There was some good in President Obama's energy speech, and there was much that was missing, including the clarion call on climate change that this entire world so desperately needs to hear, and evidence of the action that this entire world so desperately needs. At Climate Progress, Joe Romm summarized:
The President has either not tried to get senior Democrats to stop bad mouthing climate action in public — or he has tried and failed. Either way, that demonstrates an absence of serious leadership on this most important of issues.
The President should have spoken to Dorgan and Feinstein months ago, and said, "We need to do this. We’re going to do this. I need your help. What do you need from me?" Indeed, he should have made a couple dozen such calls after the House passed the bill a year ago.
So, sure, feel free to criticize him for not using a few beltway code-words in his big speech, but actions speak louder than words — and so far one sees very little sign of action.
There also was very little sign of interest in the climate bill. He supports it, and he did mention that the House has passed it, but there was no emphasis indicating that he considers it a high priority. At the end of the week, with the Senate seemingly set to kill it, Robin Bravender of the New York Times made a blunt observation:
It is unclear whether Obama and Senate Democratic leadership intend to push aggressively for cap and trade or any mechanism to price carbon this year. Obama failed to call for it directly in his Oval Office address this week and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) yesterday declined to promise to include a price on carbon in an energy package slated for floor debate next month.
Given that the president didn't even mention cap and trade, or carbon pricing, it does actually seem pretty clear. He didn't mention emissions, either. He spoke well about BP, and MMS, and the clean-up, all of which was good and necessary. He also slapped down the hyperbolic criticism from the right, which also was good and necessary. And he did it the right way, not by emoting, by explaining. He also said this:
The transition away from fossil fuels will take some time, but over the last year and a half, we have already taken unprecedented action to jumpstart the clean energy industry. As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that will someday lead to entire new industries.
Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us. As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of good, middle-class jobs - but only if we accelerate that transition. Only if we seize the moment. And only if we rally together and act as one nation - workers and entrepreneurs; scientists and citizens; the public and private sectors.
But as good as it was to hear those words, their vagueness was, in fact, part of the problem. Once again, he didn't make any effort to explain what must be done, or how it will be done. It's still not even clear what he means by the word, "clean." He used to talk about "clean" coal. He hasn't mentioned it lately, and we can hope that means he's abandoned the idea, but it could mean he just doesn't want to talk about it. We don't know. At Carnegie-Mellon, two weeks ago, he spoke of the need for a clean energy future, then only mentioned natural gas and nuclear, which was astonishing. In his energy speech, he dropped those and specifically mentioned solar and wind, which was very good to hear. But the question remains: Does that signal a shift in policy strategy, or was it but a shift in political strategy? A rhetorical device? We don't know.
Reactions to the speech have varied, and there has been much criticism from the left. But in the end, it was only a speech. Perhaps digby had the most concisely cogent response: Speeches don't impress her. They're but political theater. Romm nailed it: The actions will be the real story. And the bottom line is that we don't know what those actions will be. Proponents of the climate bill appear to be on their own. The meaning of "clean" remains anyone's guess. Opacity rules. As it so often does.
continued at Daily Kos....
