This week brought disappointing news that Asian-Pacifie world leaders--including President Obama--do not foresee a climate change treaty being signed in Copenhagen next month. This set-back comes on top of a legislative process in Congress that shares many of the shortcomings of the health care reform legislative process. The two are obviously related, as both represent major needed changes in direction that a deeply opposed by entrenched special interests with enormous economic and political clout.
In my previous diary, "Finding the keys," I argued that what we need to be about is building progressive hegemonic power, and that expecting to win pristine major victories right away--such as single-payer health care--was, unfortunately, not only unrealistic (I'm all for demanding the impossible), but also very likely to misdirect us in terms of long-term strategic thinking. The same thing applies to the struggle to combat global warming.
It's not that I don't want the best legislation possible--I wrote several diaries promoting the work of 350.org, which I think is utterly invaluable. But we have to seriously grasp the extent of what we're up against and the extent of the deficits we have in order to be effective over the long haul. 350.org is particularly valuable because it's about shifting the whole framework of debate, and that's arguably the most important thing we need to do. But we also need to connect the shifting framework to everything within the macro-framework as well.
Toward that end, I want to step back from the disappointing big news for a moment to focus on three different story fronts that merit attention in order to reflect on the broader strategic struggle to bring rational decisionmaking to the fore, and put special interest propaganda campaigns in their place. These three fronts are denialism (which involves two different stories), nuclear (concerning a study that undermines claims about the role it can play) and coal (concerning a study that shows its true cost makes it uneconomical even for coal-producing regions). None of these stories is closely coupled with the intricacies of ongoing Congressional action, all are intimately related to the basic conditions in which those intricacies play out.
I've said a few times in comments recently that I'm pretty optimistic, from my antiwar and similar perspective, on the Iran and sanctions issue. The reasons are various, but centered on the analysis of India career diplomat M K Bhadrakumar, who also believes the sanctions effort will fail. More on those ideas a couple paragraphs down.
As for my perspective, first of all, not that it's stopped the U.S. before but there is pretty much zero justification for U.S. saber-rattling, as indicated by the mundane headlines (i.e., Iran vows to stick with low-level nuclear enrichment) only two days after the three imperials (Obama, Sarkozy, Brown) news conference about a 'secret' low-grade nuclear 'facility' that was neither secret nor a facility, since it won't be a functioning one till construction ends 18 months from now. This is weak soup for crippling sanctions, naval blockades, and worse. Today, even weaker stuff, 'IRAN TESTS (short-range) MISSILES! Oh my gawd y-a-w-n, weak stuff for scaring us up and dealing death.
Secondly, and Bhadrakumar's analysis is critical here, despite Beltway pundits fishing for wish fulfillment, both China (emphatically) and Russia oppose sanctions on Iran. And this time the U.S. needs international cover, imho, or its 'X must prove it doesn't have WMD' campaign (Hillary Clinton) won't have the outcome (severe sanctions and an attack on Iran's nuclear power facilities) desired by the U.S. & Israeli military-industrial complexes.
Bhadrakumar makes three major points in Moscow holds the line on Iran sanctions:
One of my biggest frustrations with Democratic leaders is their refusal to embrace the energy policy Al Gore outlined this summer, which could "end our reliance on carbon-based fuels" in the next decade.
Barack Obama has offered an energy policy that's a big improvement on what George Bush has done. Unfortunately, Obama still supports more investment in so-called "clean coal" and has not ruled out expanding nuclear power.
On the plus side, Obama also calls for generating 10 percent of our country's electricity from renewable sources by 2012--which sounds great until you learn that the U.S. has already surpassed that goal.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
