Over at Politico, Glenn Hurowitz argues that at key moments, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have sold out the public interest in favor of polluting industries in their states. He says they could stand to learn something from Bill Richardson and John Edwards, whose energy/climate plans are ambitious and powerful.
I suspect that if you look closely enough at Richardson's and Edwards' records, you could find some evidence that they're not above parochialism either, but on the broad point, I can only say: word.
But what about Dodd, though? He's got a good energy plan too. Where's the Doddmentum?
Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Comments
View as Flat
zacaroni Posted 8:22 am
24 May 2007
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 8:58 am
24 May 2007
The caving in of Clinton and Obama is really no surprise. They, like all practical politicians, respond to pressure. The stronger the environmental movement, the greener the candidates will become.
To me, this argues for putting one's energy into environmental groups, rather than into the Democratic Party per se. Then, if Democratic candidates want the support of environmentalists, we have something to bargain with.
One thing I see as a waste of time is the language of personal morality: "selling out", "integrity", "hypocrite," etc. Talk like that gives us an emotional jolt - indignation or enthusiasm - but it has little to do with politics as it actually is practiced.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Akonitum Posted 12:41 pm
24 May 2007
Clinton signed off on a two week experimental tire burn (for energy and corporate business) that proved toxic in three days and was shut down.
Obama supports coal to liquids as an alternative to oil and natural gas. Global oil production seems to have peaked, and so too North American natural gas production has peaked. (Read The Oil Drum.)
Both examples are rooted in our widespred, bipartisan, insatiable demand for energy to support business-as-usual consumption patterns and unremitting exponential growth.
No presidential candidate, and few Democrats, let alone Republicans, do much (anything?) to question our indiscriminate growth assumptions.
--
Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast? (video clip: 8.5min)
Permalink
zacaroni Posted 11:39 pm
24 May 2007
Environmental responsibility should be expected, natural, assumed - not an incentive.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 9:54 am
25 May 2007
In the long run I agree with you, that environmental awareness will be widespread, just as we all now agree on the evils as slavery.
But just as the anti-slavery struggle was long and hard, so it will be with environmental awareness.
In the meantime, the advice from Matthew may be apt: "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves."
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink