This is a huge can of worms that is in danger of going terribly off topic, but I will try to remain strong and keep this about the environment. The caveat to this is policies can have a domino effect and will eventually set a precedence that will effect other issues. Before we jump into Obama's environmental promises, um I mean policies, allow me to share my connection to the Obama administration. I not only voted for the man I campaigned for him. In fact on Yom Kippur night my husband and I were at the Democratic headquarters writing postcards to registered voters in Lawrence County asking them to end a Republican controlled White House while we were waiting to break our fast with granola bars. So I feel my feelings of disappointment are legitimate. That being said let us begin.
As I do research on this topic I am struck with a sense of misunderstanding when I look into Obama's position on the environment. It seems that energy policy has now become synonymous with environmental policy, and this is where there is a butting of heads between environmentalists and Washington. The funny thing is Obama has actually kept some of his campaign promises, however he is doing it in a way that many feel is not sustainable. For example his promise to reduce carbon emissions "Calls for cutting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Would accomplish this through a cap-and-trade system that would auction off 100 percent of emissions permits, making polluters pay for the CO2 they emit." (grist.org August 22, 2008), however it now seems the way Mr. Obama wants to reduce CO2 is by using nuclear power and has stalled on cap and trade according to politifact.com. To be fair he did talk about using nuclear during his campaign and is working on seeking safe disposal of nuclear waste. The problem with his love affair with nuclear is that it isn't sustainable because even though there is an endless amount of Uranium-238 the waste it generates can not easily be stored and requires additional resources plus people are scared of it. When I looked into the White House's position on energy the website refers to energy independence as a form of national security "Today, we export billions of dollars each year to import the energy we need to power our country. Our dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security, our environment and our economy. We must make the investments in clean energy sources that will put Americans back in control of our energy future, create millions of new jobs and lay the foundation for long-term economic security." and in effect that's why we need more off shore drilling I had to chuckle remembering Sarah Palin's "Drill baby drill!" slogan and saw how in his attempts to come more to the middle he is in effect going way past middle and all the way right completely alienating his base, most of whom are environmentalists. However there are consequences to that kind of talk and are they worth it? The base mobilized and pounded the pavement turning undecideds into voters and now he stands watch while one of the worst environmental catastrophes takes place and underestimates it, "The Obama administration lost the public trust and may have sabotaged clean-up operations in the Gulf of Mexico by grossly underestimating the amount of oil gushing from BP's broken Macondo well, according to a White House commission appointed to investigate the spill.
In a scathing critique of the administration's handling of the disaster, the two co-chairs of the commission yesterday said government officials made a serious blunder by releasing early estimates of the spill that were about 60 times too low." (Guardian.co.uk) Drill baby drill? or Kill baby kill?Additionally the big rub a lot of environmentalists are feeling is Obama's appointments such as Ingnacia Moreno who was nominated to be the head of environment division of the Department of Justice, raising many eyebrows at the EPA since she is a former attorney for GE. By the way according to opensecrets.org GE contributed $499,130 to his campaign. Now I'm not naive enough to believe that lobbyists don't get jobs in Washington, but wasn't putting an end to that another campaign promise.
Now does the executive branch have the power to really do anything close to all of Obama's campaign promises? No, at least it's not suppose to. Under the constitution the Congress is the one with the real power, however President Sweetie Pie is finding a little loop hole around that pesky Congress, "representatives of the people" *psh*. Mr Obama has his czars, they'll do the work he wants with out all those cumbersome checks and balances. "Senator Byrd wrote a letter to President Obama in February, criticizing the president’s strategy of creating czars to manage important areas of national policy. Senator Byrd said that these appointments violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight."(opengov.ideascale.com ) So this has huge consequences not only for the whole nation, it in effect could lead to a dictator, but it also could put a corporate lobbyist in a serious position of power to rule over environmental issues. Now czars have been around for a while such as the drug czar but by some counts Obama is up to 16 and this is scaring the crap out a lot of people, tea anyone? A president is suppose to keep watch, steer the boat, and keep everyone calm while the Congress does all the heavy lifting, but many feel he is inciting panic by behaving like he's the daddy that knows how to handle all of our problems. To quote Men in Black (and how often can you do that) "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. " We ran under the banner of change and we wanted change, change from the corporate interest wiping their ass on our constitution and destroying the natural beauty or our nation. Did we get it? Under Mr. Obama I don't think so.
I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
-Leonard Cohen
I agree with everything you say Martha. I'm just as frustrated and pissed off. I'm just wondering if he really has negated the whole cap and trade industry? I'm not an authority on that so I'm not really sure. I haven't heard anything about it-so I'm assuming he has completely forgotten about them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot of what you've written here, Martha. The only part I feel uneasy about is the last bit about the executive czars. I feel like the connotation the word holds creates more unease than is necessary. By my understanding, they don't get to do all of Obama's work "without all those cumbersome checks and balances." While the idea of being able to appoint these leaders without Senate confirmation does seem somewhat troubling, they still lack the dictatorial power you seem to imply they carry. Rather, it seems like Obama is forcing conversation to happen in areas of key concern--such as climate change, for instance. Yes, they do have power to enact change. But, in my far from expert opinion, I don't really think we can afford to sit around and wait for these issues to make it through all the government's red tape.
ReplyDeleteWe want a strong president who's willing to take strong, innovative action. Maybe this is a path worth exploring as we await the quickly approaching floods to hit.
I like the point that you make about the blending of energy policy with enviornmental policy--the two seem to by synonymous within the current political realm. Addressing the BP spill, I like the points that you make and you would think that after the disaster caused by Hurricane Katrina that the government would not again show an overall lack of preparation. While the government was again not prepared for such a catastrophe, the BP spill offers another example of the negative impact that corporate finance and lobbying has within poltiics. The government is not as diligent when dealing with corporations and their agendas--often resulting in negative consequences but positive quarterly statements. I think it is sad the a government "for the people, by the people" is an idea that does not transcend within the current state of politics. In the end it all comes down to financial issues, not necessarily what is correct. This idea is no better exemplified than the growing sentiment regarding energy policy, but the continued lack of effective action by the government.
ReplyDeleteOkay responding..... there is so much, let's start with Molly (you're at the top)
ReplyDelete1) According to grist.org with their Obameter Obama has stalled on cap and trade, not saying he'll get back to it or not, but so far he's stalled on the issue.
2)The thing about czars is there aren't any official rules and they only report to the president, which could lead to them becoming agents of Obama doing what ever he wants. Not that is doing this it's just hard to trust that kind of power wouldn't be misused. This is were red tape is important, we don't want a president to have the power to make swift changes because what if the party in power was not your party, then things are a little different.
3) Erik, it's always hard to respond to your writing, because you're so factual. Go write text books. ;) The one place I will respond to your comment is that "the money" is part of the problem with this and their should be legislation that removes that corporate money from the politicians so this kind of corruption would be far more rare.
Great entry, as always. I have no problems with it, so I’m going to go from what you said to talk about nuclear power. This will be a little off topic, but your entry inspired me to talk about the dangers of depleted uranium:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3116
Depleted uranium is all over in Iraq from the first gulf war (this radioactive material was used in bullets, I believe) and is causing many birth deformities and a number of other problems. Even soldiers from the war are reporting problems. The government denies any link of these problems with the depleted uranium (because of the moral, and financial implications it would mean for the U.S.) which has a half life of 4.468 billion years.
Not only is uranium not sustainable to continue to use for energy years down the road, but it will (negatively) affect future generations for billions of years to come. Is this really a solution to our energy problems? As Martha pointed out, energy policies and the environmental policies are often clumped into one topic; using uranium may “solve” the energy crisis of global warming, but will only hurt the environment.