Obama’s Legacy and the Environment
Here’s a powerful article that bashes Obama, not as a Muslim Kenyan food-stamp socialist, but as just another lying politician — one whose true legacy will be “the guy who had the last chance to save the environment from collapse but was led around by the nose by huge vested interests.” As you scan through the comments you’ll note that these people (largely leftist environmentalists) are pretty cheesed off.
Those leftists are nearly as useless of a distraction as the tea party. Refusing to accept progress because you demand utopia is a reflection of complete ignorance.
Obama spent too much of his political capital forcing through ACA, which may actually be the single greatest step ever taken by the American government on behalf of the health and economic security of the nation. Because he exhausted so much capital, the carbon cap-and-trade system could not be passed in 2010. That was a shame. He then had to wait for more economic recovery to build more political capital, which he used to avert the fiscal cliff and a second recession, and he had to expend political capital on the process of saving the American economy twice.
Now, there’s been a few months since the last manufactured economic crisis… and Obama has again built up some more political capital… and he’s moving forward again in an overt policy push on CO2. (over the past 4 years the EPA and DOE have been using regulatory authority to force cleaner power and higher efficiency as best they can, and we’ve had 4 years of swiftly dropping CO2 emissions. We’ve never before had more than 1 year of non-record CO2 emissions. We’ve never even come close to multi-year drops, nor have we ever seen CO2 emissions drop during a time of economic expansion, as has been the case for the past two years.
America’s per capita CO2 emissions are now the same as they were in 1964.
But a few idiots are wanting to light themselves on fire because “Obama hasn’t done enough”… Well Obama is not God Emperor of America. His administration has done a lot, and has served to move public sentiment towards doing more… so within a few years a more sympathetic congress will arise and some more significant accomplishments might be made. But things are moving in the right direction.
The far left needs to put on their big-boy pants and grow the hell up. They did this in 2000 – Gore wasn’t viciously anti-GOP enough… so they either stayed home or voted for Nader, and the U.S. was set back about 20 years or so with the election of the village idiot. Then they were angry at Obama because he “caved” too much with ACA and they didn’t turn out for 2010, and we got 2 years of a bunch of psychopaths holding the American economy hostage and attempting to unravel the recovery (and that served to effectively kill all congressional discussions regarding emissions for two years).
Progress is progress. It’s a good thing. Respecting that is a sign of maturity.
Throwing a tantrum because you don’t get absolutely everything you want so you’ll just let the other guys win… That’s not a sign of maturity.
Astute as always, and funny too. I’m a little less critical of this leftist position, though. I think the “all of the above” stance shows no leadership and a lack of responsibility. If this were some debatable issue like the death penalty, gun control, abortion, etc., I’d be a bit less acrimonious. But I don’t think there is anything debatable here at all. We either actively migrate away from fossil fuels or we condemn our entire society to an incredible amount of pain down the line.
Craig,
We obviously agree that we must actively migrate away from fossil fuels. And we are doing so… But politics is a very shrewd game played with very big stakes. Demanding more than can be delivered only gets us another village idiot… Because if the Obama administration were to attempt to go all in on this play they’d lose. That’s a fact.
Until a more sympathetic congress is elected, there will not be any movement towards reducing CO2 that has to pass through congress. That means that all we can do is further test the boundaries of previously authorized EPA authority… and the administration has been doing that. Every year there are more speeches… more reports, more educational/promotional documentation coming from government researchers, etc… and every year we’ve seen the administration tightening down on major emitters by virtue of simply re-examining the laws that have already been passed. If they move at a pace that exceeds what voters would accept, then they activate the GOP while muting the support from the moderate democrats… and they lose the next election cycle (see 2010).
So the question is do we migrate at a respectable pace (CO2 emissions in 2007: ~5.8 GT, CO2 emissions in 2012: ~5.3 GT… Both adjusted GDP and total manufacturing output were significantly higher in 2012 than 2007.), or do we elect another Bush and watch environmental policy be undermined, emissions increase, and the economy get seriously weakened again…
In a big picture, the far left fanatics that you linked to here seem to be choosing to reject the respectable pace of emissions control and instead embrace the only possible alternative.
That’s a very interesting perspective. I look at the Bill McKibbens of the world as drivers of change — calling huge amount of attention to an important problem. Are their viewpoints likely to be adopted in toto anytime soon? No, but I still think they perform an important function in society and in molding the way masses of people (and thus the “leaders” they elect) think and act.