President Obama: Make Climate Change a Priority in Inaugural Address

In 2050, a seemingly remote date from the new year we just welcomed, President Obama will be 89 years old, eight presidential terms will have passed since his second term ended, his daughters Malia and Sasha will be 52 and 49 respectively, and, if we continue on our present path, the world could be 4°F warmer, risking the lives and livelihoods of millions.

President Obama, as a leader of the largest historical emitter of carbon dioxide and the second largest current emitter of that climate-altering gas, has incredible power in shaping how severe and destructive this future will be. The world of 2050 will largely be dictated by the decisions the President makes over the next few years. How he handles this unique leverage will be the most significant and lasting legacy of his administration. 

This month in his inaugural address, the President can make it clear that he understands this ever-growing threat and has the guts necessary to aggressively confront the problem to the extent demanded by the science.

Unfortunately, even now in the second decade of the 21^st century, we already have raw glimpses of the “destructive power of a warming planet,” as President Obama described the impacts of climate change in his victory speech last November.  It is not only the children of 2050 that will be forced to live with this destructive power. No—the impacts of climate change are already here and they are only going to get worse.

From the droughts that ravaged food production in the nation’s bread basket this summer, to the wild fires that destroyed homes and forests in the west and the deaths caused by hurricane Sandy, the vicious devastation of weather patterns strengthened by the steroids of a carbon filled climate is something we must contend with now.

While the Inaugural Address is not necessarily a time for specific, wonky policy proposals, the time has come for more than the vague visions about climate change the President has so far offered. He should make it clear that the time has come to put a price on emitting carbon dioxide and that creating this impediment to pollution will be a central goal of his presidency.

By framing the price early in his second term, the President can take control of the narrative from the start and preemptively confront the inevitable accusation that it will be a burden on business, which will surely come from deniers and delayers in Washington.

He can define the price as crucial to preventing a small number of dirty corporations from polluting our environment for free. He can ask citizens directly: how would you feel if your neighbor could dump his garbage into your yard without any consequences? Why can fossil fuel companies, whose reserves are capable of warming our planet five times more than what the science tells us human infrastructure can handle, do the same to our atmosphere?

Additionally, with all the focus on the long term risks of a growing deficit and the fiscal cliff, the president can present the price as an opportunity to generate additional revenue from a few industries whose entire business model is based on jeopardizing the stability of our future.  

The fiscal cliff is indeed threatening, but it pales in comparison to the world-altering risk of a runaway climate. Hurricane Sandy and the Colorado wildfires alone cost the country millions. As climate change worsens, events like this will become more common and expensive. At this point it is undeniable, the sooner we act the easier and less expensive the transition way from fossil fuels will be.    

The president in his second term can operate without the concerns about short term political viability, which hampered his first.  The next four years are an opportunity for him to act on the visionary rhetoric that has characterized his political campaigns and not on what will win the next election.

Of course, the President still must contend with a Congress defined by an obstructionist House and an immovable Senate, but that alone is not an excuse for inaction. The president’s job is to lead. As the chief executive of the country, he has a unique ability to galvanize the public and communicate why urgent and ambitious action on climate change is necessary. The Inaugural Address this month is the perfect opportunity to begin this process.  

In 2050, when President Obama’s legacy is examined, arguments over particular aspects of the tax code or discretionary spending will be forgotten. What will be remembered is whether he chose to confront the most urgent challenge of his and, more importantly, his children’s era.  

Constant Democracy

Here's an article I wrote before the Presidential election this year.

In Egypt and Tunisia, masses of protesters successfully removed authoritarian, western-backed autocrats from power.

In Greece and throughout Europe, bands of activists have united to challenge the harmful austerity measures being forced on them.

Even in the United States, thousands have gathered in Zuccotti Park and in cities across the country to protest the gross inequality that dominates the American political and economic systems.

But like previous election cycles, this year we have the same old choice of two representatives of the American power structure, both Harvard graduates, who will likely receive over one billion dollars each in campaign contributions, mostly from corporate donors.

The most important issue in the 2012 election is not any of the significant problems facing the country: unemployment, health reform, or inequality. It is clear that President Obama’s proposals will do little to address any of these and Governor Romney’s will likely make the situation worse.

Nor is it any of the potentially cataclysmic problems facing the planet: climate change, hunger, or war. Both candidates are even more indifferent to confronting these because they are seemingly far away and ignored by the corporate media.

No, the most important issue surrounding the 2012 elections is the nature of our democracy itself.

In particular, what is important this year is how our democracy is becoming increasingly eroded due to the influence of corporate money. This process has been ongoing for decades now, but has become even more relevant with the Supreme Court’s devastating decision in the Citizens United case.

This presidential election will be the first since that fateful Supreme Court decision and it is increasingly clear the winner will likely be decided by who can best sell themselves to corporate power.

At the most basic level, a democracy must ensure that each citizen can have an equal role in the political process. When money, which is distributed incredibly unequally in the United States, is used as the basis for political speech than this fundamental tenet disappears.

The implications of this upheaval are dire. While Washington has always been aloof of the interests of the public, it can now further insulate itself behind a wall of money from corporate donors and lobbyists. Any issue, foreign or domestic, will be decided based on the whims of corporate power, which almost always runs contradictory to the needs and will of the public.

The harmful effects of these corporate influences can be seen in almost any area. They extend from health reform, where the power of wealthy insurance companies overcame the needs of the uninsured and poor by preventing significant reform, to climate change, where efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions were halted by the fossil fuel industry’s continuous effort to prevent any real measures from passing. Even in the realm of foreign policy, where defense contractors and private security firms use their influence to keep us mired in conflicts that drain money from the government into their own pockets while resulting in the deaths of thousands of civilians.


So how can we counter these seemingly unstoppable forces?


The first thing we must do this election year is understand that true democracy is not something that will be handed down from above. This is the ultimate lesson from Tahrir square and other sites of revolution.


Many on the left, myself included, made the mistake of thinking that simply electing President Obama in 2008 was enough to generate real change. The last four years have made it clear that we cannot rely on anyone but ourselves.


Using this year’s election to reinforce in our minds and the minds of others the limits of electoral politics is our best hope to create mobilization to strengthen our democracy. Making this fact clear will not be an easy task. The corporate media will focus on the minute, almost imperceptible differences between each candidate, trying to make the options seem significantly different. It is our job to reveal this charade and convince the public that the choices we are presented with are not real choices at all—it’s Coke and Pepsi or McDonalds and Burger King.


We can achieve this goal a number of ways. We can help support and publicize third party candidates to make it clear how much wider the spectrum is than that presented by the two major parties. We can occupy the elections—making our presence felt at campaign rallies and debates, when the media’s attention is the highest. And we must make valuable connections with both forces already in opposition to our present predicament and those who have become disillusioned.


Most of all, we need to break free of the mindset that traps us in the perception that democracy is something that happens only during election years and learn that constant democracy is the only genuine democracy.

Double Standard for Israel

Here's a letter to the editor I sent to the Washington Post in response to this article about Mitt Romney's comments about Palestinian culture. I will update if it is published.

 Double Standards for Israel

Reading Marc A. Thiessen’s August 1^st article “There was no Romney gaffe in Israel” begs the question: would Mr. Thiessen support the same standards he applies to Palestinians if they were applied to Israel?

For example, Thiessen justifies Israel’s blockade, which has been estimated to cost Gaza’s economy $2 billion a year [1], and Israel’s illegal trade restrictions in the West Bank by referring to the “culture of terrorism that permeates the Palestinian territories.” Conspicuously absent from Thiessen’s account is any mention Israel’s “culture of terrorism” or their heavily militarized culture and how this may have affected their society.

This absence is particularly striking when one considers the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem estimate that 6,000 Palestinians have been killed since the year 2000, , which is 5,000 more causalities than Israel has experienced during the same period [2].

With this in mind, if, as Thiessen suggests, Palestinian terrorism justifies Israel’s blockade, restriction and occupation of Palestinian territory, do Palestinians have the right to apply the same policies to Israel?

---

1. "Israeli occupation hitting Palestinian economy, claims report,” Harriet Sherwood, The Guardian,September 29, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/29/israeli-occupation-hits-palestinian-economy)

2. http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/Casualties.asp

Government Must Take Lead to Boost Economy

Here's a letter to the editor that I had published in the Lowell Sun about the causes of persistent unemployment. Here's the link.



It is clear what is causing persistent unemployment in the U.S. It is not regulation or taxes, as pundits and politicians on both the left and right argue. Nor is it concern about deficits as others claim. It is lack of demand.

This assessment is supported by a recent poll in which 34 percent of the small-business owners cited weak demand as the biggest problem they face, an amount far greater than those who cited taxes or regulation.

So how can we increase demand and thereby decrease unemployment? The fastest and most obvious way to achieve this goal is through government investment in jobs programs and public works. The size of this investment must be on par with the demand lost over the last few years, unlike the relatively small stimulus program passed in 2009.

Following through with these programs will have the twin benefit of lowering unemployment and repairing the nations degrading infrastructure.

A time of economic recession is not the time to cut deficits, as Democrats and Republicans frequently claim. Focusing on deficits in a time of recession will only make things worse. To see the effects that deficit reduction would have now, one need only look to many European countries that are experiencing rising unemployment and falling GDP, largely due to austerity programs that focus on deficit reduction.

The economic problems we face can be solved if both political parties stop looking out for the wealthy who fund them and instead focus on common-sense policies to help the unemployed.

Jerusalem Post Letter to the Editor

Surprisingly  I had a letter to the editor published by the Jerusalem Post.  I wrote it in response to this Alan Dershowitz article about Alice Walker's decision to not have The Color Purple published by an Israeli firm. The letter (you'll have to scroll down to read it) was edited quite a bit and I am afraid it sounds a bit weak. If I knew that it would be published, I would have said a lot more about the brutal occupation of Palestine, but then it probably wouldn't have been published. Catch-22... Anyway, you can read it below. 

Sir, – It is clear that Alice Walker’s decision to not have The Color Purple published by an Israeli firm was not motivated by bigotry. Instead, she is preventing a publishing company, which she feels benefits from the brutal treatment of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, from profiting from her book. In fact, there is already a Hebrew translation of her novel, just not one sold by an Israeli publisher.

If Alan Dershowitz were to prevent one of his books from being published by a Palestinian or Iranian publisher because of a desire to not support the regimes there, I think it would be unfair to accuse him of bigotry against the Palestinian or Persian people. It is the same case with Walker.

Ignored Reasons for Immigration from Mexico

Here's a letter to the editor I had published in the Lowell Sun about how the United State's policies have largely resulted in immigration from Mexico. Here's the original link.


Absent from the growing debate about Mexican immigration to the United States is the most important question: Why are so many people willing to risk coming here?

Since the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 the number of documented and undocumented Mexicans in the United States has increased at a consistent rate, with a slight decline from 2007 to 2008 due to the financial crisis. This correlation is related to how the agreement fundamentally altered the economic relationship between the United States and Mexico. After the agreement went into effect, American-made farm produce (primarily corn) flooded the Mexican market. Mexican farmers are unable to compete with the prices of American corn because the industry is subsidized by the government, which NAFTA explicitly disallows the Mexican government to do for its corn producers.

At the same time that cheap American corn was putting Mexican farmers out of business, American corporations were moving manufacturing plants from the United States (with disastrous effects for many American workers) to Mexico, offering wages far below what would be justified by the profits these corporations were making.

Due to the lack of opportunity presented within Mexico, the prospects of coming to American and working in the service industry and other low-paying jobs seemed worth the risk for many.

It is clear that NAFTA and American corporations have done quite a bit to make the prospects of coming to the United States seem a lot better than remaining in Mexico. So before we criticize immigrants who come to our country seeking opportunity, we should reconsider our government's policies which have had such a harmful effect for many in Mexico.

Historical lessons could help the Middle East

Here's another letter about the Israel Palestine situtation that was published in The Lowell Sun . Here's the link to the origninal letter . It was written partialy in response to this response to my previous letter.


The author of the letter "How Hamas used its own citizens to gain fame," published on June 23, is right that Hamas is an organization that has committed numerous and horrendous crimes. However, the assertion that "the biggest share of funds, those that were destined to support the people of Gaza, do not reach them. It goes to Hamas," is not borne out by the facts. One of the primary reasons for Hamas' popularity is its success in creating strong social programs, which the corrupt Fatah did not do. The Israeli scholar Reuven Paz estimates that "approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities." As much as we may despise Hamas and what they represent they are the elected government of Gaza and until the Palestinians do something about it, they will be in power.

The United States government accepts and supports the Israeli government despite its crimes, including dropping white phosphorous (a chemical that causes third-degree burns) on the people of Gaza. They accept and support the Saudi government despite their barbaric practice of public executions. Why is Hamas a special case?

Clearly, ostracizing Hamas has not worked. Western countries have continuously tried this method to weaken governments and organizations they oppose. History tells us that this only serves to strengthen the organizations. One only needs to consider the more than a decade-long sanctions against Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship; they did little to weaken his power, while resulting in innocent deaths that are estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands.

Then what could work? Again history can teach us a lesson. For decades there was mutual antagonism between the IRA and the British government in Ireland. The British government refused to recognize the legitimacy of the IRA's claims and the violence between both sides continued. Only when the rights of the Catholic population of Northern Ireland were acknowledged (in the Good Friday agreement) by the British government and violence was renounced on both sides did the prospects for peace begin to improve. A similar story played out in South Africa, with Nelson Mandela's African National Congress, a group that was designated a terrorist organization for years.

If we can learn these lessons from history, there is certainly hope for peace in the Middle East.