Kerry: Climate change supporters must match tea party intensity

Given the number of links to this speech I have read, this speech was a big thing (though I have no clue where and when it happened. If only I could believe it would help. Sigh.


Speech can be found here

The Globe and the Herald, though, could not be bothered. Too busy talking about the jacket of our senator-elect to actually care about what our senator is doing.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/78241-kerry-match-tea-party-intensity-in-fight-for-climate-legislation


Other links (I have not read all of them).

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/01/27/27greenwire-kerry-to-climate-bill-backers----get-angry-62896.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ilFyCxOzd5iPZs2LMeMqEcfz21vg

http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/27/sen-john-kerry-full-steam-ahea

http://energytopic.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/kerry-not-scaling-back-on-clim.php

http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.1390664

http://in.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idINTRE60Q44J20100127

is good. Glad Kerry refuted the article from yesterday.

Posted the speech here

they got together because of hate. their hatred of a black president. it's probably easier to protest something you hate than to get out there and teach and inform people about important issues.

but hard work is how we get things done. especially progressive issues.

But JK has a good point, too. Karendc once said that some Democratic congressional staffers told her (I'm paraphrasing an old conversation, so details aren't accurate, but this was the general gist, "We respond to the pressure groups from the far right because those are the constituents we hear from. Call us, write to us." In other words, not just push Congress to move more quickly on climate change and other urgent issues, but also call senators and representatives to show them our support before votes, and to thank them when they've the right thing. The staffer/s told karendc that it helps a lot if they hear from their Dem constituents -- not just as reassurance and to keep them from being oompletely depressed (can you imagine how it must feel to be bombarded by the hatred and vitriol Tea Partiers and their ilk every day?), but also as support they can point to, evidence that they're heeding the wishes of their constituents, when they cast their votes.

This is something that needs to be said in GD-P, though it is hard to imagine how to get people to stop, read it and really think.

The right has been much for effective than this. I was shocked listening to one os the obnoxious radio guys during the immigration bill period having people calling their representatives to not vote for cloture - calling it really voting for the bill. I remembered back to the Alito filibuster where many accepted the distinction that they thought it unfair to filibuster - buying the "up or down vote" lines hear constantly then ... and never now.

Part of it is that they have a by far bigger echo chamber, but it also might be they are easier to herd - usually not a virtue, but here it does get enormous response for their issues.

On this respect, it was very disappointing, as if it wanted to appease the Right (nuclear, clean coal, drilling), without really caring about clean and renewable energy.

So, I guess Kerry is right. People who care about this issue will need to get louder.

when on This Week, he responded no one, yet when asked which of the 2008 hopefuls was good enough on the environment. The sad fact is that, unlike Kerry and Gore, neither Hillary Clinton or Obama really had any deep down conviction on climate change. Obama mouthed the words and we saw what we wanted.

Obama is more supportive than Bush and he still seems to back cap and trade. it could be that he is desperately trying to pull in the needed Republicans to make up for the large group of obstructionist Democrats on this. (I was shocked that Feingold was so awful on this.)

..of Pres. Obama, though Sen. Kerry has never been one to simply 'tow the line'. I think Pres. Obama is trying to basically get what he can on this issue, though as much as I like and support him, I just don't think it's as paramount to him as it is to Kerry or Gore, who are probably the two of the best champions we have on this issue. I just wish we had more inner-party support on this for a start..*sigh*

asking all the Democrats to step up on the issue.

I have always seen Kerry as more prone to candor than most. One time I remember was when he was either still in the Middle East or just back and he was asked about whether he thought the Democrats did a good job at the Alito hearing. His answer was a terse "NO" - even though Kennedy and Biden were the two most prominent people covered in the news on this - and it was clear that he loved and respected Kennedy.

I agree with you on the support. Part of the problem is that people worried about jobs, healthcare, or the wars, don't see it impacting them. I started to add "soon", but I suspect that many here, who would answer a survey that they believe in climate change can be shown by less direct questions to not really believe it.

Consider the support that the 14 coal Senators get on various threads about them. I created a thread long ago with the letter and the list of signees - and posed the question of whether they

a) don't really believe the science
b) are willing to risk that the consequences of not reducing the carbon from coal - which would lead China to not reducing theirs - and the combination would take us past where the scientists think the tipping point it.

(My conjecture is that most are really a, as I can't believe they are b. Remember that Russ Holt is one of the few scientists in the Senate.)

The thread was quickly rated <0 More people attacked Kerry (for anything) rather than the list of Senators.

The problem I see is that the support for the position of those Senators really seemed greater than the support for cap and trade or any other mechanism that would cause their energy costs to raise as they replace coal which is cheaper than alternatives.

Obama's got some good (even excellent ) people at Energy and NOAA (Interior is more debatable -- better than under W, needless to say, but IMHO Salazar's far from the ideal choice. . ), but Obama himself appears not to have deep expertise in, understanding of, or commitment to environmental issues (including especially conservation as well as energy issues) . Plus , if you remember, the Illinois nuclear power folks were big donors to his ILlinois (and national?) campaigns.

I'm especially concerned about the fact that people seem suddenly so much more receptive to nuclear power again. I understand that we've got to have a multi-pronged approach, but -- ah, hello?-- do people really have such short-term memories about the various serious, and still unresolved, safety, security, and disposal issues with nuclear power?