Obama to host climate summit?

A big AWESOME and a lot of “about damn time, too”:

Barack Obama ‘seriously considering’ hosting climate summit | Environment | guardian.co.uk.

Obama may intervene directly on climate change by hosting a summit at the White House early in his second term, environmental groups say.

They say the White House has given encouraging signals to a proposal for Obama to use the broad-based and bipartisan summit to launch a national climate action strategy.

And it’s because of, well, the obvious: Sandy, drought — but also because of continuous political pressure by some of our great climate heroes:

Democrats in Congress are also moving more forcefully to keep climate change on the public radar. Barbara Boxer, who chairs the Senate environment and public works committee, said this month she was reviving efforts to pass climate change legislation, focused on strengthening coastal communities against future superstorms.

“People are coming up to me. They really want to get into this. I think Sandy changed a lot of minds,” Boxer told reporters, announcing the launch of a climate change caucus to push for legislation. “I think you’re going to see a lot of bills on climate change,” she said.

Meanwhile, Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, committed to delivering weekly speeches on climate change from the Senate floor …

This would be most welcome. The deniers are simply no longer relevant to the factual discussion — even in the public at large. The most important thing now is a continuous, active full-court press by those folks who have been leaders on this issue. We’ve got to a.) activate our friends, b.) persuade the persuadables, and c.) neutralize (not destroy) the opposition.

We will win … not in time to avoid great suffering, but hopefully in time to stave off the worst.

Recommended by cat-servant.



Discuss

One Comment . Leave a comment below.
  1. Get it past the House?

    OK, lets say you’ve got the US Senate (!?). You’ve still got to get any of it past the House. Sure, there’s a few GOPers in downstate NY, coastal NJ, and FL who might be willing to spend Federal funds to sure up their shores. But here’s what the GOP won’t go for:
    * taxes to provide economic incentive to reduce GHG emissions
    * regulations which restrict egregious GHG emissions
    * more spending on public transit
    * expanding tax incentives for renewable generation
    And here’s what the Dems won’t go for:
    * expanding subsidies of nuclear generation
    * expanding natural gas extraction in an attempt to squeeze out coal and/or petroleum
    * cutting some other gov’t program to pay for this one
    And neither side will go for:
    * slicing the mortgage subsidy, which serves to subsidize housing with more square (and cubic) feet, thereby requiring more fossil fuel to heat and cool than it would otherwise. It also seems to accelerate sprawl, but that’s another matter.

    So, great. Obama’s got the summit. He can have the EPA do what it should be doing — protecting the environment — by ramping up restrictions on GHG emissions from point sources (power plants, industrial sites, etc). He can direct the gov’t to invest its own money in efficiency for its own operations, but that’s small potatoes. The questions in my mind are:
    What actions that would tangibly affect GHG reduction can the POTUS do without Congress? What actions is the 2012-2013 Congress willing to do?

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Sat 26 Jul 1:11 PM