The Obama administration was widely creditted with saving the Copenhagen talks with a last minute pledge to raise USD 100 billion in funds for climate change aid for developing countries.
If indeed this action "saved" the accord, it is worth asking what exactly it was that got saved. The accord is not legally binding. This accord sets no targets and will be reviewed in 6 years. In short, it was an agreement to agree at some future point in time. The more alarmist views (which is also increasingly the consensus view) is that the world will have already reached the tipping point in 6 years if it has not done so already.
Perhaps it is most telling that in describing this agreement to agree, President Obama hailed the agreement as being "meaningful." Truly meaningful agreements do not need to be described as such.
A similar story is being played out in the Health care debate now progressing through Congress. In an effort to placate Conservative Democrats and ram a bill through by Christmas, the Democrats have allowed two Senators (Lieberman and Nelson) to impose their own terms and conditions on the bill. It is truly stunning to note that during the Democratic primaries of 2008, there was much discussion about a Canadian style single payer system. The single payer system died early and in its place was a milder "public option." The public option was jettisoned later on. The dems have made it clear that only option that would not be considered is not passing a bill. This of course strengthened the hands of Senators Lieberman and Nelson.
This kind of "agree at any cost" approach is unworthy of a great nation and will prove harmful in the long run.
One wonders where this approach might lead if applied to other areas of policy disagreements. When will President Obama stand up and say "no deal."???
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In both cases you are holding Obama responsible for the actions of republican congressman and senators: in the first case, who align themselves with anti-science hacks for ideological and financial reasons (which far more qualifies for "fiddling while Rome burns"), and in teh second for whipping up a lot of public sentiment about grandmothers being packed off on ice-floes.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to find the bad guys on the Copenhagen accord, look at the Heartland Institute, Bjorn Lomberg, Senator Inhofe, the "Friends of Science," Jim Prentice, Stephen Harper, the American Chamber of Commerce, and a solid majority of American republican politicians. While the Copenhagen accord is a tremendous disappointment to me (as you know) the most taht Obama can be held responsible for is being unable to commit his own government to a respectable course of action, thus fatally weakening his hand--what he could bring, he did (the EPA ruling, $100B).
Blaming him for the actions of republican congressman and senators in both cases sounds like a blogger who's incapable of turning criticism against his party of choice even when they could be largely responsible for the end of western civilization.
Actually i am not holding Obama responsible for the failure of Copenhagen. I am holding him responsible for calling it meaningful when it is not.
ReplyDeleteHealth care reform is also one where it is not living up to what was advertised.
Dressing these two initiatives up as the successes that they are not is just political cross dressing.