This TomPayne made me wonder about Kerry and how he articulates his vision

[Mass]

to the public and what he chooses to stress or not. I know that Patrick Doherty does not get Kerry and is fairly ignorant of what he stands for, so this is not my question. However, this article has a point. I am curious to see how you react to it. (It is about different of vision of foreign policy for the future that is developing in Europe).

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/03/07/newt_gingrich_v_john_reid.php

Now, there is only one point I disagree with in this article: that Kerry is at the same level than Gingritch and others there and does not see these issues as fundemmental. We know he does, and probably better than most Congresspeople. (It is actually one of the reasons I support him so much).

However, the question I am asking myself is why he does not articulate it like that as one of his main points (now that he is out of his consultants's hands, that is). Any idea? Do you think it is because he does not think the idea would resonate with the American public? Do you see other reasons?

[TayTay]

1. I don't get it Mass.

This guy gets it wrong. Kerry said that energy independence is a part of sound foreign policy back in '91. He has long been on this page. This writer is misinformed. That is not John Kerry's fault, it is the writer's poor understanding of American politics and his laziness in being unable to crack a book or do a little research on the web.

at least '91, btw.

[Mass]

2. I dont think so - He may be disingenious, but not ill-informed

I think that, in his opinion, this issue is less important to Kerry than ideology (meaning bringing Democracy to the world). He may have had this issue because of the most recent speeches Kerry made on security, that give the impression - and that may be what Kerry thinks, I dont know - that energy independence is just a side issue and not the core of the issue for the future, bringing democracy and prosperity to the world being the core issue.

I always understood that Kerry understood that and I still think he does, but he has stopped expressing it that clearly somewhere during the campaign. I was wondering why.

May be his book (when it is published) will allow him to make clear where he stands, but, in the waiting, I am not surprised to see people who dont know Kerry very well not see the difference.

[TayTay]

6. I disagree

I think that came across load and clear. Certainly as clearly as it did back in 1990.

KERRY PRODS BUSH ON ENERGY POLICY
BOSTON GLOBE, THIRD, Sec. METRO, p 26 08-11-1990
By Michael Rezendes

US Sen. John Kerry said yesterday that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait has underscored America's dependence on foreign oil, and he called on President Bush to formulate a national policy that emphasizes alternative forms of energy.

"For years now we have been pushing for energy conservation and alternative energy sources, and this situation tragically highlights our nation's vulnerabilities," Kerry said. "We must not let an outlaw like Saddam Hussein hold our country hostage to economic blackmail again."

I don't think this one is Kerry's fault. He has been calling for this for 16 years. I think it's very clear to anyone in the press who bothers to look that this has been his view.

[sandnsea]

10. But that's not climate change

I think that's the distinction that the Reid guy was presenting. That's the impression I got anyway. I haven't really looked at climate change as a national security threat, it's an interesting topic. If that's what Reid mean anyway.

[TayTay]

14. But that has been part of the debate for a long time.

Climate change affects populations, food growth, available and arable land and so forth. The displaced, the unhoused and the starving are a security threat. And a very big one. Even the short-sighted and profit-oriented Bush Administration had a report come out from the Pentagon that said they were looking into the very real security threat posed by Global Warming and Climate Change.

It is a very real problem. It was addressed as such. Many, many times. This guy doesn't do his homework and is flat-out wrong in his assertion that Democrats, never mind just Sen. Kerry, have not thought about this. There is a world of difference between the Dems and Gingrich and there always has been. This guy is flat-out wrong.

[sandnsea]

15. Certainly there's difference between Gingrich and Dems

I don't disagree with that, and I don't disagree that Dems and John Kerry have given this thought and attention.

But, I do agree that the actual security aspect of climate change has not filtered into the national debate. We haven't seen anyone really say, on a regular basis, that this could create violence and war.

From the article linked in the piece above:

"This would trigger pitched battles between the survivors of these effects for access to food, water, habitable land and energy supplies.

“Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the climate pose a different type of threat to national security than we are accustomed to today,” the 2003 report noted. “Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over ideology, religion or national honor.”

[sandnsea]

3. America is too stupid

It would require a much greater attention span than the average American has and I don't say that tongue in cheek, it's just true. And possibly the freak out Americans would have might not be in the best interest of the rest of the world. Think about how some folks fight over a lap top at the Black Friday Christmas sale; times a million. Not a pretty site.

I also think PNAC is about this exactly, control of these resources as consumerism peaks and resources dwindle, whether through climate change or just global exhaustion. He may be afraid to say anything that would inadvertently hand them more power.

I also disagree with the Gingrich comparison because Kerry has talked about security and energy and I don't think has ever taken a position to "look tough". That's just beyond stupid. Talk about gullible and black and white thinking. Pacifist or hawk and no in between apparently. *sigh*

[Mass]

4. The point on PNAC is well taken - It is true that they are so quick

at grabbing other arguments to make the point they want to make.

I agree with the rest as well and this is what I had been thinking, plus the fact that some idiot RWers would label him as a tree hugger just for asking the right questions too pointedly.

[karynnj]

5. Wasn't there a July 2005 Senate floor speech (I think on the energy bill)

where Kerry did in one part of the speech do almost what Reid did. From memory, he said that the polar ice caps are melting, that the Greenland ice sheet will follow. He spoke of the ports, such as Boston and (a list of others) would be undersea. He then spoke of many other .

I know there was a recent speech where he mentioned the intense draught in Africa that was devasting to people who didn't cause it.

I think part of it is that it is one of many thinks Kerry has spoken of - and he has connected to people's lifes - mentioning that dads can not take their kids fishing and eat the fish in 30 some states etc - that really didn't get covered.

The one way that he msy be working to address this is he said something about writing a book on the environment. I assume he will talk about it when the book comes out. (If this comes about, he really should include the cute picture from Butler's book, where JK while vacationing with friends organized everyone to collect the garbage on the beach and make boats - then had a race with them. It is hands on environmental clean up - won't fix global warming - but did help a little and likely influenced each of those kids.)

The other issue with the article is that I also don't see that these issues even belong on the same axis, although there is an overlap you can speak about both. Kerry and Gore actually both do.

[Mass]

7. I emailed him (Doherty to tell him to look at Kerry's stance before he

attacked).

However, I think he has a point (not on Gingritch, of course, it is totally idiotic, but with the lack of a speech showing a global vision in foreign policy that does not have terrorism as the central point by any Democrat). There are good reasons for that, starting by 9/11, of course.

As Kerry has been one of those who have predicted what would happen in 9/11 and how the terrorists would create their networks more than 10 years ago, we need to have somebody who can explain what are the risks and the issues of the years to come. Who knows, may be Kerry's book will do that or somebody else will jump.

BTW, I hope nobody is bothered because I posted this here. I certainly prefer to have this discussion here than with GD because on GD, I know I will get the "Kerry is a hawk" answers that are totally ridiculous and do not advance the discussion.

[sandnsea]

9. It's a great topic

I haven't really delved into the whole concept of climate change as an actual security issue. Energy dependence, sure. But not specifically what climate change will mean to global resources and how people will respond to those changes. It's an interesting topic for sure.

I'd much rather discuss any topic in here. :)

[ProSense]

11. Here's a good one

I inserted some breaks because it was two long blocks of text:

From the Office of Senator Kerry

Kerry speech on the environment and energy independence -- John F. Kennedy Library, Boston

John F. Kennedy Library Forum Boston, Massachusetts

Tuesday, February 11, 2003


We meet in a place that testifies both to the soaring aspirations of America – and the capacity of events to break our hearts and our hope. We saw that again a week ago in the fiery tragedy of the Space Shuttle Columbia falling from the sky – the new ocean we explore that President Kennedy launched us on more than forty years before. No one can doubt that we will return. Even as we mourn and even now as we investigate and debate, we have reaffirmed our resolve. Yet in the past week, other events that test our spirit and strength passed almost unnoticed. We lost four sons of America in Afghanistan and it hardly caused a ripple. Indeed, every day we lose Americans in our streets and we lose important public values and assets without much notice; more and more we seem resigned to accepting this as a matter of course. But it is not acceptable. Too often today our national capacity to translate principle into political action appears dulled or dumbed down beyond the comprehensible – as false rhetoric becomes a substitute for meeting the reality of our challenges.

We will not got to the stars on the cheap – and here on earth we will not accomplish our work by short-changing it. We need to renew our national resolve – not just in the face of fatal tragedy or fateful attack, but across the board. We need to push back against complacency and the political caution that tempts us just to go along. We need to push back on tax cuts that make no economic sense – on stimulus packages that don’t stimulate – on health care treated more and more as a privilege and not as the right it should be. We need to push back on focus grouped slogans of compassion that show little or no compassion at all – We need to push back on a foreign policy that puts America unnecessarily at risk – on rhetoric about draining the swamp of terrorists while our policies too often ignore the poisonous flow that fills the swamp. So it is appropriate that we gather here at a memorial to John F. Kennedy. His vision can help us focus in our difficult times. One of his great gifts was the way in which he challenged us to dream of the future as only Americans can. He inspired us to set our sights high in the pursuit of progress and to find ways to reach our goals -- to send a man to the moon, to confront the ignorance and injustice of bigotry, and to send Americans all over the world to bring about a better life and strengthen the bond among nations. He asked us to do these things not because they were easy but because they were hard – and above all else, because they were right. That is what we need to do today – tell the truth, talk common sense, and find a common vision equal to the best of our history and our hopes. This begins by acknowledging that nowhere is there a more determined, more dangerous, more concerted frontal and stealth assault on our values and our future than the Bush Administration’s disregard for the environment.

Nowhere is there a greater need for a new vision – a better vision – than in the decisions we make that affect the health of the environment we share with the other 95% of humanity. We know intuitively that America is only as healthy as the water our children drink, the air they breathe, the yards and parks in which they play and laugh, and the communities in which they live. The question is whether armed with that knowledge our generation will leave our children and grandchildren an earth that is cleaner not more degraded, more beautiful not more polluted, healthier and safer for children and other living things than the world we inherited from our parents and grandparents. I remember reading Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ and feeling we had a responsibility to do something about lakes full of toxins and rivers that caught on fire. Thirty years ago, I was part of that peaceful Army of conscience that launched the first Earth Day here in the Commonwealth to demand the most basic safeguards for our air, water and land. The first calls for environmental stewardship were instantly and insistently opposed by some in industry, who threatened that even modest reform was technologically impossible and economically ruinous. But across the nation people gathered and they organized – just as we did here in New England – and mounted a great democratic march toward pioneering laws like the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act – fundamental protections that Americans take for granted today. We removed lead from gasoline, set out to clean up polluted waterways, cut back air pollution, took back land that had been lost to toxic waste – and we even saved the bald eagle from extinction. And with this progress, we disproved the rallying cry of the polluters and their apologists. We proved that a good environment and a sound economy go hand in hand. This was a bi-partisan cause, as it should be. Republicans and Democrats breathe the same air, and our children drink the same water. But now, after a generation when we sometimes differed on specific issues but always moved in the same direction, this administration has broken the bond of shared commitment. When have we heard the President propose anything other that tokenism on the environment? Where is the strategy for energy efficiency to reduce pollution and reduce the energy dependence which can hold our entire economy hostage to hostile powers? The environmental challenge is more pressing and more profound than ever. It involves our national resources, our national security, and the ways in which human beings will live together on this planet. More must be done, not less. Far more – yet we don’t have to look far to see the challenge; it is all around us. Too many of American lakes and rivers remain polluted; today nearly half of Massachusetts' waterways are too polluted to fish or swim in and 44% across the nation. Hundreds of toxic sites – dangerous to the millions who live near them – blight places all across the country. The soot, smog and other pollution in our air still sickens our fellow citizens and contributes to 30,000 deaths each year. Thanks to dirty power plants that we refuse to modernize, mercury emissions are expected to climb to 60 tons in 2010, a 33% increase over 1990 levels. Each summer, smog triggers over 6 million asthma attacks and results in nearly 70,000 hospital admissions. We’re rapidly encroaching upon our forests, wetlands and farmlands and all the natural ecosystems that sustain us. And ever more awesome challenges have emerged as we now understand the mortal threat of pollution to our oceans and our climate.

Special Interests Before National Interests

We had our earth day. Now, if necessary, if this administration will not change course, the next election year must be an earth year, where we plainly and unequivocally fight for the environment against those now at the center of power who are dismantling that commitment piece by piece.

Perhaps that charge takes some by surprise. After all, in his State of the Union address President Bush promised the nation that, “We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations.” And to match that soaring rhetoric the Administration has launched a series of environmental policies so duplicitous they would make George Orwell blush at this President’s mastery of doublespeak. They have mastered the tactic of slapping slick slogans on their policies that make them sound like something they’re not. The President’s ‘Healthy Forests’ initiative sounds great, except that’s where you kill the trees to save the forest. He has a ‘Clear Skies’ program based on the premise that our air will be cleaner when you let companies decide how much they can pollute. And while I applaud the President for finally acknowledging the potential of hydrogen cars, I’m convinced his ‘Freedom Car’ was really dreamed up to maintain the political freedom of this White House to open up the Rocky Mountains and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. It’s the new Dick Cheney playbook – ‘drill today, drill tomorrow, hydrogen sometime,’ and hope we don’t see through the media smokescreen. The truth is, President Bush provides the right rhetoric, but then pursues all the wrong policies. He says he wants to clean up toxic waste sites, but he’s reversed the polluter pays principle in the Superfund, and that means the fund will soon run dry and cleanups will stop. We’re already feeling the effect. The Atlas Tack site in Fairhaven contains cyanide, heavy metals, pesticides and PCBs. Some 7,000 people live within a one mile of the site. And this year, the Bush Administration provided exactly zero dollars for cleanup. Across the country, seven toxic sites and the communities that must live with them got nothing. The President’s Clear Skies initiative for power plants is anything but clear. It is, in fact, slower and weaker than current law. It is a step backwards that will spew more pollution into air – pollution that causes asthma, heart disease, neurological damage and even death – and contributes to acid rain, smog, soot and mercury in our rivers and lakes. And we will bear the brunt of the President’s plan, because, although New England has done its part, weather will carry pollution from distant heavily-polluting power plants to our communities. And never forget, it is not just broken environmental policy, it is a broken promise from a President who pledged on the campaign trail to cut carbon emissions from power plants – and now won’t. The President calls his energy plan “balanced.” And I suppose it is, if balanced means what it did for the books at Enron and WorldCom. Quite simply, if we enacted the Bush plan today, we would find ourselves more polluting and more dependent on foreign oil in 20 years than we are today. His Freedom Car initiative throws a bone to those of us who have called for intense research into hydrogen fuel, but it’s no substitute for making the more than 300 million cars that will be built before fuel cell cars hit the road more efficient – and that is exactly what John McCain and I fought for last year and it’s exactly what President Bush fought against. The litany of environmental neglect and rollback could go on, to wetlands, to toxics, to clean water, to roadless forests, to our public lands. Corporate polluters have found in the Bush Administration that the doors of government are wide open. In fact, the Administration invited in the chief lobbyists to rewrite the very laws that were intended to protect us from them. This Administration has heeded the special interests rather than America’s interest and the result has been the most wide-ranging retreat on environmental protections in a century.

Americans want to make sure the water we drink is clean. But this Administration tried to increase the limits of arsenic in our water. Americans want the toxic sites in our neighborhoods cleaned up. But this Administration has cut the number of sites we're cleaning up nearly in half. Americans believe in simple justice: that what you mess up you should clean up. But this Administration has found a new principle: when today’s polluters pollute and profit, taxpayers should foot the bill. Americans believe in cleaning up pollution, not subsidizing it. But this Administration protects government subsidies that ignore or undermine our commitment to a clean environment. The Fossil Energy Research and Development program spends more than $400 million on R&D for oil companies who can afford their own R&D-- and even duplicates research they’re already engaged in. Meanwhile clean alternative energies compete for the scraps of a mere $24 million in federal venture capital. Americans believe we can build an international consensus to address the threat of global warming. But this Administration ignored it – sending a message that reverberated around the globe – and will reverberate upon future generations. Their meetings are behind closed doors, but their agenda is plain to see. What is particularly plain to me is that we need a new agenda and America needs a healthier environment – with cleaner air, water, and land. We need and we must have a future that is no longer dependent on oil from unstable regions. So let’s take the President at his word. We will not deny; we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations. But, unlike this president, our actions must be as bold as our rhetoric. Instead of weakening the Clean Air Act, let’s strengthen it to reduce mercury, sulfur, nitrogen and carbon emissions. Instead of letting the Superfund go broke, sticking taxpayers with the tab, and forcing communities to live with toxic sites, let’s restore the polluter pays principle and get the poisons out of our neighborhoods. And let’s deal with new threats, not deny them, turning away and pretending not to see as more and more Americans are exposed to more and more toxics in combinations we’ve never imagined. There are some 80,000 chemicals registered for use in the United States, and each day we are exposed to hundreds, even thousands, of them. They are released into our environment, into our air, water and land and they find their way into the food chain. We bring them into our homes in the food and products we buy, from cleaners to cosmetics to our children’s toys. We assume the chemicals are safe, but that’s a mistake. Fewer than 10 percent have been tested, and some of have been linked to cancer, birth defects and infertility. It’s long since time we give the EPA and FDA the authority and capacity to investigate, monitor and test the long-term risks of these compounds. Our environment and our bodies are no place to experiment with chemicals. We must also help cities across the nation, like the old manufacturing towns all across New England, build the infrastructure that will keep sewage and polluted runoff out of our rivers, lakes and harbors, and beyond this, we must leverage a new urban strategy in America to plan spaces – build community – avoid the endless sprawl that robs us of our public spaces – and ultimately revive the urban center as one of the best places to live and raise a family. We must manage our land knowing we will someday pass it on to tomorrow’s generations. We must work it, reap its harvest, and care for it. This is not just an ideal or a possibility; it is a deeply practical imperative.

Economy And the good news is our progress in technology and the lessons of the past three decades, have taught us that cleaning up the environment will strengthen not weaken our economy. We need to push back on the scaremongering which falsely portrays pollution as the price of prosperity. We don’t have to choose between jobs and the environment. Protecting the environment is jobs – the high value added jobs of the future. This is not pie-in-the-sky, tree hugging, do-gooder environmental day dreaming. This is real. It's happening in pioneering efforts across the country and across the globe. It awaits our leadership. When I hear the polluters and their favored politicians invoke the issue of jobs and growth, my response is: It is not us who should be on the defensive - it's them and it's time we put them there. In doing so, we cannot talk vague generalities. We must show real jobs, real costs, real transition numbers. We must show that our next generation of environmental solutions represent the least intrusive, most cost effective ways of doing the job. We must show the growth in demand in America and precisely how we will meet it, not just without loss but with gain in the quality of our lives. We know if we invest in new technologies we can build cars and SUVs that are twice and three times as efficient as today – and one day a car that relies on no oil at all. And a company that may help build that car can be found right there in Cambridge; it’s called Nuvera Fuel Cells and it’s putting fuel cell components in prototype cars today. We know if we support promising research, we can get cleaner coal, renewable sources of energy like wind and solar energy, light our homes and businesses with fuel cells, and run power plants that don't turn the jet stream into a river of pollution. And today the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 103 is taking the lead by training technicians in the maintenance and installation of solar. Minnesota now requires that a percentage of its electricity be generated from the wind, and family farmers have gone into the power business. In Woodstock, Minnesota, Richard and Roger Kas have built 17 wind turbines on their land, creating enough electricity to power more than 2,000 homes. Other farmers are literally growing renewable fuels in their fields which will bring warmth and light to our homes.

For Americans who work in engineering, design, and industry, the growth of wind, solar and geothermal can spark an unprecedented surge in production. And since developing new energy technologies is a research-driven, pathbreaking activity, a commitment to it will yield thousands and ultimately hundreds of thousands of well-paying new jobs. The machines of renewable energy will be made of steel, aluminum and glass. They will be machined, manufactured, distributed and maintained. And in that historic effort, I do not want and we cannot afford to see this country take a backseat to the Germans or the Japanese. This new direction for America can create new jobs for Americans, and it's up to us to make our economy second to none on this technological frontier. Building more efficient cars and SUVs will not only save millions of barrels of oil a day; in the end, it will create or sustain millions jobs. So will building high-speed rail and 21st century transit. The possibilities are limitless. But it will take a commitment as broad and bold as sending a man to the moon. And we can’t fulfill that commitment by sending the environment to the back of the budget – and putting the polluters in charge, in secret, behind closed doors.

Energy Security Is National Security In the end, though, our concerns about the environment are not just about the economy and quality of life here at home. Make no mistake: our environment and energy policies are critical to national our security. The Bush-Cheney energy policies leave us at the mercy of a region racked with violence and instability, now more than ever. We can no longer tolerate a dependence on foreign oil, that could be cut-off amid global chaos at the whim of unstable tyrants like Saddam Hussein. The Bush Administration thinks we can drill our way out of our energy problems. And their solution is to drill in one of our precious national treasures - the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That’s not an energy policy, that’s simply the needless pursuit of profit. They brought this plan to the United States Senate -- and we stopped them. Now they say they will try again – and I pledge to you that we will stop them again. This Administration likes fuzzy math but any child can do the math on oil. The fact is when 65% of the world's oil supply is in the Gulf and only 3% in America. There is no way we can drill our way to energy independence. We have to invent our way there. A founding member of the OPEC oil cartel said years ago that the Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones, and the oil age won’t end because we run out of oil. At the start of the 21st century, we have new possibilities to develop technologies that advance both our economy and our environment -- and at the same time become a nation and a world less and less dependent on oil. We can create a market for clean, domestic, reliable energy with a national standard for renewable power in the electricity sector. I believe we should set a national goal of having 20% of our electricity come from domestic alternative and renewable sources by the year 2020. Twenty-twenty - I think it's a vision worthy of America; a goal I believe our citizens are ready to embrace.

We can reform the tax code to end the federal largess given to polluting fuels and invest instead in the technologies that will make our homes and businesses and transportation more efficient and bring renewable energy to market. We can cut our dependence on foreign oil by building more efficient cars and SUVs and creating a national market for the biofuels grown on farms across the nation. Domestic, renewable sources are urgently needed now because they are entirely under our control. No foreign government can embargo them. No terrorist can seize control of them. No cartel can play games with them. No American soldier will have to risk his or her life to protect them. For all those reasons -- to create a better, more secure and cleaner environment -- and to move to real energy security -- I believe even the most rock-ribbed conservative would agree we must take steps that go beyond what market forces will do on their own. We should be the world’s environmental leader. Our global environmental policy should be driven by our convictions, not our constraints.

America has not led but fled on the issue of global warming. The first President Bush was willing to lead on this issue. But the second President Bush's declaration that the Kyoto Protocol was simply Dead on Arrival spoke for itself - and it spoke in dozens of languages as his words whipped instantly around the globe. What the Administration failed to see was that Kyoto was not just an agreement; it represented the resolve of 160 nations working together over 10 years. It was a good faith effort - and the United States just dismissed it. We didn't aim to mend it. We didn't aim to sit down with our allies and find a compromise. We didn't aim for a new dialogue. The Administration was simply ready to aim and fire, and the target they hit was our international reputation. This country can and should aim higher than preserving its place as the world's largest unfettered polluter. We should assert, not abandon our leadership in addressing global economic degradation and the warming of the atmosphere that if left unchecked, will do untold damage to our coastline and our Great Plains, our cities and our economy. We should be the world's leader in sustainable developmental. We should be the world's leader in technology transfer and technical assistance to meet a host of environmental and health challenges. Several years ago I worked with the World Bank to organize the first sustainable development conference in Southeast Asia to help Vietnam consider the balance of development and sustainability so Hanoi doesn’t become Beijing, a city where people have to wear surgical masks just to take a breath of air. Avoid breathing the dirty air. We brought corporations and scientists and engineers to the table to find cleaner ways for Vietnam to develop. The question is why we’re not doing that everywhere around the globe; the question is why we don’t have a President who recognizes that friends we rely on to clean up on the environment are friends we can call on help clean out the stables of terrorism. If we are going to be true stewards for the air, water and land, for our nation and the earth itself, we must remember that we are all in this together. This is about our values. It is about who we are as a people.

So those of us who are Democrats must stand as a party for the preservation and protection of the environment. We can all wish it did not have to be so – that this Administration shared the bi-partisan commitment of other republicans before them. After all, some of the greatest progress on the environment has come across party lines - the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. It was Richard Nixon who looked at the burning rivers and smog filled cities and decided to support an Environmental Protection Agency. Americans don’t think about whether they are a Democrat or a Republican when they worry about a child’s asthma or polluted tap water. They think about their local towns and playgrounds, their everyday lives and their future. My mother was a committed citizen. She started a local recycling program in Manchester by the Sea. She worked in her community to build a nature trail. I still remember her waking me up in the early hours of the morning to walk with her in the woods listening to the sound of wild birds. I didn’t understand it at the time, but that’s what the environmental moment is about – leaving your little piece of this planet better for your children than you found it. Citizens like my mother across the nation work every day to preserve that legacy. And so should our national leaders. They should not be guided by big polluters or Washington lobbyists. They should be guided by a profound commitment to the protection of the earth, a greater and more healthy prosperity, a more genuine and stronger national security. If we want to be a nation that honors our responsibilities, values our families, and safeguards our society, then we must change our direction. We must forge a new path to an America that looks beyond the next election to the next generation. An America where the use of military might is not clouded by our need for oil. Where the stability of our economy is not rattled by the instability of a dictator or an authoritarian regime. Where no child grows up near toxic cites and poisonous chemicals. Where citizens concerned about the environment have the same access to the White House that big oil companies do today. Where our children can treasure the calm and clear water of the Great Lakes, and the majesty of the Rocky Mountains. In the summer of 1963, in the months after he signed the nuclear test ban treaty, what he called that first step to “make the world safe for human survival,” President Kennedy traveled across the western United States, to the Rockies and beyond, and spoke of that other fundamental cause that would shape the future and fate of America – the conservation of our land, our air, and our water. That call summons us with renewed urgency today. Like his call to end the nuclear nightmare and the evil of racism, the outcome now is up to all of us to believe as he did “Here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.” In that spirit let us embark on our own journey toward that timeless vision of “America the beautiful.” And long after that journey, let our grandchildren look back on it and say that we were the generation that used our time to protect the Earth for all time.

[ProSense]

12. More...

From the Office of Senator Kerry

Senator John F. Kerry Urges President Bush to Shift Direction on Climate Change

Tuesday, June 12, 2001

Yesterday, President Bush addressed the nation in a Rose Garden ceremony on the issue of global warming and our environment. There are many issues of importance on the table as the President meets with European leaders, and when the President returns from his trip I plan to address those issues, as well. I believe that is the most appropriate way to proceed while the President is abroad. However, since the President addressed the nation yesterday on the issue of global warming, I see it as appropriate to respond to that statement today.

Regrettably, President Bush offered our nation and allies no specific policies as to how he plans to protect the global environment. In short, the President has called for more study and for funding of what amount to Clinton-era programs at lower levels than in the past. More study is good. In any system as complex as the global climate system there are uncertainties and we must continue our research. Indeed, we may find – as the National Academy of Sciences warned last week – that the danger is even greater than we now understand it to be.

However, Mr. President, it's not that simple. First, we cannot study our way out of this problem. And second, while the President claims to be merely studying the issue, he is, in fact, taking precipitous and dangerous actions that will have enormous implications for America's ability to resolve the environmental challenge of climate change.

Almost to underscore this point, the National Academy of Sciences – at the request of White House – issued a report last week assessing our understanding of climate change. In addition to reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is underway and getting worse, the NAS made an extraordinarily relevant observation. It said that, "National policy decisions made now and in the longer-term future will influence the extent of any damage suffered by vulnerable human populations and ecosystems later in this century."

Indeed, since the earliest days of his administration, the President has made a series of policy decisions that will profoundly impact our ability to protect the global environment – all while purporting to be studying the issue.

While the Administration claims to be only studying the issue, the President repeatedly questioned the underlying science of climate change and attempted to reignite the debate over whether the threat is real. He did this despite the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – a scientific panel founded at the behest of his own father, despite earlier assessments by the National Academy of Sciences and some of the top government and university researchers in this nation, and despite personal statements of concerns from researchers from around the nation.

This is an important point, Mr. President. The President seems intent on grasping any uncertainty in the science as reason for inaction – that is a dangerous posture. We may never know the exact the rate of change, the specific impacts and the precise human contribution until it is too late. The change we are causing in the atmosphere – raising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to levels unseen in over 400,000 years -- is totally unprecedented. Those who demand that we wait for absolute certainty – starting with the President -- should explain how they will reverse the damage we have caused – how our environment can be made whole again once we have polluted atmosphere in such a substantial and fundamental way.

While the Administration claims to be only studying the issue, the President reversed a campaign pledge and announced his new-found opposition to capping carbon pollution from power plants -- the source of a third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The idea of a four-pollutant power plant bill is bipartisan, has industry support and remains one of our most promising proposals to move ahead on climate change – and it was rejected out of hand by the President only weeks after entering office.

While the Administration claims to be only studying the issue, the President declared the Kyoto Protocol on climate change to be "dead" and still calls the agreement "fatally flawed." Whatever one thinks of the substance of the Kyoto Protocol, it is self-evident that the President's outright rejection of the Protocol so quickly – with little explanation, little international consultation and apparently little considered analysis – was a mistake. The Protocol is flawed – but it is also the product of 160 nations and a decade of work – and it is – with sound negotiating and hard work – fixable.

While the Administration claims to be only studying the issue, the President proposed a budget to the nation that slashed federal support for clean energy technologies – a vital component of any plan to mitigate climate change. The President's budget cuts funding in almost every efficiency program at the Department of Energy, including cuts to appliance, building, industry and transportation. It cuts support renewable energy from wind, solar, geothermal and biomass by about half.

While the Administration claims to be only studying the issue, the President issued an energy plan that – by his Administration's own acknowledgment – does not consider the threat of global climate change. It resurrects an energy policy better suited for the year 1970 than the year 2000. It does more to set limits on America's ability to innovate than it does to inspire the technological advances that can help our economy and our environment. By one estimate, it will increase our greenhouse gas pollution by as much as 35 percent.

Mr. President, I would like to read again the crucial observation made by the National Academy of Sciences. The committee wrote, "National policy decisions made now and in the longer-term future will influence the extent of any damage suffered by vulnerable human populations and ecosystems later in this century."

With all due respect, Mr. President, this idea that the White House is studying the issue of climate change before acting is a charade: President Bush is acting on the issue of climate change. He is acting aggressively, forcefully and dangerously. I urge him stop, to take the time to understand the issue and what's at stake for our economy, our environment and the nation – and I urge him to change course.

Mr. President, I don't claim to have all the answers to the challenge of global warming. There are complex environmental, economic, scientific and diplomatic challenges. However, I do know that we need American leadership and that we can and should act now – and we can do it in ways that will protect our environment and grow our economy.

We can meet this challenge. While many remain recalcitrant and insist we cannot have a strong economy and a healthy environment, some businesses are already cutting emissions and proving them wrong. BP will reduce its emission to10 percent below its 1990 levels by 2010. Polaroid will cut its emissions to 20 percent below 1994 levels by 2005. Johnson & Johnson will reduce its emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. IBM will cut emissions by 4 percent each year till 2004 based on 1994 emissions. Shell International, DuPont and others made similar commitments. Predictions of economic calamity from entrenched polluters are not credible when leading companies are doing exactly what they say cannot be done. I firmly believe that with innovation and entrepreneurship America can find a global solution -- and some the steps that we should take are already clear.

One place to start is with our allies in Europe. America should chart a new and responsible course by setting out a framework that can guide the nation -- and I say this not only to the President but my colleagues, as well. We should assure the world that policy will be based on science and that we understands that the threat of global climate change is real. We should lead by cutting emissions at home. We should commit to crafting an international agreement based on mandatory emission caps and to bringing to the table all stakeholders to find the least intrusive, least expensive and most effective solutions. Finally, under the leadership of President Bush, we must fix and finalize the Kyoto Protocol.

Suggesting that we finalize the Kyoto Protocol will likely strike some as heresy, but it shouldn't. I believe that a fair assessment of the situation demands it. It is in America's national interest to craft a successful agreement. Despite political claims that the Kyoto Protocol sets unfair and impossible goals, it does not. The fact is that significant sections of the Protocol are incomplete, so much so that even the pollution targets themselves are essentially unsettled until we determine the accounting of carbon sinks. While the Protocol is an extraordinary achievement in that it sets essential mandatory caps on pollution, the room for compromise is substantial. The President would be wise to finish the job on Kyoto and do what his predecessor failed to do. It would be an act of true leadership.

At home, we must cut our pollution. Despite being home to less than 5 percent of the world's population, the United States is responsible for roughly a quarter of its greenhouse gas emissions -- and our pollution continues to rise. We have wasted the past decade in political impasse, failing to seize opportunities to increase efficiency and reduce pollution from automobiles, appliances, electric utilities, housing, commercial buildings, industry or transportation. Nor have we provided sufficient economic incentives for the development and proliferation of solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen and other clean energy technologies. American negotiators will carry this regressive record to the international talks like unwanted baggage. It heightens distrust, gives opening to our sharpest critics and undermines the credibility essential for success. It is why the world turns a skeptical eye on United States proposals for emissions trading and the use of sequestration technologies. It is why our claims that China – with is high national emissions but very, very low per capita emissions and recently declining emissions – ring so hollow.

But aiding the international search for a solution is not the primary reason for Congress to act to reduce pollution. Efforts to cut pollution will have wide-ranging domestic benefits, including reducing local air and water pollution, preventing respiratory and other illness, saving consumers money, lessening our dependence on imported oil, lessening pressure to exploit our natural lands, creating markets for farmers, growing jobs and exports in the energy sector, enhancing our overall economic strength, and strengthening our national security.

We should begin with steps that benefit the environment and the economy and are technologically achievable today. We can and should increase the efficiency of automobiles, homes, buildings, appliances and manufacturing.

The efficiency of the average American passenger vehicle has been declining since 1987 and is now at its lowest since 1980. That is unacceptable. Our cars and trucks should be increasingly more efficient – not less efficient. Despite doubling auto efficiency since 1975, we're now backsliding. It is time to update national standards for vehicle efficiency. It's time to get more efficient gasoline, diesel, natural gas, hybrid and fuel cell vehicles off the drawing board and onto America's highways. We can do it. We are doing it. Hybrids, once consider exotic, are on the market today getting 50 miles to gallon.

We can improve the efficiency of resident and commercial buildings. I am a cosponsor of the Energy Efficient Buildings Incentives Act. It is a bipartisan proposal to provide tax incentives for efficiency improvements in new and existing buildings. Once implemented it would cut carbon emissions by over 50 million metric tons per year by 2010 – and provide a direct economic savings will exceed $40 billion.

We can strengthen efficiency standards for clothes washers, refrigerators, heat pumps, air conditioners and other appliances. Standards issued in 1997 and earlier this year by the Department of Energy must be fully and effectively implemented. The net energy savings to nation will be $27 billion by 2030. The environmental benefits include a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions equal to taking more than 14 million cars off the road.

We must push the deployment of domestic, reliable and renewable energy from wind, solar, biomass and geothermal by creating markets and providing financial incentives. Today, California gets 12 percent of its energy from renewable energy while the rest of country get less than 2 percent of its electricity from renewable energy. We need to do a better job. Our nation has great potential for wind power -- not only in states like North Dakota, South Dakota or Iowa – but also in coastal states like Massachusetts. Planning is underway for an offshore wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts that will generating as much as 400 megawatts of power – enough to power 400,000 homes. We've only begun to tap the potential of geothermal in Western states and biomass, which can produce energy from farm crops, forest products and waste. But to seize this potential we must create the markets and financial incentives that will draw investment, invention and entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, America is falling behind. One of the challenges in wind development is long delays in purchasing equipment from European suppliers who have the best technologies but also long delays because of rapidly growing demand. I believe American companies should be the technological leaders supplying American projects – instead it's European firms. We must create the market and the incentives for these technologies and let America's entrepreneurs meet the demand.

Finally, we must look to the long term. If we are ever to convince the developing world that there is a better way, we must create that better way. To do so, we must invest in solving this problem with the same urgency that we have invested in space exploration, military technology and other national priorities. For too long our investments have been scatter shot and poorly coordinated -- and lacked the intensity we need. We need a single effort, with strong leadership, that investigates how we meet this challenge and sets a path for a sustainable future.

If we do this Mr. President, if we act early and invest in the future, I am confident our investment will be rewarded. It will bolster our economy, make us more energy independent, protect the public health and strengthen our national security. Unlike today, America will be the leader in clean energy technologies and we will export them to the world. As America has throughout our history, we will lead in finding a global solution -- and we will protect the global environment for generations to come.

Kerry: Bush Announcement on Global Warming Insufficient At Best

Urges Bush Administration to Reevaluate Direction, Assert Real Leadership in Europe

Monday, June 11, 2001

"Regrettably, after much expectation and with great fanfare, President Bush today offered our nation and allies skepticism about proven science and vague promises rather than genuine leadership on global warming. While the President talks about studying the issue, his Administration continues to pursue a course which will only increase pollution – he broke a promise to cap power plant pollution, rejected the only international agreement to solve the problem, submitted a budget that cuts funding for clean energy technology, and promotes an energy plan that will increase pollution by 35 percent. The President promised to offer the world a policy today -- well now we have it: a policy of skepticism, inaction, rhetorical flourishes rather than action, and an energy plan which will only increase our dependence on fossil fuels. Yes, the President has a policy on global warming -- and if you care at all about the environment, it's a dangerous one.

"Today, the day before the President prepares to summit with European leaders, was a time to set forth a plan for action. The President should engage with our allies in the effort to fix and finalize the Kyoto Protocol. At home, we should take steps that benefit the environment and the economy: increasing the efficiency of automobiles, homes, buildings, appliances and manufacturing, and capping pollution from powerplants. These proposals have bipartisan support and are technologically achievable today. We must push the deployment of domestic, reliable and renewable energy from wind, solar, biomass and geothermal by creating markets and providing financial incentives. And we should push an aggressive research program that can tap American innovation and usher in advancements in energy technologies like those we've brought to communication and medical technologies over the past decades."

From the Office of Senator Kerry

Senator Kerry Responds to NAS Finding on Global Warming

Urges Bush Administration to Accept the Science and Reassert American Leadership

Thursday, June 7, 2001

"Today's announcement of the National Academy of Science's findings represent an unequivocal rebuke of the White House's attempt to create a political escape hatch from reality. We know they'd hoped to use this study to temper or weaken the credibility of the IPCC's scientific findings and those developed over more than a decade of serious research. In fact, the opposite has happened -- the evidence on global warming has again been reaffirmed, underscoring not just how much the Bush Administration lags behind the rest of the world community on this issue, but exactly how enormous the challenge before us really is. It's time to accept the science, reengage in fixing the Kyoto Protocol, and move forward."

[sandnsea]

13. That doesn't address National Security

Climate Change as an actual National Security issue. Global tensions that will arise from the environmental changes. That sort of thing. Certainly Kerry has been a leader on the environment and climate change, but I think Reid framed it more along a global national security problem than just damage to the environment.

[ProSense]

17. More...

I believe it's all interrelated.

02/09/2005

Remarks by Senator John Kerry on Climate Change

Below are the remarks of Senator John Kerry at the Brookings Institution conference on Climate Change Policy in Washington, D.C., today. Remarks by Senator John Kerry AS PREPARED Climate Change Policy: What's Next?

I'm very grateful to the Brookings Institution for putting this panel together. I know that under Strobe Talbott's leadership Brookings is increasing its investment in environment and energy work-and nothing could be more important right now.
You have had a terrific discussion group this morning with individuals I have had the privilege of working with, all of whom have enormous expertise. They know this issue inside out and backward.

The challenge of global climate change is urgent and it continues to receive far too little serious focus on Capitol Hill, notwithstanding its importance to our security and the potential impacts-both positive and negative-to our economy. As you know, I tried to make the environment one of the central issues of my campaign, but with only one environment question in three presidential debates, we've obviously got a lot of work to do.

So here we are. Thirteen years after the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 and the world's first effort at crafting a global response to the threat of climate change.

It was at those talks that the American delegation, led by EPA Administrator Bill Reilly and under the tight control of the White House, ultimately embraced the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

As we know, in that agreement, more than 100 nations accepted the scientific evidence that pollution is altering the composition of the atmosphere and set a voluntary goal to "prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

In other words, thirteen years ago we recognized climate change as a global problem in need of a global solution. We defined a global goal. And we set a path for future negotiations. It was a small step, but it was a first step, and it was progress.

It was then only a few years later that President Clinton started to build on the foundation laid at the Earth Summit. In Japan, Argentina and the Netherlands, I watched and worked with American delegates as they hammered out the framework of the Kyoto Protocol.

Thanks to the leadership of President Clinton and Vice President Gore, the Protocol sets the first-ever binding targets to reduce pollution and incorporates a distinctly American approach to a global challenge by creating a market for pollution credits that can drive efficiency, savings and innovation.

Let me emphasize: We knew at the time, the Kyoto Protocol was a work in progress after its initial negotiation. I counseled the President against submitting it to the Congress without more progress on developing nations. We knew there was work to do.

When President Bush took office in 2001 he had any number of options before him to move the ball forward. He might have used the bully pulpit to push for greater participation from the largest emitters in the developing world. He might have focused on targets beyond 2012. He might have pushed for a more robust trading program or greater technology transfer.

But President Bush took a decidedly different tack. He flatly rejected the active and mandatory approach of the Clinton Administration, and in many ways, he even rejected the incremental and voluntary approach of his father's administration.

Instead, in the months after taking office, the President questioned the underlying science, broke a campaign promise to cap carbon emissions from power plants, rebuked his EPA chief for positive comments about Kyoto, proposed an energy plan that would only increase pollution, and withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol and the international process altogether.

In sum, our nation has been forced into a great step backward in our work to protect the global environment.

This is not a political assessment. These are the facts. The Bush Administration made clear to all who cared to listen that America would not lead-nor would it follow-the global effort to avert harmful climate change.

It is a matter of policy, and the Administration remains disengaged to this day, despite the fact that the United States is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

As you discussed this morning and after seven years in critical condition-the Kyoto Protocol in one week will enter into force without the United States.

And while the pact was left to whither, while many of its flaws remain unfixed and while its future is uncertain, its true importance may rest in what it says about America's changing relationship with the world and the future of climate change diplomacy.

Kyoto shows that our allies are prepared to set the global agenda without the United States. That is neither good climate policy nor good for the United States. Sadly, around the world, people are questioning our moral authority. People are questioning our commitment to universal values, such as environmental protection and sustainable development.

And our absence proves that while America dithers, others will act. And this is not without a price.

Just last month, Prime Minister Tony Blair cautioned us that, "If America wants the rest of the world to be part of the agenda it has set; it must be part of their agenda, too."

It's against this backdrop of retrenchment and isolation that the Bush Administration must decide its next move. It will come as no surprise to you that I have no privileged insight into the President's plans.

The President's dismissal of the science, his aversion to innovation and his skepticism of international cooperation present us with an even greater challenge.

Despite the scientific evidence that the threat is real, dangerous and irreversible, the political evidence is that ideology will trump reason in the White House, and there will be no affirmative, real "Next Step" for America until we have a change of heart and mind, or a change in leadership at the top.

So it is up to those of us who believe the threat is real to argue the case for action against the President's do-nothing policy.

There are clear principles that should drive and shape our actions as we do that. They are:

* The science is compelling and demands action.

* The challenge will become more difficult the longer we wait.

* The problem and the solution are global.

* Markets will drive down costs and drive up innovation.

* Sound domestic policies will contribute to the strength of our economy, our security and the environment.

* And at least for now, Washington is far behind the American people when it comes to understanding and meeting this challenge.

If we accept these principles, there is only one course of action. We must engage in the international effort.

The diplomatic issue is no longer Kyoto, yes or no. The world understands that we need to move beyond Kyoto. Kyoto is limited in time and participation, and it may well be limited in its success. But we should see it as a foundation for global cooperation with principles of binding targets and emissions trading that can serve as a blueprint.

Others nations are ready to start a dialogue about the future. Prime Minister Blair is capitalizing on his chairmanship of the G8 to press for broad, cooperative action. But the United States has stood alone and silent. That must stop.

We cannot wait for Kyoto to expire to consider next steps. We need to evaluate options now. We need to signal to the world that we are prepared to shoulder our fair share. And we need to put action behind our words, accepting the principle of binding pollution limits and engaging the developing world.

A number of proposals have been put on the international table, from a G8 program to promote renewable energy to technology funding to development aid to the Framework Convention. We don't suffer from a lack of ideas at the international level.

What we need now is leadership that engages the developing world. No climate plan can work without these nations and no climate plan can pass Congress without their participation. Their emissions may be a fraction of the developed world now, but without action they will skyrocket and soon exceed the largest nations of the developed world. That is unacceptable.

All of us are aware of America's tremendous leverage in the world economy. And with financial assistance and technology transfer-whether it is direct aid, export credit agencies or multilateral development banks-we can spur the growth of clean energy technologies. With a future agreement that rewards developed nations for sound investments in the developing world, we can show these nations that clean energy investments will stimulate and not stifle economic growth.

I believe developing countries can become partners in addressing climate change provided we engage and make it a matter of public health, economic growth, international security-and not just a matter of the environment.

And frankly, the same is true in developed countries, as well, including right here in America. We need policies that address both climate and our core economic and security priorities.

One place to start is with an economy-wide cap-and-trade system that sets a national limit on greenhouse gas emissions and allows companies the flexibility to trade pollution credits to capture the least cost reductions.

This is the approach we developed when dealing with acid rain years ago and has been embraced in a bill that I have supported with Senators McCain and Lieberman.

We know that trading drastically cut the cost of reducing acid rain emissions and now, inspired by Kyoto, the European Union is on the verge of launching the broadest ever pollution trading system. And I know from negotiations in Rio, The Hague, Buenos Aires and Kyoto that this is imminently marketable on a global basis.

And as we approach our national energy policy, certainly supply, price and our economic security must be priorities, but, frankly, so must the environment be a priority, on its own merits. That is why supporting national markets for domestic, reliable, efficient and clean energy technologies are so important.

That is why we must specifically target investments in our industrial base. During the past year, I put forward two proposals to do that. The first invested in the future of clean coal in America's energy supply. It dedicated resources to basic research, commercial viability, and technological deployment into the marketplace.

The second proposal invested in the transformation of American automobile manufacturing. We need to re-tool our auto plants to build the more efficient, advanced technology automobiles of the future.

I want the cars of the future built here in America, and we should create incentives to move in the right direction. I will push for both of these proposals in the upcoming debate on energy policy in the Senate.

But as anyone who follows this debate knows, there is fierce resistance to even incremental initiatives in the White House and on Capitol Hill. To wait for Washington to act by itself will be to wait in vain.

Instead, we have no choice but to encourage and embrace local, state and private action. As I traveled the nation over the past two years, I learned firsthand that Washington is far behind the American people when it comes to understanding and meeting this challenge.

It is not just that Americans have come to understand the threat of climate change through press reports. It is more powerful than that. It is that people are starting to experience changes in their hometowns.

In Arizona and Nevada, I met with officials trying to find solutions to the dwindling water supply after the West suffered through its fifth straight year of drought.

In Ohio, I spoke with hunters who have watched as the birds are changing their migratory patterns with warming temperatures. And I heard countless other stories.

It is not just that Americans want answers from Washington-it is that they are starting to see the answers in their own states and communities.

In Missouri, I spent time on a family farm tapping into the growing market for biofuels.

And in New Mexico, I learned about the state's push for wind energy and its benefits to the economy and the environment.

So while our capital city is gripped by special interests thoroughly invested in the status quo, our states have become the frontline of policy incubation and innovation.

State leaders see economic opportunities in producing and selling alternative fuels, exporting renewable energy, attracting high-tech businesses or even selling carbon reduction credits. We should be helping.

Governor Schwarzenegger-a Republican-has endorsed a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles sold in the California by 2015.

In the Northeast, nine governors, led by New York Governor George Pataki, are developing a multi-state regional cap-and-trade initiative aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Eighteen states have created markets for renewable electric energy.

States are paving the way, and for many the environmental potential is significant. But all of this is still a patchwork of regional efforts-none of which will get the job done by itself. That is why we need national leadership to move us, as a whole, in the right direction.

We are at a moment in this debate that reminds me of my home state's efforts to reduce acid rain some twenty years ago. As Lieutenant Governor I found nothing but resistance in Washington. The White House criticized the science, the technology and the cost-and then threatened peoples' jobs.

With all the doors closed in Washington, we forged ahead with a state-based initiative for a regional plan to cut emissions through a tradable credit program. In the end, it provided political momentum and informed the creation of the federal sulfur trading program in the 1990 Clean Air amendments. And it is not only governments that are acting. Many companies are adopting voluntary pollution targets. Dupont-a $27 billion corporation operating in more than 70 countries worldwide-set a target to sharply cut its emissions by 2010, and exceeded its goal by 2002-eight years early. All in all, there are some 40 American companies that have voluntarily established targets to reduce their pollution. Executives want to be on the cutting edge of clean and efficient technologies. They manage global operations, including in nations that are party to the Kyoto Protocol. And while they may now be reluctant to support better policies in the United States, these companies understand the science, they see that regulation is inevitable, and in many cases they view the drive for climate solutions as a business opportunity.

The lesson here is clear: The American people see the irrationality of our national energy policy. They understand we cannot pollute the environment without consequence. They understand our dependence on unreliable foreign fuels is dangerous. They believe in our capacity to confront a challenge through cooperation and innovation. They believe in a better future forged by American leadership. And we need that leadership.

So for those of us who ask "What is Next for Climate Policy?," the answer cannot be to just wait on Washington.

We can do our best to inform the elected here in Washington, but they may refuse to change course. If so, we must inform the electorate and call on them to change the elected.

We have to educate and organize. We need your expertise-Brookings and others-to defend the science and advocate for action. We have to build the political will so that it is as strong as the special interests-just as we did when we created the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental progress of the past 30 years. And we must build on the momentum of state and private leadership.

If we can do that, we can answer our own question: "What's Next?" We can answer it with real action to protect the global environment.

I look forward to working with many of you in the coming years, pressing our case inside and outside Washington.

2001

S.1716
Title: A bill to speed national action to address global climate change, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Kerry, John F. (introduced 11/15/2001) Cosponsors (4)
Latest Major Action: 11/15/2001 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

[TayTay]

16. This is a fine topic to discuss

and I am certainly not mad at you, but I strongly disagree with the points in the article. This is hardly new ground as any cursory look at human history can tell. What were wars based on for so many years? The need for land due to rising population or soil exhaustion or shifting availability of animals that people hunted. This is human history, this is what has caused war in so many cases. (We are very vulnerable to this now, from China which has a massive pollution problem to Africa which is having an increase in the growth of desert to South America which is cutting down the Rain Forest. Sen. Kerry has talked about each of these things. I don't know where this guy was when it was brought up.) Didn't Al Gore write a friggin book called, Earth in the Balance or was that a Rethug endeavor. Honestly, this is just wrong.

Jared Diamond wrote a whole book about how societies rise and fall based on how they treat their natural resources in Collapse. Whole civilizations have disappeared from the face of the earth when they mismanaged their resources and lost the ability to sustain life. This is hardly new ground here.

I am just incensed that this author thinks that no one has brought this up. It has been brought up plenty. He is another one who wants to blame the Democrats when the Dems are not the ones in power. He is playing another round of pass the buck on the Rethugs. This is just wrong in my book.

[ProSense]

8. Energy independence was a strong message during the campaign

Frank Luntz Republican Playbook -- Searchable Text-Version:
PART IX "AN ENERGY POLICY FOR THE 2lst CENTURY"
By Tom Ball
03/06/05

1) Make it about Energy Self-Sufficiency and Independence. The energy debate is ripe for partisan picking and the Democrats were smart to use it during their convention. Americans want to hear about solutions to foreign energy dependency and are desperate for big ideas and bold solutions. Energy policy is now a public priority and Democrats put themselves on the side of the future. Americans loathe the idea of being reliant on the Middle East for our energy needs and they were waiting for someone to tell them so. This was John Kerry’s single best line at the convention, and it continues to resonate even today:

PAGE 133 ---

DEMOCRAT WORDS THAT WORK

I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation -- not the Saudi royal family. Our energy plan for a stronger America will invest in new technologies and alternative fuels and the cars of the future -- so that no young American in uniform will ever be held hostage to our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Americans are evenly and bitterly divided about an assortment of political issues, but nearly all of them agree that our nation s’ current energy policy is behind-the-times and needs a new, 21st Century approach. Right now, the Democrats are exhibiting perfect pitch when it comes to their energy message. They understand that if you play on American fears towards OPEC, Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, while also appealing to American ideals of invention and innovation, they will have a compelling message. But fortunately for Republicans, the Democratic message does not match their policy. If the GOP wants to gain the advantage you need to match the optimism of the Democrats message -- and that begins with a clear statement that the status quo is unacceptable.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=61453&mesg_id=61458