In his State of the Union address, President Bush failed to commit to global warming action that is sufficient to address the most urgent challenge of our time. To avoid the worst effects of global warming, the United States must reduce emissions at least 15 percent below current levels by 2020 and 80 percent or more by 2050. Instead of embracing these critical targets, the president called for $2 billion in funding to transfer clean energy technologies to developing countries. While technology transfer will help other countries reduce their emissions, the president’s commitment falls far short of an appropriate U.S. contribution in this area, especially given estimates that a global investment of at least $200 billion per year is needed. And helping developing countries is not a substitute for making real cuts in global warming pollution here at home. We can—and must—do better.

Unfortunately, the president’s weak approach to global warming is consistent with his administration’s unsuccessful attempt to derail the United Nations’ international climate negotiations in Bali last December. The administration also failed to put any specific emission reduction proposals on the table at the September meeting of its Major Economies initiative—a project it claims will help advance the U.N. climate negotiation process. The Bush administration’s legacy on global warming is clear: talk a lot about leadership, but provide none.

Fortunately, other U.S. leaders don’t have their heads in the sand on global warming. Numerous states are developing and implementing climate action plans, and six Midwestern states have just agreed to develop a regional initiative to limit global warming pollution, joining similar initiatives already underway in the Northeast and West. In addition, more than 700 mayors have committed to reduce their emissions seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Congress is also swinging into action. Last year, Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) introduced a strong global warming bill that passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee in December, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) may schedule a Senate floor vote on the bill later this year. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) continues to prioritize climate action and Chairman John Dingell (D-MI) is planning to craft a climate bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee. While the prospects for putting a bill on the president’s desk this year are uncertain, there’s more congressional momentum than ever before.

And, of course, activists across the country are making global warming a central issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, with candidates of both parties committing to strong climate action.

The scene is set, but we need your help now more than ever. In the months ahead, UCS will alert you to important opportunities to help advance federal climate legislation. Together, we can help avoid the worst effects of global warming and restore U.S. credibility as a responsible global leader.

Sincerely,
Kate Abend
National Field Organizer
UCS Climate Program

————-

Kumbaya Caucus.

By Ruth Marcus
Wednesday, January 30, 2008; The Washington Post.

One of the most interesting contrasts between last year’s State of the Union address and this year’s has nothing to do with President Bush. It involves the transformed tone of the Democratic response, from partisan lion to post-partisan lamb.

And this, in turn, reflects a schism in Democratic thinking — to what extent to be the party of fighters and to what extent the party of Kumbaya — that is being played out most prominently in the presidential race.

Last year’s Democratic response came from Jim Webb, the newly elected, perennially pugnacious senator from Virginia. A former Reagan administration official turned populist, antiwar Democrat, Webb’s most recent book, about the Scottish-Irish influence on America, was “Born Fighting.” His speech lived up to type.

Webb invoked the memory of Teddy Roosevelt taking on the robber barons and Dwight Eisenhower ending the Korean War: “These presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this president to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.”

Flash forward to Monday night. For a brash male senator speaking from Washington, substitute a soothing female governor, Kansan Kathleen Sebelius, speaking from the heartland. Both Webb and Sebelius were new faces, from purple (Virginia) and red (Kansas) states, but their messages could not have been more different.

Seated in front of a flickering fire, with a colorful spray of flowers beside her, Sebelius was assertively post-partisan — so much so that some Democratic lawmakers grumbled afterward that there was not enough mention of their accomplishments.

“I’m a Democrat, but tonight, it really doesn’t matter whether you think of yourself as a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. Or none of the above,” Sebelius began. “In this time, normally reserved for the partisan response, I hope to offer you something more — an American response.” Instead of Webb’s bellicose challenge to lead or step aside, Sebelius’s message was more accommodating: “Join us, Mr. President.” Americans, she said, “aren’t afraid to face difficult choices. But we have no more patience for divisive politics.”

This new messenger and overhauled tone is no accident. It reflects the mounting anxiety among congressional Democrats that the change in congressional leadership has not produced enough of the promised results in the public mind. “It’s clear we can’t fight them to a win,” said one Democratic strategist close to the congressional leadership. “If you can’t wrestle them to the ground, you try another approach.”

However much Democratic lawmakers believe the fault rests with Republican obstructionism, however much the Democratic base may crave Webbian confrontation, the thinking goes, the wider audience — to wit, swing voters in swing states that Democrats need to retain and expand their majority — has no tolerance for they-did-it-first finger-pointing.

“Reality has set in,” says Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who advises House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “The Democrats have learned if you don’t get anything done, they don’t blame the Republicans, they blame both of you.”

The mixed messages of 2006 and 2007 reflect the inner conflicts of the voters Democrats are trying to attract. “One, they want a party that stands on its principles, and two, they’ve got a pox-on-all-your-houses attitude,” said one congressional Democrat. “While they blame Republicans more than Democrats, when you peel back the numbers there’s a general concern about what’s going on in the current state of politics. So you’re trying to thread that needle.”

That needle-threading does not sit well with some die-hard partisans. “Bring back Jim Webb!” read a headline on the MotherJones.com blog. Wrote Todd Beeton on MyDD.com, “She’s asking Bush ‘to join us?’ Is she kidding?”

To the consternation of congressional leaders who were determined to avoid signaling any preference in the presidential race, Sebelius’s decision to support Barack Obama leaked over the weekend. But it would have been impossible to listen to her speech and not hear loud echoes of the Illinois senator, whom she formally endorsed yesterday.

To some extent, post-partisanship is the hula hoop of the 2008 campaign — the latest craze to woo voters disgusted by Washington gridlock and backbiting. On the Republican side, there is a dollop of post-partisanship in John McCain’s message; among Democrats, only John Edwards presents himself as the unrelenting partisan combatant.

Hillary Clinton argues that she knows how to work across party lines — but also how to stand her ground. Obama’s claim is that he can transcend partisanship, not by capitulating to the other side but by persuading it to come onboard.

The next several weeks may help make clear which message resonates most with Democratic voters: Webb’s sharp elbows or Sebelius’s open arms; Clinton’s gritty realism or Obama’s build-it-and-they-will-come vision.

 marcusr at washpost.com