Where have we heard this before?
The elements of Barack Obama's speech last night that were specifically newsworthy were also broadly-expected: A liability fund that BP will pay into and that a third-party will distribute. A "long-term Gulf Coast Restoration Plan." Both ideas sound good. But their worth will be determined by, well, their worth. And Obama did not name any dollar amounts.
He also did not utter the words "climate change" or "global warming."
The elements of Barack Obama's speech last night that were specifically newsworthy were also broadly-expected: A liability fund that BP will pay into and that a third-party will distribute. A "long-term Gulf Coast Restoration Plan." Both ideas sound good. But their worth will be determined by, well, their worth. And Obama did not name any dollar amounts.
He also did not utter the words "climate change" or "global warming."
The closest Obama got was to praise the House for "passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill – a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses." The section of his speech devoted to the issue avoided the politically-controversial problem in order to focus on the broadly-popular solution:
Clean energy. "As we recover from this recession," Obama promised, "the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of good, middle-class jobs."
Obama did not make any specific promises about the bill he would support, or even that he wanted. He did not say he would price carbon, or that we should get a certain percentage of our energy from renewables by a certain date.
But his language was a close echo of the language he used in the health-care fight. "There are costs associated with this transition," he said, using a formulation many will remember from health care. "And some believe we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy."
Similarly familiar was his reminder that "I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party – as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels," and his promise that "the one approach I will not accept is inaction."
The optimistic take, at least for environmentalists, is that this is the language and approach Obama uses when he really means to legislate. The pessimistic take is that Obama shied away from clearly describing the problem, did not endorse specific legislation, did not set benchmarks, and chose poll-tested language rather than a sharper case that might persuade skeptics.
Obama did not make any specific promises about the bill he would support, or even that he wanted. He did not say he would price carbon, or that we should get a certain percentage of our energy from renewables by a certain date.
But his language was a close echo of the language he used in the health-care fight. "There are costs associated with this transition," he said, using a formulation many will remember from health care. "And some believe we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy."
Similarly familiar was his reminder that "I am happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party – as long they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels," and his promise that "the one approach I will not accept is inaction."
The optimistic take, at least for environmentalists, is that this is the language and approach Obama uses when he really means to legislate. The pessimistic take is that Obama shied away from clearly describing the problem, did not endorse specific legislation, did not set benchmarks, and chose poll-tested language rather than a sharper case that might persuade skeptics.
by Ezra Klein - sign up for his daily summary ~ @
