Fade to Black
If presidential State of the Union addresses are a political barometer of sorts, then check this out for historical perspective:
Here’s President Clinton in 1998
Our overriding environmental challenge tonight is the worldwide problem of climate change, global warming, the gathering crisis that requires worldwide action.
The vast majority of scientists have concluded unequivocally that if we do not reduce the emission of greenhouse gases at some point in the next century, we will disrupt our climate and put our children and grandchildren at risk…We have always found a way to clean the environment and grow the economy at the same time. And when it comes to global warming, we will do it again.
That’s pretty assertive and unequivocal, wouldn’t you say?
President George W. Bush, as everyone knows, did not feel quite as strongly during his two terms. If anyone in the Administration even used the terms “climate change” or “global warming,” they were forced to clean up after Barney (the first family dog) for a week.* Ultimately, that’s what pushed Christine Todd Whitman over the edge.** But in his 2007 address, President Bush found a way around this:
America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment–and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.
Chris Mooney was not impressed, and rightly so.
Last year, President Obama’s State of the Union speech disappointed greens, as Treehugger wrote, because of its lack of “visionary plans to tackle climate change in a meaningful way.”
In last night’s address, passages mentioning climate change got downgraded from not visionary enough to non-existent. Or, as Time’s Bryan Walsh puts it, this
State of the Union may be remembered as the moment when the White House stopped working on climate””and started working on energy.
Over at Hell and High Water central, this news has not been received well. The troops are shocked and dejected at President Obama’s public retreat. Whether they come around to the Administration’s strategic decision to table the language of global warming and catastrophism in favor of clean energy rhetoric remains to be seen.
Footnotes:
* I made that shit up.
**That too.
Politicians don’t want to push lost causes? People are tired of gloom and doom?
Emissions will rise, global warming will happen (if we are to believe Exxon, BP, IEA, IPCC etc).
Energy policy IS climate policy, something each country can carry out without complicated global BS conferences. France cut their dependency on fossil fuels without a hint about global warming.
“* I made that shit up.”
You let them think it was the dog? You bastard!
🙂
Keith,
Not a big deal really, but you seem to be suffering from an infestation of flat-earthers in the comments lately….if you’re not careful the ID and anti-vaxxers might start showing up as well…
p.s. were you dipping into the sauce when you wrote this post? I’ve never seen you cuss before 🙂
@3
Now, now, do I seem like a person who needs alcohol for inspiration? Merely a play off the joke.
As for the “infestation” of your counterparts, it really cuts both ways, doesn’t it? When I tweak the beloved icons of either side, the knives come out, regardless.
MJ
KK can curse heavily. I remember the Joe Romm’s constant “I grew up amongst journalists” spiel which KK slapped back pretty good. 🙂
There is a name for someone who likes stirring the pot…
oops, timing, that was directed at Keith.
But we do love you Keith, you have an honest blog, even if you have a little tribe all of your own. 😉
Talk about ‘cutting greenhouse gases’ translates into ‘someone is going to come and take away my barbecue’.
The rhetoric tends towards sacrifice, sacrifice and more sacrifice.
Calls for sacrifice have limited shelf lives.
Why I’ll bet we’re going to hear more on the subject in 2020, no bout a’doubt it!
Has anyone even considered that energy policy might be a much better platform to facilitate change in the ways we use and produce energy (that’s where CO2 emissions originate from, right?)
Fossil fuels are finite and the growing economies are going to double their energy use. Oil resources are mostly situated in politically unstable countries. This is a fact that will not change or go away.
Using climate science as justification is a much riskier proposition. There are large uncertainties, warming should happen fast in order for the people to believe in it etc. Warming is supposed to really start in 2040-50, which for many people is way out there.
Visibility of climate science in the media depends largely on storms, catastrophes or changes in systems that scientists are are just learning to understand. Is Greenland ice sheet melting or not? Will WAIS collapse? How many hurricanes will make landfall in the US? Or for laypeople: Is it snowing outside?
As far as Obama is concerned, I think it’s naive to expect that a politician will continue supporting policies or ideas that have lost their usefulness. During his campaign Obama needed to bash GOP and AGW was just the tool, riding high after AR4 and Gore’s Nobel price. Now he needs to cooperate with Republicans and AGW is off the agenda.