photo by Andrew Otto (source: Flicker Creative Commons / theimpressionist.co.uk)
State Department climate change representative to the UN Todd Stern formally announced that the U.S. would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. In a letter to the UN, Stern confirmed the moderate emission reduction target of 17% of 2005 levels by the year 2020. This is the same number that was announced by the Obama administration prior to the Copenhagen climate talks in December, a statement that received mixed reactions. A further commitment to cut emissions by 42% by 2030 and 80% by 2050 is also specified in the letter.
Official announcement or not, the American political system requires that the U.S. Congress pass any such legislation in order to make good on the emissions commitment, which kind of puts a wet blanket on the ‘promise’. Obama’s recent State of the Union address – available in full here – was characteristic of the president’s inclusive, centrist approach to policy-making, which many find frustratingly ineffectual. According to an article in the Guardian:
Obama’s new vision for an energy and climate bill, spelled out on Wednesday, do not necessarily align with those of environmental groups or the liberal wing of his own Democratic party. He called for opening up new areas for offshore drilling and building more nuclear power plants.
Clean coal, nuclear power and more drilling for oil will not resonate well with more resolutely greener politicians and sections of the American public, but may entice conservative politicians, including Democrats from fossil fuel rich states and Republicans from greener ones. That seems to be the idea anyway, but this ‘reaching across the isle’ tactic may not be working so well if the situation with U.S. healthcare reform is any indicator. Sure, its important that Obama be reelected, but no matter how inclusive he tries to be or how consistently neo-liberal his policies are, he is still branded a ‘socialist’ by the right. Perhaps he should be more old-school liberal like Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt or even Republican Dwight Eisenhower, who rammed legislation through and ‘got things done’, as is argued by Salon.com’s Michael Lind.
by Graham Land