My Response to Joe Romm's Medium Essay that Lets Democrats off the Hook on Climate Change

I like Joe Romm, the founder of Climate Progress, who has done a lot to attempt to bring attention to the most threatening crisis of our times, climate change, and our political failure to address it. Unfortunately, he has a serious blind spot in his analysis of how our two major political parties view the issue.

Like may liberals, he's either under the mistaken impression that Democrats actually give a damn about taking steps to address anthropogenic global warming and the climate disruption it is causing, or he has chosen to deliberately ignore that Democrats, despite the lip service they occasionally pay the matter to pander to environmentalists while continuing to accept money from the fossil fuel industries and do the least possible to address what is now literally a worldwide "hair on fire" situation, one in which warming is accelerating at a rate unforeseen even by the climate scientists themselves only a few years ago.

This bias in favor of Democrats who are as much to blame as any institution for the currnt failure of our government and society to take climate disruption seriously, is on view in his latest essay posted at Medium, "Warming crushes global records again in 2016", in which he takes dead aim at Trump and the GOP, while failing to acknowledge that the record of Democrats regarding climate change is hardly any better, and in some respects, worse, since they give the impression they actually care about doing something when the truth of the matter is that most of them are in bed with Big Oil and could not care less.

Here's an excerpt from Romm's piece to make my point:

The [worst case scenario in which warming accelerates and causes severe climate disruption] case is especially likely if Donald Trump and his team of deniers and pro-Putin Big Oil shills follow through on his promise to destroy the Paris climate deal, the world’s last best hope to avoid climate collapse. [...]

Only very aggressive cuts in carbon pollution could plausibly save our major coastal cities and avoid a trillion-dollar housing bubble crash. And only the unanimous Paris pledge of ever deeper CO2 cuts by the nations of the world can save the America’s breadbaskets in California and the Great Plains from Dust-Bowlification that is irreversible on the timescale of centuries. Turning these regions into Dust Bowls will create endless failed states, violence, conflict, and multiple refugee crises that dwarf Syria’s.

The flaw in Romm's argument are his stated belief that (1) the Paris agreement on climate was a major accomplishment (it's not), and the implication that (2) the Democrats, had Clinton won the White House, were prepared to take the "very aggressive cuts in carbon pollution" to prevent turning much of California and the Great Plains into a Dust Bowl on steroids. In fact, nothing in the record of the Obama administration or Clinton's record as Obama's Secretary of State provides any support for that leap of faith. Quite the contrary.

For that reason, here is the comment I left in the thread on Romm's brief polemic, to make exactly that point - that when it comes to our two major parties and their positions on taking action to save the planet from the catastrophic climate disasters heading for humanity like a freight train with no brakes, there's not much difference between the two when it comes to their actions rather than their rhetoric:

I agree we are in deep shit on climate change. The question remains, however, whether either of our two major parties offers policies that must be implemented immediately if we are to avoid the worst case scenario. The Democrats, for all the talk among some of the more progressive members of Congress, are also deeply beholden to Big Oil. Why else was Hillary Clinton promoted fracking around the globe while Secretary of State? Why was natural gas and clean coal still be touted by many Democrats as “transition/bridge” fuels to a carbon free energy system?

In some way, I prefer the outright denial by Republicans when they are in power, because it energizes opposition to the the deniers and activists get more coverage in the media regarding the damage done by the extraction and refining and burning of oil, methane and coal.

For all the plaudits we gave President Obama for the Paris accord, the truth of the matter was that the Paris Agreement was more a PR stunt than real progress toward limiting climate change and ensuring a sustainable, renewable energy future. Under Obama drilling offshore and onshore continued at a rapid pace — more drilling and extraction of oil and gas happened under his watch than under George Bush — until the last minute of his lame duck term, when he banned by executive order further drilling operations in the Arctic and Atlantic, a ban too late to accomplish much, since Trump might very well have the legal authority to reverse that order and, as Obama himself noted, drilling in those areas was uneconomical anyway.

Until the major media outlets honestly report on the scientific consensus that climate change is not only real, and not only man-made, but also accelerating at a rate far beyond what the scientists only a few years ago predicted (a crisis they still fail to report upon much at all, much less honestly), and the public demands accountability from both parties regarding this crisis, nothing in this country will change regardless of who sits in the White House.

I doubt that it will do much to change the minds of people like Romm, who are embedded in the Democratic establishment, and thus unlikely to wander outside their comfort zone to criticize the Democratic Party. Think Progress (and thus Climate Progress, as well) is "a project of the Center for American Progress (CAP)," an liberal establishment "think tank" whose board of directors and executive staff read like a Who's Who of the Democratic elite. Indeed, CAP's CEO and President is Neera Tanden, a Clinton advisor and loyalist, who often gave good advice to the Clinton campaign (advice it usually didn't follow) but who showed no desire to do anything else but tie herself to Hillary's wagon for all it was worth.

And now, after the devastating electoral defeat engendered by the outdated triangulation strategy of the Democratic establishment, she remains an establishment loyalist. Just check out CAP's current front page today in which it promotes the red-baiting and cold war era brinkmanship that is not only wrong headed and dangerous, but also representative of the Democrats refusal to address the real problems that led to their defeat.

And while I agree that Trump is certainly bad news for America in terms of his policies on climate change, I find it naive, at best, and disingenuous, at worst, to pretend the Democrats would have done anything to reduce carbon emissions significantly under a Clinton administration.

In fact, both Obama and Clinton were avid supporters of the TPP and other trade deals. These deals (as do current ones such as NAFTA) would have permitted corporations to override our current environmental laws and protections in secret tribunals staffed by corporate friendly judges and lawyers.

Not surprisingly, I find the entire premise that Democrats would have done anything to advance the goals of the Paris climate agreement both ludicrous and deceitful. One need look no further than Clinton's choice of Tim Kaine, a known free trade and TPP supporter, as her running mate, and the actions by the Clinton campaign to "steamroll" Sanders' appointees to the platform committee when they tried to get provisions rejecting the TPP inserted. Add to that the fact that at the Democratic National Convention, Sanders' delegates protesting the TPP were aggressively censored, and you have all the evidence you need to know about what the Democratic elites really think about protecting the world from our ongoing climate crisis.

After all, it was Clinton herself, in the middle of her campaign that said "environmentalists need to get a life" in a private meeting with labor leaders. Trump, at least did not hide his opinion of climate change and, more importantly, what he plans to do to promote fossil fuels. Clinton would have delayed implementation of anything to advance the "pledges" set forth in the Paris accord, and lied all the while about her desire to support the planet while she did so. At least with Trump in office, the Democrats publicly will actively advocate for a pro-environmental agenda in reaction to Trump, rather than surreptitiously support an anti-environmental one had Clinton won the Presidential election and their party achieved legislative majorities in one and/or both houses of Congress.

So, Joe Romm, yes, Trump is bad news for the planet. But so are the current Democratic power elites. I will take you seriously when you also publicly come out and demand real change from the Democratic establishment in addition to merely writing click bait screeds against Trump and the GOP. Anyone can do that in their sleep. It takes real courage and conviction to come out against the secret pro-fossil fuel agenda of the people who are signing your paycheck, as well. I'll be waiting.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Cassiodorus's picture

to climate change. Climate scientists know something about climate change itself, but they don't know much about politics.

up
0 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

asterisk's picture

Oh. Sorry. Make campaign donations.

up
0 users have voted.
dance you monster's picture

Anyone who insists on using the words "progress" or "progressive" in their names probably is not doing anything that we'd associate those words with. After the first blush of activism, it's just marketing, or patting oneself on the back.

Give me an organization calling itself Skin-Dissolving Tap Water, and I'll show you a group that's more likely to change the path we are on. They, not some comfy Beltway types, are the ones with an incentive for change.

up
0 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

has very little to do with what (in my papers) I've been calling physical climate change mitigation -- or for that matter with stopping fossil fuel production or global society's need for it. One imagines a convention of public relations experts panicking at the prospect of the end of the world: "Omigod the world's going to END!! Better make it look good."

up
0 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

Dhyerwolf's picture

would have been solely by killing the TPP. After all, the differences in drilling would have been negligible.

up
0 users have voted.
Pricknick's picture

of those who say the Paris agreement was a good start as it was nothing but window dressing on a burned out warehouse.
They spent millions on their little working groups to come up with a plan that will be buried in the next five years. The targets were laughable.
If your going to kick a can down the road, try to make sure the can is bigger than the rocks strewing the way.

up
0 users have voted.

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

Lily O Lady's picture

more than I could have voted for Trump. Both were anathema to me. Obama's declaration of war on cancer shows what TPTB truly fear: cancer not climate change. TPTB believe the technology to survive climate change already exists--for them at least though not for all. They know cancer can strike anyone no matter how much money they have, hence the war on cancer. But war on climate change? TPTB aren't worried about that.

up
0 users have voted.

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

that too many cancers are caused by all the chemicals they dump into the environment, will they actually DO anything about that which might cure or stop some cancers? Highly doubt it. I'd bet if that does come to pass we never hear one peep about it.

up
0 users have voted.

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

elenacarlena's picture

to cause cancer, fossil fuels for example, and no, they do nothing. I've said for a while I don't care if climate change is real - we need to switch from fossil fuels regardless to lower rates of cancer - but no one is listening.

TPTB want a magic pill that will cure cancer regardless of the chemical assault on the body, so they can sell both chemicals and pills.

up
0 users have voted.

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.

Oldest Son Of A Sailor's picture

Zackly!

Big Oil & Big Chemical can manufacture the carcinogens...
Spilling them into the air and water in the process...
Then they get used by Big Ag & Big Industry spilling yet more into the air and water in the process...
The Consumer then buys consumer goods & food laced with carcinogens and a few other products full of them to use around the home, spilling yet more into the air and water...

OMG! Cancer Rates Skyrocket!

No Worries Big Pharma To The Rescue!
We've Got A Pill To Cure All That Ails You!
For Those Who Can Afford It Anyway...
The Rest Of You Just Die...
We Need The Real Estate Your Carcass Occupies...

Side Effects May Include: melting of the cryosphere, snowpack, glaciers and sea and freshwater ice to melt rapidly, flooding and erosion in coastal areas, frequent heatwaves, unprecedented sea level rise, ocean waters, which absorb more sunlight than ice, increased evaporation of water, exacerbating extreme weather events, storm surges capable of much greater damage, stronger hurricanes, stronger tornadoes, heavy downpours, droughts and wildfires intensify, oceans getting hotter, expanding and becoming more acidic, dissolving shells of sea creatures, coral die offs, fisheries collapsing, major threat to agriculture, drought and shifting weather patterns, increase of frost free zones, attacks from weeds, diseases and pests, which reduce crop yield, increases the formation of ground-level ozone known as smog, irritated lungs and triggering asthma attacks, smoke from wildfires further degrading the air, more deaths during heatwaves, warmer freshwater allowing disease-causing agents to grow and contaminate drinking water, decreased water availability having economic impacts, flooding and other extreme weather events damaging infrastructure, heavy burdens on electrical supplies, disruptions of how we travel and commute, changing habitats on land and sea becoming inhospitable for some species, allowing invasives move in and take over, ecosystems collapsing, milder winters and longer summers allow tree killing insects to thrive, massive die off of trees, one-fourth of Earth’s species headed for extinction by 2050, 100 million people who live within three feet of sea level will become refugees, famine refugees, drought refugees, economic refugees, etc.

up
0 users have voted.
"Do you realize the responsibility I carry?
I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."

~John F. Kennedy~
Economic: -9.13, Social: -7.28,

Nice work. Well said.

up
0 users have voted.
blazinAZ's picture

It's so refreshing to come to C99 and hear what I can't seem to find in many other places: an acknowledgment that what the Dems say is not at all the same as what the Dems do.

Clinton's continuing silence on DAPL and other resource extraction and pipeline projects being fought by people all over the country is the evidence. The Dems don't care about the climate/environment, and they don't care about people's civil liberties.

Thanks, Steven

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice in America, but it is the fight for justice that sustains you.
--Amiri Baraka

elenacarlena's picture

Neither Obama nor Clinton took a strong stance, despite the canceling or at least rerouting of DAPL being very popular. It might have cost Clinton the election, but nobody cared. More important to keep those fossil fuel donations coming!

up
0 users have voted.

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.

Strife Delivery's picture

Republicans: We don't believe in, or don't care, about climate science so going to continue our course of action.
Democrats: We believe in climate science but we're still going to continue our course of action.

Why should I root for these again?

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

I'm tired of reading articles about what Trump MIGHT do when he is the president and ignoring all the things that Obama HAS DONE! Or the many, many things that he didn't bother to try to do.

People say that he is leaving office scandal free. That's true unless you look at how he didn't hold the bank CEOs responsible for their actions, let the war criminals off after admitting that they Tortured Some Folks like that wasn't a big deal.
Not doing much to help people in this country who are struggling financially. I'm especially pissed that he sat back and watched as people continued to get foreclosed on while the banks were committing fraud.

Or his foreign policies such as the droning in now 8 countries, destroyed Libya, Syria and Ukraine.
The war in Afghanistan is continuing and not many people who consider themselves progressives had a problem with any of those actions.

Yep, best president since FDR! It will be sad to see him leave office, right?
I can only imagine how our lives would have been different if he had kept at least half of his campaign promises. Both times he ran.

Oh, and he could have closed Gitmo any time he wanted to, but as with everything else that he wanted to do, those mean republicans wouldn't let him.

up
0 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Song of the lark's picture

5.6 million barrels a day peaked last year at 9.5 mbd and tail off marginally in 2016. Fracking the hell out of the Dakotas and Texas. California 3rd largest oil producing state.

up
0 users have voted.
sojourns's picture

fossil fuels. Largely out of pure necessity. They've polluted themselves to the extent that the bigger cities are not livable in any ordinary way. We could stop the use of fossil fuels in five years if only the will existed. But noooooooo. Too much big money inertia.

Sometimes, I think this attitude emanating from our so called leader may make me become prone to violence.

up
0 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

Song of the lark's picture

A sudden 15 percent drop in oil production say closing straights of Hormuz Shutting off KSA, IRan and Iraq oil or a rise in price to 160 dollars a barrel would crash the global economy worst than 2008. Transitions take several decades at the very least and we are gaining a billion people every 13 years. More people more carbon needed no green way around it at present.

up
0 users have voted.
sojourns's picture

That many parts of the system must be revisited and re-tooled to compensate.

Sadly, I do agree with you. I am fatally optimistic nearly all of the time.

up
0 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

Song of the lark's picture

and industrious, as well as being the biggest killers on the planet, may speak thru if we can get to work and tamp down social unrest domestically.many parts of the rest of the globe will fry and collapse. Already happening in the MENA district. Several thousand refugees a week try to transit to the EU. I noticed that Bangladesh ( soon to be a major population and climate catastrophe) has started to womp on some ethic group or other. This is how it starts. It looks like ethnic warfare, or civil war like Syria, or social unrest like Egypt. What it really is is population 80 million in Egypt, drought in Syria, and desire for land Bangladesh.

up
0 users have voted.
elenacarlena's picture

I think you're buying into the propaganda.

We can erect enough windmills and/or solar panel electric grids in the US in 5 years to power all the energy America wants, including plugging in our cars. So why would the price of oil rise when we don't need it any more?

What people sometimes don't understand is that money doesn't disappear. If you're not buying gasoline, you'll buy something else. If solar- or wind-powered electricity is cheaper (it is) so less money goes to the utility industry, you'll buy something else.

If government isn't subsidizing fossil fuels, they can repair our infrastructure. Or pay for more teachers or pay teachers more. Or provide all cops with body cameras, growing the body camera industry. As long as the money goes into the economy somewhere useful, it will circulate, putting just as much money into other jobs as we lose in the fossil fuel industry.

If we can afford to eat out more often, the mid-priced restaurant industry will grow. If we can afford to take vacations, the tourism industry will grow. The people who bemoan the loss of fossil fuel jobs are people who have fossil fuel jobs. They want you to think that you will lose your job too. But as long as the same amount of money is spent anywhere, you won't.

up
0 users have voted.

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.

Song of the lark's picture

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
You will notice that this is just electricity. Electricity is not gasoline.
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/perspectives.php
There are 250 million cars and truck in America
To replace just the cars with electric cars would require a huge CARBON footprint.

To build all those wind turbines and solar panels would require a huge carbon footprint.

up
0 users have voted.
elenacarlena's picture

over energy production from utilities and lowering consumers' bills. They estimate that they could provide power for 1/3 of the US. Just that one little state. Use enough teams to repeat the OK experience as many times as necessary in as many places as necessary, and we'd be at 100% in two years. Give them some time to train and test, and stretch it out to 4-5 years. Very doable.

We could offset the carbon footprints of buildings and manufacturing by cutting back on our military. I'd much rather manufacture windmills than bombs. How much climate change is occurring from our EIGHT undeclared Middle East wars?

up
0 users have voted.

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.

sojourns's picture

the oil companies would still get their revenues. They'd hike the price of raw materials for use in plastics manufacturing etc.

up
0 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

elenacarlena's picture

bottles, both of which are better for us anyway. Raise the price enough, you enable competitive products.

up
0 users have voted.

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.

MarilynW's picture

by more and more recycling companies because there is not much market for ground glass and glass is too dangerous to handle.

This doesn't include refundable glass bottles.

up
0 users have voted.

To thine own self be true.

elenacarlena's picture

up
0 users have voted.

Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.

sojourns's picture

they used ground up glass and added it to road pavement. Sparkly roadways.

up
0 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

sojourns's picture

but plastics? The use of plastics permeates nearly every product manufactured today, From the keyboard you are typing on, and the attendant computer to which the wires that plug it in to the wall are wrapped in plastic, on to the wrap for your meats and vegetable containers, to colostomy bags, to cars, to the thread that holds the upholstery together to everything; has some kind of plastic component, including the machines that make the plastics. Plastic shopping bags are not even a drop in the bucket. There is no going back from that.other than to develop plastics that somehow do not require crude oil derivatives. To me, going solar, wind and geothermal is relatively easy.

up
0 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

Song of the lark's picture

and honest about where we get our energy. 80 percent from carbon. Its all well and very important to push green transition but blind techno utopian fantasy just makes the democrats look as ignorant or duplicitous as the climate deniers. Listening to some techno narcissists you would think that coal was ssoooo yesterday when in reality it produces more electricity globally than any other carbon or green source... By large margins. It's sad but that's the way it is. Our energy problems are exceedingly complex. It's fine to be against DAPL pipelines but know that plenty of native Americans in the Dakotas make money producing oil. We have quite a dilemma on our hands. Maybe honesty will work.

up
0 users have voted.