Tag Archives: Barack Obama

His big chance ! Keystone XL: Obama urged by Democrat backers to reject pipeline

Official photographic portrait of US President...

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

The biggest backers of the Democratic causes urged Barack Obama on Friday to take historic action on climate change by rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline. The Guardian reports

In a letter seen by the Guardian150 high-profile figures, who between them raised millions for Obama’s two election campaigns, urged the president to use the next four years to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. “Yours is the last presidency in which it is possible for America to choose a responsible path forward for itself, before climate disruption becomes unmanageably dangerous,” the letter said.

Opponents of the pipeline fear the project seems headed for approval, despite Obama’s promises to act on climate change in his second term. Obama told a group at a west coast fundraiser last month: “the politics of this are tough.”

The letter contends that the Keystone XL project would be the most important environmental decision of Obama’s presidency.

Opponents of the pipeline say it will open up the vast store of carbon in the Alberta tar sands. The pipeline could pump up to 830,000 barrels a day of tar sands crude to refineries on the Texas coast.

“This decision more than any other will signal your direction, your commitment, your resolve,” the letter said. “It is the biggest, most explicit statement you will make in this historic moment, the moment when America turns from denial to solutions – or fails to.”

The letter also evoked the political courage of Abraham Lincoln, who defied the conventional wisdom of his day, to end slavery.

“Your decision on Keystone may not be so weighty, but we believe it holds a comparable urgency and importance, not strictly as a pipeline decision but as a presidential choice that will signal a fundamentally new direction for our nation,” the letter said.

It ends by promising to support Obama against an inevitable backlash should he reject the pipeline, and in moving to a clean energy economy. “We pledge to support you in every way possible,” the letter said.

The letter was endorsed by some of Obama’s most prominent supporters such as Vinod Khosla, one of the founders of Sun Microsystems; Rob McKay, the heir to the Taco Bell fortune and chairman of the Democracy Alliance; Blythe Danner, the actor and mother of Gwyneth Paltrow and Susie Tompkins Buell, co-founder of the Esprit clothing line.

Buell alone donated more than $300,000 to Democratic candidates and groups in the 2012 elections, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics.

For most donors on the list, it is the first time they have weighed in so publicly on the Keystone decision.

However, Obama has been lobbied heavily at fundraisers and other private functions and some prominent supporters have gone public with their frustration about Keystone.

Tom Steyer, founder of the Farallon hedge fund, pledged to spend millions on behalf of election candidates who oppose the pipeline.

Other major donors have said they will not fund Organising for Action, the grassroots group set up to build support for Obama’s second term agenda. OFA has yet to come out against the Keystone XL, but it has started to take on Republicans in Congress who have blocked action on climate change or deny the science behind climate change. The group sent out a second email to supporters on Thursday, attacking the Republican house speaker, John Boehner, for saying that concerns about carbon dioxide emissions were “almost comical”.

Obama faces growing pressure from opponents and backers of the pipeline in the coming months – as does the secretary of state, John Kerry, who must also sign off on the project because it crosses an international border.

The Canadian government has been lobbying heavily for the project, as has the oil industry and the Chamber of Commerce.

The White House rejected campaigners’ argument that expanding the Keystone pipeline and opening up the tar sands was game over for the planet. “There have been thousands of miles of pipelines that have been built while President Obama has been in office, and I think the point is that it hasn’t necessarily had a significant impact one way or the other on addressing climate change,” the White House spokesman Josh Earnest.

The conventional wisdom in Washington is that Obama will approve the pipeline, probably later this year.

Some commentators have suggested that Obama would soften the sting by introducing new rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. However, those rules were in the making anyway.

Betsy Taylor, the political strategist who co-ordinated the letter, said the appeal from fundraisers was intended to show Obama that he would have strong support if he took the politically risky step of rejecting the pipeline.

“I think the president may feel alone because there is just this drum beat of advertising in favour of Keystone, framed as it is in a jobs context,” said Taylor. “But when he denies the Keystone permit he will ignite a rush of financial contributions and boots on the ground for clean energy candidates in 2014.”

Climate change did not cause 2012 US drought, says government report

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratio...

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U.S. logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Scientists blame Central Great Plains drought on failure of Gulf jet stream but critics say study was too narrow. The Guardian reports

The historic drought that blazed across America’s corn belt last year was not caused by climate change, a federal government study found.

The summer of 2012 was the driest since record-keeping began more than a century ago, as well as one of the hottest, producing drought conditions across two-thirds of the continental United States.

Barack Obama and other prominent figures have repeatedly cited the drought as evidence of climate change. But the report released on Thursday by scientists at five different government agencies said that was not the case. The drought was “a sequence of unfortunate events” that occurred suddenly, the report said. The circumstances were so unusual the drought could never have been predicted.

“The Central Great Plains drought during May-August of 2012 resulted mostly from natural variations in weather,” the report said.

The scientists found moist air from the Gulf of Mexico did not stream northward as it does most years, bringing spring rain. The jet stream that ordinarily pushes up the moisture from the Gulf was stuck far to the north in Canada.

July and August failed to produce their usual thunderstorms and those that did occur brought little rainfall.

The deficits were extreme. Last year was the driest year since record-keeping began in 1895, the report said. Conditions were even hotter and drier than the “dust bowl” years of 1934 and 1935.

But the scientists were clear in the report: “Neither ocean states nor human-induced climate change, factors that can provide long-lead predictability, appeared to play significant roles in causing severe rainfall deficits over the major corn producing regions of central Great Plains.”

The finding was immediately challenged by other scientists. The report looked at six states – Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Iowa – but by last September the drought had spread across two-thirds of the continental United States, devastating crops from Texas to Georgia. Some experts predicted the economic losses would exceed those from hurricane Sandy.

Obama cited the drought, along with last year’s wildfires, record-breaking temperatures, and Sandy, as evidence of climate change. Campaign groups have also cited the drought to make the case for climate action.

The lead author of the report, Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told the Associated Press he had tried to create computer simulations of the the drought, factoring in climate change conditions. Hoerling undertook a similar exercise with the 2011 drought in Texas, finding that climate change had indeed been a factor.

He was unable to do so in this case, Hoerling said, arguing that it demonstrated the drought had been a one-off event.

“This is one of those events that comes along once every couple hundreds of years,” Hoerling told the AP. “Climate change was not a significant part, if any, of the event.”

However, Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research, who was also contacted by the Associated Press, said the study failed to take into account the lack of snowpack in the Rockies or how climate change may have played a role in keeping the jet stream away.

CLIMATE CHANGE : Barack Obama ‘seriously considering’ hosting climate summit

Hurricane+Sandy

Some good news for the planet, hopefully…. The Guardian reports. Campaign groups say US president could use bipartisan summit to launch a national climate strategy

President Barack Obama arrives at announcement in the Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House

Barack Obama listed climate change among the top three priorities of his second term. Photograph: Alex Wong/Getty Images

Barack 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.

“What we talked about with the White House is using it as catalyst not just for the development of a national strategy but for mobilising people all over the country at every level,” said Bob Doppelt, executive director of the Resource Innovation Group, the Oregon-based thinktank that has been pushing for the high-level meeting. He said it would not be a one-off event.

“What I think has excited the White House is that it does put the president in a leadership role, but it is not aimed at what Congress can do, or what he can do per se, so much as it is aimed at apprising the American public about how they can act.”

Campaign groups and major donors have been pushing Obama to outline a strategy on climate change, in the wake of his re-election andsuperstorm Sandy.

Jeremy Symons, senior vice-president for conservation and education at the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), said Obama needed to give a clear indication early on of what he intended to do on climate change – ideally before the State of the Union address when presidents typically outline their agenda.

“The clock is ticking. The threat is urgent, and we would like to see a commitment in time for the president to address it in the State of the Union address,” Symons said. “That would be the window I see. We can’t wait forever.”

The proposed summit, as envisaged by Doppelt, would be centred on Washington but would be linked up with similar events occurring in communities across the country on the same day. It would take place within the first few months of Obama’s second term.

Doppelt said he has had a number of exchanges with White House staff about the summit, and he believed the proposal was under “very serious consideration”. The White House would not respond to requests for comment.

Obama listed climate change among the top three priorities of his second term. He gave private assurances to donors at a White House event in early December the issue remains on his agenda.

But there is growing concern among campaign groups and fellow Democrats that Obama has yet to come up with a clear plan for deploying government agencies to protect against future events like Sandy, or for rallying the public behind a strategy to cut emissions.

The political opportunity created by Sandy could be slipping away, said Betsy Taylor, an environmental consultant in Washington DC. “We are disappointed that he hasn’t talked or used his bully pulpit. When he went to New York after Sandy he said almost nothing about climate change,” she said. “In the very short-term there was an opportunity post-Sandy but I don’t think it has been seized.”

Unlike Obama’s first term, when the larger campaign groups in particular seemed reluctant to force the climate issue, environmental leaders say they intend to keep up the pressure on the White House.

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. The senator said in a statement he wanted to counteract “a concerted rearguard action to manufacture doubt about scientific concepts that happen to be economically inconvenient to the biggest polluting industries”.

But environmental groups say Obama still needs to come up with a plan. “What NWF members are asking for is a clear commitment and a plan from the president to make tackling climate change a priority in his second term, with concrete steps forward. A summit can be an important part of bringing that together, but it’s not the end goal,” said Symons. “First and foremost President Obama needs a plan.”

CLIMATE CHANGE : An open letter to Obama from the world’s poorest countries

Developing countries excluding LDCs (Least Dev...

Developing countries excluding LDCs (Least Developed Countries) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As president you have helped those who cause climate change more than those affected most by it. Helping the world’s poorest adapt is now a matter of urgency, and it can be your great legacy. The Guardian reports

Dear President Obama,

As the lead negotiator for the world’s 48 Least Developed Countries(LDCs) in the United Nations climate change negotiations, I congratulate you on your re-election. I also want to express my admiration for your response to superstorm Sandy: without the preparations that you made, the impacts to those hit by the storm would have been even more devastating. As communities in the north-east work to rebuild and recover, the world has an opportunity to begin a new, reality-based conversation about climate change.

I write with a simple request: as this discussion continues in the world’s most developed countries, remember those who live in its poorest regions. Remember that as a result of climate change, this kind of fatal weather event has become commonplace for us while we lack the infrastructure and resources to adequately protect our citizens.

As researchers at Brown University’s climate and development lab have shown, climate-related disasters such as droughts, extreme temperatures, floods, and hurricanes have caused an estimated 1.3 million deaths since 1980. Two-thirds of these deaths (over 909,000) occurred in the least developed countries. We are only 12% of the world’s population, but we suffer the effects of climate-related disasters more than five times as much as the world as a whole.

Given this reality and your early commitment to leading a science-directed discussion about the changing climate, I was surprised that you only mentioned climate change in your re-election campaign a few times, and not once in your three debates with Mitt Romney. We know that 70% of US citizens now recognise the reality of human-caused climate change. As the world’s largest economy, the US has a unique opportunity and responsibility to take bold action on this issue. Indeed, the wellbeing of the citizens of your nation and mine depends on your ability to lead at this critical juncture. It is time to end the climate silence.

Later this month, representatives of the world’s nations will meet in Doha, Qatar, for the annual negotiations on the UN climate change treaty. When you were first elected president, your words gave us hope that you would become an international leader on climate change. But you have not lived up to this promise. The framework that you put in place sets the planet on course to warm dangerously, and delays action until 2020 – this will be too late. This year’s meeting in Qatar may be our last chance to put forward a new vision and plan to reverse this course. Your legacy, and the future of our children and grandchildren depend on it. We ask you to lead in two ways.

First, join with the European Union, the LDCs and the Alliance of Small Island States in taking on ambitious national commitments to reduce climate pollution. Go beyond the commitments that you made in Copenhagen in 2009. The climate is changing faster than we thought, and we must respond with increased ambition.

Second, provide adequate funding to help the LDCs and other vulnerable nations to adapt to this new climate reality. In 2010, the wealthiest countries directed about $1.5bn to help developing countries adapt to a changing climate. Over the same period, they spent over $400bn subsidising fossil fuel industries. They gave the main contributors to human-caused climate change more than 250 times the support they offered those whom it harms most.

Countries from Gambia and Haiti, to Malawi and Bangladesh need the “predictable and adequate” funding promised in Copenhagen so that they can take simple steps to protect their citizens. This means moving drinking water and irrigation wells away from coasts, where saltwater is intruding into aquifers; it includes developing drought-resistant crops and helping small farmers in fragile, semi-arid regions survive. We have to prepare roads and cities, villages and farms for floods, hurricanes and heat waves. We need to equip people with the weather prediction, early warning systems and emergency response that citizens of the developed countries take for granted.

With 20 years of international climate change negotiations behind us, there is simply no longer time or cause for wealthy countries to continue to stall in taking real action to fulfil the promises they have made. Having the wealthy nations reduce their greenhouse gas emissions steeply is fundamental, but helping the poorest of us cope with its impacts is an immediate necessity.

Mr President, remind the world that the devastation of climate change is shared by all its citizens. Remember that this reality is changeable. Make changing it your legacy.

• Pa Ousman Jarju is the chair of the Least Developed Countries group at the UN climate change negotiations

US Elections : A vote for a president to lead on climate change

Official photographic portrait of US President...

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

The devastation that hurricane Sandy brought to New York city brought the stakes of the presidential election into sharp relief. Michael Bloomberg, New York mayor gives his views

Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be – given this week’s devastation – should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.

Here in New York, our comprehensive sustainability plan – PlaNYC – has helped allow us to cut our carbon footprint by 16 percent in just five years, which is the equivalent of eliminating the carbon footprint of a city twice the size of Seattle. Through the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group – a partnership among many of the world’s largest cities – local governments are taking action where national governments are not.

Leadership needed

But we can’t do it alone. We need leadership from the White House – and over the past four years, President Barack Obama has taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption, including setting higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. His administration also has adopted tighter controls on mercury emissions, which will help to close the dirtiest coal power plants (an effort I have supported through my philanthropy), which are estimated to kill 13,000 Americans a year.

Mitt Romney, too, has a history of tackling climate change. As governor of Massachusetts, he signed on to a regional cap- and-trade plan designed to reduce carbon emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels. “The benefits (of that plan) will be long-lasting and enormous – benefits to our health, our economy, our quality of life, our very landscape. These are actions we can and must take now, if we are to have ‘no regrets’ when we transfer our temporary stewardship of this Earth to the next generation,” he wrote at the time.

He couldn’t have been more right. But since then, he has reversed course, abandoning the very cap-and-trade program he once supported. This issue is too important. We need determined leadership at the national level to move the nation and the world forward.

I believe Mitt Romney is a good and decent man, and he would bring valuable business experience to the Oval Office. He understands that America was built on the promise of equal opportunity, not equal results. In the past he has also taken sensible positions on immigration, illegal guns, abortion rights and health care. But he has reversed course on all of them, and is even running against the health-care model he signed into law in Massachusetts.

If the 1994 or 2003 version of Mitt Romney were running for president, I may well have voted for him because, like so many other independents, I have found the past four years to be, in a word, disappointing.

In 2008, Obama ran as a pragmatic problem-solver and consensus-builder. But as president, he devoted little time and effort to developing and sustaining a coalition of centrists, which doomed hope for any real progress on illegal guns, immigration, tax reform, job creation and deficit reduction. And rather than uniting the country around a message of shared sacrifice, he engaged in partisan attacks and has embraced a divisive populist agenda focused more on redistributing income than creating it.

Important victories

Nevertheless, the president has achieved some important victories on issues that will help define our future. His Race to the Top education program – much of which was opposed by the teachers’ unions, a traditional Democratic Party constituency – has helped drive badly needed reform across the country, giving local districts leverage to strengthen accountability in the classroom and expand charter schools. His health-care law — for all its flaws — will provide insurance coverage to people who need it most and save lives.

When I step into the voting booth, I think about the world I want to leave my two daughters, and the values that are required to guide us there. The two parties’ nominees for president offer different visions of where they want to lead America.

One believes a woman’s right to choose should be protected for future generations; one does not. That difference, given the likelihood of Supreme Court vacancies, weighs heavily on my decision.

One recognizes marriage equality as consistent with America’s march of freedom; one does not. I want our president to be on the right side of history.

One sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.

Of course, neither candidate has specified what hard decisions he will make to get our economy back on track while also balancing the budget. But in the end, what matters most isn’t the shape of any particular proposal; it’s the work that must be done to bring members of Congress together to achieve bipartisan solutions.

Presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan both found success while their parties were out of power in Congress – and President Obama can, too. If he listens to people on both sides of the aisle, and builds the trust of moderates, he can fulfill the hope he inspired four years ago and lead our country toward a better future for my children and yours. And that’s why I will be voting for him.

• Michael R Bloomberg is mayor of New York and founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.

• This article first appeared on Bloomberg View 2012. It is reproduced here with permission

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,796 other followers

%d bloggers like this: