The Climate Reality Project

Barack Obama not wanting to endanger losing votes due to energy policy? WEIRD!
It's a violation of human nature to assume Obama is lying about his energy policy and priority shift's he has made clear. His IQ far exceeds McCain. New energy definitions, classifications, etc will follow suit provided intellegent well-informed governing bodies apply. The intellegence quota for those un-informed, or voiding stated fact from a presidential canidate, working on half-baked assumptions needs only to look. Rectal cavity to excreation, so much for what "WE" ought to ass ume. RK

I am just so tired of politics as usual. It seems like all the Repubilicans can do is make people afraid - and make the oil companies and themselves rich. The Democrats are afraid of their own shadow and appear to be complicit in destroying the environment by giving in to the Republicans. So what can be done to get Al Gore's proposal moving? Unfortunately, our only choice is to get Obama elected and vote the straight Democratic line. It won't get Al Gore's proposal established a s a condition of the election but the alternative is 4 - 8 years of delay with the Repulblicans. So, my feeling is this is what the Demand should be - a Demand that everyone we know votes Democratic. No exceptions.

Hi Michael;

First, you owe us no apologies; you've been with your family during an unexpected time of crisis, and that's entirely understandable. It is my hope, and I'm sure the hope of everyone here, that your father-in-law's recovery is as good as is possible.

The We Campaign is nonpartisan, so I will try to keep that in mind as I type my comments.

I am one of the members here who wrote to Michael. I am one of those who sees a clear choice between the two presidential candidates, and a clear choice between many senate and house candidates, as those choices relate to the chances of success of Al Gore's plan in the new administration and new congress in 2009. This past June, James Hanson stated that we only have one year left for a "transformative change of direction in Washington"; thus everything is riding on this election. In my view, if I believe what Hanson and Gore are telling us, and if I care for the future of our children and grandchildren, and the planet that sustains us all, then I can't afford to withhold my vote. And I do believe, and I do care. So I feel that we should all be doing everything we can to ensure the election of those candidates who more clearly lean toward the views of Gore and Hanson, and to do everything we can to defeat those who clearly are impediments to our efforts regarding climate change. So I can't threaten to withhold my vote from those candidates whose election I believe to be essential to our cause. Hansen says we have just one year left; thus, this is the last election; this is our last chance. We have to get the right people elected in every race possible this November.

That said, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be vigilant in reminding our candidates where we stand and where we expect them to stand. It doesn't mean we shouldn't remind them of the facts; it doesn't mean we shouldn't let them know when they've gone astray.

As examples, one of the presidential candidates recently received a very strong message from a core constituency regarding the FISA issue, and the other candidate has recently received similar messages from core constituencies regarding remarks on adoption. Both campaigns took note of those messages.

As Michael alluded to, candidates will tend to run to the center once the primaries are over; and of course the primaries are now over and evidence of this migration has already been seen. There in the center are a great number of people who work hard to support their families, who struggle with bills, medical expenses, the demands of raising children and providing for their education. Many of these people have not yet begun to set aside the time needed to make decisions about the upcoming election. For many of them, the election is still a long way off; bills are due at the end of the week, overtime at work is an important decision, a surgery needs to be scheduled. Many of these people in the middle know little of the candidates and their positions.

So another thing we can do is educate. We can spread the word about climate change, about Al Gore's proposals, about the need for the next congress to pass meaningful legislation in 2009, and the need for the new administration to pass it. To the degree that these people in the middle, these undecideds who many very well make the difference in the election, and consequently the difference in the future of our planet, to the degree that they become educated about the climate crisis and supportive of Al Gore's proposals, then to that same degree will certain candidates feel less of a need to run to the center on climate change issues, since the center, on that issue, will have moved.

There was a column posted online at one of the major newspapers, the Washington Post or New York Times perhaps, in the last couple days wherein the writer brought up the question of whether it saves more energy to turn off the air conditioning in your car and open the windows, therefore reducing the energy needed to run the compressor, or turning on the air conditioning and rolling up the windows, therefore reducing the energy needed to overcome the aerodynamic drag created by open windows. A reasonable question. However, immediately people began posting responses attacking those who would take away their right to air conditioning. These people vote. We have a lot of work to do.

So, to address Michael's conclusions.

I disagree with the first conclusion that "the group, Demands for the Candidates, will ultimately be unsuccessful in its mission to affect the presidential candidates environmental policies". As alluded to above, I feel that it is important and helpful to constantly remind our candidates of our expectations regarding climate change issues. And while they may be publicly running to the center, that doesn't mean they are abandoning their own positions and are no longer heedful of the positions of those who have campaigned for them, and supported them.

As for the second conclusion. The group profile for the Demands for the Candidates group states that the group has one purpose - "to let both Barack Obama and John McCain know that we demand they follow former Vice President Al Gore's lead and create a meaningfull plan to produce 100% of this nation's energy cleanly by 2018". I don't see where this purpose isn't still valid. So my suggestion for "reforming" the group, (to use Michael's word), would be to let go of the strategy of threatening to withhold votes in order to attempt to force a public endorsement of our goals. I think the purpose of the group as quoted above will still be valid and valuable if reflected in efforts to remind the candidates of our positions and our expectations, and in efforts to educate the public, our friends, neighbors and workmates, about what is at stake.

As we continue to get out message out, as the We Campaign continues to grow and to become more effective, the candidates will become more and more aware of our message and the growth of our numbers and commitment. So too will the public become more educated as to the climate crisis, the issues involved, and the need for decisive action. The effects of our efforts now will not end with the election, but will continue to be felt by our elected representatives, new and old. As this campaign continues to grow, as it continues to build in momentum past the election, the effects on our representatives will grow right up to the point that legislation is drafted, debated, and voted upon. Our efforts now will contribute to the momentum that will impact those votes in 2009. Those candidates who hear now from us, those candidates who know now that we support them now in this election because of this issue, who know now how important this issue is to us, to the degree that we impress upon them our support and our expectations, to that degree they will not easily forget, to that degree our efforts will be represented in congress in 2009 when the outcome will become manifest.

We have a lot of work to do. And it's good work to be doing.

Thanks for reading; thanks for caring about and taking action on the climate crisis.

Have a wonderful evening,

David Houck

Having registered with wecansolveit.org fairly recently, and having only read your most recent post from this blog, I don't want to presume I'm fully aware of your goals or strategies. However, on the face of it, it seems entirely appropriate to hope and to request that our next elected president "sign on" to the Gore plan, and work as aggressively as possible toward addressing the climate crisis. However, we live in a country, and a culture, in which the vast majority of the voting public is sadly ignorant or even apathetic to the looming environmental crisis. And consequently, we need to play our hand very carefully.

We need to educate and embrace those who are simply unaware so that they may also see the magnitude of the problem and join this cause. We need to chip away at the established corporate interests, the wasteful ways, the "culture of distraction”, and the countless barriers to progress in this regard. But while I'm generally opposed to an "ends justifies the means" mentality, I'm certain that the end in this case, ie/ the successful election of Barack Obama as our next president, is so critical that we should not in any way detract from this immediate goal.

If McCain is our next president, all our work and time and energy may be for naught. And don’t be fooled that this won’t be a very hard fought race. The corporate interests have a huge amount of money and power at stake here. Don’t be surprised by manufactured terrorist threats in the coming months. Don’t be surprised by the National Threat Level escalating to orange or even red before November. Don’t be surprised if the current administration increases its portrayal of Iran as a potential nuclear threat, or unilaterally initiates military action. The Republican Party has no problem working from the perspective of the ends justifying the means, and they will do anything necessary to maintain control at the administrative level.

And there isn’t a third option. As much as I wanted Al Gore to run, he didn’t.

So we need to look at what we can do today, and in the coming weeks and months, to ensure that Obama is elected. Once that is accomplished, we can successfully continue our campaign to resolve the climate crisis. That is the only way to move a nation of over 300 million people and a world population of over 6 billion toward a safe future. Placing demands on the candidates will only serve to polarize them. And right now, Obama needs to appeal to the broadest number of Americans possible in order to win the election. What he does in office, I have no doubt will be so much closer to what we want to achieve than anything the republicans can offer. But we need to get him there first. We’ve squandered too much time, and too much of the earth already. We can’t afford another 4 months of republican policies, let alone another 4 or 8 years. We’ll be way beyond the tipping point by then.

Politics by its nature is limiting in so many ways, but it’s all we have to work with. The 2-party system, the electoral college, election fraud, special interests and corporate influence in Washington, poor voter turnout, voting on a Tuesday, and sometimes even compromise itself – it’s all limiting, and ideally we could and should work towards solutions for all of it. But it’s what we have today. None of this will change by November. And if we start drawing lines in the sand and making demands, we can hurt our cause in three very real ways.

First, if Obama does sign on, he may alienate a critical number of independent voters and left-leaning republicans. What’s critical? Enough to lose the election. Second, if he doesn’t sign on, the media may see in us another example of dissatisfaction within his own supporters at the very moment the campaign needs to be 100% behind him. Third, I believe, given the dynamics of public opinion and media coverage, if this effort to address the climate crisis begins to be perceived as a radical, no-compromise faction, we may lose credibility, and our cause may be lost - and despite our best intentions, what a tragic repercussion that would be.

So my 2 cents would be that we should listen to the candidates, define their positions as best we can, ask for clarification when needed, and as much as possible get the rest of the nation to really know the issues and how each candidate will address them. Each American needs to examine what they value in life, and what they want for the future. Then we should ALL vote accordingly. It seems so obvious to me that I’m left to conclude the vast majority of the nation just isn’t paying attention or doesn’t care. Building bridges and educating people will go much further toward resolving these problems, and ultimately the climate crisis than making demands.

‘We’ is about people coming together. We should hope for success. We can even expect it. But if we rigidly demand it, I’m afraid we will see it slip away. Compromise is a difficult but necessary part of that process when so many different people and perspectives exist. But it’s the only viable option we have. We need to keep working on it.

It is known that behind the scenes, Barack Obama supports the Gore Climate Challenge. Publicly, he has to be cautous so as to not look niave or reckless before the election, as those are just the labels the McCain folk want to pin on him. There is nothing to be gained by Obama pledging to commit to the challenge before the election verses doing it in his inaugural address in January, when it would actually mean something.

Rather than publicly pressure Obama to commit, it makes more sense to wage a battle in the Democratic Platform committee (and the Republican, for that matter), since if the grassroots (and netroots) get the Gore Climate Challenge into the platform, its much less radical for a candidate to then adopt it.

But, the real action will come between Nov. 5th and Jan. 19th, as the Transition Team sets the course for the new administration's first 100 days in office. There needs to be an effective strategy to encourage the new administration to commit to the Gore Goal and the Pickens Plan in its Inaugural Address.

If President Obama (or McCain) were to do that, it would change the course of history at the level required. Stay on the candidates, but making them grandstand over it now isnt the objective. Getting their transition teams involved is. Since their likely energy/environment policy members can probably be identified now, quiet diplomacy with them, behind the scenes is what we should be working on.

Is anyone here well connected to the Obama HQ in Chicago?

I agree that this is a tough situation. I also believe that Demands for the Candidates (or the We Campaign overall) is unlikely to motivate either of the mainstream candidates to fully support the 100% carbon free in 10 years challenge as part of their platform. Sadly, there are just not enough people behind this movement. I think we have to view this as more of an effort to bring more discussion about energy independence and climate change into the national debate. The question is how?

We Can Solve It provides some useful tools to contact congressional, state and local leaders. They also encourage writing to local newspapers. But what about the presidential candidates. I don't see any way to make my voice heard at that level. I think this is the opportunity for a group like Demands for the Candidates. Even though we will not likely get one of the major candidates to commit to the challenge, we need to find a way to get the issues in front of more voters.

The best case would be to have a committed third party or independent candidate with enough support to get invited to the debates on board. Unless we can convince Al Gore to run, I don't see this happening (Nader?). The next best chance is to influence the news agencies to ask the hard questions on climate and energy. I'm sure there are other efforts we can make.

I suppose the threat of with holding of votes is not likely to work. Most people will end up voting to Obama or McCain in the end, but somehow we need to use this opportunity to show how much support this movement really has. Of course, this will only be useful if we can generate a lot of support. Maybe we just need to find a better way to work with We Can Solve It towards this end. Time is short, but we have to do something.

I appreciate that McCain clarifies his strong support for development of more nuclear power plants. Now I know who 'not' to vote for.
His pitch, that nuclear power is a temporary, intermediate step towards other clean, alternative energy solutions, rings false. From my experience, there is nothing 'temporary' about nuclear power...unless I'm missing something.

I was, however, disappointed that Senator Obama half-heartedly supported nuclear power as well. (See Presidential debate Sept. 26. At least Obama does echo Gore's call for clean energy solutions within 10 years. I guess that's something.)


If I could "demand" anything of these candidates, I would respectfully demand Barack Obama take a clear stand against development of nuclear power.
There are plenty of arguments to support that stand:
a) spent radioactive fuel is a sad gift to bequeath our childrens' childrens' chil..... etc;
b) N-power plants are a dandy target for terrorists;
c) There is nothing "clean" about a nuclear meltdown; or other potential mishaps;
d) Can we justify forbidding other nations from developing nuke power plants while ours are popping up like mushrooms?
That should be enough, for now.


Let the American people have a clear choice as to if they want more nuclear plants scattered about the country...or not.


Forget the middle-of-the-road stances to swing undecided votes. How are voters to decide if you don't take a stand? Where's the courage? Is this the president of "change" or not?
To achieve the 10-year clean-energy goal, there is little room for compromise or wishy-washing about.
This is not the time to:
"...put your left foot in,
You put your left foot out;
You put your left foot in,
And you shake it all about.
You do the Hokey-Pokey,
And you turn yourself around...."

THAT"S NOT WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT!!
ARE YOU IN; OR ARE YOU OUT??

Madeline Albrite, when interviewed on NPR, summed up the presidential debate, declaring Obama the clear winner. She justified her opinion by suggesting that his views were reflective of the 21st century; while McCaine's were those of the 20th century. Was she right?

vanclaren