Obama expecting ‘serious conversation’ about ‘drastic steps’ on climate change 19

There was -- see if this sounds familiar -- almost nothing about climate or energy in the recent Democratic primary debate hosted by NPR. There was one intriguing tidbit at the end, however, triggered off this question from a listener:

Mr. JAMES IRWIN: What do you think the toughest choice you have left to make is? Is it gay marriage, immigration, the war in Iraq? What haven't you made up your mind on yet? And why haven't you?

Clinton, Gravel, Dodd, Edwards, and Kucinich gave fairly boring, wishy-washy answers. But Obama's jumped out at me:

SEN. OBAMA: The issue of climate change. I've put forward one of the most aggressive proposals out there, but the science seems to be coming in indicating it's accelerating even more quickly with every passing day. And by the time I take office, I think we're going to have to have a serious conversation about how drastic steps we need to take to address it.

You wouldn't want to make too much of it, but it's hard to help thinking that maybe Obama -- and his Dem opponents as well -- really does get the scope of the problem. Maybe he understands that the political space is confined right now, and needs to be expanded, and that he can do a better job of expanding it once safely in office. Or am I reading too much into it?

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. ce1907 Posted 2:54 am
    06 Dec 2007

    reading too much

    Permalink

  2. Kit Stolz's avatar

    Kit Stolz Posted 3:01 am
    06 Dec 2007

    encouraging, yesThe fact that Obama framed the question not around what is possible politically, nor around some sort of new rhetorical approach, is indeed encouraging. "Drastic" is not a word politicians often utter, even when warranted.

    Permalink

  3. justlou Posted 3:39 am
    06 Dec 2007

    If you read the science seriouslythen the next president will have the most troubling and complex task ever faced by any president.  Climate change envelopes all.  Let us hope that if becomes president his "serious conversation" cuts to the chase most clearly, persuasively, wisely and powerfully.  With 5 seconds on the clock, I'm ready to give it to the guy calling for the ball.  

    Permalink

  4. Willinois Posted 3:46 am
    06 Dec 2007

    GoodObama has been a strong environmental supporter for a long time. He gets it.

    Permalink

  5. ce1907 Posted 3:49 am
    06 Dec 2007

    what is Obama's history on CTL?

    Permalink

  6. Willinois Posted 3:55 am
    06 Dec 2007

    He supported some research fundingObama also said he won't support CTL until it can be shown to reduce CO2 emissions, which it can't.
    The amount of funding he supported for research was much less than the $1 billion in research subsidies Edwards is proposing for the coal industry that no one seems to care about. I have to wonder about the agenda of those who unfairly blew Obama's "support" for CTL out of proportion while ignoring the much larger amount of money Edwards wants to give away for so-called clean coal research.

    Permalink

  7. sindark's avatar

    sindark Posted 4:20 am
    06 Dec 2007

    Primary politicsThe American primary system is quite odd. Primaries in small states are overly important - as are some with very low voter turnout.
    Until the parties have chosen their candidates, a lot of what is said on the campaign trail is likely to be strategically oriented towards navigating the strange waters of the American primary process.

    a sibilant intake of breath

    Permalink

  8. justlou Posted 4:25 am
    06 Dec 2007

    No Doubtcoal, CTL, sequestration, etc. would be part of the serious discussion.  Obama did make some early misteps on CTL but back pedaled upon realizing how bad the CO2 emissions are from the process.  

    Permalink

  9. BernardBrown Posted 5:17 am
    06 Dec 2007

    He knew he was NPRI'll give more weight to that kind of comment when I hear it in less enviro-friendly outlets.

    Change the world one lunch at a time. Find out how at www.pbjcampaign.org

    Permalink

  10. randino Posted 9:21 am
    06 Dec 2007

    What we have to do nowis to prepare to match and exceed any initiatives they make if and when they get into office, by initiatives at the grass roots level.
    My great fear is that the Dems get in, and everyone decides to sit back and let them save us. Ain't gonna happen. Often your so called "friends" can be as much trouble as your foes. Only grass roots activism will keep them honest, and keep their eyes on the prize.
    Remember, Kennedy and Johnson had to have the pressure kept on their behinds by the civil rights movement. Boots on the ground activism.
    Don't leave home without it.
    Randy Cunningham

    Randy Cunningham

    Permalink

  11. wesrolley Posted 12:06 pm
    06 Dec 2007

    When Pelosi supports something,I know it is a calculated action for political advantage.  It was the same with Hastert, only they have different constituencies.  Take away the election cycle and see what they do.
    If we wait for Washington to act, we will be swimming to Miami.  The real action has to be in our communities, with out city councils, with our planning commissions, to shape the buildings of the future for low energy use.  
    Once we lead the way, politics will follow.. just like they did with civil rights.  

    Wes Rolley



    CoChair - EcoAction Committee

    Green Party US

    Permalink

  12. ids's avatar

    ids Posted 1:02 pm
    06 Dec 2007

    read it and weepIf you like talk, vote for Oprah or Obama.
    Before his current office, in Coalbama's one term as an Illinois state senator, his mentor was Senate President Emil Jones.  This year, after the Governor's corrupt Illinois Commerce Commission voted to allow the electrical power industry to set their price in an auction that gouged consumers, the Senate unbelievably voted to reverse the auction and freeze rates.  Emil Jones, nukes best friend, used a once on a lifetime maneuver as President to effectively kill the freeze.  Point is, BO is a product of a very corrupt and nuke and coal friendly upbringing.  When he TALKS global warming, the focus is on transportation.
    He and Jones are like Cook County President Todd Stroger, whose only veto as President was on a pollution tax (soot) on the biggest polluters in his county (um, 2 coal plants).  The black politicians in Obama's neighborhood are firmly in the grasp of the dirty power paradigm.  

    Permalink

  13. GreyFlcn Posted 1:58 pm
    06 Dec 2007

    And how do you make drastic stepsWhile being "more friendly to the mining industry"?

    http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/7/154616/668
    And frankly, how much more friendly can you get?

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/specials/mining/26875_mine1 ...

    Permalink

  14. caniscandida Posted 5:37 pm
    06 Dec 2007

    bad format?For some reason, everybody seemed frantic, crazy and incoherent -- except for Obama, most of the time.  And one might have expected that their having been given the three general subjects beforehand, viz. Iraq/Iran/security, China, and immigration, would have made them more concentrated.  Was it precisely that format which rattled them?  Or, are they poorly represented by the transcripts, which tend to make even intelligent people seem like Neanderthals?
    Anyway, Clinton, Biden and Dodd came across as pompous, Kucinich and Gravel came across as shrill.  And Edwards, whom I have been generally most supporting, had a very bad night indeed: in spite of some good answers on immigration, he most uncharacteristically came across as hardput to find the right words -- not like him usually at all.
    But Obama seemed more focused and collected than anyone.  I especially like what I thought he was suggesting, in the wonky China section, on our having a responsibility to be concerned for the well-being of people everywhere.  This looks significant, in the context of his own international relationships and experiences, which have been the matter of some discussion.
    His final answer, on climate change, was similarly well-put and focused.  Whether it automatically puts him at the front of the pack, I cannot say.  Still, his performance in this debate has made me feel better about him than anything else so far.  I am certainly not about to abandon Edwards, whom I admire, and whose unimpressive performance here I ascribe to bad luck and/or exhaustion.  But I am glad to have acquired a positive feeling for Obama.

    Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

    Permalink

  15. justlou Posted 9:07 pm
    06 Dec 2007

    About that Nevada Mining PostWhat I said then:  "I wish I could have more hope, but I think a lot of policy, no matter who the candidate is, will be limited by the rigid mechanics of keeping the gears meshed and turning in this technocratic beast."
    Still applies.  We will be voting for the "Technocrat in Chief".  When the vision is limited by the view from in the box the best we can hope for may not be good enough.  But you at least have to keep the ball out of your opponents' hands.

    Permalink

  16. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 1:40 am
    07 Dec 2007

    What justlou saidA hypothetical conversation:
    Obama: "I support coal to liquid blah, blah, blah."
    An aid: "Uh, boss, somebody just told me it produces more CO2 than just burning the coal."
    Obama: "It does? Ssshit."
    They're politicians, not rocket scientists.

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

    Permalink

  17. Willinois Posted 6:45 am
    07 Dec 2007

    Come on idsids, why don't you list some some things Obama did as a state Senator that were bad for the environment instead of writing about people he knows?  Is it because Obama has an excellent record and was named an environmental champion by LCV when he ran for US Senate?  The guilt by association game is lame.

    Permalink

  18. ids's avatar

    ids Posted 3:07 pm
    07 Dec 2007

    No ill willI know, do not stand between an Ill enviro and a Dem candidate.  Ill enviro's think putting up windmills next to new coal power plants reduces CO2, as in Springfield, and corn ethanol is good for farming, coalmunities are next to godliness, C&S is the next big thing.  If you can not see how corrupt your state is then you should not be voting, imo, and if you don't think that rubs off on Coalbama, you might be blinded by a favorite sun.

    Permalink

  19. Barry Jenkinnz Posted 11:15 am
    19 Aug 2008

    i disagreeI think that's a bit off TBH

    Petition Inc.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement