Thanks to the pressure from climate and environmental groups, Barack Obama has backed down from his support for liquid-coal. Hurrah! The L.A. Times reports:
With his statement Tuesday, Obama seemed to be making his choice clear: pledging to oppose any plan to turn coal into liquid fuel unless it adhered to strict environmental safeguards.
Before jumping into the fray again (it’s never good to see an “unless” in statements), let’s take some time to celebrate and see where we stand. With the presidential primaries just taking off, solving global warming is already becoming a top priority among contenders. Obama’s switch is big news and a good sign for the work we have to do in the coming months. First, we all owe a round of applause to Ted Glick at the U.S. Climate Emergency Council and Ilyse Hogue over at MoveOn.org for their hard work circulating petitions about Obama’s stance, and just as much applause to everyone working to fight coal on the ground, from West Virginia to Montana.
With the news only a few hours old, I think there are a few lessons we can draw from this example. What do you think about its significance? Is Obama for real?
1) Keep up the pressure:
Clearly, now is the time to keep on pushing. With the most open primary in years, candidates are jostling to set themselves apart and global warming is emerging as a key issue. What this fight demonstrated was that we can push deeper than the blanket statements about “energy independence” and “a clean energy economy” and go after candidates specific stances on energy policies. But the next few months are when it will have to happen - - after the primaries are over and a Democratic and Republican nominee are chosen, it’s less likely the frontrunners will change their position. Check out the “Heat is On” and “Re-energize US” to join up with two of the campaigns on the ground.
2) The web works (but not on its own):
The combination of an online petition, blogging, and the hard work of people on the ground made this victory possible. And it took that combination - - what other issues should this movement go after in the coming months? How can we simultaneously mobilize on the ground and in cyberspace? The Youth Climate Pledge is a good start to an online petition, but perhaps we also need more targeted mobilizations. This push against Obama worked because it specifically focused on coal; if it had just been about “A Clean Energy Economy,” he probably could have gotten away with keeping his stance.
It also worked amazingly quickly - - Ted Glick’s petition only went out recently, MoveOn’s is only a few days old. The faster we move, the more we can take on.
2) The need to provide alternatives:
This is a huge victory, but it also carries with it the risk of a backlash. Check out this statement from Luke Popovich, spokesperson for the coal industry:
“He’s trying to walk a fine line, trying to be a good Democrat but at the same time recognizing that not only is Illinois well-served but he’s serving the country with these incentives that could really stimulate the industry,” said Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Assn.
Popovich said the industry had been impressed by Obama’s “willingness to take a stand that’s unpopular with some of his party’s constituents.”
He called the senator’s new statement the result of a “jihad” waged by some environmentalists against the coal industry.
“Clearly they are trying to intimidate Obama from doing something sensible,” Popovich said.
Okay, so clearly this guy is a loony and talking about a “jihad” probably won’t get him very far, but he brings up a good point. As Van Jones wrote recently, like it or not, this movement is in risk of sparking a back-lash - check out his article here. This movement needs to look sensible even as it takes strong stances.
One way to start is to talk clearly and forcefully about building a new, clean energy economy. And making the point that it can start right in Illinois, or whatever region we’re fighting against the dirty economy in. Check out this report about repowering the midwest with a clean energy economy.
For now though, let’s celebrate. It’s a huge accomplishment and should only add fuel to the fire to keep this movement pushing forward. What’s next?
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Wow, that is definitely a surprise, but a good one. I think one thing to keep in mind is that while he may no longer support coal-to-liquid, that doesn’t mean he is fully committed to the kind of national climate action that is necessary. It’s kind of like the difference between not littering and leading an effort to prevent litter. Not a very creative metaphor, I know, but it works. I think that it is great to celebrate this change in platform, but we need to make sure that Obama and all the candidates know that we need and are demanding a smart, ambitious and comprehensive climate program. Despite my reservations, this is a fantastic sign of change.
Also want to give props to Ted Glick, Mike Tidwell, and others at CCAN who helps push Obama. Check out the quote in the LA Times.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-energypol13jun13,0,214084.story?coll=la-politics-campaign
A little well times grassroots action can make a difference.
IM SO THRILLED RIGHT NOW! OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!
Gabriel Elsner wrote: “IM SO THRILLED RIGHT NOW! OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!”
Hold on a tick, Gabriel! Like Julianna aptly points out, just because Obama is apparently no longer supportive of coal-to-liquids unless it is at least 20% better on a GHG-intensity basis than gasoline doesn’t mean he is fully committed to the kind of comprehensive action to tackle climate change we’re going to need from our next president.
This is a step in the right direction for Obama, but we’re going to need to keep the pressure on him and make it clear that this isn’t enough. Obama has still yet to distinguish himself with a very comprehensive or innovative energy and climate change strategy and his policy proposals on his websites’ energy and climate page displays the kind of incremental, ‘inside-the-box’ thinking that doesn’t inspire much confidence in me.
And while he has now committed to supporting the Boxer/Sanders-bill calling for an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050, he originally only supported the much weaker (and insufficient) McCain-Lieberman bill and didn’t sign on to the Boxer/Sanders bill until four months after the bill was introduced and 11 other senators had already co-sponsored it. (The same can be said for Senator Clinton as well; John Edwards was the first major candidate to support the 80% by 2050 goals, as IGHIH was the first to report). And at a fundraising luncheon in Silicon Valley in March, Obama told attendees that his support for the Boxer/Sanders bill was largely symbolic since it probably wouldn’t pass! (See this post for the details)
The question really is this: is Obama - or any other candidate for that matter - exhibiting leadership on climate change, or followership? Is he proactively leading our country to solving the climate crisis, or is he simply responding to grassroots pressure from folks like us who he knows are going to be a key part of his primary election voter base?
What we need is a strong leader, someone committed to making a bold and aggressive greenhouse gas reduction goal the centerpiece of his or her campaign and presidency. The next president of the United States will not only have to deal with undoing eight years of heel-dragging and back-sliding during the Bush Administration, but will also have to lead our nation and the world to tackling climate change, a monumental task requiring a true leader.
If, by the end of the next president’s term in 2012, the United States doesn’t have a comprehensive greenhouse gas reduction plan well in place and we aren’t leading an international response to the climate crisis with buy-in from developing countries like China, India and Brazil, we’re basically sunk - we’ll be too late to adequately respond to climate change and we’ll be faced with adapting to a drastically different - and harsher - world.
That’s why this election should be SO important to young people like us, concerned about climate change and the fate of the planet.
Please put a little more thought into which candidate you ultimately choose to support. Let’s not go run off and yell “OBAMA in 08″ until we’re sure he’s the kind of leader we’re going to need, and if he’s not, we should be taking equally focused looks at each of the other candidates positions.
And in the meantime, we should keep up the pressure and hopefully help transform each of the candidates into champions of climate solutions. Clearly we’re making progress, and wherever a candidate is, they can certainly afford to be pushed further to take bold action on climate change!
In the rush to back slapping our friends and self-congratulating each other, I’m sorry to say I’m a little bit reserved still about this “victory”.
Obama didn’t say “NO TO LIQUID COAL!!” he actually said it was ok if it “adhered to strict environmental safeguards”. Why would Obama possibly include that caveat unless he intended to find a way to make coal “clean”.
Wondering how could coal EVER adhere to strict environmental safeguards??? Probably much the same way a lot of other stuff the government says is safe, clean and green. The problem isn’t that we don’t have environmental safeguards ALREADY that would prevent coal (ever heard of the Clean Air and Water Acts?), it’s that that are constantly distorted and abused while claiming to “adhere to strict environmental standards”).
Half of what passes as green these days is just greenwashing, or even outright lies, upon closer inspection: this is suspicious at FIRST GLANCE and should not be called a victory, just because it feels good to call it one.
Politicians lie and distort the truth - are you really convinced that is not happening here?
In the rush to back slapping our friends and self-congratulating each other, I’m sorry to say I’m a little bit reserved still about this “victory”.
Go and read the article:
Obama didn’t say “NO TO LIQUID COAL!!” he actually said it was ok if it “adhered to strict environmental safeguards” and, expanding on that, said that “20% less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels” would apparently make coal ok for him.
Half of what passes as green these days is just greenwashing, or even outright lies, upon closer inspection: this is suspicious at FIRST GLANCE and should not be called a victory, just because it feels good to call it one. Politicians frequently lie and distort the truth, doing the absolute minimum to fool the maximum number of people - I for none am pretty convinced thats all that is here.
The only clean coal is the coal left in the ground. Coal can NEVER adhere to strict environmental safeguards, and unless Obama says so explicitly we should not be supporting him.
I presume that this is my famous cousin Luke?
I need to speak to you about my papers that I sent to you.
Hope you are not too busy.
BTW, good article, but let us go back to coal-period.
No more nukes.
Grbie