I confess that when I initially heard of it, I thought Bill McKibben’s drive to return solar panels to the White House was essentially a waste of time: of all the things to ask the president, it seemed like the smallest, most insignificant, and easiest. It certainly wouldn’t solve the climate crisis. And it would allow President Obama to cloak himself in a symbolic green action that let him cover a rapidly worsening environmental record.
I realize now that the very simplicity of the request made the solar panels project a masterstroke that clearly exposed, more than any big policy ask ever would, President Obama’s unwillingness or inability to confront our great planetary crisis. Because even in this smallest of disappointments, Obama responded in a way that was a caricature of his failure-by-committee administration: sending mid-level officials to tell the greatest American environmental activist of our time that the president was rejecting their request out of hand in favor of a continued “deliberative process.” Huh? It’s a solar panel, not the Afghanistan war strategy. Politico, in the course of its daily “mind-meld” with top White House officials, probably captured the truth behind the White House’s craven response when they wrote that “the White House won’t like the symbolism” of anything associated with Jimmy Carter.
Of course, rejecting the solar panels, taken alone, is no reason to pass judgment on the entire administration. But this cowardly act came on the same day that the administration rolled out the latest plank in a growing legal assault on independent actions to fight climate change. On Thursday, the administration filed papers with the United Nations to try and prevent Europe from instituting pollution control measures on U.S. airlines’flights that take off or land in Europe. And just two weeks earlier, the Obama administration “appalled” environmentalists by intervening – on the side of polluters &ndash in a lawsuit (Connecticut v. AEP) in which eight states and New York City are suing major Midwestern utilities to force them to clean up their carbon pollution (and doing so in a particularly egregious way, as outlined by Jonathan Zasloff of Legal Planet).
These aren’t the first times the Obama administration has weighed in for polluters – they’ve also worked to stop environmentalists from using the Endangered Species Act to force polluters to clean up – even though climate pollution is melting the sea ice that species like polar bears depend on for survival and imperiling more than a third of all species on Earth. Perhaps most tragically, they issued BP special permits exempting the Macondo well from several environmental laws – and then assented to a sweetheart deal with BP that made BP’s compensation of people affected by the oil spill dependent on continued unsafe drilling in the Gulf.
To put the administration’s actions in context, it’s important to consider the seven major ways that progress has been made around the world against climate change: 1) Pollution caps instituted by Europe, Japan, and other Kyoto Protocol signatories 2) State-level action such as California and northeastern states’ pollution cap, as well as state-level Renewable Energy Standards 3) Entrepreneurism and private investment 4) Voluntary actions by businesses to reduce pollution 5) Activism to pressure corporations, educational institutions, local governments, and other institutions to adopt climate-friendly measures 6) Lawsuits 7) Personal lifestyle changes.
Now the administration is actively working to undermine at least three of these seven pillars by fighting state efforts, publicly rejecting activist efforts such as the solar panel drive, and even going so far as meddling in efforts of other countries to tackle climate change.
Like many environmentalists, I’ve long criticized President Obama for not doing enough to protect the planet – but now I fear that he is not only not doing enough, he is actively going out of his way to fight climate action on many fronts. It’s sad to say it, but he seems to prize the possibility of an unholy and illusory accommodation with polluters over a solution to the great environmental crisis that confronts us.
The White House responds, “We’re better than Bush!” Which is like a six year old bragging that he runs faster than a four year old. In particular, the administration responds by touting the $70 to $80 billion it included in the Recovery Act for efficiency, clean energy, and other pro-environment programs as well as their efforts to limit pollution by using the Clean Air Act. While these actions are indeed steps in the right direction, let’s keep them in perspective: relative to the stimulus packages introduced in other major economies, Obama’s proposal was lower-middle of the pack in terms of its amount of green investment, with just 12 percent of the Recovery Act going to green proposals, according to an analysis by The Financial Times. Although that beats out Japan, Canada, and the UK, we’re lagging far behind countries like Australia (21%), China (34%), the EU (64%), and South Korea’s visionary 79%. In 2010, countries around the world know that green investments generate more jobs bang for the investment buck than traditional stimulus activities – the president’s modest investment is hardly worthy of the self-praise the White House showers itself in when touting its green record.
As for the Clean Air Act, we should remember that the Supreme Court effectively mandated regulation of greenhouse gases in its landmark 2007 case Massachusetts v. EPA. To be sure, the administration has moved faster than their predecessors, but don’t get too excited. A White House official told Politico that the administration is hoping to merely “achieve modest gains with modest regulations. These regulations, on the one hand, are not going to solve the entire global warming problem. On the other, they won’t be incredibly intrusive and blunderbuss. They’ll be the modest steps that EPA is authorized by the existing Clean Air Act to take.”
World Resources Institute has estimated that a combination of EPA regulation and state initiatives could reduce pollution six to fourteen percent by 2020, depending on how ambitious those actions are. Obama’s “modest gains” and his interference with state action seem to be putting our nation firmly at the failing end of that spectrum.
Lest we think that Obama’s reluctance to fight for the environment is somehow specific to a certain apathy about the fate of the planet or a belief that green issues aren’t winning ones, let us remember that this pattern of betrayal of his promises of change cuts across his entire agenda. This is a president who speaks the language of equality – and then has his administration energetically fight lawsuits asking that gays and lesbians be allowed to serve in the military – while booting gay Arabic linguists from the Army. This is a president who spoke passionately about the need to put Americans back to work – and then larded his Recovery Act with marginally-stimulative tax cuts that were geared more towards creating Beltway harmony than restoring the American economy. And let’s not forget President Obama’s signature accomplishment, health care. The president spoke movingly about the need to provide Americans with affordable, effective health care by forcing insurance companies to compete with a public option and then refused to even lobby senators for a public option. He promised to bring drug prices under a control and then, as part of a private, backroom deal with drug companies, agreed to oppose Congressional efforts to rein in out-of-control drug costs in exchange for an agreement to cut costs by “up to, but not more than $80 billion” (an agreement that drug companies soon set about undermining by raising prices before health care reform was instituted). The sad truth is that President Obama has a pattern of sacrificing real results on the altar of “bringing people together” &ndash even if the people he’s bringing together are nihilist Republicans and oil company lobbyists.
So what to do? As enthralled as environmentalists and progressives once were about Obama’s promise, we can no longer remain blind to the reality that Obama has become more obstacle than ally. We cannot ignore that for all his fine rhetoric, his accomodationism and reserve are allowing the planetary crisis to deteriorate and leaving America behind in the race for a clean energy economy. It pains me to say it, but success will require a new president – and that means that after the midterm elections, we need to start looking for a primary challenger who has the heart and soul required to save the planet from catastrophe and rescue America from its economic morass – even as we throw ourselves into grassroots action to do what we can to save the planet despite the president’s interference.
Of course, there’s always an outside shot that President Obama himself could be that new president, that the threat of Tea Party takeover could prompt him to reevaluate his failed political strategy and inadequate policies and embrace courage, principle, and steely resolve. This new Obama could reverse course, welcoming and driving the green economy from the ground up – and using all the powers available to him to crack down on pollution and induce a Republican congress to offer politically feasible, climate friendly measures like broad tax credits for forest protection and clean energy investment. Indeed, just the real prospect of a credible progressive primary challenger would likely move Obama toward a more principled and effective position. There’s still a sliver of time before the race for 2012 starts in earnest – time in which Obama could finally deliver for the planet and the country. But unless he does, environmentalists won’t be able to wait forever for the green, courageous and winning leader the Earth so desperately needs.
One way to make a difference and show environmentalists’ strength, President Obama notwithstanding: support environmental champions in the midterm elections here.
Follow Glenn Hurowitz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/glennhurowitz
Nearly Every GOP Senate Candidate is a Climate Skeptic
Report: Climate change a factor in world hunger
Why American Women Accept Climate Change Science More Than Men
Is E-Commerce Truly Good for the Planet?
Oxford scientist calls for research on brain change
At this point in his Presidency, he will not be turning water into wine. He has been involved in herculean efforts to save the nation, manage senseless wars he did not start, and improve the lives of the American people. Yes, your pet peeve may well not have been addressed. Boo hoo. Something has been changed. The political scene is as a hornet's nest in a viper's den.
Change may look different than you expected. If you thought it would resemble someone ripping the heart out of what you don't like and imposing what you do, that is clearly not his style. His bold moves thus far have not been matched with appropriate support from his "allies" or co-oriented politicos. Yet, they expect much - standing on the sidelines with jaws clenched, arms crossed and toes -a-tappin'. Gee, now how does that help effect political change?
So I will continue to raise my glass to the lesser of two evils.
Environmentalists thought Dem President Clinton was not Green enough.
Formed Green Party, ran Ralph Nader.
Result? Oil men Bush and Cheney in power, environmentalist Gore defeated.
To all Greenies: PLEASE stay out of politics, you are inept and self-destructive.
For your sake, for our sake, for the sake of the environment.
Obama does not need "the base". Radicals from either side only alienate independents, and they elect people. The Repubs base, the Tea Party, is about to cost them a lot of elections.
Luckily this year Repubs are "eating their own" more than Dems are.
Luckily the Tea Party is more visible than the Professional Left right now. They'll turn more people off, Dems might win if the greenies stick to trashing WTO meetings and stay out of politics.
I own lots of solar stock, probably 1/3 of my total worth.
I want a more environmental President, alternative energy subsidies, makes me money.
But you are not going to get one, to think otherwise is naive.
For this simple reason: a majority of Americans do not want a "green" President.
Want proof? Look at the gas-guzzlers we drive. We love cheap oil, we're hooked on it.
Also, Congress makes law, not President. Anti-carbon legislation is blocked in the Senate.
The President's "bully pulpit" is useless. Americans hate being bullied.
This is a democracy, the President reflects the will of the people.
Right now that will is not pro-environment. 49% think global warming is exaggerated.
Instead of bad-mouthing Obama so we can get another Repub oil-man for President -
Why not work on educating the public? Until they agree with you, you will get nowhere.
"You tell me it's the institution, you better free your mind instead."
We do need a viable alternative to Obama. Unfortunately, there isn't one and he's about the best we can get. And that is really sad.
Obama just represents us. Americans are corporatists, except for the young, like HuffPosters here, who haven't had to sell out. Yet.
Almost all Americans drive cars, the majority drive gas-guzzlers. The President and Congress do the will of the people, and that will is cheap gas, no matter the cost.
Environmentalists and so-called progressives (who are really reactionaries) seem to be techno-narcissists, believing that working at politics is like playing video games, and that change is as simple as pressing the ENTER button, for instant gratification. Please, go look for fulfillment of your infantile fantasies elsewhere and leave politics to grownups.
The electric bill is real. Trust me, they get rather upset when I don't pay it. I'll try explaining to the power company that it is just an "infantile fantasy" but I don't think they are going to agree.
Obama has disappointed everyone- but he has trashed his progressive base- which has lead to a disaster. Bad advice from Rahm Emanuel- Obama seems weak and vacillating, in a time when strong progressive leadership was needed.
The environment will be off the screens for at least a few years, until progressives can repair the damage Obama has done- CO2 will keep rising on its current trajectory-UP- toward 400ppmv
Weather events will become increasingly severe- and there is the possibility in a few summers of no ice in the arctic ocean in late summer. The folks who promoted Obama a few years ago simply chose the wrong man to be President.