Der Spiegel: U.S. blocking G8 climate talks because Americans are uncaring dupes

Writing in Der Spiegel Tuesday, Christian Schwägerl promises to reveal “How the U.S. is blocking progress on climate change,” but not only does he fail to show us the blocking, he has nothing to tell us about the how. Meanwhile, President Obama is flying from Moscow to Rome this morning to join the summit in L’Aquila, Italy. Are we to suppose he’s doing that to block progress personally, so he can stand in front of the Appennine Mountains and announce “nothing accomplished”? Doubtful.
Here’s what Schwägerl’s got on us Americans:
The United States has taken the most adverse stance (at the summit), even though President Barack Obama campaigned on a platform to save the climate and has assembled what could be described as a dream team when it comes to environmental policy.
Maybe Schwägerl’s got some inside info, but if so, he doesn’t reveal it. As the G8 summit commenced this week, there were indications the U.S. would agree with the European Union to try to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, a threshold beyond which scientists expect warming to be catastrophic. Prior administrations have been reluctant to subscribe to any numbers, because some presidents really didn’t want progress on global warming and all have been somewhat dependent on Congressional approval of numerical goals. Congress never approved, for example, the Kyoto Protocol. A bit embarrassing, that.
Schwägerl:
But the Obama administration is realizing that ordinary Americans are adamantly opposed to their country becoming the global leader in a radical new green movement. A majority of Americans do not consider the climate crisis to be particularly important: According to a poll carried out in January by the Pew Research Center, only 30 percent of Americans rated global warming as a top priority for President Obama.
Shucks, I’m an ordinary American and I’m not adamantly opposed. Are you? Let’s see if we can remember what was going on when Pew conducted that poll in January: George W. Bush was president of the United States (that’s memory enough for me), manufacturing was slumping worldwide, Citigroup was breaking apart, Bank of America was in collapse. Americans were primarily concerned about the economy (85 percent) and jobs (82 percent).
The environment would do better in a poll conducted in better economic times, though it probably won’t ever top terrorism, health care or crime until we either solve those problems or warm up beyond that 2-degree threshold. The environment has always been a luxury cause in America. We worry about it when things are going well, and we forget about it whenever we start a war or slip into recession. That’s not the same as being adamantly opposed.
Yale and George Mason universities completed a study in May that found 18 percent of Americans are alarmed about global warming, and 33 percent are concerned. There’s your majority. The study rounds out like this: 19 percent cautious, 12 percent disengaged, 11 percent doubtful, and 7 percent dismissive.
Obama isn’t dealing with a public that’s adamantly opposed, but he is dealing with a divided public, which is why he makes the environment a priority without making it an explicit priority. Which brings us to Schwägerl’s next point:
Meanwhile the US oil and coal industries’ experienced lobbyists are hard at work to influence public opinion. And when a member of the House of Representatives recently referred to climate change as a “hoax,” his comments were met with applause. Although Obama is allocating billions and recruiting top scientists nationwide for climate protection, he has deliberately not yet given a strong speech on the environment directed at the rest of the world.
I’ve been an ordinary member of the American public for a while now, and I have yet to have a lobbyist knock on my door. But I’m sure if one did, I’d adopt whatever ideas he’s peddling straightaway, me being an American and all. About the applause? Those were Republicans. We still have a few left, but like the polar bear, they appear to be on thinning ice.
My favorite Schwägerl sentence is that last one, though. Although Obama has allocated billions and appointed top scientists, he has yet to give a strong speech, Schwägerl says. I may have just fallen off the turnip truck, but I’m pretty sure billions speak stronger than strong speeches. I’m not sure why anyone thinks speeches are actions. “Factum non verbum,” they used to say in the town where Air Force One lands today–deeds not words–and sometimes the best way to get things done is to not speak strongly, especially in front of a divided public. Much less one that’s “adamantly opposed.”
Maybe G8 is going to be a big bust, and Barack is just in Rome to feed the cats. We’ll know by Friday.