For those who are unfamiliar with Andrew Yang, he is a 44-year-old former corporate lawyer turned serial entrepreneur who founded a company called Venture for America, a non-profit founded to help beginner entrepreneur start and grow their businesses and companies in cities all over the country. However, starting on November 6, 2017, Andrew Yang has been running for President under the Democratic party with his flagship proposal The Freedom Dividend which is a form of Universal Basic Income of $1,000 a month for every American citizen over the age of 18 who is not incarcerated.

At CNN’s Climate Town Hall on September 4th though, he and 9 other candidates running for president shared their ideas for how we can tackle perhaps one of the greatest problems facing humanity as a species.

The full video will be linked at the end of the article. Let’s see how Yang performed.

Q: What Is The First Thing You Would Do To Combat The Climate Crisis?

“Well, the first thing I would do is rejoin the Paris Accords.”

Andrew Yang first and foremost mentions getting back into the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement, a coalition of world governments and the United Nations to commit to benchmarks aimed towards combating climate change.

Following this, Andrew Yang said that he would update the countries economic benchmarks to include things like environmental sustainability, clean air and water, childhood health, health and life expectancy, mental health and freedom from substance abuse. This stance is a reflection of a policy proposal of his called Improving the American Scorecard, which is an upgrade from the, in Yang’s words, outdated and poorly constructed GDP measurement.

Andrew Yang argues that updating this measurement will go a long way towards allowing the American economy and the government to better track things such as carbon footprints and tangible impacts that we have on the environment and work towards reducing that impact as much as possible; to our benefit.

Audience Q: Is Retreating From Areas Vulnerable To Climate Change A Viable Option For New York?

“This is not a You problem, this is an Us problem.”

This was a pretty meaty audience question, but the basis of the question boiled down to whether or not evacuation from vulnerable areas was a viable option, and whether or not funds would be available for adaptation and relocation.

Andrew Yang first talks about how he’s been to homes that flood on a much more regular basis than those in the neighborhood that the audience member mentioned, 26 times a year; priming the audience to think about just how drastic of a problem this is in some areas.

Andrew Yang then goes on to explain that the funds to do so are already available, citing that we already subsidize the fossil fuel industry to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and that we can very well use that same money to the betterment of the American people.

Q: Would You Eliminate Some Subsidies For Fossil Fuels Or All Subsidies?

“I’d get rid of them all!”

After a healthy round of applause from that simple and direct response, Yang goes on to explain that part of the money that Fossil Fuel has been receiving from the government has been spent on misinformation campaigns and that they’ve more or less taken control of the legislature with the Fossil Fuel Lobbying Industry that spends 10s of thousands of dollars a year.

Yang then goes on to say that after running for almost 2 years he’s learned an uncomfortable truth in our society, that there are people on one side and money on the other. Yang plans to bring these two separate entities together with what he calls Democracy Dollars, something that was also pitched by former running opponent Kirsten Gillibrand, with the difference being that Yang proposes $100, while Gillibrand proposed $600. The idea behind this is that each citizen would be alotted a short line of credit to spend on any politician that calendar year; use it or lose it. This then creates an incentive for politicians to go to the people for votes and money instead of corporate interest groups and rich people. If Andrew Yang or anyone else needs money for their campaign, he can appeal to 5,000 voters and he’s got half a million dollars right there.

Andrew Yang claims that this will wash out corporate money by a factor of 8 to 1, and will effectively kill the stranglehold that the Fossil Fuel industry has on our lawmakers.

Audience Q: Do You Agree That The President Has The Constitutional Obligation To End Support Of A Fossil Fuel Energy System?

“I propose a constitutional amendment that makes it the responsibility of the United States government to safeguard and protect our environment for future generations.”

Andrew Yang first responds to this question by reaffirming that he plans on ending all fossil fuel subsidies and continues by taking it a step further and proposing a constitutional amendment to protect the environment.

Yang falls in to explain his 5 point plan, referencing an accumulative proposal addressing climate change; It’s Worse Than You Think. He then goes on to lay down a hard fact that America is only about 15% of global carbon emissions, so even if we went 100% renewable and green energy, we still would not have a very large impact when compared to the rest of the world. He talks about how the Chinese are going to African countries and with proposals for cheap fossil fuel plants to generate power, creating a need for the US to go into these developing countries and provide green energy as a viable alternative. Then he re-ups his argument about moving people to higher ground and explains that his Freedom Dividend proposal gives poor people who are most affected by natural disasters the resources to move and to protect themselves. Finally, Yang talks about how we also have to take action to fix the damage that has already been done. He mentions that we have to take action to replant trees, seed the oceans, and rebuild the ecosystems that we have been harming over the past few decades.

Q: Would You Ban All Fossil Fuel Exports From The United States?

“I think we have to stop subsidizing the industry, but I don’t think that includes banning exports.”

Andrew Yang explains that, as long as there is a healthy and competitive market for fossil fuels, and while we should continue to move in the direction of a Green Economy, there is no reason to ban the export or international sale of fossil fuels.

Q: Are You In Favor Of A Carbon-Free America?

“I’m in favor of a Carbon-Free American, and my plan has us getting there in the next 30 years.”

This is a quick answer, pretty much the entire quote is the answer, but the plan he is referring to is his accumulative proposal on Climate Change which can be viewed again here.

Q: Do You Support ACarbon-Tax?

“I do support a Carbon-Tax — If you went to my website Wolff, you’d know this.”

First, Andrew Yang addresses the question, then takes the opportunity to poke fun at the Moderator Wolf Blitzer a little bit, and give his website a shout out. He first goes on to explain why having one is necessary, to hold companies responsible for their pollution, and then goes on to explain that he plans on starting the tax at $40 a ton, with an increase to $100 a ton with time allowed between the two to adjust to the tax as part of his Carbon Fee and Dividend proposal.

Yang explains that you can’t simply tell companies to do the right thing when there is no incentive for them to do so according to their bottom line. Much like with a rowdy child, if you put punishments in place, the behavior changes.

Q: How Do You Envision A “Managed Retreat” For Millions Of People In Miami Or Charleston?

“Most Americans like where they live. Most Americans do not have a strong inclination to leave, even in the wake of a natural disaster.”

Andrew Yang proposed a 2 point plan. First and foremost, we should invest in making communities that are most likely to be severely affected by natural disasters more resilient. It won’t work everywhere, but it will work in most, and the idea is investing say 1 billion dollars into an area to avoid 5 or 10 billion dollars in damage costs.

Yang’s second point was that we need to work on rebuilding institutional trust in the government. Yang claims that roughly 70% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, and about half can’t afford an unexpected $500 bill. So when the government comes knocking at their door before a natural disaster hits, and tells them that they have their best interests at heart, the likelihood that they’ll belive them is incredibly low.

Yang then wraps the conversation back around to his Freedom Dividend, claiming that it helps to take the economic boot off peoples throats, allowing them the bandwidth to focus on things like climate change and that it restores public faith in institutions. Whether or not this would be the reality of Yang’s proposal or not remains to be seen, but the logic does seem to hold water.

Audience Q: Can You Quantify The Reduction In CO2 Attainable From The Geoengineering Strategies You Propose?

“The earth is likely getting warmer around us, and even as we’re attacking emissions, we need to start researching innovative methods to address climate change.”

Andrew Yang first addresses the audience members question by clarifying that Geoengineering is not a primary strategy of his campaign, saying that it is a small fraction of his proposed spending budget.

When it comes to geoengineering itself, Yang asks us to think big picture. He paints a picture of a country like China, 25 years from now, who is today and most likely will be experiencing the brunt of climate change, and could take drastic measures like spraying sulfur dioxide into the air without care of how it could affect other countries. He proposes the idea of the US leading a Geoengineering summit with other countries, helping to ensure that they are all working together towards a mutually beneficial path forward, and helps to prevent rogue agents from going off and doing something potentially disastrous.

Yang closes his response by stating that, while geoengineering is not his primary approach, it is something that we have to explore if the summer months continue to get hotter and hotter, as they have been.

Q: Why divert money to unproven and potentially risky ideas when wind and solar power are clean and effective?

“We are here, Wolf, together because we know this is a crisis; and in a crisis, all solutions have to be on the table.”

Andrew Yang addresses this question in a very straight forward manner, arguing that when in times of crisis when you approach a problem from one side, you should be researching alternative ways of addressing this problem on the other. Yang argues that this is responsible leadership; knowing about multiple ways to fix a problem is just a smart move.

Q: Are All Americans Going To Have To Drive Electric Cars?

“Well electric cars- it’s not something you HAVE to do. It’s awesome!”

Andrew Yang has a bit of fun with this question, joking with the audience and getting some pretty hearty laughs out of them. He additionally, jokingly, clarifies that he’s not talking positively about electric cars because of Elon Musk voicing his support for Yang.

Yang, however, does eventually answer the question more directly, stating that there will most likely still be legacy cars on the road that still use gas. However, Yang proposes a buyback program to help Americans upgrade to electric vehicles if they wish to do so.

Audience Q: What Is Your Plan To Protect Farming Communities While Addressing Climate Change.

“We need to help farmers modernize their land use in terms of the environmental impact.”

I found this to be a very interesting question, and Andrew Yang’s response was equally as interesting.

When it comes to farming specifically, the majority of emissions come from large machinery, which is most commonly and most abundantly used by massive mega-farms owned and operated by large corporations.

Yang proposes that the vision of a beautiful family farm is these days farm more sparse when compared to the reality of mega-farms, and the equipment that goes along with them. As a result, he argues that creating incentives to farm sustainably, that family farms and businesses can be possible. He proposes that incentivizing a farm to table dining program would be one such approach to solving this problem and that most Americans would prefer to pay for a locally sourced food and produce as opposed to mega-farm products.

In a sense, Yang is arguing on the same beat of changing the incentives towards sustainability, and eco-friendly production as a protection measure.

Q: Should Americans Eat Less Beef?

“I think it would be healthy on both an individual and a societal level to move in that direction. But-”

In response to this question, Andrew Yang first and foremost reiterates that meet is an incredibly expensive thing to produce from an environmental standpoint, and explains that he believes it is better to eat less meat. He continues to explain though that it’s not practical to tell people what to eat, and that the best way to move in that kind of a direction is to change the incentives and do it slowly over time.

Q: What Are Your Thoughts On The Green New Deal

“I love the vision of the Green New Deal!”

Andrew Yang begins by saying that he loves the vision and complements the framer’s ability to galvanize so many people around the vision that it puts forward, but his biggest problem is with the timeline.

Yang argues that because of the shorter time frame, a lot more drastic actions have to be taken to meet the goal. He mentions that it would do away with air travel for example in a particular time frame and that with a longer time table you’d be able to achieve roughly the same result.

As a side note, in the hours following Yang’s appearance at the Town Hall, he has received criticism for his verbiage around air travel concerning the Green New Deal. Many have argued that this is a negative talking point, one aimed specifically at devaluing the tangibility of the Green New Deal. Claims were levied against the Green New Deal that it was trying to ban air travel, which is simply not true as detailed in the text of the document. It is, however, true that an FAQ draft did include the language

“Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build-out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with the goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle”

Alluding to the idea that as light rails advance and become more commonplace, air travel would become less and less necessary, and thus could be scaled back to lower CO2 emissions.

It is this specific method of phasing that Andrew Yang was speaking towards, not banning air travel.

Q: Should The Federal Government Have A Say In Which Lightbulbs Americans Use?

“If we do have a say, we need light bulbs that don’t burn out.”

Andrew Yang first mentions that lightbulbs are intentionally designed to burn out, creating an industry to replace them and that it’s bad for the earth. Beyond that, he says that we should be pushing for legislation that extends the life of lightbulbs so that they have to be replaced less often.

Audience Q: Why Should The United States Lead In Making A Transition To A Clean, Healthy 21st Century Economy?

“If we lead on this, we can move people in the right direction very quickly.”

Andrew Yang is pitched the question about why the US should be the first one to come to the table on a Green Economy, and his argument is that because the US plays such a vital role in international consensus, that if we act first, others will follow.

He goes on to explain that he believes that China, traditionally competing with the US both economically and as a world power, would be on board because they are seeing some of the worst effects of climate change.

Switching to the topic of workers specifically, he brings up the fact that transitioning to this kind of an economy would create hundreds of thousands of job opportunities in things like solar panel installers, especially on small business and local community level. Yang argues that that is exactly the kind of job creation opportunity, on the local and small business level, that the US should implement on a national scale.

Q: How Can You Ensure U.S. Efforts To Cut Emissions Won’t Be In Vain If Pollution From China And India Rise?

“The only issue I have with the Paris Climate Accord is that they didn’t go far ENOUGH.”

Andrew Yang doubles down on his claim that there needs to be a stronger global initiative to combat climate change, claiming that the enforcement efforts were not strong enough.

Following this, Yang again doubles back to his Carbon Fee policy and proposes expanding that to US companies located outside of the US or over time become trading partners, it creates more sophisticated standards for both American companies and gives incentive for other countries to adopt similar standards.

Q: Would Universal Basic Income Be Enough To Help Fossil Fuel Industry Workers Who Would Be Put Out Of Work?

“$1,000 a month is a game-changer for 10s of millions of American families.”

Andrew Yang affirms that his proposal, the Freedom Dividend, is not enough to replace a working income. However, if you have a two-person household, two adults, that’s $24,000 a year, which is enough to provide people with that safety net that gives them plans for the future. Go back to school, move, start a new business, take care of yourselves, make your family more resilient, these all become much more viable and realistic options if and when people lose their jobs due to things like shifting fuel economies or the advancement of automation.

Yang poses the question to the audience about what the alternative is. If more jobs like those mentioned before replace, and the workers can’t retain into those jobs, or automation takes more and more jobs, what will be left for American to do to support themselves and feel part of the process?

Audience Q: What Is Your Plan To Regulate Toxic Chemicals That Go Into Products Used By Americans?

“You know what’s expensive? Poisoning our kids.”

Andrew Yang brings up the concern that he and many other parents around the country have in regards to certain toys and products that children use. “Is this safe?” and he continues to mention Flint Michigan, where the citizens learned that their water was toxic after the fact.

Yang takes a hard stance, declaring clean drinking water as a fundamental human right, and that no American should be stressed out asking themselves if the water they and their children are drinking is safe or not. It is once again where he reiterates his idea that there is a separation between people and money and that the fact that the claim that replacing old and dangerous pipes is expensive.

Q: What Would You Do With Nuclear Power Plants?

“Our society consumes a great deal of energy.”

Similar to the question about why he Andrew Yang is interested in investing in things like Solar Mirrors and Ocean Seeding, he talks about how Nuclear Energy needs to be an option during the transition towards a Green Economy. As it stands, nuclear energy gets a bad wrap because the methods we use are outdated, get a bad wrap from the media, and are more prone to human error.

Yang mentions that a new generation of reactors in the works, using a substance called Thorium instead of Uranium, which is itself not natively radioactive, thus decreasing the chance of disaster; also, Yang states that it’s easier to dispose of and that it generates more energy.

While Yang argues that upgrading to these types of plants is a beneficial idea, getting rid of the existing nuclear power plants, in the meantime, is not the right move.

Q: Would You Ban All Offshore Oil Drilling?

“Yes I would.”

Cue a solid 10 seconds of applause.

Audience Q: How Will You Work With Businesses To Create Incentives To Drive Progress On Climate Change?

“I’m happy to say that American buisness is waking up.”

Andrew Yang begins by mentioning that a recent business round table leads by Jamie Dimon, current CEO of JPMorgan Chase, announced that they need to have a broader view of their economic value, not just in shareholder value, and include stakeholder value; including their impact on the environment.

In a more direct response, he again doubles back to his Carbon Fee proposal, saying that would go a long way to create an incentive for companies. Yang also includes that by making economic impact part of the measurements of the economy, then each company has to report on those, and that changes their behavior; you aim towards what you measure.

Audience Q: What Will You Do About The Role Of The Military In Contributing To Climate Change?

“We have to take some of that 750 billion dollars and channel it towards our infrastructure.”

One of Andrew Yang’s proposals is to Modernize Military Spending, and in response to this question, he mentions drawing from some of the massive budgets of that we spend on the military every year and use some of that money towards helping to transition us into a Green Economy.

Yang argues that by doing so, we would effectively be creating a good out of what is currently a huge net negative as far as our emissions output is concerned.

Q: What’s The Biggest Sacrifice You Would Ask Americans To Make To Help Solve The Climate Crisis?

“Think bigger about the changes we can make collectivly.”

Andrew Yang’s closing question was perhaps the most poignant. He argues that we need to give up less in our daily lives, to stop thinking that our tiny little micro-actions can have any sort of effect on in the scope of a 20 trillion dollar economy.

Instead, Yang asks every single American to think about what we, as a society, can do collectively. This is not a you problem, this is an us problem.