Obama and the environment
Mon, 2008-05-26 12:12
#1
M. Spector
Obama and the environment
Mon, 2008-05-26 12:12
#2
M. Spector
The world is rapidly falling into ecological catastrophe; so what is Obama going to do about it?
[url=http://www.counterpunch.org/kojeve05242008.html]Excerpt from an interview with liberal environment writer Joshua Frank:[/url]
quote:
Q: Joshua, the Barack Obama image is of a progressive candidate shaking up the two-party establishment. Now that environmental issues have moved to the forefront of public visibility, should environmentalists expect good news (especially in the wake of Bush)?Joshua Frank: Well, first, I don't think environmentalists should ever expect anything good from any particular candidate. Expectations usually negate reality. You are right, though, Obama is definitely seen as an outsider who is challenging the two-party stranglehold in Washington. But what exactly is Obama challenging other than the Clinton reign within the Democratic Party? It is clearly not the structure of our so-called democratic process, as you won't see Obama calling on the Commission on Presidential Debates to allow Bob Barr or Ralph Nader into the TV foray next fall. We also aren't likely to see him address all the legal barriers that independent candidates face as they attempt to attain ballot lines across the country. And for what it's worth, Obama is not trying to get corporate cash out of the general elections. While he's gathering a lot of small donations online, Obama looks to be the new Mr. Wall Street. Just take a look at his major campaign contributors if you don't believe me. Employees of Goldman Sachs have given his campaign over $500,000. JP Morgan Chase over $350,000. Citigroup, $330,000. So it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that Obama opposed a recent attempt to put a cap on credit card interest rates. Seems to me he's in their back pocket.
When it comes to energy policy, he's not much better. Employees of Exelon, the largest nuclear power plant operator in the country, and one of the largest employers in Obama's home state of Illinois, have given Obama's campaign nearly $230,000. And lo-and-behold, Obama thinks we should consider nuclear energy. It's no matter that we haven't figured out how to safely transport the toxic waste produced by nuclear reactors. No matter that we don't know where to put it when we do. No matter that nuclear energy won't actually cut down on CO2 emissions, that great climate changing menace. As you go up the nuclear fuel chain, you have carbon dioxide emissions at every single step -- from uranium mining, milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication, reactor construction to the transportation of the radioactive waste. Even more frightening perhaps is that two of Obama's largest campaign fundraisers, Frank Clark and John Rogers Jr., are both top Exelon officials. Even Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, has done consulting work for the company. So I don't think we're going to see Obama fairly assess the dangers of nuclear energy any time soon....
Mon, 2008-05-26 12:22
#3
Overall it was an excellent article which I read this morning. It is unfortunate you present it as anti-Obama propaganda when the interview was in fact a lot more substantial than that.
Mon, 2008-05-26 12:27
#4
M. Spector
You really think so?
All I did was ask a pertinent question. It was Joshua Frank who made the comments about Obama.
Do you disagree with what he said about Obama, or just with my reporting it here?
Mon, 2008-05-26 12:45
#5
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]You really think so?All I did was ask a pertinent question. It was Joshua Frank who made the comments about Obama.
Do you disagree with what he said about Obama, or just with my reporting it here?[/b]
I thought the article was incredibly interesting, and covered a broad range of topics such as federalism and the environment, nuclear's limitations, Obama and the Democratic Party, among others. I'm not sure how much of it I agree with, what I can say for sure though is that it is a lot more profound than some anti-Obama piece. Joshua Frank on the Environment and Elections might have been better.
The tactical question of whether a movement should support the lesser of two evils or be very purist is a difficult one, and I don't have a good answer.
If the environment was the only issue I cared about and I was American, I think I might vote for McCain. There may be technicalities on which Obama is more green (though I see no evidence of such), but McCain's environmentalism is backed up by a long senate voting record, and is as such as trustworthy as anyone's gonna find. Having a green republican would shift the ideological center on environmental issues.
What do you think of Frank's comments against large central governments?
Mon, 2008-05-26 13:28
#6
M. Spector
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
[b]Joshua Frank on the Environment and Elections might have been better.[/b]
Send your complaints about the title of the piece to the editors of Counterpunch. They gave the article the title "The Environment and the 2008 Elections" and the subtitle "An Interview with Joshua Frank".
Sorry that babble policy doesn't allow me to quote the entire article without permission.
Mon, 2008-05-26 13:41
#7
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]Send your complaints about the title of the piece to the editors of Counterpunch. They gave the article the title "The Environment and the 2008 Elections" and the subtitle "An Interview with Joshua Frank".Sorry that babble policy doesn't allow me to quote the entire article without permission.[/b]
Are you that dense?
You named your thread "Obama and the Environment" not "The Environment and the 2008 Elections".
[ 26 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Mon, 2008-05-26 13:55
#8
M. Spector
Are you that dense?
The excerpt I quoted was about Obama and the environment.