The failed presidency of Barack Obama, Part 2

[bananas]

Joe Romm at Climate Progress writes:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/04/the-failed-presidency-of-barack-obama-2/

The failed presidency of Barack Obama, Part 2

He let die our best chance to preserve a livable climate and restore US leadership in clean energy --without a serious fight

November 4, 2010

"The country can only contemplate serious environmental legislation when we have the unique constellation of a Democratic president and Democratic majorities in both houses, an occurrence far rarer than a total eclipse of the sun."

That’s from “One brief shining moment for clean energy ,” my piece on the passage of the House climate bill last June.

Obama hasn’t merely failed to get a climate bill. Given the self-described (and self-inflicted) “shellacking” the president received Tuesday, he has made it all but impossible for a return to such an alignment of the stars this decade.

Indeed, he has, arguably, poisoned the well for the next president, not merely because of the “shellacking,” but also by his failure to use his bully pulpit to be an unabashed defender of climate and clean energy action. Team Obama helped create the broad -based misperception that those issues are political losers, in spite of every poll to the contrary, in spite of the fact that in the one place where a broad coalition combined with political leaders who were genuine climate hawks, Californians won the clean energy and climate trifecta, including a stunning 20-point win preserving their landmark cap -and -trade climate bill.

And so the chances have dropped sharply of averting multiple catastrophes post-2040 —widespread Dust -Bowlification; multi -feet sea level rise followed by SLR of 6 to 12+ inches a decade until the planet is ice free; massive species loss; the ocean turning into large, hot acidified dead zones; and ever-strengthening superstorms that bring devastation to country after country that equals or surpasses what happened to Moscow and Pakistan and Nashville and New Orleans.

...

[meow mix]

1. nice and warm in montana, almost mid-november lol

wasting more years..

[ixion]

6. and record cold temps in FL

someone tell me again how global climate change isn't happening.

[David__77]

2. We must promote economic expansion above all else.

It is imperative. The people will reject anything that appears to distract or hinder that.

[Orrex]

3. That's especially true of artificial people

If a corporation has to choose between making a huge profit this quarter and rendering the planet utterly lifeless in ten years, I wonder which option it'll pick?

[David__77]

4. I was being provocative.

Obviously, we have to strike a balance between competing interests. But I do think there are definite political consequences. Also, I'm not sure that not passing cap and trade or whatever will end humanity in a decade.

[Orrex]

12. Actually, your post resonated with something I heard on NPR on Friday

I mean, I knew that you were being hyperbolic, but a guest on All Things Considered actually referred to what he called an "iron rule" (IIRC) that rears its ugly head whenever pro-climate legislation is attempted. Put simply, when we pit even moderate economic gains against catastrophic environmental disaster, the economic interests tend to win about 100% of the time. Rather than resolving a crisis through technological breakthrough or societal change, the existing culture simply waits until the next election cycle, votes out all of the pro-change people, and poof! The crisis goes away.

[pacalo]

5. Singlehandedly, Mr. Romm? I underestimated his power.

He doesn't have a powerful cabal to push his agenda for him behind the scenes like his predecessor did.

The corporations are against climate control because it would mean cutting into their profit margins with having to develop new emission technology. And corporations are fighting tooth & nail against Obama & the Democrats on this.

Romm is wrong in putting the blame on Obama.

[bananas]

15. Read the whole article. nt

[geckosfeet]

7. He needs congress and he NEVER had it.

What bullshit.

[stray cat]

8. Failed? Conservative voters at least know how to patiently fight for years for what they believe

Progressives seem to have a glass jaw - one punch and they slink away.....

[joshcryer]

9. Did anyone rec this only for it to stay at zero?

If so you're welcome. I hate the Obama bashing here. COP15 was the indicator for climate progress, and there was no way in hell the western states were going to compromise if the developing states weren't.

[RC]

10. Is the OP true?

If so, then what is your problem?

[joshcryer]

11. Clean energy policy was not getting passed in Obama's first two years, so it's a ridiculous screed.

It is true in that it states the obvious, that green energy policy is not going to be passed *now*, but it ignores and whitewashes that it was possible to pass when it was on the table. Obama did what he could, he wasn't going to get clean energy policy through in the first two years. No President would've pulled that off. Obama did a magnificent job getting Health Care passed in the midst of a recession.

[bhikkhu]

13. ...but, then again,

a failing economic recovery has the same (or perhaps a better) end result on the climate, as far as CO2 emissions. Don't forget that the Clinton years were an unprecedented disaster as far as CO2 goes, in spite of all good intentions, Al Gore, etc.

In any case, I think it is delusional to imagine that an effective climate bill was ever on the table. Good legislation could only be good if it impinged on economic growth, if it impinged on economic growth the mid-terms would have been a much more thorough rout, and then the first order of business for the new congress would be to sh*tcan the bill.

[joshcryer]

14. The House had an incredible bill, but everyone was waiting for COP15 to decide what to do with it.

Had COP15 lead to comprehensive climate policy, it may have been passed if only for political goodwill. But everyone at the table at COP15 didn't want to do shit about it.