|
by Paul Kashmann
As I listened to Barack Obama’s
much touted speech on the day of his second inauguration, I was heartened by
his passionate commitment to direct America’s best minds and best resources to
combat climate change.
He pledged to make it his top priority to do everything
possible to bring our nation and our planet back from the brink of a disaster
that, left unchallenged, could alter life on this third rock from the sun to an
extent for which none of us is truly prepared.
“We will
respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that failure to do so would
betray our children and future generations,” the president declared. Chiding
those who still doubt the reality of the problem, he said, “Some may still deny
the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact
of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.” He concluded
his thoughts with a promise that although “The path towards sustainable energy
sources will be long and sometimes difficult ... America cannot resist this
transition; we must lead it.”
Pundits made much of the fact that POTUS
devoted eight full sentences to the topic of climate change – more than
any other topic he addressed. But even as I was heartened, I wondered: “Where
in the hell has that passion been for the last four years?” How does this
long-awaited initiative – still in a formative stage – square with
the fact that neither climate change, alternative energy nor any other
environmental issue has gotten much more than 15 minutes of time from the
presidential bully pulpit over the last four years.
The president has refused to sign the Kyoto
Protocol that would limit the worldwide release of greenhouse gases, and
allowed the Keystone Pipeline project to move forward in its effort to bring
oil from the Canadian tar sands across the midwestern
United States to refineries along the Gulf Coast of Texas in spite of
considerable outcry from the environmental community, as well as farmers,
ranchers, and others intimately involved with the land, the waters, and their
well-being.
Mr. Obama’s staffers insist that his heart
has always been in the right camp, but it has taken him a while to realize that
the conservative element in Congress has no interest in assisting a Democratic
administration in reaching any goals, no less ones that they view as conflicting
with deep-seated, core values – like freedom from regulation.
While I understand the concern that by its
nature, adhering to government regulation can put added pressure on a company’s
bottom line, I wonder how those who eschew environmental regulation plan on
restructuring and relocating when Colorado has no snow, hundreds of miles of
our coastline end up under water and Kansas can’t grow wheat because it just
doesn’t rain there anymore.
In 2009, at his first inaugural, the president
made bold promises as well. “We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil
to fuel our cars and run our factories,” he proclaimed. “With old friends and
former foes, we will work tirelessly to ... roll back the specter of a warming
planet.”
Needless to say, that specter has not only
not been rolled back, it is rolling forward at an
alarming rate. The last 12 months have been the warmest on record for the
United States, manifesting in a continuing series of wildfires, a lack of
precipitation that had 61.1 percent of the nation in the throes of drought at
year’s end, and ever more violent storms wreaking havoc on our perimeter.
If we are to believe White House aides, the
president plans an end run around the naysayers in Congress, and will put forth
a series of executive actions that will enable him to take action on
environmental issues without fighting a war that can’t be won in Congress. We
look forward to his efforts to reduce coal plant emissions, increase energy
efficiency standards for homes and businesses, and instruct government agencies
to green up their game, and walk the walk as well.
Peter Sawtell,
executive director of the local Eco-Justice Ministries, wrote recently that
Obama not only needs to say “yes” to moving forward with new technologies, but
he needs to say “no” to the ways of the past.
“He said ‘yes’ to wind turbines and solar
panels, but he did not say ‘no’ to coal and tar sands,” said Sawtell. “We do need to do lots of work on developing
sustainable energy sources, but if we do not cut back on unsustainable and
highly polluting energy, then the crisis will not be addressed. If horrors like
the tar sands are not rejected, then -- in the words of climate scientist James
Hansen -- it is ‘game over’ for the global climate.”
Of course, the opposition has already begun
to fire salvo after salvo at the White House, even before specifics have even
been put forth. Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, a group
financed by the ultra-conservative billionaire Koch brothers, insisted that the
president’s speech “read like a liberal laundry list with global warming at the
top. Americans have rejected environmental extremism in the past and they will
again.”
The most important thing that Barack Obama
can do is to sound the battle cry and summon the troops. He must
unapologetically challenge those who would stand in the way of what must be an
environmental initiative equivalent to the New Deal in its commitment to
righting the ship of state, but far greater in scope. Regardless of our
national financial issues, we remain the most powerful of nations in our place
within the international community. We must – as the president promises
– lead the way toward climate relief, not muddy the waters and obstruct
the progress that is so clearly needed.
My desire is not to see our economy hobbled,
or the business community dealt any additional challenges than they are already
facing in these difficult times. It’s just that while I’ve always enjoyed the
music from a good fiddle, I’m smelling smoke, and I
think it’s time we change our tune. This time it could be a whole lot more than
Rome that burns. |
