Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Blogging for a sustainable energy future.

Get Energy Smart!  NOW! header image 2

Time for reusing a tired t-shirt?

June 22nd, 2011 · 3 Comments

What are the Three Rs?  Reduce, reuse, recycle.

Right now, I am wondering, when it comes to clothing that makes a political statement, whether the choice is reduced to recycling for reuse a now 20-year old t-shirt.

This Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) t-shirt dates from (I believe) the 1990 Earth Day amid efforts to goad President George H.W. Bush and his Administration to take a leading role in addressing human activities driving change in the planetary system.   Part of the challenge, the White House rhetoric and language about their actions exaggerated just how much they were doing to address an issue driving mounting concern in the specialist scientific community.

  • The front of the t-shirt:  a melting planet with the words “The Greenhouse Effect”
  • The back of the t-shirt: a melting planet with a smiley face with the words “the White House Effect”

Bill McKibben captured President George H.W. Bush’s attitude as follows:

no one has defined the issue as squarely as George Bush the elder when he said, prior to the Rio summit in 1992, that “the American way of life is not up for negotiation.” That way of life (already quaint and humble to us SUV-piloting descendants a decade later) stands somewhere near the center of this debate. So far, we’re willing to entertain the possibility — and indeed the fact — of things like massive polar melting and the spread of tropical diseases to a temperate climate, but aren’t really even willing to discuss what we might need to do to bring climate change under control.

Thus, for the (first) Bush Administration, the t-shirt remained relevant.

Sadly, this t-shirt remained relevant through the Clinton Administration where there was some action. There was the signing of Kyoto. Efforts went on to raise awareness (within and external to the government). Etc … On the other hand, the Clinton Administration (even with Al Gore as Vice President) did not manage to drive through measures like increases in automobile efficiency (CAFE standards), huge leaps forward in energy efficiency, major increases in renewable energy deployment, or even replacing the solar panels on the White House roof that Ronald Reagan had removed.   Thus, amid the critical issues such as Travelgate and debates over the devilish stains on a blue dress and …, the t-shirt had some continued relevancy even if it wasn’t the first thing out of the closet (and actual spent much of this time essentially in storage).

Obviously and sadly, the three Rs came into play with President George W Bush and the Cheney Administration which undertook a campaign to distort and downplay climate science’s increasingly urgent highlighting of humanity’s impact on the planetary climate system and the serious implications that this already had and would have for human civilization (and American security and prosperity).  This shirt moved from gathering dust to top of the pile, ready to pull on for a bike ride to the store or time in a national park or …  The message well, if anything, had even greater truth during the son’s Administration.

With President Barack Obama’s election, however, this shirt went from the pile to (what was hoped to be) long-term storage … hopefully something to be recycled into cleaning rags or into a museum piece.  After all, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama had talked seriously about the importance of addressing climate change as a top priority (and the power of energy efficiency) and President-elect Barack Obama’s second policy statement focused directly on climate change:

The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear

Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.

… too often, Washington has failed to show the same kind of leadership. That will change when I take office. My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process.

That will start with a federal cap and trade system.

These were far from isolated words.

Those were heady times for those knowledgeable about Global Warming’s threats to America’s prosperity and future prospects.  Candidate and President-Elect Obama had committed, forcefully and repeatedly, that addressing climate change would be core to his Presidency.

Since then, however, one might say that reality has intervened. To be clear, the Administration (and President Obama) have done many things to help move clean energy and climate change mitigation forward:  significant funding in the Stimulus Package; a serious Executive Order mandating reduced resource waste, increased clean energy use, and inclusion of sustainability in departmental planning; etc …  (There have, as well, been many steps that foster continued dirty energy practices.)  The Administration understands, at least at some level, climate disruption, has many top-notch people in critical jobs, and certainly represents a rejection of the Bush Administration’s embrace (leadership) of The Republican War on Science.

When it comes to “a federal cap and trade system”, promised by President-Elect Obama as where his Administration would start its leadership, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act and, then, crickets … The Senate went nowhere.  And, as for serious White House engagement, this seems to have been an issue relegated to back of the pack behind Health Care and, well, so many other issues.  There is much literature on this but this line from Climate Bill, RIP captures the situation well.

Obama, so far, has shown no urgency on the issue, and little willingness to lead – despite a June poll showing that 76 percent of Americans believe the government should limit climate pollution.

“Little willingness to lead” is certainly the impression of those heavily engaged in the fight for climate legislation.

In the face of the actual record,White House communications Dan Pfeiffer recently claimed: that

“the president obviously pushed very hard” to convince the U.S. Congress to pass climate legislation.

What’s the expression?  Putting lipstick on a pig (or, per Sarah Palin, a pit bull)?

Pfeiffer’s comment simply doesn’t seem to comport with reality.

  • When were the late-night Presidential huddles with Congressional leadership to try to push through legislation?
  • When did the President address a Joint Session of Congress on the serious risks from climate disruption and the huge opportunities to enrich America via climate mitigation?
  • What threats did the President give to Democratic members of Congress who didn’t support climate legislation?

As Vice President Al Gore put it,

But in spite of these and other achievements, President Obama has thus far failed to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change. After successfully passing his green stimulus package, he did nothing to defend it when Congress decimated its funding.

… without presidential leadership that focuses intensely on making the public aware of the reality we face, nothing will change. The real power of any president, as Richard Neustadt wrote, is “the power to persuade.” Yet President Obama has never presented to the American people the magnitude of the climate crisis. He has simply not made the case for action. He has not defended the science against the ongoing, withering and dishonest attacks. Nor has he provided a presidential venue for the scientific community — including our own National Academy — to bring the reality of the science before the public.

Here is the core of it: we are destroying the climate balance that is essential to the survival of our civilization. This is not a distant or abstract threat; it is happening now. The United States is the only nation that can rally a global effort to save our future. And the president is the only person who can rally the United States.

Simply put, it is rather hard for any observer to see where “the president pushed very hard” to drive climate legislation through the Congress.

 

And, when Dan Pfeiffer’s statement is so clearly at odds with reality, it makes one wonder whether the situation when it comes to climate mitigation policy has been reduced to recycling this old t-shirt for reuse.

NOTE: To be clear, the most serious problems to establishing meaningful action to foster a prosperous and secure American future are not in the Oval Office, the West Wing, or any Obama Administration Office.  Attacks on climate science and disinformation about the value of a clean-energy future from fossil-foolish interests and Anti-Science Syndrome suffering Haters Of a Livable Economic System are root causes.  Frustration with (many) Obama Administration policies and statements does not translate into putting the onus for inaction solely — or even primarily — on the Administration.  Pfeiffer’s comment, however, does not pass the most basic laugh test and should not stand unchallenged.  Instead, it is time to help President Obama understand the fundamental truth that Gore laid out:

 

the President has reality on his side. The scientific consensus is far stronger today than at any time in the past. Here is the truth: The Earth is round; Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11; Elvis is dead; Obama was born in the United States; and the climate crisis is real. It is time to act.

Tags: Obama Administration

3 responses so far ↓

  • 1 frflyer // Jun 23, 2011 at 12:16 am

    “the President has reality on his side”

    Exactly
    Democrats should be making this the issue for 2012. Moderates should run for their lives from the likes of the following (which I also posted on this topic at Climate Crocks).

    GOP congressman Rohrbacher suggests trees cause global warming

    Speaker of the House Boehner says CO2 emissions nothing to worry about because humans breathe CO2 in and out. Brilliant.

    Michelle Bachman says there have been no scientific studies showing CO2 is harmful.
    I guess she missed the ~10,000 (up to about 2006) published research papers behind the IPCC’s 2007 4th Assessment Report

    GOP Rep Fred Upton says there can be no global warming because God won’t allow it to happen.

    And of course Sen Inhofe says its all a big hoax.
    Sure Senator, the entire world scientific community is just trying to get more grant money.

    Barton and Ihofe get more oil money than any other legislators, in the House and Senate, respectively.

    Minnestota GOP senator claims to have studied all 13 fields of science related to climate change. Just so you know, no climate scientist would make such a claim.

    “Turns out that the self proclaimed “No. 1 global warming denier in Minnesota” one Michael Jungbauer, a man, whom in his own words, has “studied all 13 disciplines of science” contained in the IPCC reports, and now sits in the Minnesota state senate.. The problem is, he is not a scientist.”

    Bottom line: He doesn’t even have a bachelor degree in any field of science

    Christopher Monckton has no scientific background, his only higher education being in journalism. Yet, he is Chief Policy Adviser at the Science and Public Policy Institute a global warming skeptics group.

    This is who Republicans brought to a U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing as an expert witness, in 2008.
    Energy and Commerce Committee Minority Ranking Member Joe Barton (R-TX) referred to Monckton, in his opening remarks, – as being “generally regarded as one of the most knowledgeable, if not the most knowledgeable, experts on the skeptic side”.
    Global warming is not a matter of popular opinion, its a matter of science. Monckton is an activist, not a scientist. And what he claims is science isn’t. He is known to make completely absurd claims, like that industrialization helps the environment and that global warming will be beneficial.

    And then, in May 2010, U.S House Republicans chose Monckton as their only expert witness for a hearing at the Select Committee On Energy Independence and Global Warming.

    One of Inhofe’s star witnesses at Senate committee hearings, that he chaired, was science fiction writer Michael Crichton.

  • 2 @JonCarson44 responded to my tweet … one of my tweets, not others // Jan 12, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    [...] voters, who have a higher concern about climate issues than the overall population and many of whom find reasons to be dispirited about the President’s policies, find reasons for enthusiasm if the President lays out a truthful and honest message about climate [...]

  • 3 “The White House Effect”? // Apr 22, 2012 at 10:34 am

    [...] old enough to merit the term “vintage“, this Union of Concerned Scientists shirt dates from Earth Day, 1990 … and, well, could well too sadly appropriate for Earth Day 2012. The decision on [...]

Leave a Comment