Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York;
And all the clouds that lowered about our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
—William Shakespeare, King Richard the Third
To complain that President Barack Obama is not serious enough about climate strikes most U.S. environmentalists as strange, almost incomprehensible behavior. This is a time for celebration and new beginnings and any small doubts we harbor are easily assuaged by our confidence in the man who is president. Those who are not swept up in the new optimism seem small—either nit-pickers of detail who miss the big picture (what did he mean by “harness the sun and the winds and the soil”?) or the Gloster’s of our victory—cramped and parsimonious in spirit, prone to petty grievance.
Our feelings now are in accord with our conduct over the last decade and more. We are always optimistic, it is our nature. When politicians send mixed signals we embrace the positive and accept the troubling as pragmatic, necessary concessions. When offered half a loaf we take it and proclaim ourselves full.
But this is no compromise to be swallowed, is it? After eight years in the wilderness, we look out onto a playing field dominated by President Obama, House Speaker Pelosi, Senator Boxer, and Congressman Markey, and we see immense promise. In Obama’s majestic inaugural address we heard climate mentioned, then mentioned again, and again, and, “he gets it!” we thought. This is what we endured for, this is what we campaigned hard for, and the sweetness in the D.C. air is more glorious than we had imagined.
Except for three things:
- The time-line for climate action has been cut to four years.
- The Democratic plan of action is utterly inadequate.
- Climate is a second-tier problem for President Obama.
Were any one of these things not the case, we would face a very different prospect. If we had more time (enough to aim for fundamental change in a second-term Obama administration), if we had a true, functional, global solution on the table to advance, or if President Obama defined the paramount objective for the nation and his presidency by staving off global cataclysm, then U.S. environmentalists would have a point of leverage and reason to admit a small measure of optimism.
To expect that President Obama will address the crisis, but neither come to terms with the climate time-line, re-design the solution, or focus the nation on this single risk, is a willing suspension of disbelief, turning politics into a movie where presidents have powers as fantastical as movie kung fu.
It is our job to define the terms of conflict within which politicians maneuver. If we are to do this— the only other option is to wait until climate impacts become severe, which is certainly too late—we must first break our own way out of the three-sided box of self-reinforcing, self-deceptive policy. That can only occur by mounting a serious challenge to orthodox thinking within our major organizations and the private foundations that underwrite climate program. There is no time to build an alternative institution, nor can current approaches be simply bypassed by faster campaigning. The worldview of incremental change, accommodation to immoral behavior, and moderation in the face of fossil-fuel blitzkrieg must be demolished.
Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Comments
View as Flat
sindark Posted 12:57 am
29 Jan 2009
Well said, though it is difficult to know which strategy would be most effective for producing rapid change. David Roberts recently wrote a post about the psychology of fear and opportunity. Tying what the science tells us back into the most fundamental decision-making and prioritization processes people have is a critical part of the overall effort.
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
Russ Posted 1:00 am
29 Jan 2009
But coming from an aggrofuel booster, "harness the soil" is intrinsically sinister, and there's nothing "small" about the issue. For the climate crisis and for all other environmental, energy, and socioeconomic issues, aggrofuels are a scourge.
Speaking generally, is there reason for optimism regarding Obama and the climate crisis? He's said the right things and made some good appointments.
But so far the practice, as we're seeing with regard to other issues, has been appeasement and corporatism all the way.
Thus we saw how he gave away, as a gift, tax cuts and other concessions, chasing an absurd "bipartisan" fantasy, to get literally nothing in return. Not one measly crossover vote. (I'll grant, I personally don't understand why "bipartisan", where it comes to appeasing the Party that Wrecked America, would be considered a pressing virtue in the first place.)
And today we hear how they're intent on radically intensifying the socializing of all bank costs while continuing to allow private profits to exist, by buying up worthless toilet paper (toxic assets) to dump in a "bad bank" which will weigh down taxpayer shoulders while the banks merrily dance away.
The scorecard is brutally stark:
Upside profit to banks and shareholders: 100%;
Downside risk to taxpayers: 100%.
So given that track record so far, it is foolish to have blind faith that, if left to themselves, the Obama admin will do the right thing. Whatever enviros or any other progressive cause want, we're going to have to fight for it pretty much as hard as we did with Bush.
Permalink
randino Posted 2:40 am
29 Jan 2009
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Hal 9000 Posted 3:28 am
29 Jan 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:44 am
29 Jan 2009
That is what I have been thinking about, we should already have voter contact lists to email and call voters in areas with legislators who will not support Obama's legislation originate.
If enough like minded environmentalist oriented voters in these districts could be encouraged to write and call their legislators, we might get measures passed to help out.
Swinging a few republicans or recalcitrant coal state democrats to vote for climate health might just do some good.
In these efforts you don't need to sway opponents, but you only need to contact supporters. Here is why. In an election a fraction vote, but in the off election season constitutents still contact legislators. But it's really a tiny fraction, maybe a few percent.
That makes it easier to swing a politician's vote during off election years. You need to get fewer people to actually contact them by phone or email to get the message across.
The wind power asociation and others already use email campaigns, I have emailed and called my legislators several times at their request to support Production Tax Credits (PTC).
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
greenferret Posted 3:48 am
29 Jan 2009
GreenChange.org is telling President Obama and Congress to introduce a moratorium on new coal and nuclear plants. Future generations will thank us for moving from dirty, dangerous fuels to safe, green energy. Find out more at http://tinyurl.com/alp453
Permalink
Billhook Posted 4:39 am
29 Jan 2009
(it being Obama's paternal homeland),
and record the impacts of climate destabilization that now face some 10 million people with starvation.
I'd also record some of the very positive but absurdly underfunded novel farming, forestry, energy and water techniques now being piloted there.
I'd also record Kenya's formal support (as a member of the UN.FCCC Africa Group) for the Climate Treaty framework of "Contraction & Convergence," as an indication of how it is not the Developing nations that have been refusing to negotiate.
Once edited to maximum dispassionate tear-jerker effect, the very best negotiator available should then be asked to get the film screened for Obama's staff,
with the proposal that Obama should be seen to be making that same trip himself, starving kids, innovations, diplomacy and all,
rather than accepting the default of the film being circulated globally,
with him nowhere in sight.
So who could pull together such a project ?
Is there someone that you know perhaps ???
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 8:16 am
29 Jan 2009
"It is not necessary to hope in order to persevere."
Ken Ward
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[24]='\"';l[25]=' 103';l[26]=' 114';l[27]=' 111';l[28]=' 46';l[29]=' 115';l[30]=' 101';l[31]=' 110';l[32]=' 105';l[33]=' 108';l[34]=' 116';l[35]=' 104';l[36]=' 103';l[37]=' 105';l[38]=' 114';l[39]=' 98';l[40]=' 64';l[41]=' 110';l[42]=' 101';l[43]=' 107';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='\"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='
Permalink
randino Posted 10:26 am
29 Jan 2009
Randy Cunningham
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:26 pm
29 Jan 2009
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
newsnerd Posted 4:24 am
30 Jan 2009
A musing from the corner cubicle.
Permalink