Obama's Hopelessly Wrong on the Environment -- Here's the Reality of What We Face

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/environment/state-environment




Are there any self-respecting environmental organizations out there that are still behind President Obama? After his State of the Union on Tuesday it's hard to imagine there could be. In his address, Obama proudly declared, "The 'all the above' energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working, and today America is closer to energy independence than we have been in decades."

Based what we know from the most recent climate science, Obama’s "all-of-the-above" energy policy is actually suicidal. To say that we’re approaching a dangerous precipice would be too optimistic or simply unrealistic. For a decade we were peering over the edge, but now we’re falling—how long and how hard depends on what we do this year and in the next few years.

The biggest reason for our desperate situation is our failure to address climate change. Obama acknowledges that the problem is real, but his approach to energy issues veers from reality. The more science we understand, the worse the picture looks: ice sheets and glaciers are being depleted and are retreating at faster rates than we first thought; ocean acificiation is on the rise; the last 30 years were the warmest in the last 1,400 years.

Scientists told us we needed to drop emissions of greenhouse gases drastically to avoid raising global temperatures above 2 degrees Celsius, but it’s looking like we’ll hit that level of warming in 30 years, if not sooner. Some new research says even this threshold is too high; that we need more aggressive plans for low-carbon economies—and quickly.

[rosesaylavee]

1. I was very disappointed

and I want very badly to support the President.

Fracking threatens everything. Water, land, air. Why is this even under consideration?

[RufusTFirefly]

2. As long as rich people feel there is money to be made and places to flee

... they'll keep putting the rest of our land, our people, and our planet in danger.
Of course, once they realize that even they can't escape, it will be too late

[pscot]

3. There's no profit

for the President's bankers in climate change.

[kristopher]

4. What would you do?

Specific policies that, as president, you can implement.

[pscot]

5. Talk about it as though it were a big deal?

It's a far more significant threat than Al Quaida. What prevents him from saying so?

[kristopher]

6. That's evading the question.

He has talked about it - and it accomplished nothing.
This thread is obviously directed at policy initiatives and disappointment with what he is Doing - so I ask again, you or any other critic on this point ->

What would you do?

[pscot]

7. Publicly embrace James Hansen

Point out that Coal is killing us.

Promise to do everything in his very considerable power to thwart projects like KestoneXL and the West Coast coal ports.

Announce support for European controls on jet liner emissions.

Bring some people with serious environmental credibility into the Whitehouse.

Meet with Congressional leaders like Henry Waxman and other members of the environmental caucus.

Explain why it took him 5 years to put the goddamned solar panels back on the Whitehouse roof.

[kristopher]

9. IOW engage in what would be labeled in this thread as cosmetic and meaningless posturing.

That's what I thought.

From what I can see Obama has done virtually everything possible to effect change. I do have one major criticism though, I think he should have tackled energy first. If you notice the opposition to health care reform was spearheaded by the Kochs' oil money. I believe his presidency would have been far more effective overall, and on energy specifically, if he'd made it his first priority to decarbonize the economy. He could have built support on the jobs, energy security and economic fronts.

But hey, keep spreading dissatisfaction with well intentioned leaders and let me know how well that works to enhance our chances of dealing with climate and energy going forward.

[pscot]

13. Everything possible?

The road to hell is paved, they say, with good intentions. All the good intentions in the world aren't going to save us from the problems caused by CO2 loading. I share your misgivings about leading with health care reform, but opposition would have coalesced around something else anyway. The Koch's are evangelists for the ideas of John Birch. ACA provide a focus, but I think energy reform would have been even more fruitful. As for our chances of dealing with climate and energy, what you see is what you get. Our current "effort", such as it is, is as scattered as the sunlight. The Presidency is a lense that can bring focus and amplification to any difuse, hard to grasp issue. Sadly, and to our great loss, it has been used very sparingly on the climate front. It's application to energy has been mainly to promote fracking, offshore drilling and destuctive exploitation of public lands. The suggestion that Obama has done all he could isn't born out by the record.

[kristopher]

14. If that is what you think his record consists of, you are completely uninformed.

I'll save that for another time, though. For now I ask for the third time - what specific policies should he implement given the fact that he is limited to actions authorized by his executive authority?

If you are going to criticize, perhaps you should know what it is you are being critical of.

[pscot]

16. I am hopelessly uninformed

If I don't know something, I just make shit up. It's my great failing. One of 'em anyway.

[kristopher]

17. Just answer the question.

One example of the type of action available to him is his use of the military to drive an increase in the market for renewables.

What would You do?

[rosesaylavee]

22. He could start by veto-ing the Keystone Pipeline

That would do a lot. That pipeline threatens our land, our water supply and eventually, if all that the pipeline carries thru and is used, our climate will heat up and we will roast.

I have been writing him asking him to set up a task force, not unlike the one that Boxer has set up for the Senate. If the President set one up, it would be even more far reaching. We need policy makers, community leaders, environmentalists and climate scientists to sit down in one place and share what they know is possible. We are NOT doing that yet and we really are 10 years behind and if we work as fast as we know how... we just may survive as a species along with the millions of other species on this planet. We need a plan on how we are going to address this climate crisis at all levels. Imagine if this were an emergency... because it is.

The President cannot work without Congress on many levels. I get that. But he also has a tremendous bully pulpit and the world looks to him for leadership on this. I would say I am surprised he is failing on this ... I am hoping desperately I am wrong that he doesn't get it. His actions in supporting fracking are incomprehensible to me. And I really do like the man but this idea that fracking is somehow 'ok' completely confuses me as it's so dangerous to people living near by. Our water supply is more connected in this country than currently understood. We won't just be poisoning one county, one region - it will affect us all if we keep fracking.

[RufusTFirefly]

8. Take a tip from the EU and devise a coherent renewable energy policy

EU governments and the European Parliament have agreed a far-reaching new directive to boost EU renewable energy use to 20% by 2020, following a compromise struck with Italy over a controversial 'review clause'.

According to the new legislation, agreed between the Union's lawmakers today (9 December 2008), each EU country will be required to significantly increase the contribution of renewable energies to its energy mix, leading to an overall EU share of 20% by 2020. A 10% share of biofuels in transport by 2020, part of the overall 20% renewables target, was agreed previously under the condition that indirect land-use considerations and other sustainability criteria are taken into account (see EurActiv 05/12/08).

Source:http://www.euractiv.com/energy/deal-secured-ambitious-eu-renewa-news-220925

Germany, for one, is making dramatic progress in shifting to renewables.

[kristopher]

10. And how would you propose the executive branch in isolation accomplish that?

I know where we need to be, the question is how we get there with our present reality.

[RufusTFirefly]

11. Bully pulpit

If you spent as much of your energy making progress instead of being deliberately obstructionist, we might actually get somewhere.

It's way too easy (and lazy) to say "It can't be done."

[kristopher]

12. bullshit

I asked for specific policies, you give me literally "bull".

[RufusTFirefly]

19. Alrighty then! Carpe diem, I guess!

Buh-bye!

[NickB79]

15. Stop promoting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, for one

Or at least make it more transparent in what it entails.

The Sierra Club takes a dim view of it: http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/trans-pacific-partnership-agreement.aspx

[kristopher]

18. That's another area of completely uninformed criticism.

I don't know what is in the TPP, but neither does anyone else - including the groups being citied for their analysis.

They are talking about a document leaked by Canada. The track record of Canada's current government is anything but trustworthy and the document they've leaked isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

I don't support the TPP but I don't oppose it either. I'd like to see what is in it before taking a position.

I do KNOW FOR A FACT that historically the right wing nationalists within our system have ALWAYS obstructed positive action via international agreements.

[NickB79]

20. Then make the TTP more transparent and silence critics

The reason so much weight is being placed on a leaked document is that ALMOST NO OTHER DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN RELEASED. This despite repeated good faith requests for more information by a myriad of environmental groups.

I don't support the TPP but I don't oppose it either. I'd like to see what is in it before taking a position.

So would many in the environmental community. We'd like to see what's in the TTP when there's still, ya know, time to take action against any environmentally damaging agreements being signed into international law. Obama has so far NOT allowed that to happen, when it's well within his power to do so.

[kristopher]

21. I agree and would go a step further

Environmental and consumer advocacy interests should be at the table.

We have an abysmal record of international cooperation, so I don't expect this to get through in any case. In the past, that has done severe damage to pro-environmental, labor and human rights efforts. I believe in Obama and think he os trying to use this as an instrument of policy to get things we'd both probably approve of. The right isn't the only subset that often can be persuaded by propaganda to act against their own self interests.

The reason for fast track goes back to the behavior of nationalist but it applies more broadly - it forces interest groups to weigh the total costs of getting what they want. That is also the root of the secrecy - it is supposed to preclude a Koch-style propaganda campaign against provisions that might hurt them. That type of campaign is one that requires money, but the strategy has backfired, hasn't it? If they'd included representatives of the people it might have worked, but it seems to be working against them as things stand now.