Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, Director International Program, Washington, D.C.
Secretary Kerry got it right when he identified climate change as one of the most urgent issues facing the world in a February 16 speech in Jakarta. Kerry got it right on the science, the urgency, and the opportunity to be found in clean energy solutions. He ranked climate change right up there with “terrorism, epidemics, poverty, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.” He also got it right that we have the clean energy ability to tackle climate change and that American leadership and action is critical as part of the global solution. The US government is moving ahead to reduce carbon pollution at its source from our cars, trucks and power plants. We also need to reject major new infrastructure projects for dirty fuels starting with denial of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline permit. The US can do this without Congressional action, but strong public support is still critical in standing up to the fossil fuel industry and climate deniers. History will remember our actions – and our inactions. It is actions such as these at home that send the strongest message to the world that the US is serious about climate change.
In a time when we still regularly hear tired, old, polluter-generated talking points questioning climate change, Kerry called on us to trust the 97 percent. That is the 97 percent of scientists who say that climate change is real and largely due to our dependence on oil and coal. Making the rapid pace of climate change real, Kerry pointed out that “all 10 of the hottest years on record have actually happened since Google went online in 1998.”
We know that climate change is causing sea rise, end of species, ocean acidification, water shortages, fundamental transformation in agriculture, and extreme weather events. Kerry pointed out that the economic costs of climate change are massive – both from the cost of rebuilding and the “potentially catastrophic effects on the global supply chain.” And he urged us not to waste time debating whose responsibility it is to act. Although with this Kerry was calling on countries around the world to step up, I would add that this should also be a call to corporations and especially to the fossil fuel industry. Just as some countries such as the United States “contribute more to the problem and therefore must also contribute more to the solution”, some industries also contribute more to the problem and need to change their way of working if we are to reach solutions to climate change.
Pushing back against those who questioned the cost of a transition to clean energy, Kerry said it is an opportunity and reminded that the “devastating human toll pollution takes comes with a hefty price tag.” He urged governments around the world to “look further down the road” and factor in “the long-term cost of carbon pollution” and “the cost of survival.” And he turned the cost complaints on their head reminding us that “If the worst case scenario never materializes, the steps that we are urging will still leave our air and water cleaner, our food supply more secure, and our populations healthier. Meanwhile, if 97 percent of scientists happen to be correct, and the naysayers are wrong, then we will have thwarted one of the gravest threats to our planet.”
Kerry himself noted how appalling it is that so little has changed since the international agreement to tackle climate change in 1992 and blamed lack of political resolve. He noted that “as a result of this complacency, last year the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere reached the highest point in human history – despite all of the warnings.”
So, does this speech herald a change in US diplomacy? The launch of this “series of discussions” on the urgency of climate change comes as we have seen climate change more and more integrated into President Obama’s speeches at home and Secretary Kerry’s foreign policy meetings around the world. Kerry said that he is instructing Chiefs of Missions at US embassies around the world to “make climate change a top priority and to use all the tools of diplomacy they have at their disposal to address this threat”. Beyond that, Kerry pointed to the actions that the US is taking including curbing carbon pollution at its source in our cars, trucks and power plants. He talked about using bilateral discussions such as those with China to strengthen climate action and to lay a better groundwork for the international climate negotiations. He said that we need to stop incentives to climate polluting coal and oil. Kerry’s speech should also mean putting a stop to dirty energy infrastructure projects such as the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would drive expansion of the carbon-intensive tar sands oil production.
We know what we have to do. And hopefully this speech and others like it will herald additional strong leadership and action from the US on climate. Kerry certainly paints the vision of what we can achieve in tackling climate change: “If we come together now, we can not only meet this challenge, we can create jobs and economic growth in every corner of the globe. We can clean up the air our families breathe and make our neighborhoods healthier places to live. We can help ensure farmers and fishers can still make a sustainable living and feed our communities. We can avoid disputes and even entire wars over oil, water and other limited resources. And we can make good on the moral responsibility we all have to leave our children a planet that is clean and healthy and sustainable for decades to come.” That’s the right vision. Now let’s keep moving ahead to put the action into place to make this happen with American leadership and international cooperation.
Related posts:
Obama’s Climate Legacy May Come Down to Coal and ‘No’
IPCC: Climate Impacts ‘Are Very Evident, They’re Widespread’ And ‘We Are Not Prepared’
State Department Outlines ‘New Architecture’ to Address Climate Change
China Commits to Significant New Climate Actions in U.S.-China Joint Presidential Statement on Climate Change
Is Secretary Kerry right that climate change needs to be tackled like a ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’? The real question becomes what is the probability and capability of Secretary Kerry in successfully dealing with this claimed weapon of mass destruction? 97% or 3%?; that the Secretary and current Administration will be any more successful than their current progress and ability to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons development, or yielding to Russia in leading and eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons used to kill their own citizens. News update: Syria has delayed handing over their chemical weapons so they can be destroyed as promised. So what has changed since Senator Kerry voted against the Kyoto Protocol in 1997? The real weapon of mass destruction here is lack of intelligent, civil and constructive discussion on how best to persuade the majority of the World’s populations to stop consuming fossil fuels.
“The real weapon of mass destruction here is lack of intelligent, civil and constructive discussion on how best to persuade the majority of the World’s populations to stop consuming fossil fuels.”The only way to persuade the world’s population to stop consuming fossil fuels is to make sure that there is a cost-effective alternative they can choose instead of fossil fuels. Due to the regrettable and persistent inadequacy of renewable energy sources versus fossil fuels in the global economy despite decades of R&D and heavy subsidies, that alternative is nuclear energy. Since senator Kerry has been a life-long anti-nuclear activist there is no credible role for him to play in stopping climate disruption until he very publicly changes his opinion on nuclear energy, IMO.
My problem with Kerry is that he has no answers, and if we allow the administration to do whatever they want to, we’ll just end up down a renewables dead end.I don’t expect people to like my opinions, but it is plain to me that the administration has too much Renewables leanings and sympathies. They are too keen to listen to voices of folks like NRDC who are in effect a pseudo-religious renewables cult. The inadequate support for nuclear power in any imagineable way is evidence of imbalance to my thinking.I think Congress should have the final word after there have been hearings. No Obama executive orders please.
You trust CONGRESS to have the final word? They can’t even pass a budget, let alone address issues that matter. We don’t have time to bicker – that’s what we’ve done since 1992 with nothing to show for it. I’ll take Executive Orders, thank you very much.
If any ‘executive order’ comes from Obama it will be passing on the instructions he receives from his bosses, and we all know who those bosses are.
While I agree with Kerry’s call to action, of course, Kerry is the last person I think is a credible proponent of action to address climate disruption.Let us not forget that it was Senator Kerry himself who led the crusade against nuclear energy which directly caused the unjustified and tragic demise of the IFR nuclear energy development program in the US.It was Senator Kerry who has been at the forefront of hindering and stopping the nuclear industry in the USA, which has reduced the influence of the USA on global nuclear issues, which in turn arguably has increased the risk of global nuclear proliferation if anything. It is then highly ironic for him to be calling climate disruption as much of a threat as the proliferation of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ is!Kerry will convince me he is sincere about stopping climate disruption when he publicly admits and regrets that he has been tragically mistaken in fighting nuclear power all his life. Until that time, it seems clear to me that everything that comes out of his mouth is mere political posturing, with no genuine concern or legitimacy whatsoever behind it.The same goes for the NRDC, by the way. They are wolves in sheeps clothing to me. Until the NRDC and Kerry radically change their tune on nuclear, they are themselves one of the main causes of continued fossil fuel hegemony and resulting climate disruption, rather than part of the solution, never mind the spin they are so expert at putting on their inconsistent message.
Joris, can you explain why you think nuclear energy is the solution to all the problems we have now? Do you think it is a clean energy maybe? We all know it’s not and we have seen some very tragic accidents so I’d like to hear how you would address this aspect and the aspect of nuclear waste.
Yes I do trust congress to have the last word as long as a vote is taken in the end.Anything this Administration does by itself today through executive orders can be reversed by another administration. That won’t get us anything but chaos.If we want lasting and binding changes that will set us on a path away from FF and GW, it has to be done by the Constitutionally empowered body…that is Congress with full hearings and debates.
Where in the world is still a place where votes are not being bought in these times? Votes do not mean anything other to mask the underlying financial deals being made which define who’s going to be able to excert the power received. Votes is just a part of the game being played to make people think they have a political voice. Those times are long gone in my opinion.
I am sorry, but don’t do paranoia very well. Votes can be bought so we should then put all our fates in the hands of one single man who won’t face re-election?RUBBISH!We have 100 senators and 435 congressmen in the house of representatives and only 1 President of the United States. How can you be worried that all these Senators and Representatives can be bought, and have Zero fear that One single man, the president, cannot be bought?
“Just as some countries such as the United States “contribute more to the problem and therefore must also contribute more to the solution”, some industries also contribute more to the problem and need to change their way of working if we are to reach solutions to climate change.”I cannot agree more on this!
I liked the speech a lot but I do not like the comparison with a Weapon of Mass Destruction, this is going to allow to later make wars because of it and that should not be happening ever.