-
Pages
Authors
Topics
- Africa (37)
- Asia (58)
- Asia Pacific (11)
- Cities (22)
- Climate Change (121)
- Communication (97)
- Conflict and security (139)
- Cooperation and coherence (70)
- Development (71)
- Europe (83)
- Food prices (68)
- Global economy (89)
- Influence (122)
- Leadership (77)
- Middle East (106)
- Networks (63)
- News (182)
- Off topic (19)
- Public diplomacy (56)
- Religion in politics (23)
- Resilience (70)
- Scarcity (112)
- Technology (41)
- Terrorism (70)
- UK politics (90)
- US politics (141)
Archives
Reading List- Does anyone know how much oil there is in the world? - By Yves Smith - Slate Magazine
- Guide to G8 Hokkaido summit 2008 from University of Toronto G8 Center
- In Defence of Food: The Myth of Nutrition and the Pleasures of Eating
- Heavyweight physics prof weighs into climate/energy scrap
- Zakaria: What Obama Should Say On Iraq
- Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, A New Urban World
- Let Us Now Praise Coups - washingtonpost.com
- CIA Sabotage Manual
- Mozilla accounts 2006: Beyond Sustainability
- Anatomy of a runaway IT project : Bruce F. Webster
Links
- Afghanistanica
- Center on International Cooperation
- Cooperation Commons
- Dan Drezner
- Dani Rodrik
- Democracy in America
- ECFR
- Ezra Klein
- Fistful of Euros
- Foreign Policy Watch
- ForeignPolicy.com blog
- Gideon Rachman
- Global Guerrillas
- i on Global Trends
- Institute for the Future
- Kevin Drum
- Many to Many
- Mapping Strategy
- Network Weaving
- New Security Beat
- Schneier on Security
- Silobreaker
- Small Wars Journal
- The Carpetbagger Report
- The Interpreter
- The Politics of Wellbeing
- The Strategist
- The Washington Note
- William Lind
- Worldometers
- Yorkshire Ranter
-
Meta
True, I fear
October 15, 2007 | David Steven | More on Climate Change, US politics |
Democrats [are] in an awkward position. If they were to follow the lead of the Nobel committee, which commended Gore for recognizing “the measures that need to be adopted” to remedy the problem, they would commit instant political suicide.
Gore advocates drastic, immediate measures to end global warming. As he wrote in an op-ed on the eve of this past summer’s Live Earth concerts, if we do not act “within 10 years,” we are likely to reach a “tipping point” making it impossible “to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.” In response to this dire situation, he would have the United States “join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global-warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide.”
The pitter-patter you hear, behind the earnest applause for Gore’s Nobel Prize, is the sound of Democrats in flight, running from such ideas as fast as their feet can carry them. A radical shift to clean energy is on the agenda of no mainstream politician, least of all those now on the stump in Iowa and New Hampshire. For all the talk of a growing consensus about climate change, the only point that commands general assent is that the planet is growing warmer and that human activity is responsible in some measure. All agreement disappears when it comes to how seriously to take the problem and, especially, how to deal with it.
Comments
Comments are closed.





