young people abandon our Party.

climate change isn't going to wait for incremental change.

Wealth and income inequality is very bad right now. It won't last one way or another. Options are peaceful change or not-so-peaceful change.

Relates to climate change because many well-off people think they can just ride out any climate changes and they don't care about species extinction nor do they have a clue how inter-related the ecosystem is.

We need to save the planet and save our democracy. Saving the planet is paramount. Saving our democracy gains importance because our current Trumpian authoritarianism is an impediment to saving a habitable planet.

If we are able to save our democracy, it will have to be transformed into a democratic system that is compatible with sane environmental policies.

I've felt for the past couple of years with each new study a growing sense that if we don't put this on the right track immediately, no other issues much matter... who gives a shit if you prefer medicare for all or a public option if the planet is fucking burning and widespread natural disasters, famine and mass migration become increasingly the global reality....?

for a long time. The current system is outdated, it needs to help the average citizen not the one percent or cater to corporations. It’s our government we need it to reflect that.

I agree about the pressing nature of climate change (which represents only one ecological/planetary boundary that we're overshooting). And I'm considering Warren for the primaries, largely because of what appears to be a sincere commitment to a more egalitarian political economy. That would be the right thing in any circumstances, but it also has implications for climate change. From Thomas Piketty's blog:

However, it is increasingly clear that the resolution of the climate challenge will not be possible without a strong movement in the direction of the compression of social inequalities at all levels. With the present magnitude of inequality, the advance towards austerity of energy will be wishful thinking. In the first instance because carbon emissions are strongly concentrated amongst the rich. At world level, the richest 10% are responsible for almost half the emissions and the top 1% alone emit more carbon than the poorest half of the planet. A drastic reduction in purchasing power of the richest would therefore in itself have a substantial impact on the reduction of emissions at global level.

That said, Warren doesn't go far enough. The kind of policies she (and Bernie Sanders) are suggesting are probably the best we can hope for in today's political climate, but her faith in capitalism is a problem. Honestly, I don't think there's a lot of reason for optimism with respect to climate change (and other planetary boundaries), but unless we move beyond capitalism and significantly reduce the role of markets in society, there is no hope at all - none whatsoever - of establishing an ecologically sustainable economy. Warren would be a step in a better direction, and she might get my vote in the primary (and certainly will in the general, if she's the nominee), but the changes that are ultimately necessary aren't things that she is offering.

I've found a lot of useful information in his body of work.

Hers is economics..

I was so excited when he got a bump from his appearance on Rachel. And so depressed when he didn't get bumps from the debates.