The Road Ahead

An old British Prime Minister was once asked what were the greatest challenges that a statesman faces. His response was simple: "Events, dear boy, events."

This week we got a tragic and searing reminder from Mumbai, India, of the scope and scale of the challenges that President-elect Obama, his team, and all of us will face in the months and years ahead.

The good news is that this week, Barack Obama passed his first test as President-elect. After ending the era of "my way or the highway" foreign policy on November 4, he put the nail in the coffin this week when he nominated a terrific, talented national security team of thinkers every bit as diverse as they are impressive. Whatever surprises the world holds for America, we can count on the efforts of an all-star team to respond - and deliver.

What we do know is that the next administration will be asked to undertake the tough work of remaking American foreign policy in the (long overdue) post-George Bush era. And as we rethink, it's time we finally take the full measure of the 21st century threats we face. While a previous generation's defining security "events" often came internationally--Roosevelt defeating Hitler, Kennedy standing down Khrushchev--today the very definition of national security is being rewritten to include threats that know no borders: global terror, global AIDS--lately--global finance.

These, too, are national security events to be reckoned with. These too will bear the kinds of surprises we once expected only from our Cold War adversaries. And none will be more global in its scope, more urgent in its stakes and timing, or more desperately in need of a complete policy overhaul than global climate change. As the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and an architect of the first climate change hearings with Al Gore back in 1988, I'm full of hope that we now stand on the precipice of a new bold era of environmental diplomacy.

Time is short. About seven weeks ago, we learned that carbon dioxide emissions are rising faster than even our leading experts predicted. The latest statistics show that global emissions rose 3% between 2005 and 2007. And while that may not sound like a huge increase, it is faster than the worst-case scenario predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Next week I'll heading to Poznan, Poland to head the US Congressional Delegation at talks on a new climate change treaty.

I head overseas with a simple message: America is back.

Back in 1988, we had to open the windows of a hearing room on a sweltering July day to make our fellow Senators feel the heat of our scientists' testimony. Today none other than the President-elect of the United States has said: "Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response."

Since November 4, President-elect Obama has reiterated his commitment to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions very significantly and invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies. He has also promised "vigorous" engagement with other countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Many skeptics may think that our own economic crisis ties our hands and means we cannot afford to fight climate change. The reality is just the opposite: we cannot afford not to. Just recently, our own government's National Intelligence Council noted that climate change will intensify food and water scarcity, serving as a threat multiplier around the globe.

The good news is that the road to salvation from our economic crisis runs through our environmental and energy needs. To avoid an economic meltdown, our economy needs a shot in the arm bigger than any of us could have imagined just a few short months ago, and there is no part of today's economy in greater need of transformation or with greater promise to kicking our economy back into gear than our energy sector. The International Energy Agency says the world needs to invest $45 trillion between now and 2025 to create clean, energy-efficient systems around the world. Experts tell us that, to ward off climate change, we need the green revolution to happen three times faster than the industrial revolution. This is a crisis, and here is our opportunity.

For years now, the world and the American people have been looking for real leadership on climate issues. For years we have watched as the country Lincoln called "the last best hope of earth" seemed like the last place on earth to get serious about climate change.

Well, here is our chance. Global climate change is an issue that knows no boundaries. It is also a golden opportunity for our country to show a new face to the world. This is our chance to lead again.

And as we do, we will need fresh voices and new ideas. For years we have fought for a security debate where "politics stops at the water's edge." We also need a debate that doesn't stop at Washington's edge. We need your help to end the tyranny of a calcified conventional wisdom that sometimes seems to prize playing it safe over the bold steps that would actually keep American's safe. We want your ideas, your input, your critique, and - when we have earned it--your support.

In a few short years, Huffington Post has become a vital clearinghouse for intrepid reporting, trenchant commentary, gossip, humor, and cutting-edge thinking. From Richard Clarke to Richard Lewis, you guys run the gamut and you do it well. I'll be bookmarking huffingtonpost.com/world and reading it in the weeks and months ahead. I hope you'll do the same.

Comments

[joscallinet]

GoVeg's post on animal-gas emissions and how they alone are contributing so strongly to global warming of the atmosphere is "food" for thought. Never realized that methane and other byproducts of cattle have so much additional effect on atmospheric warming per unit of gas compared to CO2 (carbon dioxide), which is considered the chief culprit. We definitely should cut way down on red-meat consumption, anyway, for health as well as environmental reasons, If you have ever had the misfortune to drive down-wind of a huge cattle feed-lot operation in Nebraska and other US cattle-producing states, you will get a powerful whiff of the stench of the vile gases produced by these thousands upon thousands of animals - all standing hoof-to-hoof ankle-deep in their own manure. Very unhealthful for the animals and those of us who consume their meat.

[joscallinet]

No matter how we Huffington Post bloggers may disagree on the cause(s) of Global Warming, there is another issue we cannot ignore: we are fast approching the limits of our planet's ability to sustain the exponentially-growing human population. We may not be able to control population growth; global warfare over diminished resources - perhaps ending with nuclear annihilation - will conclude our seemingly unstoppable march toward self-destruction. I hope not !!
We MUST ask: How many people can Earth sustain? Are we going to deplete the seas of fish - soils of nutrients - continents, of oxygen-producing forests - fresh water, of its purity? How much toxic effluent can we dump into the world's ecosystems before they collapse?
The April, 2007, issue of NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC reported how unregulated and uncontrolled commercial-fishing industries world-wide are using radar spotter planes and enormous trawler-factory ships to fish out the last remaining big-tuna reserves in the Mediterranean and elsewhere. Our technology can strip the seas bare, leaving fishing stocks so depleted that they are unable to recover to sustainable levels.
Technological assaults like these are happening everywhere. We must face them as well as global warming.
No matter how we stand on global warming, our exponentially-growing population is fast closing in on Earth's ability to sustain it. John Kerry and the rest of us have much work to do.

[GoVeg]

The answer to our stupid climate change is here and we don't have to invent anything. Check out this amazing solution. Thank God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ol_6Ju3oYI

[flossophy]

... the video seems amusingly Orwellian.

It's an interesting thought tho... maybe we should ban people from eating red meat? We could have the beef police checking our fridges for loins. Would it be treated like MJ? No driving under beef coma influence.

of course we'd have the local beef-easy to quench the thirst

[brassminnie]

Senator, this is the proposal I've been waiting to hear. Spending billions on construction and on the job training in obsolete technology doesn't make long-term sense. The task is keep short-term profit from becoming more 'important,' and it's been ascendant for a long time. Upgrade America.

[suuzie]

Upgrade America....

Obama needs to upgrade his cabinet to include Senator Kerry as SOS that would be class coupled with integrity to head us into the future, instead of back to the past with Hillary Clinton.

[secondedition]

Sir, it is good to hear that you will be leading on this issue that is so important to our stability, security and our planet. You have started the ball rolling by getting us thinking in terms of what we can do to make a difference. I hope to hear a lot more from you on this important issue in the weeks and months ahead.
Safe travels and happy birthday.

[Andysan]

We need to be a little careful about man-made climate change. Yesterday's ScienceDaily reports that there is a direct correlation between changes in the sun's magnetic field and changes in the earth's climate. Unless one believes the earth's climate influences the sun's magnetic field, there is ample reason to slow down and be a little skeptical about all the popular climate change claims. It is entirely possible that the earth's natural processes completely overwhelm man's effect on the climate.

[MalamuteMan]

Yes, it's possible... but the ever increasing number of humans using an ever increasing number of resources and energy and producing an ever increasing amount of waste cannot go on forever! We can say it is "the sun's magnetic fields"... and it may be... but that does not mean we can assume that what we are doing is harmless.

[SocialistPig]

... just as you cannot ASSUME that we are harmful.

[flossophy]

Of course man has an effect... go to any major city in China... or any developing country.

...But is it a life threatening critical one? Is it a problem that is so important that we need to increase the size of government to fix it?

The Debate is in primarily 3 areas:

1.) Is the COST (to the world economy) worth the BENEFIT? (many would say: "marginal at best") (This is the political debate... as in: "should we move sharply to the Left, so that we can avert this crisis?")(OR, can we adapt to climate change, which may allow the rest of the world to develop to the point at which they can clean up their own pollution?)

2.) is man really causing this? (or is it sunspot activity - part of the scientific debate)

3.) is global warming really so bad? (increased agricultural production, less death - possible 'side-effects' of global warming) (...which is more of the scientific debate)

did I describe this correctly?

[ZalaK]

For argument's sake - let's assume climate change is an issue people have absolutely no control in preventing . What, honestly, is the point in slowing down a process that will potentially offer cleaner, sustainable fuel sources; alternatives to oil; reduction in emissions and purer air; jobs, revenue; corporate accountability for toxic waste management and citizens further developing awareness about the garbage we consume/expel.....? Even with an alarmist approach - masses of people frightened/panicked at the prospect of a poisoned future - this movement is crawling along anyway. How much slower should we move on this issue? I don't understand the motivation of those who say "hold on". What are the consequences of proceeding quickly on even "imagined, man-made" climate change, other than annoyingly disrupting lifestyle choices?
Science, schmience - environmental responsibility reflects our humanity....our sense of stewardship. By now, if individuals remain skeptical on this issue, NO amount of science will teach accountability or change such an entrenched point of view.

[flossophy]

In all seriousness, i think the "hold on" people are saying:... look at the negative effect on the economy for the supposed gains in combating global warming... which would be negligible. The "hold on" folks are thinking that it's simply a political mechanism for the advancement of leftist ideas... to restrain or control capitalism... or perhaps equalize the distribution of power in the world. For instance, Kyoto would only provide a marginal amount of 'positive' effect, yet it would cost the world's economies hundreds of billions... billions which could better be spent developing the poor nations of the world.

I think i got that correct...

Zalak, i think science has more power than you think... if the scientific consensus was that man had less to do with climate change, yet it is an important issue to deal with... i think there would be more rational discussions on how to move forward as a species. And the savings to the economy would be felt for generations.

[ZalaK]

Comment below meant for SocialistPig's post: With all of the past, historical climate changes that have ocurred on Earth, how can you prove that man has caused the most recent climatological changes?

[flossophy]

ZalaK, I am going to thoroughly enjoy the coming years... especially the moments where Mr Gore has to answer some thoughtful questions about his assertions on the environment.

[flossophy]

uh ohhh... Science!?! ... casting doubts on man-made global warming?!?

This will not be acceptable to the true environmentalists!!! NO, we must not let science interfere with our altruistic plans to end global warming!!!

[MalamuteMan]

Part 1
To pritchet1 (below, posted at 4:11pm):

So... "economic feasibility" is more important than "Gaia" (ecological) considerations???

Whether the earth is warming or cooling really isn't the issue!!! There is NO DOUBT that mankind is having a huge impact on this planet and all the creatures that live on it.

We humans are clever enough to contrive how to transport men to the moon and bring them back alive and well; but not wise enough to see that technology is changing our planetary ecosystem so rapidly that the survivability of all life it threatened. We introduce one marvelous gadget and potion after another; and when we discover unanticipated and undesirable side effects from our inventions we devise yet another new thing as the remedy. Over the billions of years since life took hold on this planet there have been many changes to the ecosystem; some were small, others huge, and some were even catastrophic, but because there has usually been plenty of time between one change and the next life has always been able to adapt and prosper. Life on this planet has never had to deal with the deluge of change brought forth by mankind over the last two centuries.

[SocialistPig]

With all of the past, historical climate changes that have ocurred on Earth,
how can you prove that man has caused the most recent climatological changes?

[MalamuteMan]

I cannot... but I am personally convinced that we (humans) are liveing far beyond the capacity of this planet to support us long term. Personally, it seems very likely to me that the introduction of greenhouse gases combined with other man imposed changes, such as deforestation, can bring about climat change...

Whether or not we are the cause of climate change, or even whether or not the climate is changing is not MY point. My point is that we are doing far more NOW than we have at any time in the history of our presence on this planet... and there are FAR FAR more of us doing it... NO system of any kind can sustain perpetual growth. The truth is we don't know for sure how much we can exploit the resources of this planet before our ecosystem breaks... but... i don't think it is prudent to push things over the breaking point as a way of find out where that breaking point is... That approach can be done with some things... but this planet is unbelievably unique!!!!! If we screw this one up, there is nowhere else to go!

[MalamuteMan]

Part II
To pritchet1 (below, posted at 4:11pm):

The scale of this planet compared to any one of us as an individual seems almost infinite, so as individuals we rarely consider the impact we have as a collection of billions of individuals. As big as this planet is, it is not infinite. This quintessential planet is but a spec of dust in the vastness of the universe, and it is the only spec of dust we have to live on, so it would be prudent to take very good care of it.

We want to believe we have the wits and the means to invent whatever may be necessary to fulfill our wildest dreams. But these dreams distract us and allow us to neglect our responsibilities to ourselves, to future generations, and to all the creatures of this planet. We must learn to discipline ourselves or perish!

If we are unnecessarily over cautious about our impact on this plant and that has undesirable economic impacts that would be unfortunate. But if we make the opposite mistake, always favoring optimal economic outcomes and personal comforts over ecologically prudent actions which subsequently results in serious damage to our planet, that would be an UNPRECEDENTED CATASTROPHE!

[mioffe]

"Global climate change is an issue that knows no boundaries. It is also a golden opportunity for our country to show a new face to the world. This is our chance to lead again."
To lead we need understand problem.
If we have global warming it is not important to argue Sun activity or man activity bring warming.
What can cool air in more economical way?
It is water vapor. It takes a lot of energy to evaporate water. It cools air close to land level. Water vapor going up to cloud level and release heat back, when drops of rain creating, on distance 3-7 miles close to space. That heat going mostly to space; otherwise we all be boiled by rain.
That is the cheapest way to escape global warming, to receive cheapest source of energy-wood. Forests will conserve energy for hundred years.
Kerry, Obama and many others responsible persons do not pay their attentions on anything else. Carbon dioxide is not only one player in the Nature. If we will forget this we will fail in our strategy.

[bayside]

First and foremost bring our jobs back and get us off of oil..If we dont have jobs you cant get any money from us. Stop taking from the 99 per cent (poor)and giving to the one per cent..(rich)..We will have honesty and integrity in our house again.and get our constitution and bill of rights back so we can govern by example again ..

[flossophy]

bayside... it's the D e m o c r a t s who lament the Constitution... listen to Barack on a Chicago left-wing radio broadcast a few years back... he thought it was too restrictive for Progressive causes.

I say.... it's worked for the last 200 years... i think it's worth preserving.

question those who want to change it... we've been thru this type of thing before, as a species. . . .

[gabemill]

Sen Kerry:

Suffice it to say that the world would be a much more eco friendly and peaceful place had you been elected in 2004.

I greatly appreciate your service to our country, my Brother,

Nam Vet

[HIbbs4Prez]

Thank you, senator. God speed.

[SantaFeScribe]

The good news here is that we have a credible, respected expert representing us at Poland global climate change meeting (take a look at his Senate record on environment) who now heads its Foreign Relations Committee. What a relief...
Thank you for the heads-up, Senator Kerry

[SocialistPig]

Despite all of their rantings,
scientists have NOT proven that global warming is anthropogenic.
A Fact is not proven by statistics, opinion and the volume of the argument.

[radical1]

Where have you been? Probably listening to Limbaugh, Hanity or O'Reilly. Or maybe those oppotunist, wealthy relegious leaders who some of the same people believe.

[JEP57]

What you don't hear reported very much is that he average global temperature has pretty much stayed the same since 1998. We are NOT in a crisis and even if the temperature was shooting up at an alarming rate, since we can't alter weather events, we can't alter global temperatues, Trust me on this.

[Gekster]

Science is also not proved by concensus, but by facts.

[orkranger]

Name ONE thing, just ONE, that Mankind has done to improve this planet!! Artifical reefs, sure after destroying the natural ones. Replanting forests? After raping them and the mountains underneath. As Man has evolved, so has his destructive capacities. We must take a pro-active stance. Remember, we need this planet, but the planet doesn't need us.

[baklava]

Oh please, do enlighten us with the vast amount of research you have conducted on climate.
Is there a global climate change taking place? the answer is without a doubt yes.

Is it caused by human activity? There are mountains and mountains of research data that suggests that it is.

Really what's your point? If you have an argument against anthropogenic nature of the global climate change, we want to hear it. Give us something. A url link, a study, a piece of data, anything.

[flossophy]

Go read the appendix of "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton.

[billw8017]

The world's top scientists agree that global warning is a real threat. Those who disagree must be either fools or cynical or ...? Many factors are ominous: the melting of the poles and mountain glaciers, the die off of coral reefs, storms of greater than usual force, and a movement of bugs and disease northward.

At the same time, the science is still somewhat tentative. Only a few years ago the University of Wisconsin won a weather prognostication contest with a simple model based on the El Nino. This model prevailed over models that popularized the "butterfly effect," a computer model of such delicacy that it shifted according to the computer's automatic rounding off of extremely small numbers. We can discount the butterfly effect as a computer nerd's hallucination that fails to take buffering effects into account. The melting ice may be more directly caused by pollution and "brown air."

We must do as much as we can, but the worst case scenario is that it is already too late. Not only pollution but the destruction of the world's jungles and forests (which absorb carbon dioxide and return it as oxygen) are rolling along in a bad direction. As we do what we can, we have to hope we are wrong or that natural buffering effects will assert themselves.