. I brought a male friend along with me, because I didn’t feel safe. I got there, and the house was a total disaster. Her lease said she was allowed to have one dog, but there were four dogs in the small, fenced backyard, and a mother dog with a litter of puppies in one of the bedrooms, with no food or water or bedding, nothing protecting the carpet, which was matted with feces and reeked of animal urine. Poor dogs. The house was filthy, the backyard overflowing with junk, and it smelled strongly of cigarette and pot smoke in the house. She wasn’t there, but her 18-year-old son was there with a couple of his friends, playing video games. He was supposed to be in high school, but he opted to stay home and smoke weed and play video games instead.I asked him about the dogs, and reminded him they were only allowed to have one dog. I opened the door to the backyard and saw that a couple boards in the fence were broken, I asked the son about them. He started screaming at me that it was my fault because the fence was a “piece of s**t” and that one of their dogs had gotten out and been hit by a car and he was going to sue me (eye roll). I was inspecting under the kitchen sink, and reminded him there was no smoking in the house, pot or tobacco, he blew up, and told me I couldn’t tell him what to do in his own “f**king house”, called me a “f**king stupid b**ch” and said if I didn’t fix the “god**mn” fence and one of his dogs got out and or hurt, I better watch out, he had a gun. Remember, I had a friend with me witnessing all of this.So I left and immediately called his mom, and told her that her son threatened me, and she owed me thousands of dollars, and she had violated the lease on numerous fronts, and I was evicting her. She screamed and yelled, and also threatened me, and said I had no right, she wasn’t going to move, she was a poor single mom, blah blah blah. Whatever, lady. I had noticed she’d lost a LOT of weight over the previous six months, and gone from being close to pounds overweight to super skinny. It turns out, she’d opted to spend her money smoking meth, in my house, rather than pay her rent, to me, a widow who was barely managing to hang on in my own life.So, 30 days came and went, and she still wouldn’t leave. I notified her I was coming over to the house (by voicemail and text), and when I got there, I knocked, no answer, I turned the doorknob, and hear her son yell “get the f**k out of my house, b**ch, I’m calling the police and pressing charges against you for breaking and entering”. I left, went to the police department, and asked them what to do, and told them where the house was etc. This was in a small town, and the police knew exactly where and who I was talking about. They said they would be happy when she was finally gone and hoped she moved out of town limits so they wouldn’t have to deal with her anymore. They directed me to an online state resource for landlords needing to evict tenants, and said they would be happy to accompany me with a civil standby if I wanted to deliver (more) eviction paperwork to the house.So I printed off the forms, one of which was a three-day notice to quit the property, and had the police meet me there for a civil standby, for backup because of her son threatening me (repeatedly). Fortunately, she wasn’t as smart as she thought, and three days later, they were out. She could have worked the system and continued living there, because, as I came to find out, the rental laws in my state give far more protection to tenants, even nightmares like her, than to landlords.When I got to the house after they left, I had a police officer accompany me, to be witness and for protection. He was almost as shocked as I was. She had abandoned two unregistered vehicles in the driveway out front, one was missing two tires, the others were flat, the other vehicle’s tires were all flat, the tires had been slashed, just to add insult to injury. There was a trailer in the back yard with two flat tires and a broken axle, overflowing with garbage, broken furniture. The yard, which had been a nice green lawn when they moved in, was bare dirt, and was full, and I mean full, of trash, dog waste, broken appliances, car parts, broken glass, beer cans, cigarette butts, etc. The inside of the house was even worse, there were holes kicked in the walls of every room, there were holes kicked in all of the interior doors. The door jams/frames were all broken, they even managed to kick holes in the vinyl shower insert in one of the bathrooms, the glass surround was broken. They left food in the unplugged fridge which was totally rotten and smelled so bad I couldn’t get the smell out and had to throw out the fridge. The carpet (which had all been new when she moved in) was torn, with cigarette burns, and had dog shit matted into it everywhere. The vinyl flooring in the kitchen was torn and had cigarette burns. Every screen was missing from the windows, several windows were broken, it was an absolute nightmare.At the time, I had a roommate living in my house, and he did had some miscellaneous construction-handyman skills. I was so demoralized, I couldn’t bring myself to go back over there after seeing it so trashed, so I traded him out rent to get rid off all the trash, junk vehicles, etc. and do some repairs. After he got things somewhat cleaned up, and the drywall repaired, I went back and painted the entire house, and re-rented it to some awesome folks who had lived there a few years previously.Meanwhile, I was still trying to sell it, but the real estate market had collapsed and it was worth half what I had paid for it. I was just trying to sell it for what I owed, cut my losses, and get out from under it. I got an offer from a couple who said they knew my former tenant, and because of that, they wanted to do a meth test on the house. Not knowing the can of worms that would open, I agreed, and surprise surprise, the test came back positive. I don’t know if she made meth in the house or just smoked it, which can also result in a positive test. Either way, I was totally screwed, the prospective buyers (who turned out to be predatory buyers) said they still wanted to buy it, but because of the cost of meth cleanup, they offered a fraction of what their first offer had been, which would have only just covered what I owed. I told them, sorry, but I’m not in a position to show up at closing with a check for $70K, and I decided I didn’t want to sell it to them anyway because I had renters in there and needed to figure out my options/responsibility.They got aggressive, threatened to report me for having a “meth house”, and went over me to the bank and tried to get my bank to force me to sell it to them. I explained the reality of the situation (meth contamination) to my bank, and that I had never been late on my mortgage, and it was my right to refuse to sell to them, they couldn’t force me, and the bank agreed, and told me that couple was known for doing this kind of thing with other properties.I wound up listing it on Craigslist, since no realtors wanted anything to do with it, understandably. Eventually, a really nice couple bought it as an investment property, since I had tenants in there who paid rent and who knew about the meth issue. I fully disclosed everything to the buyers, and worked out a short sale agreement with my bank to be able to sell it at loss and not have it totally destroy my credit, just partially, lol. My bank split the difference with me on what I owed, so I was still on the hook for $35k. The bank didn’t want to be owners of a meth-contaminated property either, and I since I had worked with them for years with my other rental properties, they were willing to work with me. It wasn’t a great deal for me, but far better than owing the full amount, and having to foreclose on my own residence. I had heard of other people who had gotten full mortgages forgiven during that time, but at least they worked with me that much, which helped a lot.I managed to sell one of the other two rentals I still owned, and while I didn’t make much on it, I was able to pay off what I owed the bank for the short sale of the nightmare rental, and pay for my first year of grad school. I still have one tiny rental, it’s maybe 400 square feet, and is a funky cute little house built out of stacked railroad ties. I’ve kept it mainly because I have a wonderful tenant who has been there for years, who loves living there and is super low maintenance, and takes care of the place like it’s her own. I’ve told her if she works on her credit and can qualify for a loan, I would be happy to sell it to her, she loves living there and would love to buy it if she could. The economy has since rebounded and rents are much higher than they used to be. I could charge more per month, but she is such a kind person, and so appreciative, that I keep it reasonable so she can continue to afford living there, rather than take a chance on an unknown renter who could pay more. In the last year, she was diagnosed with cancer and went through, and had to go on short-term disability for awhile when she couldn’t work because of COVID-19 and being immuno-compromised from treatment (she’s a manager at the local grocery store). She asked apologetically if she could possibly pay reduced rent until she was cleared to return to work, and promised she would catch up on rent as soon as she could go back to work, and that once she’d done so, she wanted to pay me $50 more per month in rent.She has kept her word, and is gradually repaying the rent she couldn’t pay while she was sick with cancer/treatment. She is the type of person who deserves kindness and understanding, and I was more than happy to work with her, because I was in a position to be able to so. She tells me that I have been an angel in her life, and often gets emotional and teary when I go over to mow the grass, because I was kind to her and didn’t make her leave when she was sick, and she’ll be forever grateful that I was kind to her when she was going through such a hard time in her life. In her way, she’s been an angel in my life too, and has reminded me that it’s still worthwhile to be a good person to others in their time of need. If she can buy it someday, that would be great, but if she moves out, I will sell it. She’s a wonderful tenant and person, but I have zero interest in being a landlord and taking the risk of having to deal with someone like the nightmare tenant I had in my other rental.

I’m digging through the top candidates’ climate plans. I’ve published on Warren’s, Biden’s and Yang’s, and I’ll be getting to Sanders’ and possibly Buttegieg’s given his improved polling recently.Harris’ plan is aggressive, well-balanced, with clear dates, targets and action items, and is aimed at building a coalition of alliesI can’t stress strongly enough that Harris’ plan is the most inclusive of other politicians and the least arrogant about being about her. The Harris plan references other politicians draft Acts, including her opponents’, far more than any other candidates, showing a view forward to coalition building that’s assumed by others. This is a statesmanlike effort that should be rewarded.Harris leans strongly into the social justice aspects of the Green New Deal in her plan. Jobs and good, well-paying, safe jobs for all people, are not only the first section of her plan but show up throughout it. The past decades have been challenging for many US workers as the economy has shifted, and more radical shifts are coming.Similar to Biden but with a different flavor, Harris addresses foreign policy. Unlike Yang and Warren who let it slip by, more than not, Harris is focused on re-asserting US leadership in this space, and is one of the few candidates who explicitly calls out her support for the $100 billion USD pledge that’s part of the Paris Accord. Further, she’s going to increase US assistance and engage other countries to lead. She’s less hawklike with China than Biden, but nonetheless it’s there. Pushing the China button works with the American public right now, especially as few know how much China is doing already to bend the arc of carbon emissions, or that China’s emissions grew less than the USA’s in 2018.Harris’ plan is weakest on the military. This is a major hole that needs to be filled.ContextAs a reminder, global warming has several large areas of causation. Electrical generation, transportation, land use and industry all have greenhouse gas emissions. The US military, which is seven times larger than the next seven largest military forces in the world combined, is estimated to be one of the single largest greenhouse gas sources in the world and has not been required to quantify its emissions, but has been pointing out the significant global security risks of climate change for over a decade. While dealing with the causes is critical, dealing with adaptation to the impacts is now important as well due to our delays in addressing this problem which has been clear since the 1970s. Finally, while accelerating drawdown of carbon from the atmosphere is of lower priority than stopping emitting greenhouse gases, any plan should address aspects of drawdown as well. These aspects of any plan need to be assessed to see if they are present and the approaches are reasonable.Table stakesThere are three things which virtually every Democratic candidate agrees with. The first is that they all accept the science of human-caused global warming and resulting climate impacts, and the need to act on this serious global issue. The second is a return to the Paris Accord, which Obama entered the US into and Trump walked away from. The third is support for the Green New Deal, at least in principle, but implementation varies quite a bit. And the Paris Accord portion means that US military emissions would finally be reported, so that they could be tracked and reductions measured.Electrical generationHarris makes a strong promise in an aggressive timeframe which is in line with the Green New Deal, the urgency of climate action per the UN IPCC 1.5 Degree report and what is possible.100 percent of our electricity demand with carbon-neutral power by 2030.She’s strong about how she intends to do this: extend the PTC and ITC tax credits for wind and solar past their 2020 and 2022 elimination and massive reduction respectively, using federal financing programs to fund additional ones and use the USDA to take over fossil fuel generation to allow it’s rapid sunsetting. She’s clear that both transmission and storage require investment as well, and through related mechanisms.In addition, there’s this:a green bank as outlined in Senator Markey’s National Climate BankThis is one of many places where Harris calls out other Democratic policies, establishing the ground work for alliances across the party in Congress to enable effective forward movement. Harris is strongest on this element, and generous with naming other authors of legislation, a positive sign.In addition, Harris’ plan commits to ending fossil fuel subsidies, and unlike many other plans, cites a number, the IMF $649 billion annually that includes negative externalities. Unlike Biden, she isn’t reiterating a promise made a decade ago and never delivered on.Kamala will leverage both executive authority and Congress to end federal support for the fossil fuel industry, including by protecting our public lands, eliminating tax preferences, and opposing new fossil fuel infrastructure projects.Her experiencing prosecuting polluters in California is something Harris’ plan leans into, with statements pointing to Superfund, EPA and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Harris and her team are clear about what departments and laws they will use to hold polluters accountable.Unlike Yang, for example, Harris isn’t as crisp on a carbon price, promising only to involve communities in developing one. This is a key strategy, and Yang’s approach of both pointing to an (ex-) Republican carbon fee and dividend program with specific cost-per-ton points is much stronger. This is an unusual space in Harris’ plan where she waffles.IndustryHarris’ price tag is a big one, second biggest among the leaders.$10 trillion of public and private spending over the next 10 years, creating millions of new, high-quality jobs.But note that she’s separating it between public and private spending. This is indicative of a governmental role in unlocking and matching private investment, not purely a governmental model. But the dollar figure is more aligned to the magnitude of the task. She’s less clear about where the money is going specifically, and where it’s coming from.And again, Harris calls out other Democratic legislation, including her direct competitors.ensure that corporations appropriately assess and disclose risks from climate change. This includes incorporating strategies like Senator Warren’s Climate Risk Disclosure ActRare, powerful and a great choice. There is drafted legislation that’s been tabled in many cases. Putting the Presidential weight and presumably the weight of one or both Houses behind existing drafts is much quicker and also much better bridge building.Harris’ plan references jobs 25 times. She’s focused on millions of new jobs, assisting fossil fuel industry workers to transition with her already drafted 21st Century SKILLS Act, and ensuring that the jobs are well-paying and have protections for workers. She leans into the Green New Deal focus on equity and safety for workers early and often in her plan.When I published an assessment of one of Warren’s plan on CleanTechnica, one of the comments that generated a lot of discussion is why jobs were important in Presidential climate plans or at all when the USA was facing unprecedentedly low unemployment.As I said in responses, some of it is a question of where the jobs are. Employment in urban areas is very high, but in rural areas it's often very low. And the types of jobs in rural areas are usually lower paying, so better paying jobs in rural areas is a vote winner.Secondarily, there is an expectation of a great loss of employment due to increasing automation and task-specific AI. Creating new good paying jobs to replace jobs that are disappearing is important, if you consider employment important. The coming decades are seeing 25% of current jobs disappearing.And more people are experiencing challenges with job security in the USA now too.There is a significant amount of both job anxiety and job displacement that will occur with or without the transition to a low-carbon economy, and a plan that ignores jobs is no plan at all.And once again, Harris calls out another Democratic piece of legislation to build upon.as we invest in our nation’s infrastructure, policies like Senator Gillibrand’s Build Local Hire Local Act will ensure that local communities benefit first from federal investment in infrastructure projects.As with Biden and others, she calls for the USA to commit to the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, but this is slipped into her foreign policy section. This is a major step, as it would commit the USA to replacing HFC refrigerants across multiple US sectors. It’s #1 on Project Drawdown’s cost-benefit-ranked list of action items, and deserves more attention.Unlike Biden and unlike her weakness on transportation, she has a fairly balanced plan to invest in R&D and skills. Naturally, she calls out another Democratic draft Act as the basis for action. She also calls out specific centers and key items on diversity, a long-running challenge in US STEM that has not taken advantage of the brilliance of women and people of color to the extent that the US should.Senator Heinrich’s Energy Technology Maturation Program Act, that would facilitate commercialization of federal laboratory-developed energy technologies […]enhance training programs for clean energy jobs and clean research efforts such as those at the University of Nevada – Reno’s Innevation Center.[…]STEM diversity legislation, including her Combatting Sexual Harassment in STEM Act and 21st Century STEM for Girls and Underrepresented Minorities Act. Additionally, Kamala has proposed a $60 billion plan to boost STEM at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority serving institutions.I can’t stress strongly enough that Harris’ plan is the most inclusive of other politicians and the least arrogant about her. This is a statesmanlike effort that should be rewarded. Although she’s unlikely to get the nomination, a VP role with a mandate on this front and much of her plan intact would make excellent sense, especially if the candidate were Sanders or Biden.TransportationAgain, Harris has an aggressive, but achievable target in this space.an accelerated model of Senator Merkley’s Zero-Emission Vehicles Act, we will ensure that 50 percent of all new passenger vehicles sold are zero-emission by 2030, and 100 percent are zero-emission by 2035.Once again, she calls out an existing proposal to build upon, calls out the specific changes she would make and is generous with her inclusion of the author.Having built and leveraged for multiple purposes a global electric vehicle penetration model, having observed the rapid growth in China and other countries, and having paid attention to the commitments being made by other leading countries, I know that these targets are aggressive but achievable. They would lead to almost all road transportation being carbon-neutral by 2050 with the lifespan of vehicles, but wouldn’t ban the use, merely eliminate internal combustion vehicles as new options, a sensible approach.Her approach falls short when it comes to shipping, aviation and rail. She calls for R&D and the establishment of targets for emissions reductions within two years of taking office. This is a place that requires much less R&D and much more deployment of known solutions against harder targets. Biden’s plan is stronger on this point, especially with his commitment to high-speed rail corridors on the east and west coast, although he likely overshoots with links across the USA.Farmers will see continued crop-to-fuel approaches, likely displacing ethanol but focussing instead on biologically sourced synthetic diesel and kerosene for the subsets of long-distance rail, shipping and aviation that can’t electrify.For context, Mark Z. Jacobson’s 100% Renewables by 2050 policy guidance foregoes biofuels for the small portion of transportation that can’t electrify, focussing instead on cleaner hydrogen paths.Our goal is to eliminate air pollution and all chemicals that cause warming. Combusted synfuels still produce black carbon, brown carbon, NOx, and other chemical air pollutants so are not an option in a clean, renewable energy future.— Mark Z. Jacobson (@mzjacobson) September 18, 2019This is a place I’ve been open to the potential for hydrogen, but haven’t seen strong evidence that it’s a viable replacement for biofuels. With existing, lower-carbon, low-cost biofuels already in existence, I can strongly see a case for elimination of fossil fuels for heavy transport in the short term with biofuels and all capital replacements shifting to electric or hydrogen as a reasonable approach. There are few places I disagree with Jacobson’s proposed mixes, the potential for residential solar being the primary one, but I’m open to the potential for biofuels and don’t think that hydrogen has proven itself to be the most viable or fastest pathway to reduction.Kamala isn’t fully silent, but leaves the bigger push around at least one major transportation sector, aviation, for the foreign policy pillar of her plan.Kamala will commit the U.S. to implement the system established by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to decarbonize aviation, called CORSIA, and will work with the American airline industry to reduce airline emissions consistent with the long-term goal of carbon neutrality.Land UseHarris’ plan focuses on America’s farmers and the world’s but isn’t as strong as as many of her other targets, or as strong as Warren’s in terms of specific paths to achieving outcomes.U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will support every farm in America to fully implement science-based agricultural conservation practices by 2040But the plan does talk about food, fibre, fuel and conservation services that farms provide, while being much quieter about specific programs than Warren’s clearer plan. This is another place in addition to SEC climate risk policies where Warren’s plan is stronger, but unlike that case, Harris doesn’t call it out or learn from it, at least not yet.Like Warren and Biden, Harris also focuses on public lands, but she goes further they do. While both would eliminate new fossil fuel extraction leases and promote renewables, Harris commits to ending existing leases. Given the overabundance of fossil fuel reserves and the climate requirement that most of them need to stay in the ground, this is eminently sensible. Public lands should not be exploited for climate destruction.Once again, Harris has legislation in hand for protecting lands, with three bills targeted at protection of over a million acres of California. And once again, it’s with an ally.U.S. Senator Kamala D. Harris (D-CA) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on Wednesday introduced a package of legislation to restore and expand protections for California’s public lands.Unlike other plans, Harris is explicit in having the USA ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity, a key international agreement that would provide support for US lands achieve better diversity, and engage the USA in international efforts more strongly. Perhaps understandably, Harris’ plan has this is in the foreign affairs pillar, but it has US land use implications as well.And once again, Harris’ plan has targets and dates, where other plans often waffle on targets or defer dates a long time, as Biden does.She will protect 30 percent of all of our nation’s land and ocean by 2030.And in addition to calling out the Antiquities Act as a path, Harris yet again calls out existing draft legislation by other Democratic politicians.Kamala will support legislation that protects the health and function of our ecosystems like Senator Udall’s Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act and Senator Hirono’s Botanical Sciences Act.The only way Harris’ attention to the good work of other politicians could be improved is if she could call out Republican politicians’ efforts to build upon, but of course, right now positive actions by Republicans even in draft are hard to identify. This is a case where Yang’s specific call outs to bi-partisan value propositions that appeal to Independent voters comes into relief for the unique strategy it is.The MilitaryOn this front, Harris’ plan disappoints, perhaps reasonably given her lack of military background and focus on California state activities until recently.As President, Kamala will appoint a new Defense Climate Advisor to coordinate and oversee projects and strategies across the DoD to ensure that our military is prepared for the new challenges climate change will present. She will also ensure that DoD is a leader in reducing emissions and adopting technologies that neutralize its carbon footprint while enabling it to be more nimble and resilient.No acknowledgment of the massive carbon footprint, the role the military plays in defending up the strategic interests of global oil production and distribution — witness the responses to the recent Saudi drone strikes by rebels — or the outsized military budget often related to the global oil industry. This is a case where boldness would have served Harris better.Even a reference to and commitment to reporting US military emissions as part of the Paris Accord would have been something.This portion of Harris’ plan is by far the weakest, but it might be a case of being the better part of valor and a strategic choice for silence. But no plan can be adequate without addressing the US military more strongly than this.Note: my personal policy is to block and mute climate change deniers. Yours should be too.Reading:A Climate Plan For the People | Kamala HarrisBiden's Climate Plan Is Designed To Appeal To Independents Who Don't Think Climate Change Is SeriousYang Would Spend $3 Trillion On Residential Solar, But The Same Money Could Decarbonize The Grid EntirelyWarren’s Climate Plan: Solid, But Sophisticated & Hard To Sell To VotersUS Subsidizes Fossil Fuels To The Tune Of $4.6, $27.4, Or $649 Billion Annually, Depending On SourceEVs Could Cut Global Gasoline Use By 2040Hydrogen Might Fulfill 3–4% of Total Transportation Fuel NeedsSmall-town U.S.A. falls further behind urban America in job opportunities after recessionIf your job is 'boring and repetitive' watch out: You run the risk of being replaced by robotsAmerican job security is eroding, according to trends at nation's top-10 employersHarris, Feinstein Propose New Protections for Over 1 Million Acres of Land in California | U.S. Senator Kamala Harris of CaliforniaChina Is Doing A Lot Better On Climate Action Than Most People RealizeRefrigerant Management | Drawdown