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.
Follow John Kerry on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JohnKerry
James Boyce: What's Spanish for Total and Complete BS?
The money spent presenting fiction as fact over the past decade has had a real impact on the average American. Still, to this day, you will hear that there is debate about global warming, about whether it's happening at all.
Taylor Marsh: J. Stephen Simon, The Exceptional Oil Man
ExxonMobil has many enemies on the activist side, but J. Stephen Simon was one of the most honorable, decent, dedicated American patriots you'll ever find. Yes, even an oil man can be a patriot.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ol_6Ju3oYI
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
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.
Safe travels and happy birthday.
...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?
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.
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.
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.
how can you prove that man has caused the most recent climatological changes?
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!
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!
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.
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. . . .
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
Thank you for the heads-up, Senator Kerry
scientists have NOT proven that global warming is anthropogenic.
A Fact is not proven by statistics, opinion and the volume of the argument.
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.