Obama Takes Action, Says Climate Change Must Be Factored Into National Security Assessments

Nearly eleven months ago, Senator Bernie Sanders stated plainly in the first Democratic Presidential debate that climate change was the number one national security threat to the United States (every other Democratic contender said ISIS). Sanders took an incredible amount of heat from the Republican Party following his claims, but both Republican and Democratic administrations and military leaders have made it clear that climate change is a top security threat.

While discussion of climate change has all but disappeared from the United States Presidential race following Sanders’ exit, in a “blink and you’ll miss it” moment on September 21st, President Obama signed a directive ordering federal agencies to begin factoring climate change into their national security plans. Every federal agency, from the FDA to the EPA to the Pentagon, has a national security plan to address a threat to the specific area of regulation, and thanks to Obama’s new directive, combatting the effects of climate change are now required in those plans.

Obama Again Sounds Climate Change Alarm But Continues Supporting Fossil Fuel Industry

President Barak Obama on a hike in Hawaii.

On September 8, The New York Times published an interview with President Barack Obama in which he discussed the rapidly approaching, and already present, dangers of climate change, along with the threats that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would pose to the environment as president.

Reflecting on his climate legacy in the interview, President Obama reinforced his concerns about and dedication to acting on climate change, but his rhetoric fails to match up with his broader record, which notably includes overseeing the United States' rise to the top spot among fossil fuel producers worldwide.

Environmental Groups United To Fight Donald Trump

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has never been shy about making statements that push the boundaries of what is acceptable in a civilized society, but his constant attacks on climate science have become yet another liability for the Republican candidate.

The Hill is reporting that environmental groups, including the NRDC and the Sierra Club, are hoping to rally voters concerned about the environment to vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in the 2016 election to help protect the environment.

From The Hill:

Donald Trump Lays Out Disastrous Energy Plan, Denies Climate Science Again

News flash: Donald Trump has proven again that he would be a disastrous President who would let our planet fry. Today, he added further insult to existing injury, launching a jaw-dropping energy speech that defies reality.

April 2016 set a record as the hottest April on record since temperatures were first recorded. Unfortunately, this was not a fluke; This has become the “new normal.” April was the 12th consecutive month that broke monthly high-temperature records. In other words, the last twelve months have been the hottest months ever recorded for each respective month.

The Democratic candidates that have run for Party’s nomination have all been on the same page in terms of accepting the scientific consensus that the atmosphere is warming up and that human activity is the biggest cause. But the Republican candidates, a pool that has been whittled down to include only Donald Trump, have consistently declared that climate change is a hoax.

The New York Times explains Donald Trump’s previous comments about climate and energy as follows:

2015 In Review: A Great Year For The Environment

Environmental victories are rare. Even with mounting scientific evidence that reckless human activities are endangering our future, politicians and corporations have continued to run roughshod over the planet, destroying the very home that sustains our lives.

For too long, environmentalists were seen as a small part of a political movement that focused on an issue that most Americans greeted with a yawn. After all, the most damning climate science has emerged at a time when the threat of global terrorism and economic downturns were grabbing all of the headlines.

But 2015 signaled a change for the environmental movement.

As CO2 Levels Rise, Obama Still All Talk And No Action

President Obama is once again talking out of both sides of his mouth with regard to the need to protect the environment.

After joining Facebook last week, the President used his very first video post to address the issue of climate change. The President said in the video: “Now, we've made a lot of progress to cut carbon pollution here at home, and we're leading the world to take action as well. But we’ve got to do more. In a few weeks, I’m heading to Paris to meet with world leaders about a global agreement to meet this challenge.”

While the President’s detractors attacked him for believing something so foolish, the people who have been paying attention to Obama’s actions in recent years have an entirely different, and legitimate, reason to question the President’s message. Namely, President Obama has done very little to fulfill his lofty promises about tackling climate change.

Yes, we got a rule from the EPA to limit emissions from coal-fired power plants. Yes, the Keystone XL pipeline has been rejected (for now.) And yes, we finally have a President of the United States that both accepts the science of climate change and believes that we should do something about it. But that’s roughly where the accomplishments end.

Obama’s Bipolar Approach To Energy And Climate Change

With less than two years to go in office, President Obama has already sealed his fate with regards to his legacy on climate change.

When historians look back and assess his actions on what could be one of the biggest issues of his presidency, they will undoubtedly be using the term “disappointing” quite a bit.

The main problem is not that he has ignored the issue as his predecessor, President George W. Bush, did; it is that he has consistently said one thing about the threat of climate change and then done the exact opposite of what he has called for.

Media Coverage of Climate Science Is Stunting Climate Action, Especially in US

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change plays an enormous role in shaping how climate science gets translated into policy in countries around the world, but so does the media.

A new report finds that, while the IPCC could have managed the rollout of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) better, lack of compelling coverage, especially in US media, is leading to less public demand for action and hence political will to adopt policies to deal with climate change.

The report, published in Nature Climate Change, examines how the IPCC’s release strategy around AR5 contributed to diminishing returns in terms of media coverage, as well as the ways media outlets chose to frame the issue and how that impacts public perception of climate issues.

Researchers with the University of Exeter studied print, broadcast, and online media in both the US and the UK and found that the biggest difference was that there is simply more climate coverage in the UK. A lot more: three times as many articles and five times as many broadcasts were dedicated to climate change in the UK as in the US.

Republicans in Congress Seek to Crush the Environmental Protection Agency

A week after their electoral victories in the 2014 midterms, Senate Republicans have already set their sights on one of their all-time favorite targets: the Environmental Protection Agency.

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who will become the Senate majority leader when the 2015 Congress convenes, announced last week that one of his main goals was to “rein in” the EPA. One of the main items that McConnell has problems with is the agency’s power plant emissions standards that would cut down on the amount of allowable air pollution from coal-fired power plants.

McConnell said that he feels a “deep responsibility” to stop these power plant rules.

McConnell ran his campaign on an anti-environment, pro-coal platform, playing up Kentucky’s fears that the EPA’s policies would kill jobs in the coal-dependent state. McConnell’s challenger, Democratic candidate Alison Grimes, could have easily challenged those talking points, but failed to do so.

Nevertheless, the facts are there, and the coal industry has had a devastating effect on Kentucky, as I previously reported:

Future of Our Climate Depends on Next Fifteen Years of Investment, New Report States

fossil fuel subsidies, clean energy, better growth better climate, kris krug

Investments in renewable energies and low-carbon infrastructure can help the environment and the economy at the same time, says a comprehensive new report released Tuesday.

The report — Better Growth Better Climate — found that about US $90 trillion will likely be invested in infrastructure in the world’s cities, agriculture and energy systems over the next 15 years, unleashing multiple benefits including jobs, health, business productivity and quality of life.

The decisions we make now will determine the future of our economy and our climate,” Nicholas Stern, Co-Chair of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, said in a media release.

If we choose low-carbon investment we can generate strong, high-quality growth – not just in the future, but now. But if we continue down the high-carbon route, climate change will bring severe risks to long-term prosperity,” he said.

Felipe Calderón, Chair of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, said the report refutes the idea that humankind must choose between fighting climate change or growing the world’s economy.

That is a false dilemma,” Calderón said. “Today’s report details compelling evidence on how technological change is driving new opportunities to improve growth, create jobs, boost company profits and spur economic development. The report sends a clear message to government and private sector leaders: we can improve the economy and tackle climate change at the same time.”


Subscribe to Policy