What does Obama's victory mean for greens?
As everyone (with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton) is now aware, Barack Obama clinched the Democratic nomination for president on Tuesday. One question is now on the mind of every pundit and political player: what will this mean for the fight against climate change?
Except not really, so let me take a stab at it.
The short story goes like this: Obama's victory is the best thing that could have happened to greens, but perhaps not for the reasons you think.
It's not about policy
In part thanks to the early courage of John Edwards, all the major Dem candidates had excellent climate/energy proposals. All called for 80% greenhouse gas reductions by 2050 (with 100% of carbon credits auctioned), multi-billion dollar investments in clean energy and efficiency, and good-faith engagement with international climate negotiations. Their plans differed in some details, but nothing as significant as mandates in health care. On paper, Dem candidates have been in the same laudable place on the issue.
Their are some differences in their records, of course, and instances when their past votes or words have contradicted their current positions. But despite the inflated claims from various partisans, no Dem candidate has been entirely without sin or entirely without virtue on climate.
(It goes without saying that the common Dem ground is way, way out ahead of John McCain's stated positions and his record.)
Picking the best Dem candidate on climate/energy came down to three things:
- Who makes it the highest priority?
- Who can clarify the differences and articulate the case against John McCain?
- Who can get strong legislation passed when elected?
All all three counts, I think Obama's the guy.
Who makes it the highest priority?
It's clear that climate is not an animating, gut-level issue for ... well, for any national politician. That's not necessarily a condemnation. Climate change is somewhat abstract -- looming in the future, enormous, difficult to grasp on a human scale. Intellectually, plenty of Dem politicians are convinced it's a problem, but it doesn't inflame them like healthcare or education.
That's true for Obama too, but in a way, it's true for Obama across the board. There is a side of him that's professorial and somewhat emotionally distant. He considers things clinically. To him politics is a puzzle: who to talk to, what to say, what levers to pull, to get the policies that will solve America's problems.
This intellectualism can occasionally make him seem remote (or, to Bubbas, "elitist"), but it can play to the advantage of climate/energy, which is itself a huge, fascinating, and very urgent puzzle. When asked last Dec. about the toughest choices he'd face in the White House, he said:
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.
He gets the scope of the problem and he's applying his intellect to properly framing it and finding solutions that can command popular support. Throughout the race, he has subtly strengthened his positions and honed his rhetoric on climate/energy, probing for those places it connects with voters. He's trying to get it into their guts, something he's more capable of than his opponents.
Who can clarify the differences and articulate the case against John McCain?
There's a real danger that climate will become a blurry issue in the general election, since McCain is -- at least according to a gullible press -- a climate champion who supports cap-and-trade just like the Dems. (No.) How deep is McCain's commitment to more sensible energy policy? Shallow enough that he'll propose a summer gas tax holiday, a policy so stupid and counterproductive and panderific that not a single analyst could be unearthed to support it.
What did Clinton do? Pander right along with him. Obama refrained.
That evidence is not dispositive, but it indicates at least some degree of seriousness about sticking to his progressive guns on climate/energy issues. Throughout the campaign, Obama and his aides have made it clear that they will use climate to highlight differences with McCain -- somewhat refreshing from a party that's spent so long attempting to blur differences.
Who can get strong legislation passed when elected?
The answer to this question is both more significant and more speculative.
Ask any green what's missing from the climate fight, and they'll tell you it's genuine public engagement. Acceptance of the basic facts on climate is widespread but it is a priority for only a tiny sliver of voters. Support is wide but shallow. As a consequence, legislative battles are often conducted almost entirely behind the scenes, with only lobbyists in the room, and the passionately opposed minority blocks and stymies the tepidly committed majority. No politician is willing to spend political capital on it because there's no votes to gain from it. (For painful evidence of all this, witness the current debate over the weak Lieberman-Warner climate bill in the Senate.)
The real moonshot of Obama's campaign is the possibility that he will take the skills he learned in community organizing and the bottom-up strategy he used in his campaign and apply it to governance. The climate/energy issue is desperately in need of some old-fashioned bully pulpit leadership. Imagine if Obama could go to the district of a wavering legislator and hold a rally with thousands of volunteers, who then go on to knock on doors, talk to voters, and hold events. Imagine if Obama could shepherd a genuine, public-spirited citizens' movement to push for strong climate solutions.
That kind of thing just doesn't come naturally to old-school, top-down politicians like Clinton and McCain. There's no way of knowing for sure whether Obama will make good on the promise either, but for greens, sick with the knowledge of our rapidly shrinking window of opportunity, it's the brightest hope to emerge from the dismal arena of American national politics in a long time.
Further reading:
- Interview with Obama on green issues
- Factsheet on Obama's climate/energy positions
- Interview with Obama energy adviser Jason Grumet
- Campaign factsheet on energy plan
- Analysis of Obama energy plan
- Comparison of Clinton and Obama on green issues
- Interview with McCain on green issues
- Factsheet on McCain's climate/energy positions
- Analysis of McCain's record on climate/energy
- Analysis of McCain's climate plan
- Interview with McCain energy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin
Follow David Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/david_h_roberts
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As a big "G" Green Party member, activist, and registered voter I remain hopeful, yet extremely skeptical. We hear these same promises from major party candidates every 4 years, when such candidates even pay attention to the environment.
We had a Democrat in the presidency and no less than Al Gore as VP for how many years with Democrats in control of Congress at various times over the years, yet we saw glacial advancement in terms of alternative energy research AND implementation and fuel economy improvement, even as the concept of peak oil and the end of the gravy train stared us in the face for over 30 years and 8 administrations!
Please, get over all of this less than impressive racist and sexist crappola.
Vote for a candidate whose values are in line with the best our nation embodies,
vote for Cynthia McKinney, the likely Green Party candidate for President, and let's get to work actually
SOLVING the problem with American ingenuity, sweat, and sacrifice,
not this endless power-grabbing verbage.
So, your betting the farm on a corporate empty suit who is owned lock-stock-and-radioactive-barrel by Exelon? is that the big demogreen plan this year? Jeez, you should go back to suing the Green Party off that ballot if that's the best environmental strategy you can come up with.
Eh, forget it. This comment won't even make it passed the censor...
In truth, dealing with climate change and energy independence is going to take an organized social and economic mobilization effort on par with that of Americans mobilizing for the war effort of WW2. Some cultural changes will need to take place -- Americans can not assume that they will suffer no changes to their lifestyles, or that technology will patently save the day. That being said, we Americans have a solid history of innovation, optimism and ability to adapt. If a truly effective, whole-hearted national effort to go green is going to happen (as opposed to a conservative. watered-down parallel version), it will take a bottom-up populist movement, which Obama has demonstrated is his organizational style. I'm in agreement: Obama is the most likely to further the causes of a green nation.
if Obama has any sense, he will get on the phone with Dennis Kucinich and ask him for a copy of his environmental/energy manifesto. He is the only guy who even remotely gets it: DECENTRALIZED, local, point of use renewable energy not only makes better use of existing grid, increases reliability, cleans the planet up, but also prevents our homes being taken for the thousands of miles (in CA alone) of NEW powerlines they are planning, prevents our gorgeous wilderness from obliteration by wasteful, water-hogging solar farms, and allows those of us who do the RIGHT thing (install renewables on our property and conserve) to be rewarded.
it's the only way.
Great article David.
Gee, how wonderful. The author posts an intelligently written article about the presumptive nominees positions on climate change, and gets.... what? A bunch of foolish responses from people that still haven't gotten a grip on the fact that the primary is over. Nobody cheated, nobody was robbed, Hillary just lost. It's okay to grieve, but at some point we have to move on. Climate change is a very serious issue, and one we need to focus on. Let's try.
Very good comment Metry.
We are moving on; and we will be doing everything we can to assist in the defeat of the inexperienced, deceptive, ruthless, divisive, racist black liberation theology believing, race card throwing Obama.
You're a trip, LOL. Keep up the rant, because you're bound to make Obama look good in the context of your rage. Thanks again.
Obama is NOT the candidate of "unity," but the exact opposite. How can he claim to be a "uniter" when his religion is based upon racism, i.e. black liberation theology. Here is a statement from James H. Cone, the founder of black liberation theology, about the nature of Obama's religion.
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal."
Here is a link to Obama’s church where they admit they preach black liberation theology, and that it is based on the teachings of James H. Cone.
http://tinyurl.com/5q7rjk
Read the books of Cone, and other sources:
http://tinyurl.com/3jc5je
http://tinyurl.com/5qoygw
http://tinyurl.com/yr38go
http://tinyurl.com/5gbovy
http://tinyurl.com/59uwhr
Obama’s religion is racist and divisive. What does this say about a man who would practice such beliefs for 20 years, who would expose his family to this theology of hate?
Obama, his supporters, the DNC, the party elite, and the mainstream media have conspired to marginalize the millions of Democrats who have voted for Hillary, and they will now be using every trick in the book to "bring the party together" to further their ruthless ambitions. They will want you to forget all about the months of biased press, the biased party elite, the insults, the sexist remarks, and the race-cards. They will want you to forget that the Democratic Party now is the party that stands for disenfranchisement of the voters and the rationalization of racism. They will use any method to persuade you to vote for the man who they have preordained as the Democratic nominee. DON'T FALL FOR IT!
Whether you write-in Hillary, if possible, vote for McCain, or sit out the election, right now, for the sake of our families and our country, WE MUST DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER to assist in the defeat of the inexperienced, ruthless, deceptive, divisive, racist black liberation theology believing, race card throwing Obama. We can always come back to the Democratic Party if and when they show a desire to respect our participation, and field an acceptable candidate.
Please specify exactly how any of your baseless allegations against Obama & his supporters are remotely relevant to the specific topic of global climate change at hand. You deliberately took Obama's name completely out of context to promote your own blatantly racist, slanderous agenda and no self-respecting voter should stand for it. The *truth* will set you free whether you like it or not. Stick to this topic as the Huffington Post posting guidelines expect you to do, or refrain from posting your ludicrous propaganda.
`Tis true there's little practical difference between Democrats & Republicans, but certainly not for the reasons cited by hinnis below. Though irrelevant to this topic, Obama & his lawyers were not responsible for MI/FL both violating DNC rules, whereas to allow their delegate count would be unfair to the 48 states that followed those rules. The #1 immediate & efffective long-term action we can all take to reduce the impact of human-exascerbated climate change is to go vegan. This means abstinence from animal products of all kinds in diet is imperative for health, environmental, ethical & world hunger reasons, not necessarily in order of priority. This is the same gaping hole in all environmental arguments of both Al Gore & Barack Obama, though he's infinitely more intellectually honest on this & virtually every other addressed issue than Clinton or McCain. The ultimate "Inconvenient Truth" is that the agribusiness industry, including feedlots, factory farms, slaughterhouses, rendering factories and all related criminal institutions are central to the worst ecocidal devastation imposed by humans against Mother Earth & all Her creation. The second practical national solution is to eliminate the tax cuts for anyone who buys an SUV, while ecofriendlier vehicles, especially hybrids, must be drastically increased to reduce our dependence on limited resources such as oil. This will also nullify the insane right-wing argument for drilling oil in ANWR. Start with these measures and we'll be on the road to recovering ahimsa & bona fide global self-preservation.
Just yesterday I heard there was a giant oil field found in North Dakota that is larger than the Saudi fields. So they won't have to open ANWR after all.
Opening ANWR has nothing to do with oil supply; it's all about profit and power.
There are enormous differences between the realities of how democrats and republicans will implement environmental policies: just look at the Bill Clinton years vs. those of Bush Co. Suggesting otherwise is the blind fallicy of Nader at his nadir.
Their are lots of variations in the web of environmental issues, but the only real issue is population control and reduction. If we can't face that soon, nothing else will make a difference. Not for long.
Obama, his supporters, the DNC, the party elite, and the mainstream media have conspired to marginalize the millions of Democrats who have voted for Hillary, and they will now be using every trick in the book to "bring the party together" to further their ruthless ambitions. They will want you to forget all about the months of biased press, the biased party elite, the insults, the sexist remarks, and the race-cards. They will want you to forget that the Democratic Party now is the party that stands for disenfranchisement of the voters and the rationalization of racism. They will use any method to persuade you to vote for the man who they have preordained as the Democratic nominee. DON'T FALL FOR IT!
Whether you write-in Hillary, if possible, vote for John McCain, or sit out the election, right now, for the sake of our families and our country, WE MUST DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER to assist in the defeat of the inexperienced, ruthless, deceptive, divisive, racist black liberation theology believing, race card throwing Obama. We can always come back to the Democratic Party if and when they show a desire to respect our participation, and field an acceptable candidate.
HILLARY SUPPORTERS AND INDEPENDENTS: Groups are sprouting up in order to organize us in our fight against the dishonest and despicable tactics of the DNC, the mainstream media, and the Obama camp. One such group, Puma PAC, is organizing in response to the hostility, discrimination, and dishonesty our members believe has been directed at us by the leadership of the DNC, the mainstream media (including mainstream blogs and other outlets of new media) simply for being supporters of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for president.
If you would like to join the Puma PAC email list, please send an email to:
join@pumapac.org
Democrats have found that Pelosi, Dean and the party elite are no better than their counterparts in the Republican Party. It's really all about politics, not the will of the voters. So, what we find is a party hierarchy which sanctions and supports the disenfranchisement of voters in Michigan and Florida, the inherent unfairness of the caucus system, and the obviously inappropriate bias of the leadership against Hillary Clinton. The hypocrisy of these charlatans is mind boggling. Take Kerry, who lost the election in 2004 amidst charges of voter fraud in Ohio. Now, he supports Obama, whose lawyers actively prevented a revote in Michigan and Florida, just to further his selfish political ambitions. Since when has the Democratic Party become the party of disenfranchisement; the party of making excuses for the racist and anti-American rants of a Rev. Wright? Since when has some of the party rank and file also endorsed these things, so long as it helps their candidate win? No, there doesn't appear to be much difference after all between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, at least when it comes to fairness and voter rights. I have been a lifelong Democrat, but the actions of the party have destroyed my faith. I think that is why between 30% to 40% of Hillary Clinton supporters have said they would vote for McCain rather than Obama. The Democratic Party, and many of its members, have shown that they are no better than the worst of the Republicans.
Where have you been? The dem nom has been decided by superdelegates since 1972. Voting in the primary is pointless. What makes you think you had anything to do with who gets the nom in the first place?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
