Obama Won't Touch Climate With a 10-Foot Pole

[xchrom]

http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/02/obama-avoiding-climate-change

In his State of the Union address on January 24, President Obama largely avoided the topic of climate change. He talked about it once, in passing, as a topic on which "the differences in this chamber may be too deep" to enact new legislation. Its less-controversial cousin, "energy," on the other hand, got a whopping 23 mentions as an area where Republicans and Democrats should be able to find agreement.

It became clear well before that address that the president and his administration don't think that climate change is an issue that will carry them to a second term. In his public events following the speech, he's also focused on clean energy while avoiding the other "c" word.

But there are several reasons that Obama won't be able to avoid talking about climate change for too long—and well he shouldn't. The first is the ongoing battle over the Keystone XL pipeline. The proposed 1,661-mile pipeline from Canada to Texas probably would have been approved to little fanfare if environmental groups hadn't waged a lengthy campaign asking the White House to reject it. Similar pipelines hadn't faced much backlash, but this one drew ire from climate-change activists who called attention to the increased emissions stemming from oil from Canada's tar sands, and from local residents in the pipeline's proposed pathway. During two weeks of sit-ins in late August, more than 1,200 people were arrested outside the White House protesting the pipeline. Activists also held a massive rally on November 6 that ended with thousands encircling the White House.

Obama first sought to avoid the Keystone controversy by putting off a decision until after the election. But Republicans in Congress forced his hand, inserting a provision into a December tax bill that required the administration to decide by Feb. 21. And decide he did—to reject the permit application for the time being. While Republicans forced the definite answer, it was environmental groups that made him to say "no." This, they argue, should be an indication that climate is an important issue for Obama's base and one they'll turn out on.

[TheWraith]

1. Oh, bullshit.

Since people seem to have forgotten, he brought up cap and trade a couple years ago and Congress refused to pass it even with Democratic super-majorities. Bringing it up again with a Republican House would be an exercise in futility, so the only way forward is to win elections and return control of Congress to Democrats.

[Lionessa]

2. Thank you for reminding me he couldn't even lead his own super majority when

he had one. And yet he's supposedly such a great pres. ::eyeroll::

[Scootaloo]

4. 'Cause the president can force the legislature to do stuff!

I don't think you know how this works. The president has no power over the legislature. he can TRY to get them to do stuff, but they are under no obligation to do so. And - get this - the bribery from the oil industry is more effective at getting stuff done than disapproving statements from the president.

But no matter what, it's going to be the president's fault, right? What an amazing double standard.

[FarLeftFist]

5. So he's not a great president because he's unable to pry people of their own free-will?

I thought we had a representative democracy and not a dictatorship.

[GeorgeGist]

3. Since Frank Lutz re-framed the debate as Climate Change ...

it doesn't sound so bad.