« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama's Carter Speech?
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes
on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other
countries are going to say OK."
-Senator Obama in a campaign speech today
Did anyone see or hear this speech who understands the context in which this was said?
The reason I ask is on the face of it this sounds dangerously like the rhetoric of Carter circa 1979/1980 when said that Americans needed to get used to getting by with less. It seems to go against Obama's optimistic message of "positive change with better days ahead". He seems to be warning us that these are "vices" that we will have to be prepared to sacrifice under his administration. Not all Americans have SUVs, but when you lay a guilt trip on them because they eat when they are hungry or cool themselves off when they are hot, I think you run the risk of rubbing the American public the wrong way.
So I ask again, did anyone hear the speech who can provide the proper context?
Comments (55)
I disagree about Americans being rubbed the wrong way on this issue. I think Bush's biggest failure was never asking the American public to sacrifice for this war, or to really show solidarity with the troops. Obama's words are a start. Gas prices and food prices are so high, that people recognize we have to conserve. In fact, I think people are dying to be asked to help the greater good.
It's called leadership. We haven't seen it for a while, so people are hungry for it. It's why 75,000 people gave their Sunday to Barack today in Portland.
May 18, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know about you, but I've been asked to do my part by spending a stimulus check. The inspirational leadership gives me goosebumps. (but the new sacrificial AC i bought might have something to do with it, as I super-sized it to prepare for global warming, but for now just makes my house really cold.)
May 19, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was just in wonderment that Oregon went for
such old-school spectacle.
Here is my diary on the subject
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/05/oregon-wants-das-fuhrer.php
The format is terrible for some reason.
May 19, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
specialist: It's not Barack's fault 75,000 people wanted to be there. There was demand, he accomodated. The "spectacle" was the number of supporters. Not anything Obama choreographed or staged.
May 19, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. You can't win- according to Specialist's logic- if very few people show up to political rallies, they're losers, and if a lot of people show up they're losers too.
So anyway- I think it was a statement about conservation that could use some clarification.
May 19, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Storm: If you didn't max out your Credit Cards on a trip to Disney World in October of 2001, then the terrorists won a long time ago.
May 19, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but gas prices and food prices are so high because countries like China and India are increasing their consumption. So essentially Obama's asking us to lower our standard of living to accommodate theirs. That's not an argument that will win votes.
May 19, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's gone from "can we get you a pillow" to "why don't you put on a sweater?" I noted a few weeks ago that the inclination to have a bigger, better car is not in itself evil - there can be a safety factor, and they're more efficient for moving people and belongings in terms of number of trips and time. I have good public transportation, but for a busy day I could lose 1/3 or more of the day. Saving energy really does just postpone the problem for another generation. This might be necessary - we might not have the scientific creativity for a reasonable breakthrough technology at this point - but thinking of this conserving as necessarily a great thing is a mistake. Humans have managed to drastically increase food supply over the last 30 years, overcoming what were then very important warnings.
In short, even if you want people to conserve, let them know you prefer they be more comfortable and that you're working towards that preferable goal.
May 19, 2008 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right that conservation doesn't solve the underlying problem of finite and dwindling fossil fuel resources. But unless we push conservation as a valuable thing, as a public virtue, we'll waste more energy while we're working on finding sustainable alternatives. As you admit yourself, the generation or so we can buy from conservation may be "necessary" to tide us over. Yes, it's not the solution to our energy problem, and if we're lucky, and find a quick and easy transition to better energy sources, it may turn out not to have been "necessary". But it's still far better to encourage conservation than simply to ignore the problem. The more people are aware of the issue, the more likely we are to solve the problem.
May 19, 2008 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I mean quite the opposite from ignoring the problem - putting pressure on the problem through incentives to cure the problem. Better than taking windfall profits from oil companies is telling them they can keep windfalls if they put 50% into alternative reserach or otherwise convincing technology (which can be purchasing smaller alternative companies).
Lowering the price of gas longterm decreases the competitiveness of alternative energy sources. If gas could rise to $6/gallon then a $4.50/gallon alternative becomes competitive.
May 19, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you wholeheartedly here. Rather than a gas tax holiday, we should be raising the tax significantly. Europe pays $8/gallon or more.
Rather than a gas tax holiday, I'd support a significant increase in the federal tax, to discourage consumption and make alternatives more viable on a relative basis. The main downside would be that such a tax is regressive.
May 19, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a practical matter, I'm definitely in agreement that "wear a sweater" is not a great tactical approach to conservation (as must anyone be who was alive in the 70s). I also agree that conservation needs to be sold as something that performs just as well as what you're used to, but has the added advantage of being green or cheap or cool-looking.
But I'd argue that, mixed in with incentivizing, the appeal to rational consumption is a good thing (I do think that "you shouldn't eat all you want" line was probably a mistake; you can't make rational consumption sound like "hunger"). I don't think it'll have nearly as much of an effect as good incentives, maybe none at all, but I think it's a positive good anyway if language about individual responsibility and the wisdom of deferring immediate gratification in favor of a long-term goal becomes part of the political landscape. In part, I think one reason Americans are so resistant to anything that involves "cutting back" is that our political culture has eschewed the idea since Carter and it's come to seem like the equivalent of asking for all first-born sons or something. Resuscitating the language of communal sacrifice (or, better, frugality) could be a first step toward our thinking more rationally about the many ways in which our current spending, of money but also of political capital around the globe, is going to come back to fuck us if we don't start being a little more aware of what our choices now as a nation are going to bring down the road.
May 19, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
A minor point about the "safety factor" of SUVs: I think it's important not to overstate it. They're safer in an accident than a small car, but they're much less good at avoiding accidents. Malcolm Gladwell had a piece in the New Yorker a couple of years ago about how the SUV has accompanied a shift in our idea of safety to the former from the latter, not necessarily for the better.
http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html
This isn't unfettered SUV-bashing (I save that for when I'm trying to get through my suburban downtown in which 90% of the vehicles are SUVs and 99% carry one person, no cargo), just a little challenge to conventional wisdom.
May 19, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
In reality, the Chinese are sacrificing their standard of living to support ours.
Chinese national savings rate = 50%.
America = -5%.
The blessed American standard of living is being carried on the backs of the Chinese people.
May 19, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's been saying this all along. I've been wondering when the Obama faithful are going to prick up their ears and start asking what he means when he says "sacrifices we're all going to have to make." Of course, as with everything Obama says, he's been completely vague. Until now.
Surprise!
May 19, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gasket: Sacrifice during war time shouldn't be such an insult or a surprise to hear from leadership.
May 19, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course I agree wholeheartedly with you, WHB. I wasn't referring to the wartime part, I was referring to the SUV/Carter part. I thought that's what the OP was about. Here's what I've heard Obama say about sacrifice and the environment on two separate occasions.
May 19, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
What war? It's an occupation. There's no specific enemy. It's several insurgencies at once, like fighting ETA or the IRA but better supplied. Because there's no actual war, there is no actual way of surrender. Who will surrender? Iran/Revolutionary Guard? Al Qaeda? Al Sadr? All three?
May 19, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's two occupations, actually. So, technically, we're in "occupation time," not wartime. However, the results are the same for the troops who come home in a box or minus several limbs.
Returning to my point:
1) Nobody has ever challenged Obama to be specific—not the press, not his supporters. Now one of his supporters is saying in a blog post, "Huh?" My short answer to that is, "Duh! Thanks for being asleep this whole time!"
2) Thanks to the lazy, unquestioning worthless press and gullibility of the hypnotized public, we are stuck with two terrible candidates: Obama and McCain. (Of course maybe they're always this bad and I just never noticed.)
3) Because of our abysmal choices for president, the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan will not end. Obama is on record for saying he's going to boost our troop levels in Afghanistan and draw down troops in Iraq while replacing them with mercenary forces. Some troops will remain in Iraq, of course. More troops will come home dead during an Obama administration.
4) Nothing changes in the Mideast except people get moved around to different locations. No change in energy policy other than "moving the goal posts" (as Obama faithful like to say in reference to someone else). So far Obama's "energy policy" = continued reliance on fossil fuels + "clean coal" + nuclear + ethanol + whatever works for industry + telling other countries how to live + wearing more clothes and eating less!
Obama distracts Democrats once again with the gas tax holiday rhetoric. Once again Democrats let him off the hook. The interconnectedness of the issues (oil, energy, war, consumption, environment) don't get discussed in any detail because doing so requires a radical change in American thinking. Radical change is not change Americans can believe in, as the OP and assorted other comments illustrate.
The last time the country elected someone without pinning him down on the specifics of what he was saying was George W. Bush.
May 19, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one we have ever elected was as secretive about the specifics of policy than FDR. Even after he was elected he refused to answer questions about what the New Deal was about. When asked he would shush the reporter grin and say 'It's a secret.' No candidate has ever been all that specific about the details of policy. It would be politicaly foolish to do so. We vote for a leader not for a plan.
May 19, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Americans overeat. There food strikes going on in other countries. Will it kill us to eat until we're satisfied, and not continue to eat until we're about to burst. He's asking Americans not to glut. Boo hoo hoo.
We ARE consuming too much gas and coal in SUVs and air conditioning. It's not just about prices, it about the environment. Trust me, it won't kill Americans to have the thermostat at 76 or even 77 degrees. Depending on your background, 72 is way, way too cold for room temperature.
I knew such sacrifices would be asked. They're common sence.
May 19, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
If he's not careful with this approach, he's going to lose so badly. First of all, no one's going to buy the "eat less" deal. It's each person's business. I can't believe he even said this. Sure, if there's a health imperative, push it as a health initiative. But as an environmental issue? Foolish.
May 19, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not an environmental issue, but a "We're not the only ones living on planet earth," issue.
May 19, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can see this going down ok in the NW Pacific and Portland (where I've lived). But the GOP & O’Reilly et al are going to have a ball with his worrying about whether or not "other countries are going to say ok". (Since when did the average Hillary supporting `hard working white working class American` give a stuff about what other countries say?)
They'll link this with his comment the other day during the appeasement argument where, defending the accusation that he shouldn't put Presidential prestige on the line in negotiations with `rogue` countries, he said words to the effect that he wanted to get away from the concept of `American superiority` (his words). I whinced then, wondering how many of the voters he needs to win over wanted to get away from it?
Anyone want to weight the odds that most of the superdelegates are developing alopecia? ;-)
May 19, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the transcript from CNN:
"BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Is a huge opportunity but we've got have leadership from Washington, the same way we had leadership when Kennedy said we're going to the moon, we want to invest what we need to make it happen and there are all sorts of spin offs benefits from that. So that's what we want to do on global warming here in the United States.
We are also, though, going have to negotiate with other countries. China, India, in particular Brazil. They are growing so fast that they are consuming more and more energy, and pretty soon, if their carpet footprint even approaches ours, we're goners. That's part of the reason why we've got to make the investment; we've got to lead by example. If we lead by example -- if we lead by example, then we can actually export and license technology that have been invented here to help them deal with their growth pain. But keep in mind, you're right. We can't tell them, don't grow. We can't -- drive our SUVs and you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on you know, 72 degrees at all times, and whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country's going say OK.
You guys go ahead and keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy. Even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not -- that's not leadership. That's not going to happen. And that's, by the way, why, for example, I had this big argument with Senator Clinton and McCain about the gas tax, holiday. Which was an example. That's how Washington works. It's not thinking long term. It's thinking, how do we get through the next election? "
Obama's statement is part of a larger context of not having any negotiating credibility with other countries if we are consuming ourselves.
I'm coming to this as an Obama supporter, but this comment scared me a lot. Most Americans expect that global warming should be attacked with new technology, not a declining standard of living. Obama created the dangerous impression that he lumped in reduction of basic material comforts with the technology changes that we expect.
Obama's rhetoric is mostly excellent, but he occasionally loses control of his message (such as the "clinging to guns and religion" scandal) where he says things that I'm sure don't make sense to HIM!
Apparently Marshall McLuhan used to enjoy saying "big-think" philosophizing so much that he would fall in love with his own rhetoric and go off in nonsensical directions, and I think Obama does the same thing. He's got a lot of native ability, but at times can be an academic gasbag.
Robert
Obama had
May 19, 2008 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps he'll get Gore now...
May 19, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
As far as reducing our material comfort, he is right. There aren't enough natural resources for us to continue to live like we do, or the world. Yes we want better technology, but that isn't going to solve everything. Do we need a Hummer when we live oh in let's say Southern California? Do we need 50 purses or 50 pairs of shoes? NO! He is speaking the truth and that is why 75,000 people went to listen to him. Also, I would go so far as to say that the ENVIRONMENT does matter more to us as Americans than MATERIAL COMFORTS! We can reduce our material comforts, or else we can go drill the Artic or go fight more wars so we can control oil production. Reducing material comforts makes sense, as a nation we WASTE so much food, etc. It is plain WRONG! I don't see how not having as much STUFF is a decline in STANDARD of LIVING if it is going to make our air and water cleaner and stop global warming! Our "Standard of living" is reliant upon our environment...So if we are screwing up our environment because of our standard of living we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Standard of living isn't that great here, Americans die younger than Japanese, we have lots of diseases etc. related to our gluttonous standard of living! We need to take care of ourselves, of our people and of our earth. These values are connected to each other. Other nations have universal health care and do a much better job of taking care of their people than we do.
May 19, 2008 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely with your statements.
If we are to survive. we the developed world will need to learn to live more simply. It's going to be hard especially when we have become so accustomed to our way of living and associated comfort. We must show the way to the rest of the world through sacrifice and true leadership.
If we don't do it willingly, then the impending stock market collapse will give us little choice in the matter. In the end cooperation & sharing not competition & commercialisation will save the world.
May 19, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. More material stuff doesn't equal higher standard of living.
That's part of the problem with "Americanism" - and I say this aside from partisanship - we equate far too much, happiness, success, personal wealth and value, to material stuff. That's why when people go overseas, they're always so surprised to see how happy and content others are/can be with so little.
We're not just American citizens. We're global citizens. We need to start thinking that way.
May 19, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
America needs to be a leader in SOLUTIONS not in creating global PROBLEMS! If China and India want to be wasteful etc. oh well, we need to LEAD BY EXAMPLE!!
May 19, 2008 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm coming to this as an Obama supporter, but this comment scared me a lot. Most Americans expect that global warming should be attacked with new technology, not a declining standard of living. Obama created the dangerous impression that he lumped in reduction of basic material comforts with the technology changes that we expect."
He has to clarify that what's needed is a "changed way" of living. Mass transit. Less waste.
What's going to be really interesting is how does McCain respond? If as he says he really does believe the International Govenment Panel on Climate Change and that we have to stop global warming, how can he with any credibility take Obama on on this?
We can sure now that Gore will step in and delight in the debate - really sock it to McCain if he tries to bring Obama down on this.
It's going to be fascinating.
I must admit my heart sank when I read the first post without the context, but now I see the full text of it, I think it's got real potential to
do well. (It's been hugely depressing seeing how global warming has really been so downplayed in the campaign thus far, only been discussed in terms of getting down dependence on oil).
Good for Obama! Everyone should get behind him - have his back on this.
May 19, 2008 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman is finally pivoting from his Barack-Attacks, and starts talking about real econ matters today... Great piece today on point about SUV's and our energy gluttony:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/opinion/19krugman.html?hp
May 19, 2008 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Casablanca echo is giving me gooseflesh. I figure he's decided to let Hillary leave on the plane while he stays in Morocco with Obama. This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.
May 19, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I say more power to Obama for having the guts to say it. What's the point of amassing political capital if you're not going to use it for positive change?
But I do understand the sentiment. I would expect the line has been poll-tested, and the Obama people think it actually attracts more voters than it hurts. I frequently hear that people "like how Obama speaks to them like they're adults", so a message like this may actually be a net positive for him.
Now I agree there's a risk there, and I understand that the optimism of "yes we can" and the almost Reagan-like enthusiasm isn't bolstered by such talk. Perhaps it might be better for Obama to tone down this sort of negativism, at least until after the election, and then say what he thinks needs to be said about our SUV-driving, McMansion-cooling culture, after he's been elected. But his calls for change and power of the bully pulpit of the presidency would be more effective if he actually says this beforehand and wins anyhow than if he is elected as Mr. Sunshine and then says, sorry, your SUV has to go. He'd have even more political capital to push for serious changes.
Maybe Obama is channeling inner Jimmy Carter, and this is his way of asking us to wear sweaters. But Oregon is a pretty green state, where that message is likely to be as well received as anywhere else in the country. I think it's a conscious decision by Obama that is trying to use the power of the presidency to push us towards changes we need to make.
Bush missed an opportunity after 9/11 to use patriotism to urge better action on energy use. I recall as a kid seeing T-shirts with the picture of Ayatollah Khomeini and an exhortation to drive 55, with the message being that our excessive oil consumption was giving power to countries like Iran. Which it was, and still is. Bush probably could have gotten begrudging public support for a larger gas tax if he framed it as part the sacrifices we as a nation need to make to win the war on terrorism. Instead, he encourage us to keep going shopping.
Obama is betting that people have had politicians who for so long only told them what they wanted to hear, that having one who says what they need to hear just may be crazy enough to work. I surely hope so, and, frankly, this sort of comment makes me even happier I've sent two checks to his campaign.
May 19, 2008 6:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't you amazed that it's not plastered all over the net/MSM this morning?
May 19, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Happy to see this discussion develop. Obama will become more specific on these issues as we get deeper into the GE and I'm thrilled to see some focus on energy and to see the direction that he's taking. It's bold and I'm not afraid of how public will respond. Yeah, it's not happy talk, but it's very much in line with his message from the start.
May 19, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I GUESS MOST OF YOU DONT GET IT DO YOU?
THE TRUTH IS AT THE RATE GAS IS GOING AND THE WAY FOOD PRICES ARE GOING WE ALL WILL HAVE TO CUT BACK ON OUR SPENDING AND QUIT WASTEING EVERYTHING FOR OUT STUPID PLEASURE.
YOU DONT SEE ALL THE WASTE WISH PEOPLE MAKEING MOREI MONEY THAN MOST OF US CAN ONLY DREAM OF HAVING.
NONE OF YOU UNDERSTAND THE THE TWO PERCENT LIVE LIKE KINGS AND THE REST OF US LIVE PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK AND SPEND MONEY WE DONT HAVE TO KEEP PUT WITH THE JONES WAY OF LIFE.
WE WASTE MORE GAS BECAUSE OF CARS THE AUTOMAKERS SHOULD HAVE QUIT MAKING 20 YEARS AGO AND THINK OF THE AIR WE BREATH INSTEAD OF BUYING BIGGER FASTER WASTEFUL GAS GUZZLEING CARS AND TRUCKS AND TO HELL WITH THE AIR WE BREATH.
THERE ARE MORE THAN 40 MILLION KIDS THAT GO TO BE HUNGRY IN THIS COUNTRY AND WE COULD CARE LESS, WE THINK OF OURSELVES MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE.
MORE VETERNS LIVING UNDER BRIDGES AND SLEEPING IN PARKS BECAUSE THIS COUNTRY WONT HELP PEOPLE IN NEED.
DOES ANYONE GET IT NOW???????
WE LIVE IN HOUSES THAT ARE WAY TO BIG AND WASTE MORE GAS AND AND OTHER ENERGY IN SELF SERVING HOUSEHOLDES. THE AVERAGE SIZE OF HOMES IN THE U.S. IS 2200 SQUARE FEET WITH TWO OR MAYBE THREE PEOPLE IN THE FAMILY.
DOES ANYONE GET IT NOW???????
ITS TIME WE CHANGE OUR HABITS AND START LIVING ON LESS BECAUSE THE TIME IS NEAR WHEN WE WONT HAVE THE THINGS THAT EVERYONE HAS NOW. LOOK AT HOUSING MORE PEOPLE LOOSING THERE HOMES BECAUSE OF THE GREEDY LENDERS THAT SAY OH YOU CAN AFFORD THIS HOUSE WHEN THEY KNOW WE CANT.
ITS TIME TO CUT BACK ON ALOT OF THINGS IN THIS COUNTRY AND UNDERSTAND THAT WE USE ONE QUARTER OF THE OIL TAKEN OUT OF THE GROUND.
DOES ANYONE GET IT YET??????????
May 19, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, now I get it.
I COULDN"T UNDERSTAND IT UNTIL YOU SCREAMED IT AT ME.
May 19, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I grew up in a Georgia family that actually did turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater when Carter said to. Or maybe my parents had always kept it cold. Anyway, I never really got this joke where it's supposed to be hilarious to dress for the season and heat your house less when our frenemies control most of the world's energy supply. And I haven't been impressed with the intervening 30 years of Democratic/Environmentalist non-policy of "do whatever you want, good voters" (and science will save us, even though no Americans want to be scientists or understand its basic principles). I do realize that guilt is the least popular emotion of our era, and that chiding people is not going to change them. But that doesn't mean we have to lie down and be run over by SUVs filled with undirected self-interest.
There are obvious, effective things that can be done to help bring personal choices into line with community values and needs, like instituting fossil fuel taxes on par with Western Europe's. (They wear sweaters in winter there, LOL dumb eurotrash!) And the first step to doing those things is to be honest about good and bad personal choices. Without that foundation, the moment you try to do something that will actually help, like pass a carbon tax, you're met with an idiotic counter argument—"but that will stop middle income people from buying Great American SUVs"—that you can't answer because you're too scared to say anything bad about something popular (as destructive fads tend to be). Thereby, a braindead argument—oh no, that will fix this problem we are trying to fix—becomes a deadly effective one.
I am impressed and thrilled that Obama has once again taken the risky, honest path. This isn't a negative departure from optimism, it's a continuation of his treating the electorate like grown-ups; call it "yes we can use less fuel" if that makes you feel better. Obama didn't get where he is by being cowardly, and it's no time to start just because maybe some supporters are not as comfortable with challenging carbon emissions (got SUV?) as they are with not invading Iraq, not being racist, and not trying to deceive voters in an overheated (and comically passé) crisis-PR mode of political campaigning.
May 19, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because Carter was an unpopular president at the end of his term doesn't mean that everything he did was unpopular.
Challenging Americans to save on fuel was a message that resonated and worked sufficiently to help push gas prices down in the 80s by reducing demand.
That message is even more important now and one you hear from ordinary Americans all the time.
May 19, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the very least, we should start conserving our uppercase characters. It's time to stop driving around with the caps lock on!
May 19, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
RIGHT ON!!
May 19, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Global warming is such a danger to the planet and when the U.S. consumes a whole lot more than our share, is it so terrible for a leader to suggest that conservation is a need? No other country in the world drives the giant gas guzzlers that we drive. And as far as safety, if all the vehicles were smaller, we'd all be safe in moderate cars. But it won't be a worry for long anyway. Not too many can afford the gas for a guzzler as the prices go up. We're gonna have to put on our big girl panties and learn to conserve. Compared to the rest of the world, we're the energy pigs. People are hungry in lots of new places this year. We ought to care about that if we're helping to cause it.
May 19, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. What he's saying is that the good citizens of Beverly Hills can't go around telling the good citizens of Bangladesh that if they don't tighten their belts, the world will end. It's a credibility issue that Gore, among others, has addressed consistently.
May 19, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the night of the KY & IN primaries he ended his speach by saying we will have to sacrifice for the future. He has been saying it all along. I think we are ready for a call to sacrafice for the common good. The greatest generation accepted rationing and a 45 mph national speed limit for the greater good. We will to if we have a leader who can sell us on the ends we are sacraficing for. Carter did inot lose becase he called for sacrafice but because he did not sell the vision we were sacraficing for.
May 19, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I humbly disagree with the "Carter as visionary" theme being tossed about here. Carter championed the concept of Americans getting by with less because he was an incompetent administrator who had no clue what to do to fix stagflation. Then he had the unmitigated gall to suggest that it was our patriotic duty to get by with less.
Sorry, guys, but that's not visionary in my book.
May 19, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess presidents are like football coaches. When things are going well, it's thanks to the fabulous players. But when things go badly, the coach gets all the blame.
May 19, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Smart" pre-election politics or not, what Obama is saying is just the least of the choices that will be necessary if the earth is to remain habitable. NASA's chief climatologist, James Hansen, warned of this 20 years ago, and no action was taken. Now he says atmospheric carbon must be cut back to 350 ppm if we are to avert tipping points (which are already starting)into catastrophic climate change. We're already around 385 and rising fast.
For all Carter's faults, the election of the "sunny" Reagan in 1980, when we already knew about the greenhouse effect, looks more and more like the fateful turning point.
No one is prepared to deal with this. And if you think the "American way of life," which now seems to mean gluttony rather than freedom and equality, is at all sustainable, look up Peak Oil. Soon.
May 19, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
We will be making sacrifices until we become much more efficient, less pollutive and more in tune with a planet we are driving into the abyss. We are on the brink of several revolutions which will change everything including the energy and green revolutions but the bridge to get there from here is perilous. Confronting the War, the National debt, Medicare, Social Security, Healthcare, the Environment...this will be an incredible challenge. Any Presidential not speaking in these terms is frankly blowing smoke up your a**
May 19, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, Barack, why don't you just lie to us like the rest of the politicians? "Two factory-bred, precooked chickens on every credit card; Two carbon-belching SUVs in every foreclosed garage!"
May 19, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every politician since the 1950's who has said Americans need to do more with less has (a) been proven dead wrong and/or (b) been voted out of office. That's why I asked for the context of what he was saying.
On the face of it this was not a very optimistic thing for Obama to say. Thus the need for some context so that the statement does not stand alone.
I don't think he's lying to us but I cringe when millionaire politicians lay a guilt trip on Americans for consuming too much.
May 19, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not the abmmount we consume. It is the ammount we waste that is the problem.
May 19, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the 1950s the US was the swing oil producer. Like winning the lottery, plentiful fossil fuels made a lot of foolish choices possible. Now there isn't a swing oil producer and I see SUVs and muscle cars for sale on people's lawns.
May 20, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Doc Barnett. Why is America the only country on earth that finds the idea of conservation to be offensive? I frankly don't get it. What's wrong with a sweater?
May 19, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I conserve simply because I cannot afford not to. I hear my friends complain about their utility bills and tell them that mine are half what they pay and they cannot believe it is possible. When I tell them how I do it they dispair because they are to weak to stand a little discomfort to save hundreds of dollars.
May 19, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment