World Leaders Lay Out Tests For Obama
LONDON -- In the closing weeks of his presidential campaign, Barack Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, warned that the world would soon test a young, relatively inexperienced president.
President Obama begins selling his economic plan to the world today. He's heading to Europe this morning for his first overseas trip as president, where he'll be facing a very skeptical audience. Video courtesy of Fox News.
Letterman Tells O’Reilly: “I Think Of You As A Goon” (VIDEO)
SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO EXCERPT
David Letterman, who infamously told Bill O'Reilly in 2006 that "about 60 percent of what you say is crap," had his old bête noire back on his show on Tuesday night.
At the start of the show, Letterman couldn't help lashing into the Fox News host, saying "I wish I was smart enough to make him look ridiculous... He's going to come out here all puffed up."
From practically the moment O'Reilly sat down, the sparks flew along with some surprising topics upon which they agreed.
"I think of you as a goon," Letterman point-blank told O'Reilly. Then, holding up the cover of O'Reilly's book, "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity," which has a photo of O'Reilly as a boy, Letterman quipped, "I look at that and I see this sweet, adorable kid... I have a sweet adorable kid and I wonder, 'What if he too becomes a goon?'"
And Letterman launched into O'Reilly positions, such as his boycott of Sean Penn movies, giving him the ultimate back-handed compliment: "You're too smart to believe what you say."
When Letterman focused on Rush Limbaugh, implying that he's the face of the Republican party, O'Reilly alluded to the radio host's power, saying that "I don't think any Republicans or conservatives want to offend the man." And he strove to distinguish himself from Limbaugh and fellow Fox News personality Glenn Beck by claiming that he's a journalist: "I got a degree, I paid a lot of money for... I went out, covered stories... those guys are basically entertainers... we give information"
O'Reilly also revealed that former Vice President Dick Cheney refused to come on his program, adding that he doesn't like Cheney: "We asked him a million times... he wouldn't come on."
And he laughed about the famous video of him cursing out his staff - "I have so much better stuff than that... Irish guys curse. That's in the DNA... We're loud and say bad words."
David Horton: GWC
I see the Global Financial Crisis is now popularly known by the initials GFC. A little strange (was the 1929 Wall Street Crash called WSC?) but I guess both the acronym and the longer title (itself a shorthand description, though much better than the “meltdown” that was used initially) have the advantage of precisely focusing attention on the set of problems that have emerged as a result of decades of neoconservative meddling with western economies. When the G20 leaders sit down around the big polished table, agenda item one would only need to have “GFC” for everyone to look serious and get out their copies of Keynes, national check books, and the “Guide to regulating a modern economy for dummies” in paperback. Nothing like the phrase “Global Financial Crisis” for concentrating the mind.
I see President Obama is calling together some of his new G20 friends for a chat about climate change later. Could I suggest to him not to use the soothing, no need to panic, nothing happening here folks, Luntz-inspired phrase “Climate Change” on the agenda. A term that will have leaders muttering about emissions trading, and nuclear power, and clean coal, and all the other nonsense that the energy company magical misdirection has come up with, and thinking ahead to an excellent White House lunch. Instead, President Obama, go for something short and snappy. Something like, oh, I don’t know, the “Global Warming Crisis” or GWC.
And keep saying it in your introductory speech. The GWC this. The GWC that. Make them understand that they all face being hung in the morning if they don’t act urgently, right now in fact, on the GWC. Get them focused, thinking renewable energy, 80% reduction, technology transfer, energy conservation, biodiversity protection, adaptation help for poor countries, 350ppm; serious goals and solutions for a crisis. Get them sweating, making notes, huddling in corners in small groups, taking off jackets, working out deals and programs, eating limp sandwiches as they work, making phone calls, having estimates prepared by harried aides, bursting into applause at the end of the day.
You want to save the world economies? Deal with the GFC. You want to save the world? Deal with the GWC.
Plenty of urgency on climate change at TWB (The Watermelon Blog).
N.Y. House Race Too Close To Call
The two candidates in a New York congressional race that focused on President Barack Obama's economic policies were separated by only 65 votes with all the precincts in and more than 150,000 votes counted Tuesday.NY House Race Too Close To Call, 65-Vote Dem Lead
ALBANY, N.Y. — After a short, tense campaign, the two candidates in a New York congressional special election that focused on President Barack Obama's popularity and his economic policy were separated by just 65 votes Tuesday, meaning the race will be decided by absentee ballots.
With all 610 voting precincts in the 20th Congressional District reporting, Democrat Scott Murphy barely led Republican Jim Tedisco in the race to replace Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, who was appointed to succeed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Senate.
Murphy had 77,344 votes; Tedisco had 77,279 votes.
There were more than 10,000 absentee ballots sent to voters who were registered in the district but were unable to vote at their polling places. By Tuesday, nearly 6,000 had been returned, but none of them was to be counted Tuesday night, according to state elections officials. New York agreed to count overseas absentee ballots until April 13 _ instead of the initial April 7 cutoff _ after the U.S. Department of Justice sued the state for not giving overseas absentee voters enough time to return ballots.
Republicans said their polling of the 10 counties in the district showed them to have an advantage of about 1,100 absentee ballots sent to registered Republicans, but that couldn't be independently verified.
"I believe, when the smoke clears, we'll have won a tremendous victory," Tedisco said.
Murphy said his campaign, win or lose, proved the naysayers wrong.
"The people in Washington said it couldn't be done," Murphy said. "And the people in this room and all across the 20th district tonight said something very different."
New York Republican Chairman Joseph Mondello filed a lawsuit against the state Board of Elections, every participating county board of election and the two candidates requiring all paper ballots be impounded. It's not an unusual step in close elections.
"They want to make sure that they secure all of the paper ballots that are on file with the Board of Elections," said Don Kline, the Republican commissioner of the Columbia County Board of Elections.
The district has more than 196,000 registered Republicans, about 125,000 Democrats and 118,000 unaffiliated voters.
Murphy, a businessman and political newcomer, and national Democrats staked his campaign on the strength of Obama and his economic policies, specifically his $787 billion stimulus plan.
Tedisco, an Assemblyman for 27 years, attacked Murphy for supporting the stimulus plan, which he said allowed massive bonuses at the bailed-out insurer American International Group Inc.
Gillibrand was appointed to the Senate by Gov. David Paterson in January.
The special election for her old seat drew an unusual level of national attention, and both candidates had financial support from their national parties and political action committees _ mostly spent on increasingly negative television ads, which bothered supporters of both candidates.
"I'm tired of candidates telling us what's bad about the other person instead of what's good about them," said Ralph Liporace, a 53-year-old independent who voted for Murphy at the Brunswick Volunteer Fire Department.
Vincent Poleto, 21, of Brunswick, said he voted for Tedisco "because I've known him for years."
"But I'm not happy about the negative campaigning," he said.
Thanks to ongoing campaigning and get out the vote efforts, polling places and local election boards reported a 32 percent turnout of registered voters at the polls. That's respectable for a special election in which there are no statewide offices or big names on the ballot to attract more casual voters.
Republicans hoped a win would knock Obama off balance and put them back on the political map in the Northeast after two dismal cycles that saw them go from nine New York representatives before the 2006 elections to three after the 2008 vote. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele identified the race as one of the party's top priorities for this year.
Democrats looked for the reassurance of a win in a Republican district less than 100 days after Obama took office and in the wake of his $787 billion stimulus package, which was criticized for a loophole allowing bonuses at AIG.
Even hours before polls closed, the White House was portraying the vote as a win for Democrats no matter the outcome because of inroads they have made in the district, which has more Republicans registered and a long history, until recently, of electing GOP candidates.
"To even be competitive in a district like that, I think says a lot," press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters on Air Force One as Obama traveled to London.
Each campaign raised more than $1 million and got major support from national committees and political groups.
Murphy, 39, is a venture capitalist multimillionaire from Columbia, Mo., who has lived in New York for more than a decade.
Tedisco, 58, is the GOP minority leader in the state Assembly. He's been in politics for 27 years representing a mostly working-class district. He doesn't live in the congressional district, an issue used by Democrats during the campaign.
The diverse district stretches from the rural Adirondack Mountains, an hour south of the Canadian border, down to Dutchess County, about an hour north of New York City.
Pat Ginsberg, a Democrat in her 60s, voted Tuesday morning at the Martin Van Buren National Historic Site in Kinderhook, southeast of Albany.
"I wanted a Democrat because I wanted someone who backed Obama's policies," she said.
John Johnas, 62, an independent from Rensselaer County, said Obama's policies didn't figure in his decision to vote for Tedisco.
"I've always liked Jim," he said. "He's at least from the area. I don't know much about the other guy."
___
Associated Press writers Jessica M. Pasko in Albany and Jennifer Loven aboard Air Force One contributed to this report.
Mitchell Bard: One Man’s Car Shows Why Aid to the Automakers Must Include a Commitment to Fuel Efficiency
When I read that President Obama was taking a hard line with General Motors and Chrysler, I immediately thought of Daniel Glass.
A professional drummer and drum historian (and, in the interest of full disclosure, a fellow resident of Scheffres Hall at Brandeis University during our sophomore year of college), Daniel lives in car-crazy Los Angeles, where having an automobile is right up there with food, water and oxygen on the list of necessities. And yet, for the last two years, Daniel has hardly set foot in a gas station, but he nevertheless manages to get around town with no difficulties. How does he do it? His 1987 Mercedes station wagon's diesel engine has been adapted to run on vegetable oil.
What is so interesting about Daniel's driving habits is how uninteresting they are. His experience as a vehicle owner and driver is much the same as yours and mine, only while we go to gas stations to fill up our tanks with fossil fuel, Daniel goes to a supplier to fill up his five-gallon jugs with environmentally friendly vegetable oil. (To those who are concerned that using vegetable oil as fuel leads to higher food prices, lower food supplies in developing countries, and pollution from processing, relax. Daniel's supplier recycles used cooking oil from area restaurants.)
And while Daniel uses a mechanic familiar with his adapted fuel tank, any repair shop that can work on a Mercedes can fix any other problem with his vehicle. What if he goes on a long trip? He simply tosses some of the vegetable oil jugs into his trunk. What if he runs out of vegetable oil when he's on the road? Easy. If he can't get to a supermarket (yes, regular old vegetable oil works fine, it's just a bit expensive), then he can use conventional diesel fuel in the same tank.
If you think Daniel is some kind of bizarre one-off, he is actually one of thousands of Los Angeles drivers making use of diesel engines that burn vegetable oil. After all, his oil supplier isn't an environmental organization or hobbyist working out of his garage. Rather, he gets his fuel from a thriving business that supplies recycled cooking oil to drivers like Daniel.
In short, Daniel's car experience is just like ours, only he doesn't contribute to the fossil fuel economy.
Opponents of fuel-efficiency standards (and, of course, proponents of fossil fuels, who like to chant, "Drill, baby! Drill!") want you to think that powering vehicles with anything other than gasoline in engines that get low gas mileage is something for a distant future, completely unrelated to any modern experience. But Daniel proves that line of criticism to be total nonsense.
What does this all have to do with the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler? Simple. With all the talk of whether or not the government has the right to demand the resignation of a company's CEO, or whether the right wing is trying to bust the unions, or whether or not the administration should let the American automobile industry die out, there was precious little discussion of how a reorganized General Motors and Chrysler will fit into a more responsible national energy policy. Supporting the automakers without insisting that they fundamentally change their approach to making vehicles, namely that they commit to making fuel-efficient cars, is more than just a missed opportunity, it's flat-out wrong. And Daniel's experience shows that adjusting to this new reality can be a lot easier than people think.
The U.S. is being severely threatened on three fronts because of its addiction to oil: the environment, the economy and national security. Without reducing CO2 emissions, global warming threatens the habitability of the planet. We all remember how skyrocketing gas prices last summer severely impacted the budgets of American families, both at the pump and in the increased price of food and other necessities. (As President Obama has said, we can't keep going "from shock to trance" when gas prices go up and down.) And our dependence on oil from the Middle East has forced us to engage in the region in ways that have not served our national interests.
So if General Motors and Chrysler want billions of dollars from the American people, the money should come with a guarantee that the new General Motors and the new Chrysler will make fuel-efficient vehicles that help the country end its dependence on foreign oil.
Some have argued that Americans won't buy fuel-efficient vehicles when gas prices are low, and that forcing the automakers into such a business plan would be dooming them to failure. Even putting aside the success of the Toyota Prius (and the anticipation for Honda's 2010 Insight, which will offer a Prius-like vehicle at a lower cost, starting at just under $20,000), the government has the power to create a market for these cars by requiring that new vehicles meet stringent emissions standards. The government already prevents Americans from having unfettered access to dangerous substances, from heroin to dynamite. Acting to ensure that new cars don't add to the dangers of oil dependence would fall comfortably into the same vein (no pun intended).
If the Obama administration was to insist on General Motors and Chrysler adopting plans that would put them at the forefront of fuel-efficiency, and then was able to convince Congress to enact strict fuel-efficiency standards, the American automakers would be set up to be leaders in the new marketplace. But if General Motors and Chrysler want to continue on as they had been, with only minor adjustments, waiting for the recession to end and oil prices to stay low so that consumers will come back and buy their gas guzzlers, the U.S. government should not be enabling that plan. If that is the only choice, the better option might be to let the industry fall.
I understand the frustration of many Americans who think the government is being tougher on the auto industry than it was on the banks. I sincerely feel for the Midwest states, especially Michigan, that have seen massive job losses related to the failing auto industry, and who would be devastated by the industry's collapse. But the bottom line is that the automakers have failed to make decisions over the last 30 years that have allowed them to stay relevant in the marketplace. And now the companies are coming to the American people for a handout. As President Obama said back in November, shortly after he was elected, assistance to the automakers has to be a "bridge loan to somewhere as opposed to a bridge loan to nowhere." And that somewhere is for the companies to be leaders of a new era of green vehicles.
By forcing General Motors and Chrysler to shift focus to a future of fuel-efficient vehicles, all of the concerns can be addressed. The automakers can be saved. They can be profitable, acting as leaders rather than followers in their industry. And a thriving industry means jobs will come back.
The answer to saving the automakers is fuel-efficiency. Think I'm being overly ambitious? Well, tell me that the next time Daniel Glass speeds by you in his vegetable-oil powered Mercedes wagon. The future is now. At least for some forward-thinking Angelenos with diesel engines that run on recycled vegetable oil. It's time for the rest of us to catch up.
More on Auto BailoutMarkus Ziener: Letter to Europe
Barack Obama may be the anti-Bush. But make no mistake: That doesn’t mean he is a European. This at least has become crystal clear in the weeks since he took over at the White House. Barack Obama is an American president making politics for America. If his ideas coincide with the ones of Europe – fine. That makes things easier, more pleasant. But anyone who believes that this president is looking for counsel from his European friends is simply wrong. Barack Obama wants to take advantage of the crisis to completely overhaul the U.S. and to take the country to new heights. If he succeeds then in a few years Europe will have to deal with an ally who is one thing above all: self-confident.
Due to the financial crisis much faster than expected the differences between major parts of Europe and the U.S. have surfaced. The economic trouble almost operates like a catalyst. Look for instance at the stimulus debate. Although the American government has significantly toned down their criticism of the European programs to revive their economies internally the charges continue – with Germany as the main culprit. Berlin is accused of not doing enough, spending only petty money to increase demand, even asking for a free ride on the backs of countries like the U.S. who are injecting hundreds of billions of Dollars into their economies.
Over are the days when it was an honor to carry the label world export champion. These days the narrative goes like this: Germans want others to pay for their export-driven economy while not doing enough themselves. Did we miss here something? Wasn’t there a time in the U.S. when competitiveness was something one could be proud of? And isn’t it the best proof of being competitive if your stuff sells well on a global market? Not any more. Now Germans get hammered for being a top seller of goods.
Since this storyline is so catchy, facts don’t matter much any more. Take the size of the stimulus: If you add the automatic stabilizers which are significantly higher than in the U.S. – for example welfare benefits for the unemployed – relative to the GDP the German package is almost as big as the American. The EU commission calculates that the German stimulus amounts to 4.7 percent of GDP while the EU average is 3.3 percent. The U.S. stimulus equals 5.3 percent of GDP. So why all the fuss?
And yes it’s true that Germans carry some historical baggage when it comes to accumulating debt, printing money and risking high inflation. In the 1920ies hyperinflation wiped out all the savings and discredited the young democracy of the “Weimar Republic”. One may say that this is long ago. Maybe. But in the German psyche this experience is deeply rooted. Therefore people and government are cautious when fiscal imbalances are looming.
And by the way: Germany is not the only country in Europe that has legitimate reason to drift from the American approach. The French have also difficulties to follow the Americans 100 percent and so do a number of other European countries. At the same time the differences are not so much about the direction in general, it’s more about scope and pace. One size fits all – this strategy simply doesn’t work here. The crisis is way too complicated.
So with all the cheer and jubilation we will witness in the next couple of days around Obama Europeans should carefully listen to what exactly the U.S. president is saying – to make out what is good or bad for them. This time it’s more than ever about the nuances – to avoid a hangover once illusion meets reality.
More on G-20 Summit
Bianca Jagger: Yes We Can
When President Obama and the other world leaders gather to discuss the current global economic crisis, they must also focus on the threat of catastrophic global climate change. These two crises should not be regarded as separate issues. Many of the causes and some of the solutions are the same. Both were preventable. Both are, in President Obama’s words, “a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some but also our collective failure to make hard choices”. Equally with both, it is the poorest and the most vulnerable who will invariably suffer the most. I call upon President Obama to provide global leadership and deliver “the change we need.” The time has come to put the future of people first.
Nearly three years ago Gordon Brown proclaimed: “I believe that the world needs a new paradigm that moves the environmental challenge to the centre of policy. … For too long too many governments thought their objectives began and ended with economic prosperity and jobs.” Given the severe recession in this country, does this now mean that the future of the environment will be as bleak as our current economy? The Prime Minister’s rhetoric sadly illustrates his failure of leadership on both of these vital issues.
The warnings from our most respected scientists are loud and clear, yet government leaders continue to ignore the scale of the threat. According to many scientists, we have less than a decade left to address the issue of climate change before we reach the “tipping point”, or the point of no return. It is the responsibility of leaders everywhere to fully understand this problem if they are to meet the challenges before us. Failure to act effectively is likely to precipitate cataclysmic changes that may obliterate life on earth. As Dr. Rowan Williams put it, “the ultimate tragedy… (would be if) humanity gradually choked, drowned, or starved by its own stupidity”.
In these times of economic crisis, we need to be aware of the economic consequences of climate change. The reality is that failure to act will be far more costly and damaging to the economy over the long term than acting immediately. The costs of acting soon are manageable, especially when compared with the projected loss of human life, natural disasters, and economic collapse in the coming decades. With the current financial meltdown and global economic recession, we failed to heed the signs before it was too late and we are now forced to deal with the consequences and bear the burden of bailouts. We are making the same mistake with our environment. But when this system breaks, it might not even be possible to fix.
Investing in renewable energy and clean technologies should be seen as a key part of the solution to both the current global economic and climate crises. In Professor Nicholas Stern’s words, “investments in …(these) technologies could provide sustainable and well-founded economic growth, in contrast to the recent booms, and eventual busts, driven by flaky dot-com ventures or inflated house prices.” The work of Global Urban Development’s Climate Prosperity Project, Professor Stern, and many other eminent economists have demonstrated how investing in renewable energy and clean technologies can generate substantial and sustainable economic growth worldwide, increasing jobs, incomes, efficiency and productivity, and at the same time safeguarding our future.
To quote Oscar Wilde, the current financial mess clearly demonstrates the danger of “knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.” The time has come to recognize the true economic asset value of our natural resources — rain forests, biodiversity, oceans, barrier reefs, and much more. The long-term economic value of our global ecosystem are best enhanced through innovation, efficiency and conservation, not reckless exploitation.
We also need to address the question of “climate justice”. Developing countries suffer most from the impacts of climate change, although they have not been the primary cause of the problem.
Justice is the litmus test for any measure designed to combat climate change. This includes justice between countries, justice within countries, justice between generations, and justice for Mother Nature. Climate justice means providing poorer countries access to modern clean technologies to help them raise their living standard by embarking on a renewable energy revolution.
The challenges that we face are daunting but not insurmountable. Last year President Obama called climate change “one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation,” and more recently he said “We cannot afford politics as usual — not at a moment when the energy challenge we face is so great and the consequences of inaction are so dangerous. We must act quickly and we must act boldly to transform our entire economy — from our cars and our fuels to our factories and our buildings.” His “New Energy for America Plan” is an important step in the right direction. However, his plan may not be sufficient. Given the scale of the potential disaster before us, he has no choice but to rapidly move towards a sustainable economy based on Climate Prosperity.
G-20 leaders must now show the “unity of purpose.” We need a broad global consensus on vital political and financial measures to implement drastic emissions reduction targets combined with efforts to restore the planet’s ecosystems. The earth is perilously close to climate chaos that threatens to spiral way out of control. If the wealthy industrialised countries want to limit the rise in the average global temperature, they must commit to legally binding reductions of 80% greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2020. Current pledges of 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2020 are inadequate given the gravity of the current situation:
Additional policy actions are needed. I propose these simple solutions as part of the road map leading to the UNFCCC in Copenhagen.
- The criteria for the Copenhagen agreement should be based on scientific facts, not on political expediency and vested interests. This time we must not allow governments to pay mere “lip service” to any new agreement. Government leaders must implement effective solutions.
- All governments must also subscribe to and support the work of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), conceived by environmental leader Hermann Scheer, championed by the German Government and endorsed by seventy seven countries.
- Wealthy countries must live up to their responsibilities and set up an international investment fund that guarantees technology transfer from the Global North to the Global South. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, at least one trillion dollars must be invested over the next decade to enable developing countries to expand their economies through renewable energy, resource efficiency, and clean technologies. Production of these new technologies will create millions of new jobs and business opportunities in rich and poor countries alike. The best way for the G-20 leaders to address the current economic crisis is to invest in a globally sustainable future — an economic and environmental “win-win” solution for the entire world.
- All countries must transform taxes on energy into taxes on emissions, promoting the supply and demand of emission-free energy.
- We must embark upon a global programme of forest protection and reforestation. Planting 10 million square kilometres of new forests will help stabilise the concentration of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere at 350 parts per million.
- We must not look to nuclear energy as the panacea. Should we combat the dangers of climate change by ignoring the dangers of nuclear power? There are far too many environmental hazards and financial burdens associated with nuclear power plants. These include security risks, the volume of nuclear waste and the lack of safe disposal methods, excessive water usage, and finite supplies of uranium, massive construction and maintenance costs, radiation and cancer and other harmful human and ecological impacts.
- We must establish a new international initiative combining biosphere protection and restoration, in order to reverse the decline of biodiversity.
- We must provide financial incentives that empower households and businesses to invest in renewable energy and resource efficiency. For example, “Feed-in Tariff” legislation in Germany has created a quarter of a million new jobs and enabled millions of people to benefit from renewable technologies.
- Governments and Corporations whose practices put the environment and human life at risk must be held accountable for their actions.
The world situation is deteriorating faster than we previously anticipated. Recent studies show that even the most alarming predictions by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 were far too conservative. In Professor Stern’s words “Global emissions of greenhouse gases are growing more quickly than projected, the ability of the planet to absorb those gases now appears lower than was assumed, the potential increases in temperatures due to rising gas concentrations seem higher, and the physical impacts of a warming planet are appearing at a faster rate than expected.”
At this critical juncture in history it is well to remember the words of President Abraham Lincoln: “You cannot avoid the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.” President Obama has inherited a daunting array of global issues that urgently require his leadership. The world economic recession, Climate change, wars terrorism, epidemics, genocide, world hunger and the poverty that threatens millions of people, to name just a few. His commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. to 1990 levels by 2020 will not be enough. Winston Churchill declared on the eve of the Second World War: “The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience and delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.” President Obama, your decisions in addressing the challenges of climate change may have far greater global impact than the actions of any political leader in world history, literally affecting the very survival of human civilisation. You said “yes we can” and now we have the audacity to hope.
More on Climate Change
Bianca Jagger: Yes We Can
When President Obama and the other world leaders gather to discuss the current global economic crisis, they must also focus on the threat of catastrophic global climate change. These two crises should not be regarded as separate issues. Many of the causes and some of the solutions are the same. Both were preventable. Both are, in President Obama's words, "a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some but also our collective failure to make hard choices". Equally with both, it is the poorest and the most vulnerable who will invariably suffer the most. I call upon President Obama to provide global leadership and deliver "the change we need." The time has come to put the future of people first.
Nearly three years ago Gordon Brown proclaimed: "I believe that the world needs a new paradigm that moves the environmental challenge to the centre of policy. ... For too long too many governments thought their objectives began and ended with economic prosperity and jobs." Given the severe recession in this country, does this now mean that the future of the environment will be as bleak as our current economy? The Prime Minister's rhetoric sadly illustrates his failure of leadership on both of these vital issues.
The warnings from our most respected scientists are loud and clear, yet government leaders continue to ignore the scale of the threat. According to many scientists, we have less than a decade left to address the issue of climate change before we reach the "tipping point", or the point of no return. It is the responsibility of leaders everywhere to fully understand this problem if they are to meet the challenges before us. Failure to act effectively is likely to precipitate cataclysmic changes that may obliterate life on earth. As Dr. Rowan Williams put it, "the ultimate tragedy... (would be if) humanity gradually choked, drowned, or starved by its own stupidity".
In these times of economic crisis, we need to be aware of the economic consequences of climate change. The reality is that failure to act will be far more costly and damaging to the economy over the long term than acting immediately. The costs of acting soon are manageable, especially when compared with the projected loss of human life, natural disasters, and economic collapse in the coming decades. With the current financial meltdown and global economic recession, we failed to heed the signs before it was too late and we are now forced to deal with the consequences and bear the burden of bailouts. We are making the same mistake with our environment. But when this system breaks, it might not even be possible to fix.
Investing in renewable energy and clean technologies should be seen as a key part of the solution to both the current global economic and climate crises. In Professor Nicholas Stern's words, "investments in ...(these) technologies could provide sustainable and well-founded economic growth, in contrast to the recent booms, and eventual busts, driven by flaky dot-com ventures or inflated house prices." The work of Global Urban Development's Climate Prosperity Project, Professor Stern, and many other eminent economists have demonstrated how investing in renewable energy and clean technologies can generate substantial and sustainable economic growth worldwide, increasing jobs, incomes, efficiency and productivity, and at the same time safeguarding our future.
To quote Oscar Wilde, the current financial mess clearly demonstrates the danger of "knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing." The time has come to recognize the true economic asset value of our natural resources -- rain forests, biodiversity, oceans, barrier reefs, and much more. The long-term economic value of our global ecosystem are best enhanced through innovation, efficiency and conservation, not reckless exploitation.
We also need to address the question of "climate justice". Developing countries suffer most from the impacts of climate change, although they have not been the primary cause of the problem.
Justice is the litmus test for any measure designed to combat climate change. This includes justice between countries, justice within countries, justice between generations, and justice for Mother Nature. Climate justice means providing poorer countries access to modern clean technologies to help them raise their living standard by embarking on a renewable energy revolution.
The challenges that we face are daunting but not insurmountable. Last year President Obama called climate change "one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation," and more recently he said "We cannot afford politics as usual -- not at a moment when the energy challenge we face is so great and the consequences of inaction are so dangerous. We must act quickly and we must act boldly to transform our entire economy -- from our cars and our fuels to our factories and our buildings." His "New Energy for America Plan" is an important step in the right direction. However, his plan may not be sufficient. Given the scale of the potential disaster before us, he has no choice but to rapidly move towards a sustainable economy based on Climate Prosperity.
G-20 leaders must now show the "unity of purpose." We need a broad global consensus on vital political and financial measures to implement drastic emissions reduction targets combined with efforts to restore the planet's ecosystems. The earth is perilously close to climate chaos that threatens to spiral way out of control. If the wealthy industrialised countries want to limit the rise in the average global temperature, they must commit to legally binding reductions of 80% greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2020. Current pledges of 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2020 are inadequate given the gravity of the current situation:
Additional policy actions are needed. I propose these simple solutions as part of the road map leading to the UNFCCC in Copenhagen.
- The criteria for the Copenhagen agreement should be based on scientific facts, not on political expediency and vested interests. This time we must not allow governments to pay mere "lip service" to any new agreement. Government leaders must implement effective solutions.
- All governments must also subscribe to and support the work of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), conceived by environmental leader Hermann Scheer, championed by the German Government and endorsed by seventy seven countries.
- Wealthy countries must live up to their responsibilities and set up an international investment fund that guarantees technology transfer from the Global North to the Global South. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, at least one trillion dollars must be invested over the next decade to enable developing countries to expand their economies through renewable energy, resource efficiency, and clean technologies. Production of these new technologies will create millions of new jobs and business opportunities in rich and poor countries alike. The best way for the G-20 leaders to address the current economic crisis is to invest in a globally sustainable future -- an economic and environmental "win-win" solution for the entire world.
- All countries must transform taxes on energy into taxes on emissions, promoting the supply and demand of emission-free energy.
- We must embark upon a global programme of forest protection and reforestation. Planting 10 million square kilometres of new forests will help stabilise the concentration of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere at 350 parts per million.
- We must not look to nuclear energy as the panacea. Should we combat the dangers of climate change by ignoring the dangers of nuclear power? There are far too many environmental hazards and financial burdens associated with nuclear power plants. These include security risks, the volume of nuclear waste and the lack of safe disposal methods, excessive water usage, and finite supplies of uranium, massive construction and maintenance costs, radiation and cancer and other harmful human and ecological impacts.
- We must establish a new international initiative combining biosphere protection and restoration, in order to reverse the decline of biodiversity.
- We must provide financial incentives that empower households and businesses to invest in renewable energy and resource efficiency. For example, "Feed-in Tariff" legislation in Germany has created a quarter of a million new jobs and enabled millions of people to benefit from renewable technologies.
- Governments and Corporations whose practices put the environment and human life at risk must be held accountable for their actions.
The world situation is deteriorating faster than we previously anticipated. Recent studies show that even the most alarming predictions by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 were far too conservative. In Professor Stern's words "Global emissions of greenhouse gases are growing more quickly than projected, the ability of the planet to absorb those gases now appears lower than was assumed, the potential increases in temperatures due to rising gas concentrations seem higher, and the physical impacts of a warming planet are appearing at a faster rate than expected."
At this critical juncture in history it is well to remember the words of President Abraham Lincoln: "You cannot avoid the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today." President Obama has inherited a daunting array of global issues that urgently require his leadership. The world economic recession, Climate change, wars terrorism, epidemics, genocide, world hunger and the poverty that threatens millions of people, to name just a few. His commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. to 1990 levels by 2020 will not be enough. Winston Churchill declared on the eve of the Second World War: "The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience and delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences." President Obama, your decisions in addressing the challenges of climate change may have far greater global impact than the actions of any political leader in world history, literally affecting the very survival of human civilisation. You said "yes we can" and now we have the audacity to hope.
More on Climate Change
