Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Keystone XL Delayed: A Young Person’s Reaction

Posted on by
1

…in which the author reflects on the first national environmental victory of his generation.

Obama delayed the Keystone XL pipeline after thousands protested

When I became aware of the Keystone XL campaign, I really had no idea where it would lead. On the one hand, I thought, this pipeline is just the type of thing Candidate Obama would have decried; if there were ever a president who would stop the project, it would be he. On the other hand, President Obama has barely talked about clean energy in recent months, not even mentioning climate change in his State of the Union address. Quite the opposite, his Interior Department announced a massive coal mining expansion earlier this year.

Considering the confidence within the industry–TransCanada had already spent millions on pipe, signed contracts with suppliers, and begun seizing land–victory seemed unlikely. Yet this didn’t change the anti-KXL movement, beyond charging it with urgency. The struggle, to me at least, was not something you take part in because you expect to win. It was more, “Years from now, how do I explain why I didn’t speak out against this?”

The answer is that you don’t. You speak, you write, you rally; and you do it with enough savvy to give yourself a decent chance. Then, if you lose, you can say that you fought the good fight.

That’s how I went into this: with the hope that all activism requires but also with the understanding that, too most onlookers, the Keystone XL was a done deal. So imagine my surprise when, in the midst of research for yet another anti-KXL article, I check my email and see that the pipeline has been delayed until 2013, and that this delay could prove fatal.

For me and many other young people, this success was especially meaningful. It was one of the first, if not the first national environmental victory of our lifetime. We had watched the wheels of dirty politics turn–and we’d seen them grind to a halt. To be part of something like that is nothing short of inspirational. I’ve realized that Tim DeChristopher was right when he said we “have more than enough power” to win these battles.

I’ve also realized that, where individual concern falls short, collective action is powerful. Changing your lightbulbs won’t stop an oil pipeline. For that matter, selling your car, swearing off airplanes, and moving into an off-the-grid earthship won’t either. There’s nothing wrong with those things, but they don’t address the root causes of our problems on a big enough scale. Change is created by passionate, focused, collective movements. And that is what we now have.

We should come away from the Keystone XL victory encouraged, but we don’t have much time to congratulate ourselves. More challenges are already on the horizon. The gas industry is pushing for 20,000 fracking wells in the Delaware River watershed, a water source for millions. A vote will take place on November 21–and the White House could play a decisive role. Meanwhile, the Republican candidate for 2012 is almost sure to come out swinging against clean air, water, and energy.

But now we’re prepared. We’re organized and energized. As a movement, we know we can make a difference.

 

Image: Josh Lopez/Tar Sands Action

HUGE: Keystone XL Delayed

Posted on by
Reply

In an important (and honestly surprising) victory for the grassroots, President Obama has delayed a decision on the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.

From Tar Sands Action:

…the president sent the pipeline back to the State Department for a thorough re-review, which most analysts are saying will effectively kill the project. The president explicitly noted climate change, along with the pipeline route, as one of the factors that a new review would need to assess….

And he has made clear that the environmental assessment won’t be carried out by cronies of the pipeline company–that it will be an expert and independent assessment.

Note that Obama didn’t reject the pipeline outright, as activists have been demanding. Instead, he effectively put off the decision until after the elections, thus avoiding a political conundrum. While we didn’t get a strong statement against the Keystone XL, we did get a vindication of the anti-KXL movement.

Six months ago, almost no one outside the pipeline route even knew about Keystone. One month ago, a secret poll of “energy insiders” by the National Journal found that “virtually all” expected easy approval of the pipeline by year’s end. As late as last week the CBC reported that TransCanada was moving huge quantities of pipe across the border and seizing land by eminent domain, certain that its permit would be granted.

And here is a statement from the White House, via the HuffPost:

“Because this permit decision could affect the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment, and because a number of concerns have been raised through a public process, we should take the time to ensure that all questions are properly addressed and all the potential impacts are properly understood,” Obama said. “The final decision should be guided by an open, transparent process that is informed by the best available science and the voices of the American people.”

This all seems obvious to those of us who were aware of–and even helped expose–the depth of corruption in the review process. But make no mistake: Without the groundswell of opposition, Obama and the State Department would have quietly signed off on the project.

Now, the pipeline is delayed, perhaps permanently. Even if it resurfaces in 2013, we will have fresh verbal ammunition in the form of a (supposedly) independent impact study, as well as ample time to strengthen and reorganize our movement.

The Keystone XL victory–go ahead and call it that–is proof of the power that a collective political effort has. We can make a dramatic difference when we channel our convictions into sustained, nonviolent action.

And we’ll need plenty more of that in the days ahead. We can expect oil apologists and their allies in Washington to continue distorting the facts about Keystone XL jobs and energy independence. The difference: Now we have to confidence to stand up and keep moving forward.

A Green Review of Obama’s State of the Union Address

Posted on by
2

President sets ambitious clean energy goals but fails to mention climate change.

I didn’t envy Barack Obama last night. As he gave his State of the Union speech, he must have known that almost everybody in America has some gripe about the actual state of the union and that, as President, he’s expected to fix all the country’s problems: reduce the deficit, revive the job market, and restore the economy, all without the partisan bitterness Washington has become known for. Add saving the world from impending climactic catastrophes, and you’ve got a tall order.

But, hey, he asked for the job.

Expectations were high among greens and climate hawks. As the slightly-more-powerful GOP threatens to derail clean energy plans, sustainability advocates were looking for strong leadership from the President. Did he impress or disappoint? You can decide that for yourself. In case you didn’t see the whole speech, here’s what went down (you can read the full text here.)

Half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik¸ we had no idea how we’d beat them to the moon. The science wasn’t there yet. NASA didn’t even exist.  But after investing in better research and education, we didn’t just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.

This is our generation’s Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. In a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal.  We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology – an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

Already, we are seeing the promise of renewable energy. Robert and Gary Allen are brothers who run a small Michigan roofing company. After September 11th, they volunteered their best roofers to help repair the Pentagon. But half of their factory went unused, and the recession hit them hard.

Today, with the help of a government loan, that empty space is being used to manufacture solar shingles that are being sold all across the country. In Robert’s words, “We reinvented ourselves.”

That’s what Americans have done for over two hundred years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we’ve begun to reinvent our energy policy. We’re not just handing out money. We’re issuing a challenge.  We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo Projects of our time.

After sharing the classic Inspiring Story About Ordinary People, Obama set several very ambitious clean energy goals:

  • “…by 2035, 80% of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.”
  • “…we can…become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.”
  • “I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies.”
  • “Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail…”

We would be making some great progress, if we could achieve all that. But Republicans have already announced their intentions of rolling back clean energy spending (AmTrak, Energy Star, and weatherization are on the list), so Obama’s demands have a slim chance, at best.

Maybe in an effort to lend some bipartisan-ness to his address, he defined “clean energy” in a polluter-friendly way:

Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all….

I’m with the wind and solar folks. While you could say that natural gas is an improvement over coal, “clean coal” simply doesn’t exist right now. And nuclear is massively expensive, non-renewable, and not truly clean. But none of this is new.

What has angered greens the most is not what Obama said, but what he didn’t say. The words “climate change” and “global warming” appeared nowhere in his speech. David Roberts explains why this is a problem:

Obama wants to launch a clean energy race. And good for him. But what are the stakes? What is the threat? Where is the urgency? If it’s just about international competition, why not focus on good macroeconomic policy — why go to such lengths to build up this economic sector, these technologies? Why not just leave it to the market?

Here’s why: The U.S. needs to get at or close to zero carbon emissions by the middle of this century or there will be severe and possibly irreversible changes in the climate, leading to massive, widespread human suffering. That’s why we don’t have time to wait for the invisible hand of the market.

Another big complaint is that Obama didn’t stand up for the Clean Air Act. Although he did mention “commonsense safeguards to protect the American people” he could have responded more specifically to the effort to eliminate the our last chance at regulating carbon.

Of course, I would have liked to see more in Obama’s State of the Union address, but I can’t say I was really disappointed. Pre-speech polling showed that Americans mainly wanted to hear about jobs, healthcare, and the economy. Global warming, not so much. There are plenty of reasons why Obama should have mentioned climate change, but none of them would have given him the political boost that he needs.

In the end, he’s still a politician. And when you’re a politician, getting re-elected is more important than saving the world.

Activists Unite for Climate Solutions in 350.org Global Work Party

Posted on by
2

On October 24, 2009, people around the world united for what CNN called “the most widespread day of political action in our planet’s history.” Thousands of activists rallied under the banner of 350 — that is, 350 parts-per-million, the safe level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The number has become a symbol of the grassroots climate movement. Now that the top-down approach has failed in both Copenhagen and Washington, concerned citizens of the earth are resorting more than ever to organizing from the bottom up. Today, 10/10/10, is proof.

The folks at 350.org designated October 10 as a “Global Work Party.” While the event is organized similarly to last year’s action day, there are two main differences. First, the Work Party is much bigger. At 7347 events in 188 countries, it easily tops the stunning figures from last October.

The second difference: Today’s Work Party is just that — a work party. Not an action party. Not a tea party. Participants aren’t just waving signs and demanding change; they’re building, repairing, planting, and installing change. At any time, you could find people educating and protesting for every cause imaginable, but not all of them could boast that they actually did something practical. From planting community gardens to installing solar panels, 350.org actions are moving us closer to that number. (In fact, the movement got a boost a few days ago when Barack Obama re-installed White House solar panels that Jimmy Carter had put up and Ronald Reagan had taken down.)

The message to political leaders is, “If we can get to work, so can you.” Of course, whether they will listen is another matter entirely. The climate movement must continue to grow after today and after this year. Eventually all those voices will be impossible to ignore.

In any case, it’s a heck of a lot better than just writing letters.

The Copenhagen Agreement: What Went Down in Denmark

Posted on by
Reply

“We have a deal in Copenhagen.”  Those are the words of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, spoken after days of debate among the 193 nations that attended the COP15 conference.  Many people around the world saw Copenhagen as a symbol of hope that the world’s leaders could come together to make a pact that would stabilize climate change.  Hundreds of thousands rallied under the banner of “350.”  Just last week, tens of thousands of activists in Copenhagen demanded action against climate change.  On the other hand, many people predicted that a political agreement would likely take the place of a legally binding treaty.

So what went down in Denmark?  It all came down to the final day, when President Obama met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and the leaders of India, Brazil, and South Africa.  They all made compromises and produced an agreement.  This in itself is important; as Andrew Light says,

“the Copenhagen Accord was not forged among our closest allies in the developed world; it was the product of cooperation between the US and a group of the largest carbon emitters in the developing world.”

But what about the agreement itself?  Well, it’s just that: an agreement, part of a two-step process that was actually proposed last month by the Danish prime minister.  According to the plan, the Accord will serve as a framework for the legally binding treaty, which will probably be formed in 2010.  This is disappointing for those who wanted a treaty this year, but it doesn’t make the conference a complete failure.

Here’s what you need to know about the Copenhagen Accord.

  • In general, the nations acknowledged a need to stabilize warming at 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, without making specific requirements for emissions reductions.  The major polluters did agree to voluntary reductions.  The big news: China is in the game now, pledging to reduce its carbon intensity — use of fossil fuels per unit of economic output — by 40 to 45 percent.  India, Brazil, and South Africa followed suit.
  • Probably the most progress was made in humanitarian aid to poor countries.  Richer nations will finance a $30 billion, three-year program to help poorer nations deal with climate change and develop clean energy, with more funding possible in the future.
  • Several countries, including the U.S. promised a total of $3.5 billion to reduce deforestation.
  • And probably the biggest fault is the lack of an explicit deadline for a binding treaty in 2010.  There is also no specific peak date for carbon emissions.

That’s the basic info.  For more details, check the Guardian article, these two posts on Climate Progress, as well as Grist’s (rather negative) coverage, and the AP report.

Here’s my take:  The Copenhagen Accord could have been much better.  As it is, it definitely isn’t enough.  If the goal was to solve the climate crisis, then COP15 failed miserably, but if the goal was to make a step forward in solving our crisis, then it turned out all right, considering the political challenges.  Aside from the Accord itself, there’s another important thing that COP15 has shown us.  Of all the delegates and heads of state who worked on the Copenhagen deal, I don’t know of any that stood up and declared global warming a hoax (Well, Inhofe was there, but no one paid much attention to him).  Not every country agrees on how to deal with climate change, but the most powerful leaders on earth take the threat seriously.  That counts for something.