Hey everyone! I just watched Obama's State of the Union this Tuesday. If you haven't seen it already, just go on youtube, or follow the transcript from here.
So in any case, I thought this speech brought up some interesting discussion topics. First off- whether you're conservative, liberal, or moderate- you have to admit, Obama does a pretty damn good job of reaching out to both sides. As Sheryl Stolberg of the New York Times wrote, "There were no boos or a shout of 'You lie!' as in years past. Many Republicans and Democrats sat side-by-side-- the first time anyone here can remember such mixing". Indeed, Obama pushed for a number of bipartisan measures, including but not limited to clean energy policies.
There were several parts in Obama's clean energy spiel that I literally jumped up and applauded for, but overall, I'd have to say it was a little disappointing. Compared to his portion on education (which I believe was the strong point of his speech), Obama's talk on clean energy seemed to lack the same kind of depth. Instead of discussing strategies and providing specific examples like he did for other topics, Obama speaks rather vaguely about environmental policy. Whereas Obama devoted entire paragraphs to the importance of education (which, I kid you not, is just as important), he never mentions the reasons for developing clean energy. The term "climate change" does not appear even once in his speech.
Of course, you can't really blame Obama, especially when he's trying to reach out to Republican party. As we all know, climate change has become a dividing issue between democrats and republicans, not so much on the basis of whether it's real, but how much attention it deserves.
As I discussed this speech with teachers, classmates, and family, I came to realize it was perhaps Obama's best intention not to bring up a touchy subject like climate change. In a speech aimed at uniting Americans regardless of political stance, the mention of this subject would almost certainly be counter-productive. So, again, it's a dividing issue.
I just find it a shame how environmental policies, which should consist of simple, common sense, are so heavily politicized. As we're seeing already in Australia, Brazil, Pakistan, and various ecosystems across the world, the effects of climate change are real. It'll kill us. And while other countries are pulling themselves together to take preventative measures, the US- which is responsible for 20% of the world's carbon emissions- is too busy bickering and fighting over their own laws to do anything about it.
PS: Read Jon Choi's blog, where there's plenty more information on climate change and politics.
PPS: Just in case you were wondering, I'm a fairly moderate liberal on most issues. With the environment, I just tend to be a bit more extreme (As I like to say, I love birds and trees more than my own species).
Great post, Ari. I too find it disappointing that President Obama didn't spend more time discussing climate change and other environmental issues in his speech, and it upsets me that climate change should be such a dividing issue. We are all human-- we're all hurting the world, and we all need to work together to be a part of the solution. You might want to check out a post I wrote for my blog about this (http://secondnaturetrail.blogspot.com/2010/10/look-out-poison-ivy.html#comments). What do you suggest we do to bring parties together on the issue? I'm curious to hear your thoughts in upcoming posts.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree that the focus on improving our environment and being pro-active regarding climate change should be taken out of the political arena. The Democrats and leaders in this field, especially scientists, should loudly remind us all of the dangers we are in AND how important it is to act NOW!
ReplyDeleteI did take heart when Obama pushed hard on the issues of education. That I did applaud. Oh, that we act and not just nod our collective heads.