Jill Stein’s platform isn’t worth your vote

“Crooked.” “Idiot.” “Liar.” “Grab them by the pussy.” These compelling phrases have dominated the intellectual rhetoric of the 2016 election season.

As profoundly as this debate eloquence and the ringing endorsements of the “lesser of two evils” may inspire you, we are not simply dealing with the lesser of two evils, but four.

Because it could deter votes from one of the two primary candidates and risk victory for the other, some people have been making the argument that a third party vote is a privileged vote. Young, white, socialists despise Republican candidate Donald Trump and deplore Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, so they plan to vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. These young people have been described as privileged because, generally, their demographic has nothing to lose if they toss their votes to a candidate who can’t conceivably win.

If an individual chooses to vote for the candidate whose ideals align most closely with their own, then a third party is not a protest or a privileged vote, but a choice. In this particular election, however, it’s a poor choice. Somehow, our third party candidates are less adept to run the country than our primary ones.

The predominant third party alternatives are Gary Johnson — the hot-tempered libertarian who gained notoriety from his inability to identify Aleppo, Syria — and Jill Stein — the radical, conspiracy-theory-loving Green Party candidate.

I don’t think it necessary to explain why Johnson — a man who responds to earnest questions with his tongue hanging out of his mouth and remains incapable of naming a single global leader — is unfit to run the country. But, while Stein’s indiscretions are slightly less glaring, they make her a far more unsettling contender for POTUS.

As a Green Party candidate, the bulk of Stein’s policies are centered on the climate change crisis and public health issues. The main objective of her “Green New Deal” is to end the use of all non-renewable resources by 2030.

In an August interview with the Washington Post, Stein said, “We need an emergency wartime-scale mobilization to create 100 percent clean renewable energy by 2030.” Not only is this a dangerous escalation, but, following this proclamation, Stein was unable to explain how she would accomplish such a feat in a government incapable of agreeing to a low, revenue-neutral carbon tax, let alone a full-scale reversal on energy tactics.

Even if we had an affordable renewable energy source to meet the demands of the American population in such a short period, or a Congress that wasn’t so divided on the severity of climate change, the plan would remain logistically infeasible.

Undergoing a complete energy transition in a matter of 13 years would put tremendous pressure on the 14.5 percent of Americans living below the poverty line who can’t afford renewables at their current price and accessibility.

It would leave the 9.8 million Americans that work for the petroleum industry, not to mention hundreds of thousands of coal-workers, jobless in the matter of a decade. Eventually solar and wind energy will catch up to the employment levels non-renewables currently hold, but jobs still won’t materialize at a fast enough rate to compensate for the petroleum industry’s loss.

Implementation of renewables is far more contingent upon a specialized workforce. It will require engineers, installers, manufacturers, researchers and planners, financiers, real estate agents and law and software developers. A period of 13 years won’t give people the money — or time to earn it — they’ll need in order to gain the education required of such a competitive industry.

In order to facilitate this transition, Stein proposes a 55 to 60 percent tax on non-renewable sources. A tax that high would give renewable energy a great competitive edge, but, once again, such an inflated, fast-paced tax would only work to create a negative externality. Non-renewables will become inequitable to millions of Americans before renewables have the chance to reach an equilibrium of supply and demand that could reduce costs.

The transition to renewable energy needs to happen gradually, as it would weaken the entire country if we approached the subject as hastily as Stein has suggested. In her own defense, she has cited multiple scientists who have projected a similar transition to renewables taking place over a period decades longer than Stein has proposed.

What Stein fails to acknowledge is a transition to renewable energy is not a transition away from capitalism, merely a capitalization of more environmentally sustainable resources. It will not eliminate the competition, monopolies or economic unviability characteristic of the current energy industry.

Stein has candidly decried the genetic engineering industry and, if elected, intends to place a moratorium on all genetically modified organisms — GMOs — and pesticides until they are “proven safe.” The World Health Organization, American Medical Association, National Academy of Sciences, and American Association for the Advancement of Science, along with hundreds of studies, have all stated that there’s insufficient evidence to imply that GMOs are dangerous to human health. And apparently, Stein has disregarded the heightened photosynthesis and self-fertilizing crops that allow higher food growth at a faster rate. These crops will help feed the 80 percent of global population that lives on less than $2.50 per day — a supposed goal of hers, despite her hostility to our only substantial means of doing so at the moment.

Further, Stein has addressed concern over allegations that she’s anti-vaccination by claiming that Monsanto — an inarguably deplorable agrochemical company — is forcing the FDA to convince the public that the validity of GMOs, vaccination and pesticides should not be challenged. Stein has repeatedly indulged constituents that approach her with conspiracy theories, and, by insinuating that Monsanto has infiltrated the federal government, managed to use a slightly more reasonable conspiracy theory in order to refute a different conspiracy theory.

Stein supporters have argued that these concerns are made-up, that in order to criticize her you must draw on a series of isolated events that are insufficient to define her. But Clinton’s tendency to change her position makes her a liar and Trump’s plethora of sexual assault accusations generate a predator label. I’m not arguing against either of these designations because I agree with them, but isolated incidents add up, and Stein has displayed far too many shortcomings for me to argue against her dismissal as just another “joke” of a third party candidate.

Under different circumstances I would never attack someone’s decision to vote third party, but this election is too important to squander votes on candidates that are hardly better than Trump or Clinton.

The United States does need a powerful third party and a strong third party candidate, but Stein is not it.

Jaime Viens primarily writes about social and environmental issues for The Pitt News. Write to her at jrv28@pitt.edu.