Repudiating the Bush Era

An article in today's Washington Post is enough to make even the most experienced Washington hands sweat. A new EPA report has concluded that climate change does, in fact, pose grave pubic health risks including, but not limited to, death, destruction, and making summers in Washington D.C. even less bearable. Of course, as Melissa Merz noted last week, the White House has also decided that the EPA will not regulate the very emissions that cause these grave public health risks. Go figure.

From the article by David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin:

Climate change will pose "substantial" threats to human health in the coming decades, the Environmental Protection Agency said yesterday -- issuing its warnings about heat waves, hurricanes and pathogens just days after the agency declined to regulate the pollutants blamed for warming.

In a new report, the EPA said "it is very likely" that more people will die during extremely hot periods in future years -- and that the elderly, the poor and those in inner cities will be most at risk.

Other possible dangers include more powerful hurricanes, shrinking supplies of fresh water in the West, and the increased spread of diseases contracted through food and water, the agency said.

The strong warnings highlighted the contorted position that the EPA has staked out on climate change. Last week, the agency decided not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, at least not until after President Bush's term ends.

A former EPA official told a House panel this week that senior administration officials and several Cabinet members supported regulating the emissions before the White House changed course and barred the EPA from concluding that they endanger public welfare.

The most surprising part of this report is that the White House actually let it get released – unlike other climate reports earlier in the administration. So, just as the government informs itself (and, surprisingly, the public) that it should be doing something about this tremendous risk to the future of humanity, we learn that President Bush will not, so as to maintain his legacy.

[Former EPA deputy associate administrator Jason K. Burnett] also told the panel that senior EPA officials met with representatives from Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association, who argued that Bush should not undermine his legacy by regulating greenhouse gases.

This is quite the legacy that President Bush is preserving while the climate changes, ignoring reports of the EPA and a Supreme Court ruling (not to mention common sense and broad scientific consensus). Last time I checked, the vast majority of Americans were not huge fans of the President’s legacy. Perhaps he should use the last few months of his failed presidency to try something (anything) new.

I remember someone who won a lot of votes 8 years ago as having some decent ideas.

In a Newsweek Op-Ed yesterday, Fareed Zakaria rails against current American climate and energy policy (or lack thereof) in the context of this week’s G-8 in Hokkaido, Japan.

Whether it's Barack Obama or John McCain who enters the White House in January, the new president could well find his approval ratings sliding fast. The increasingly grim economic news is likely to overshadow all else. Britain's prime minister, Gordon Brown, is already experiencing this reality. While most of the British media would argue (vigorously) that Brown's low poll ratings relate to his charisma, or lack thereof, he is also clearly suffering the political effects of economic malaise.

Like the United States, Britain is going through a credit crunch, a financial crisis and a housing collapse all at the same time. Brown, however, argues that the central problem is skyrocketing food and fuel prices—"that's what hurts the average family most," he said in a conversation last Tuesday. Brown said he hoped that the Group of Eight countries would take them on at its summit in Hokkaido, Japan, this week. "The great challenge for the G-8 is, can we coordinate policies to prevent crises. In the 1980s, we had currency coordination. But with finance globalized, that's not the challenge of the present," he said. "The new problem, worldwide, is energy. We need to coordinate our energy policies."

Brown argues that even in the short- and medium-term, the G-8 countries could do something. "The market assumes that demand will always increase, and in a circumstance of constrained supply, that means prices rise. But we can send a signal that demand is going to moderate, that we are serious about efficiency and alternative energy sources. But it would have to be a clear signal sent by all the major consuming countries."

Last month, Britain laid out plans to generate 35 percent of its electricity needs from renewables by 2020—up from 5 percent now. The country is already the world's largest generator of wind power (with mostly off-shore turbines) and plans to generate 60 times current levels in 12 years. It has also cleared regulations to increase nuclear energy. "You cannot get to a new energy mix without a substantial rise in nuclear power," Brown said.

The contrast with Washington is blinding. George Bush still has not made a serious speech, announced a serious plan or presented Congress with a serious set of laws to move the country toward new energy sources. With oil prices at their highest levels since the discovery of oil (even in inflation-adjusted dollars), and with their rise threatening to push the country and the world toward 1970s-style stagflation—he hasn't brought himself do it. And while we stand pat, the rest of the world is moving. In a recent ranking of countries for environmental performance, jointly produced by Yale and Columbia universities, the United States came in 39th, well behind every other advanced industrial country. (Germany ranked 13, Britain 14 and Japan 21.)

Washington's inaction also stands in contrast to intense activity in the private sector, fascinatingly described in Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn's new book, "Earth: The Sequel." Krupp heads the Environmental Defense Fund, but this is not a gloomy global warming tirade. It's an optimistic account of the progress being made by American industry in renewable energy. The authors explore every new technology, from solar to wind to geothermal, and introduce the men and women who are inventing the future.

But they would be the first to point out that, even though American research labs are rising to the challenge, government action remains vital. The idea that government should "stay out" is meaningless. It is in knee-deep already; energy is a highly regulated industry. In fact, it's notable that we have low productivity and runaway inflation in two crucial areas these days—food and fuel. Both have been nationalized, protected or subsidized by governments around the world for decades. A host of regulatory and legal barriers make renewable and small-scale energy production less attractive, profitable and manageable than it could be. But Krupp and Horn focus on the central policy change that the United States needs to make—enacting a cap on carbon. America is the only developed country that does not put a price on carbon.

Imagine if President Bush were to announce at the G-8 summit that the United States would institute a cap on emissions. We would instantly have the world's largest carbon market and it would, instantly, change the price of clean energy. It would unleash a tsunami of economic activity in renewables that could, over time, give American productivity the next big boost it needs. It would, of course, also quickly send a signal to the market about future demand for oil, which would in turn affect the price.

But somehow I don't think that's what Bush is going to say in Hokkaido this week.

Zakaria is right to suggest that America do what much of the rest of the world seems to know we must: restore American leadership globally by comprehensively tackling climate change and reforming energy policy. He also knows that by doing so, we will address demand for fossil fuels, and fundamentally alter the current energy and economic paradigms. Solutions to the energy and climate dilemmas are not, as some argue, mutually exclusive. Rather, creating a prosperous 21st century depends on understanding that they can be one in the same. The private sector has figured this out, and is making a lot of money while doing so. Let’s see if the government can’t get the picture too.

Peter Beinart, from a nifty op-ed in the Washington Post:

In "The Best and the Brightest," David Halberstam chronicles Lyndon Johnson's absolute terror of appearing soft on Communism. Having seen fellow Democrats destroyed in the early 1950s because they tolerated a Communist victory in China, Johnson swore that he would not let the story replay itself in Vietnam, and thus pushed America into war. The awful irony, Halberstam argues, is that Johnson's fears were unfounded. The mid-1960s were not the early 1950s. The Red Scare was over. But because it lived on in Johnson's mind, he could not grasp the realities of a new day.

In this way, 2008 is a lot like 1964. On foreign policy, many Democrats live in terror of being called soft, of provoking the kind of conservative assault that has damaged so many of their presidential nominees since Vietnam. But that fear reflects memories of the past, not the realities of today. When Democrats worry about the backlash that awaits Barack Obama if he defends civil liberties, or endorses withdrawal from Iraq, or proposes unconditional negotiations with Iran, they are seeing ghosts. Fundamentally, the politics of foreign policy have changed.

Gary Hart has an excellent op-ed in the New York Times today, which echoes many of the themes we offered in our Mother Jones piece last summer, the 50-Year Strategy.

As reported by Reuters, the European Union agreed yesterday to end sanctions against Cuba, although it will insist the Communist island improves its human rights record. EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner told reporters, "Cuban sanctions will be lifted," after foreign ministers of the 27-nation bloc clinched agreement at a summit dinner in Brussles. Ferrero-Waldner added, "Of course there is clear language on human rights, on the detention of prisoners and there will have to be a review also."

According to EU sources, the decision - taken despite U.S. calls for the world to "remain tough" on Havana - will be reviewed after one year. Spain reportedly led the push for a softening in policy towards Cuba, meeting some resistance from the bloc's ex-communist members and the Swedish Foreign Minister, Carl Bildt. The sanctions had already been suspended in 2005, and unlike the U.S. embargo, the sanctions did not prevent trade and investment. Regardless, this is a major policy change, and lifting the sanctions is at odds with the current U.S policy towards Cuba.

Despite the current hard-line approach to Cuba in the U.S., could the EU's decision foreshadow what might become U.S. policy under a new president? Reuters reported that a draft it obtained of the EU agreement calls on Cuban authorities to: improve human rights, including unconditional release of political prisoners, ratification U.N. rights conventions, and giving humanitarian organizations access to Cuban jails. This sounds very similar to what Sen. Barack Obama said just a few weeks ago as he delivered a major speech on Latin American Foreign Policy before the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF): "My policy toward Cuba will begin with justice for Cuba's political prisoners, the rights of free speech, a free press and freedom of assembly; and it must lead to elections that are free and fair."

Like Sen. John McCain, Sen. Obama would maintain an embargo on Cuba, but only as "leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: if you take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalizing relations." Sen. Obama sees "principled diplomacy" as the way to bring about real change in Cuba. In his speech, Sen. Obama criticized what he called the eight years of "the Bush record in Latin America," i.e., having been, "negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples' lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the [American] region...The United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged....The situation has changed in the Americas, but we've failed to change with it. Instead of engaging the people of the region, we've acted as if we can still dictate terms unilaterally....the future security and prosperity of the United States is fundamentally tied to the future of the Americas. If we don't turn away from the policies of the past, then we won't be able to shape the future."

Sen. Obama's idea of a "new alliance of the Americas," at the center of that major speech, has been greeted with favor by Cuban-Americans from all political camps. It seems they agree with Sen. Obama's position that American politicians go "to Miami every four years, they talk tough, they go back to Washington, and nothing changes in Cuba....the parade of politicians who make the same empty promises year after year, decade after decade."

Barack Obama's proposal for change with Latin America favors discussion with "friend and foe alike," in order to be a "leader and not a bystander." Under his proposal, Sen. Obama would:

1) Reinstate a Special Envoy for the Americas in the White House.

2) Expand the Foreign Service, and open more consulates in the neglected regions of the Americas; expand the Peace Corps, and ask more young Americans to go abroad to "deepen the trust and the ties among our people."

3) With respect to Cuba, he would allow unlimited family travel and remittances to the island.

4) He would maintain the embargo, but also work with the Cuban regime to examine normalizing relations if it takes significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners.

5) Increase international aid, investment promotion, and economic development in Latin America.

6) Develop democracy through negotiations, "Put forward a vision of democracy that goes beyond the ballot box. We should increase our support for strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police forces, religious freedom, and the rule of law. That is how we can support democracy that is strong and sustainable not just on an election day, but in the day to day lives of the people of the Americas."

It's important to note that Sen. Obama delivered this ground-breaking speech and revolutionary proposals in front of the CANF - the group previously known for being one of the most hard-line on Cuba policy, rejecting anything other than the overthrow of Castro as acceptable policy. But the CANF applauded. Soon after that speech, the founder of Women in White, Miriam Leiva, and her recently freed dissident husband, Oscar Chepe, also wrote an open letter to Barack Obama; they applauded his offer to allow Cuban Americans to freely visit relatives here.

They also wrote that a more creative policy could help the transition towards democracy. It seems that times are-a-changing, and everyone recognizes that the status quo has not been effective for anyone. Sen.Obama and these groups are picking up on what NDN advocated before it was popular, before this change in public perception had occurred. NDN has been a pioneer on the issue of policy with Cuba; in 2006 NDN conducted an important poll with Bendixen and Associates. The poll showed that 72% of Cuban-Americans in South Florida were actually open to consideration of creative means of engaging the people of Cuba and its government to accelerate democratization. The poll also showed that support for the trade embargo, restrictions on travel and restrictions on remittances all dropped ten percentage points over one year.

In a piece in the Washington Post today, Marcela Sanchez discusses U.S. Senator Barack Obama's "Clues for Wooing the Latino Vote." Ms. Sanchez discusses the point made in NDN's report on Hispanics Rising that the harsh tone of the immigration debate on the part of Republicans has been perceived by many Hispanics as anti-Hispanic as opposed to anti-undocumented, and has thus cost Republican candidates votes - and elections - since 2006. However, Ms. Sanchez makes a distinction between the perception of John McCain and that of the Republican Party among Latinos; based on Sen. McCain's current stance on a number of issues, I do not see such a distinction.

As Marcela Sanchez cites herself, the polls show Sen. Obama ahead of Sen. John McCain by at least 62-29 percent. She argues that many of those Latino Obama supporters might be in States that are traditionally Democratic, however, the polls are taken at the national level. While it is true that Hispanics are definitely not monolithic, the fact is that most Hispanics are concentrated in the Southern and Western swing states, and Florida:

Ms. Sanchez posits that it is in these states, New Mexico, Florida, Nevada and Colorado,"where McCain could connect with enough Latinos to make a difference." I disagree for one main reason - Sen. McCain could not even win Latinos in his own home state, where about 30% of the population is Hispanic. In the 2008 primary elections in Arizona, the exit poll data showed 68% of all Hispanics who voted cast their vote for a Democrat, and only 32%voted for a Republican. John McCain's share of that 32% was 21.76% of the entire electorate. This is particularly dramatic because when he ran for re-election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Sen. McCain was able to secure 72% of the Hispanic vote - that is a fifty percent drop in votes from the Hispanic community of his home state in just four years. Which begs the question - who is really in the tougher spot with Latinos? The candidate who won his Senate election with 82% of the Hispanic vote in his own state and currently has a lead of over 30% among Hispanics nationally? Or the candidate who has lost fifty percent of the Hispanic voters in his own State who supported him in 2004? Mind you, this is not to say that it will not be a challenge for both candidates to secure the Hispanic vote, nor is it a matter of favoring one candidate over another, it is a matter of wanting to encourage the media and readers to provide a more detailed analysis and not buy into sound bytes.

You'll note that one of these slides cites to Meet the Press; at the time this blog was being drafted to post, a man that I look to as an example of the type of professional and person I can only hope to be, Tim Russert, passed away. My thoughts and prayers are with his family.