Cross-posted with EnviroNation.
Contrary to countless reports, the debacle in Copenhagen was not everyone's fault. It did not happen because human beings are incapable of agreeing, or are inherently self-destructive. Nor was it all was China's fault, or the fault of the hapless UN.
There's plenty of blame to go around, but there was one country that possessed unique power to change the game. It didn't use it. If Barack Obama had come to Copenhagen with a transformative and inspiring commitment to getting the U.S. economy off fossil fuels, all the other major emitters would have stepped up. The EU, Japan, China and India had all indicated that they were willing to increase their levels of commitment, but only if the U.S. took the lead. Instead of leading, Obama arrived with embarrassingly low targets and the heavy emitters of the world took their cue from him.
(The "deal" that was ultimately rammed through was nothing more than a grubby pact between the world's biggest emitters: I'll pretend that you are doing something about climate change if you pretend that I am too. Deal? Deal.)
I understand all the arguments about not promising what he can't deliver, about the dysfunction of the U.S. Senate, about the art of the possible. But spare me the lecture about how little power poor Obama has. No president since FDR has been handed as many opportunities to transform the U.S. into something that doesn't threaten the stability of life on this planet. He has refused to use each and every one of them. Let's look at the big three.
Blown Opportunity Number 1: The Stimulus Package
When Obama came to office he had a free hand and a blank check to design a spending package to stimulate the economy. He could have used that power to fashion what many were calling a "Green New Deal" -- to build the best public transit systems and smart grids in the world. Instead, he experimented disastrously with reaching across the aisle to Republicans, low-balling the size of the stimulus and blowing much of it on tax cuts. Sure, he spent some money on weatherization, but public transit was inexplicably short changed while highways that perpetuate car culture won big.
Blown Opportunity Number 2: The Auto Bailouts
Speaking of the car culture, when Obama took office he also found himself in charge of two of the big three automakers, and all of the emissions for which they are responsible. A visionary leader committed to the fight against climate chaos would obviously have used that power to dramatically reengineer the failing industry so that its factories could build the infrastructure of the green economy the world desperately needs. Instead Obama saw his role as uninspiring down-sizer in chief, leaving the fundamentals of the industry unchanged.
Blown Opportunity Number 3: The Bank Bailouts
Obama, it's worth remembering, also came to office with the big banks on their knees -- it took real effort not to nationalize them. Once again, if Obama had dared to use the power that was handed to him by history, he could have mandated the banks to provide the loans for factories to be retrofitted and new green infrastructure to be built. Instead he declared that the government shouldn't tell the failed banks how to run their businesses. Green businesses report that it's harder than ever to get a loan.
Imagine if these three huge economic engines -- the banks, the auto companies, the stimulus bill -- had been harnessed to a common green vision. If that had happened, demand for a complementary energy bill would have been part of a coherent transformative agenda.
Whether the bill had passed or not, by the time Copenhagen had rolled around, the U.S. would already have been well on its way to dramatically cutting emissions, poised to inspire, rather than disappoint, the rest of the world.
There are very few U.S. Presidents who have squandered as many once-in-a-generation opportunities as Barack Obama. More than anyone else, the Copenhagen failure belongs to him.
See more of The Nation's coverage from Copenhagen here.
Why is it, the progressive voice, is the only one that can be critical of both parties, while the other can only be hyper critical of one?
It's a strange paradox when you have a group of people forming these "tea parties" in disillusionment with the government of power focusing their rage on made up issues and can't find it in themselves to reach across and find commonality to what really are the crisis' we all face together. Obama has tried, I will give him that one...
Am I biased? Am I incapable of seeing the justification of juxtaposing Obama to Mao, in name calling instead of reasonable criticisms? Or better yet, why are these issues so taboo to this tea party rage?
It seems to me that one party is angry at the wrong issues, and the other isn't angry enough at the right ones...
Bush blew it up, Obama has put it back together for American Mega Industry...American public is just going to be told to adapt
just adapt to ten years of high unemployment and no credit for small business
while Big Business entrenches itself in its trillions of wealth and power provided by the very taxpayers It seeks to control
by destroying the financial system (on purpose) the Fed and the Treasury and G0ldman S^(hs set technological innovation and implementation back 50 years...so that the investment class can keep making money off their stale old world industries.....
Banks that supposedly needed bailed out are making huge profits. Had Obama clamped down on Pelosi and Reid spending and instead gone straight for a modest main street bailout followed up quickly with a health care bill......I think Health Care the Progressive Socialist way would have been a reality.
This energy thing is a bit more messy. It's a huge tax that we know wont save the world or anything else. And it's a job killer as we know from Europe as Spain has reported that in the end, going green killed jobs. I think if Obama wanted some left wing socialist success story he needed to set up a better format for the meetings. They needed a way of reducing the number of voices at the table to those of the major polluters and a few representative of the rest of the world which is standing around with their hands out wanting the west to pour trillions of dollars of welfare on them. There were too many voices to get an agreement.
The global economy also moved against this deal. People out of work don't like the idea of being taxed to give trillions of dollars to corrupt third world nations just because they are "poor".
Copenhagen suffered in part because of, yes, it rears it's ugly head again, Obama's inexperience.
you have a new fan.
I have long seen your writing and appearances on television and occasionally agreed, but what you write here is vital. Every progressive should take to heart your analysis.
Thank you for writing - keep up the good work.
Please put some effort into helping us get an actual progressive candidate on the Democratic ticket in 2012.
RIchard
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas
China and India will be running the world in about 10 minutes time. I doubt they will cede any special consideration to 3rd and 4th world states that are not their lap dogs like Sudan. Does this sound familiar? We need journalists to report the real story.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/21/copenhagen-failure-us-senate-vested-interests
(quote)
The immediate reason for the failure of the talks can be summarised in two words: Barack Obama.
The man ...proved to be as susceptible to immediate self-interest as any other politician. ...Obama went behind the backs of the UN and most of its member states and assembled a coalition of the willing to strike a deal that outraged the rest of the world. This was then presented to poorer nations without negotiation: either they signed it or they lost the adaptation funds required to help them survive the first few decades of climate breakdown.
The British and US governments have blamed the Chinese government for the failure of the talks. ... the Chinese worked hard to mess them up, but Obama also put Beijing in an impossible position. He demanded concessions while offering nothing. He must have known the importance of not losing face in Chinese politics: his unilateral diplomacy amounted to a demand for self-abasement. My guess is that this was a calculated manoeuvre guaranteed to produce intransigence, whereupon China could be blamed for the outcome the US wanted.
Why would he do this? You have only to see the relief in Democratic circles to get your answer ...many of whose members are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the energy industry...(unquote)
I am DISGUSTED with this president, and VERY sorry I voted for him!
So since there is no indication he's living up to his promises then he's a backstabber and progressives should be on his heels demanding honesty.
The only way that Obama is not a liar is if he's a genius who knows that creating a poor angry population is the only way to get movement when your governments been stolen by the elite. This isn't the first time in history populist anger was the only cure for the disease.
So I'm hoping he's a masterful politician in which case progressives should be on his heels demanding honesty because that's the whole point of a democracy.
Die hard Obama supporters say "Give him a chance!" Well "a chance" just is a synonym for opportunity, and he's blowing every single one of them so far as progressives are concerned.
Where as welfare, helping people whom are on hard times (the majority of which are single mothers), which contrary to gop reports (since it prevents them from getting their tax cuts) we get a whopping $1.52 back for each dollar given. Quite possibly the biggest return we could get as a country, it's defiantly up in the top 5.
But you lost me on the Fantasy Land. Wanting Health Care for all citizens is Fantasy Land, Banking Regulation or saving the Auto Industry? Do you know how much money our economy lost, every week those people got paid, spent money buying things and paying bills? It's billions, meaning that instead of making products here in the US, we are buying more products from overseas. This isn't bad by it's nature, it means less jobs here in the US, less money to spend.
It's probably a lot to take in all at once don't worry about it. In case your wondering the US is the only country in the Industrialized world, whom doesn't have health care for all. Just like your family has for you most likely if not, then you know who to blame now.
I didn't vote for Obama to become King of the World. The 100%ers used to be on the other side of the aisle. We need to be very careful about what we wish for. What you resist, you become.
Upward wealth transfer has not been reversed, the jobless economy has not been fixed, military cutbacks have not been made, torture has not stopped, wars on peasant populations are not winding down.
From false reasons FOR Bush policies
To false reasoning FROM Bush policies
From stoking fears to set Bush policies
To stoking hopes to keep Bush policies
It seems all but certain that
The next administration will stoke intolerance to defend Bush policies