Today, President Obama received the coveted endorsement
of New York City's Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, and the Mayor highlighted climate change
as a big reason why Mitt Romney should not get his endorsement.
Let's be clear though. It took a Superstorm Sandy to force an endorsement of Obama for another term. As Mayor Bloomberg noted, both candidates have run administrations implementing policies to reduce pollution. What damns a Romney endorsement is not Obama's fantastic record but the fossil industry-crazed climate denialism that has come to rule the Republic platform and Romney's overt positions.
The climate policy record of Obama's first term is dismal if you consider the scale of the problem. In the context of international negotiations, other governments have asked the Obama government to describe emissions reduction policies as a percentage of the country's pollution, but the Obama negotiators have no number to provide. The only policies implemented in the last four years to make a significant dent economy-wide are the new car standards, which, optimistically, reduce pollution by a few percent.
If we are going to have any hope of avoiding runaway climate change, developed countries
must cut about a third of greenhouse gas emissions in less than a decade.
The US federal government should be leading at home, and advocating strongly that other countries do the same
. Far from being a climate leader, the Obama administration has dragged its feet on all fronts. We have no limits yet on current stationary sources of pollution, such as coal-fired power plants. We have no limits on climate pollution from aviation, which Obama has been fighting internationally
. We have no limits on climate pollution from agriculture. And Obama's team in the international climate talks
has continuously attempted to stall and confuse the negotiations. The President has ceded political debate on climate to Fox News and friends, which has made climate politics in America even more backward.
There is little doubt that President Obama wants to deal with climate change, but so far that has not translated into him making it a priority for the country. Quite the contrary, the President has gone out of his way to please the fossil fuel industry. This pandering has been painfully obvious in the recent presidential campaigns
, but the Obama administration has also been a fossil friend of substance.
The Department of Interior has energetically scaled up fire sales of publicly-owned coal
. This coal is sold under the auspices of satisfying domestic demand
, although it is often to foreign buyers who fully intend to export
. The climate doesn't know the difference. Despite one of the worst human-caused environmental disasters ever, the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, the Obama administration opened up new areas to dangerous ultra-deepwater drilling on the outercontinental shelf and signed an historic agreement with Mexico
to drill the deepest wells ever even further offshore. The administration hasn't ruled out the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, and continues to move forward with drilling in the fragile Arctic Ocean
. Leaving unanswered a letter from 68 organizations calling on Obama to stop fracking
in the absence of regulations and adequate knowledge of impacts, the administration seems intent to both allow fracking on public lands
and to possibly approve exports of high carbon-footprint fracked gas.
In effect, the Obama administration is actively increasing supply of carbon polluting sources of energy, while dillydallying on policies and advocacy to reduce carbon pollution.
Mayor Bloomberg also criticized both candidates for failing to cite the hard decisions they would take to get the economy back on track. We should be asking the same regarding runaway climate disruption. The problem with endorsing Obama for his overt position on climate is that just as many, if not more, of his hard decisions have benefited climate polluters.