TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM
July 04, 2009 | 8:16 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
19.08.2008
Green Grudges from Bill

On Monday, former President Bill Clinton spoke at the National Clean Energy Summit at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, a forum convened by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Center for American Progress President John Podesta, Clinton's former chief of staff. The conversation focused not just on cap-and-trade legislation, but on improving efficiency and prodding the American economy into developing clean technology and bringing it to commercial scale.

Clinton has obviously studied up on the climate issue since his years of casual interest in the White House. For 30 minutes, he waded into the nuance of energy policy, making some great points that Americans would do well to heed--if with a more subdued mien than we're accustomed to. Clinton harped upon the need to diversify sourcing of American energy, through solutions large and small--from increasing efficiency standards for appliances (eg. the EnergyStar program, which began under Bush 41) to modernizing America's aging electric infrastructure (which Energy Policy Acts in 1992 and 2005 did little to improve). He also said that greens cannot get bogged down in pessimistic projections about the costs of climate action to USGDP: "If that's our line, we're gonna lose," he insisted.

Then, however, Clinton said this:

“Obviously, I favor Senator Obama’s energy positions, and Democrats have been by and large the more forward-leaning actors,” Mr. Clinton said. “But John McCain has the best record of any Republican running for president on the energy issue and on climate change.” He added, “I’m very encouraged about where the presidential rhetoric is in this campaign.”

This is a backhanded, fairly cutting critique of Barack Obama. I've written before that Obama, as an Illinois representative, is not a natural friend of the environment (see his stance on corn ethanol, which Clinton rightly dislikes). But having intellectualized the issue, and by virtue of being the Democratic nominee in 2008, Obama has put forward a vastly better and more genuine energy plan, that's easily the most ambitious we've seen from the party in history. Whereas John McCain's incoherent and opportunistic leveraging of a dated record on the environment has been called out repeatedly this election cycle. Clinton did pooh-pooh offshore drilling--but with energy management a hot-button political issue, on which Democrats have begun losing traction this summer, it would be nice to see Bill accentuate the positive.

Grist has a fine rundown of what else Clinton said in Nevada. But the politics of that statement are quite obnoxious. With luck, now that Obama is starting to fluff Clinton's 1990s legacy a bit more forcefully on the stump, the elder statesman will change his tune. Because if that's his line, "we're gonna lose."

--Dayo Olopade

Posted: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:59 PM with 12 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

teplukhin2you said:

Bill's speech crystallizes, as Brzezinski would say, the issue I have with Obama: unlike Clinton or Gore on trade, welfare, international economics, climate etc, Obama has yet to show any real mastery of a difficult policy issue of national importance. After years of watching Bill and Al riff, Obama seems way out of his depth.

Perhaps I missed it, but all the extemporaneous Obama riffs I've heard involve fumbling, fudging, um's and ah's. Many involve convoluted (or "inartful") phrases that require clarifications by aides or the candidate himself in subsequent remarks.

Worse, as his recent performances on Putin and at Saddleback have shown, Obama often fails to grasp the essence of an issue and deliver a clear, persuasive summary of where he stands on it, be it a Russian thug's drive to re-establish satellite states or a question about when life begins.

Prof. Brzezinski's remarks are a wakeup call. Obama needs to go to school, do the assigned reading, master the curriculum. At this stage, he comes across like a lazy first-year grad student.

August 19, 2008 3:15 PM

r-ennis said:

I take issue with the author that Obama has put together a "vastly better and more genuine energy plan". The article cited to back up this assertion is a rehash of Gore's impossible (preposterous, really) self serving, call to rid ourselves of coal by 2018.  Obama is, indeed, out of his depth on this issue as well as others.  

August 19, 2008 3:26 PM

Dayo Olopade said:

To r-ennis and teplukhin2you:

I don't want to get too into it, but I strongly disagree with you.

Doing some research for a forthcoming story this evening, I came across this nugget from the Chicago Defender in late February 2004:

---

Other recent endorsements received by Obama include two of the nation's largest and most influential environmental advocacy groups -- the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) and the Sierra Club. These endorsements are reportedly highly coveted by every senate candidate.

The endorsements, Obama aides said, underscore Obama's strong record on clean air and water issues, and provide a huge boost to his campaign.

"Obama is one of only six members of the Illinois State Senate who received a 100 percent Environmental Voting Record Award for 2003 from the Illinois Council," said Betsy Layless, LCV vice president for policy.

"He has built a career fighting for clean air, safe drinking water and the right of citizens to know about the threat to their environment."

---

As I say, he is not an intuitive ally for environmentalists--but to pretend Obama is unserious about these issues is I think to contradict the record we do have available, as well as Obama's numerous statements about energy action in this campaign. Do read Andrew Revkin's annotation--a useful, fair primer on the topic. Joe Romm's review of Obama's proposals is also instructive:

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../obama-delivers-a-real-ene_b_116751.html

Dayo

August 20, 2008 12:17 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Fair enough, will do. Thanks.

t

August 20, 2008 12:38 AM

psantillana said:

Bill Clinton: Obviously I have to pretend to pretend to support Obama, but I'm a sore loser and I want McCain to win.

I hate him.

August 20, 2008 3:36 AM

aeromonas said:

Two words: pump head.

Ask a cardiothoracic surgeon friend what it means.

August 20, 2008 7:40 AM

sdemuth said:

Aeromonas - you confirm what I had already learned from living with my nurse wife: medical professionals can be downright crude (and if context is not carefully controlled) cruel in their characterization of us diseased masses.

On the other hand, I love the moniker "pump head" and it suits Slick Willy perfectly, under the circumstances.

August 20, 2008 4:42 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

I thought the primaries were over?

August 20, 2008 6:59 PM

dbhuff said:

Obama has put together a pretty compelling plan. While you may argue with various parts, the whole is ambitious and it additionally DOES have a portfolio of solutions. Unfortunately, it also mandates changes which in the end might be the wrong ones. For instance, does the flex fuel mandate make sense? What about hydrogen or fuel cell technology, just kill it?  Meanwhile, today, the sources for alcohol are still food based and relatively inefficient (as long as we don't import sugar based alcohol anyway). We really need to step back and take a deep breath on biofuels to see which ones make sense. Right now we are devastating the Amazon to grow soy beans for diesel. We have the largest dead zone ever in the gulf of Mexico due to fertilizer run-off and corn is very fertilizer intensive. And the energy balance of these fuels is not very good, while water consumption of the processes is high.

Things like the smart grid are much more valuable, laying the ground work for whatever the right solution is. Not just smart grid, but also DC transmission is important since it is much more efficient over long distances. And we are going to have to get over NIMBY for these power lines. Solar power is going to come from sunny areas, and will need to be transported to cloudy areas.

Renewable mandates: great but lets financially incentivize them (carbon tax etc.) Clean coal I think is a pipedream, but given the amount of power that comes from coal today it is unrealistic to expect any other solution to impact us in less than 30years, so worth a try. Nukes included since they take so long to build and certify.

Using federal purchasing power, e.g. with plug ins, to jump start the industries is great. He should also convert government lighting to solid state lighting or other high efficiency lighting (not CFL, that technology won't advance much further and has disposal problems). Solar roof tops where it makes sense.There's a lot the government can do just by buying things.

August 21, 2008 10:02 AM

dbhuff said:

BTW, this plan clearly leaves McCain-"Maybe C&T but I'm not sure but we gotta drill more" solution in the dust.

August 21, 2008 10:06 AM

r-ennis said:

"Maybe C&T but I'm not sure but we gotta drill more" is a totally wrong characterization of McCain's proposals. See McCain.com for more info. His proposals are, in fact, remarkably similar to the ones cited in the Huffington Post summary, leading me to believe that, beyond the hype, we will have an "all of the above" policy, including drilling, conservation, renewables and nuclear, that the public clearly wants instead of the extreme environmentalist approach originally touted by Democrats.

August 21, 2008 10:51 AM

cal80 said:

In a campaign, it is not enough to have the best policies, you must also articulate them to voters.  This is where Obama fails repeatedly.  He has never had to speak on such a broad range of issues in his previous career--it is like the professor in the classroom teaching new material for the first time, you may know it, but that doesn't mean you explain it all that well to the students.  About the third time you teach the class it really becomes fluid.  Everything is a learning curve for him right now, and it is sometimes painful to watch.

August 21, 2008 1:22 PM