A “Bipartisan Climate Caucus” Means Nothing If It Stands For Nothing

As more and more Americans have come to recognize the existence of climate change, politicians on both sides of the aisle have decided to come together to create the “first bipartisan climate caucus” in order to protect their progeny (many of the members have children and/or grandchildren) as well as to deal with the current and upcoming economic repercussions related to climate change.

One member, Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire shared that the state’s “ski industry is affected, our snowmobiling, our maple-sugaring industry. So many things that people can see”. It makes sense that she is appealing to her constituent’s fiscal concerns in order to “prove” why everyone should be concerned about climate change, but part of me also wonders if there is more she can say about why we all should care regardless of finances. I highly doubt that our world will be saved by a bunch of money-hungry, bureaucratic penpushers, but I will admit that appealing to the public’s greed might be a smart tactic, especially since the “crisis is threatening to cut the U.S. economy up to 10% by century’s end”. 

Whatever the caucus’ intentions may be, they have been remarkably slow to implement any policies or even state their opinions since its creation, despite a scientifically-backed urgency for action in regards to climate change. The caucus’ is supposedly going to meet with CEOs of key companies as a first step, but it is unclear what they are going to ask for, or even say to them. Some members of the caucus are “pushing for a carbon tax”, but as Mitt Romney (who seems to be the Republican ringleader of the caucus) clearly states, “I’m not going to say any ‘have to’ with regards to climate. I think all the ideas will be on the table”.

Check out how much money Mitt Romney’s Campaign Committee received from the oil & gas industry within the past 5 years…

 

We clearly have no more time left on this Earth for political shmoozing and maneuvering, especially from politicians who are funded by an industry with completely opposing interests to those of the climate justice movement (cough cough Mitt Romney). Other members of the caucus, such as Maine Senator Angus King, seem to agree with Romney’s position stating “my philosophy is let’s take small steps, [and] find some things we can succeed on”. That certainly does not sound like the words of a reliable, world-changing leader to me. I can literally feel this whole caucus’ hesitation and appalling lack of urgency from behind my screen, but the clock’s still ticking!

 

 

2 thoughts on “A “Bipartisan Climate Caucus” Means Nothing If It Stands For Nothing”

  1. Hi Alice,

    Another rock-star post from you!

    But – would you please rewrite this and add the, “why this issue matters to me in a vital way” perspective?

    The reason that I ask this is that you are supposed to be sharing an issue that is important to YOU and you are to let us know WHY this issue/topic caught your attention and was worth your *irreplaceable* time to write about.

    If you do not care about the story that you are telling, neither will your audience. If the story is not significant to you, it will certainly not matter to the reader or your audience.

    As a general rule, people respond to the issues which matter to the writer/actor/performer. We need storytellers who are able to gather attention and energy. That storyteller is you, Alice.

    Let me know when you edit so that I may read?

    Prof. Peter Terezakis

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *