Harry C. Blaney III
Harry C. Blaney III
By Harry C. Blaney III
It now has been reported that the Trump transition team has started a Witch Hunt for federal career employees at the Department of Energy focused, among other areas, on their work on climate change. Thomas Pyle, the head of the American Energy Alliance, and the rest of the transition team representatives are asking for massive details on individuals’ work and associations including what committees and negotiations they have served on and even what web sites they have gone to while on government time!!!! This is a kind of authoritarian actions we saw in Germany in 1933 when Hitler took over the German government and we are seeing today in Turkey today.
It is thought that this kind of approach by Trump’s group’s to EPA might also entail the same kind of likely illegal Witch Hunt that has emerge from the Energy Department Trump team.
A wide use of these kind of attacks on our constitutional and legal framework that protects our civil servants from partisan attacks and efforts to punish them for their past legal action under another administration are unprecedented in modern American history.
Trump’s entire environment and energy nominations are all of one stripe. These initial requests for personnel information are targeting areas that Trump and the energy industry wishes to punish. They want to stop enforcement of efforts to deal with dirty air, water and increasing temperatures. Their aim seems to be profits over people. Their profits and money being directed were paid and will pay into the Trump ‘Empire’ and the Republicans on Capital Hill. The result for the rest of the country and the world is disaster.
But note this week several Trump cabinet and sub-cabinet selections need close attention and scrutiny as they impact not only the power and standing of our nation at home and adherence to our constitution and laws, but also in our key relations to other nations.
We welcome your comments, click here to make a comment. Thanks!
By Harry C. Blaney III
As readers of our blog, you know we have been following Donald Trump’s pick for top jobs in his administration, primarily those related to foreign and national security issues. To date we have noted that they represent individuals by and large unsuited for the responsibilities they may assume if they are passed by a compliant Senate that has no courage to do its job of truly vetting these individuals with a critical eye.
SECRETARY OF STATE
The key outstanding position remains that of Secretary of State which people thought would be selected this last week but it seems Trump in his kingly procession wants to milk these acts for all they are worth in headlines and attention from the chattering classes. No appointment has a higher profile than at State and Trump has played like a ring-master in the circus…..dribbling out each nomination and keeping the world guessing as long as he can to deepen the suspense.
While several candidates seem to have dropped from the “A List” for State, those that remain are not even in that category from the viewpoint of our “best and brightest” and most experienced. The only person who now seems to be considered for Deputy Secretary is John Bolton, who while experienced in foreign affairs is a far right war hawk and an individual who his former colleagues at State and the UN found impossible to deal with and a rather unpleasant personally. He shares with Trump a distaste for international organizations trying to enhance global prosperity and security. He would be allied with the new National Security advisor retired Lt. General Flynn, who is seen more as a crazed and irrational individual to hold such a vital position.
But the key figure to emerge now is Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, who it seems has a direct and friendly connection with President Putin who gained a contact for energy exploration in the Arctic area of Russia for Exxon which was sidetracked by the sanctions on Russia for invading Ukraine. Putin gave Tillerson Russia’s highest order for a foreigner. He has no experience in government and diplomacy and carries with him huge conflicts of interest.
Trump has been considering a host of possibilities for secretary of state, widely seen as the most prominent cabinet position. Giuliani’s dropped out thankfully, and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who is still perhaps under consideration, but opposed by the most Alt-Right types in the Trump camp. Others who have interviewed include retired Adm. James Stavridis, Sen. Bob Corker and former Ford CEO Alan Mulally. None are what can be described as competent for this demanding job.
ADMINISTRATOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
One of the most important “international” appointments was just announced and it may surprise some people, but the work of the EPA is critical to the wellness, peace, health and viability of our globe. The consequences of what this agency does in dealing with the impact on climate change will either save our environment for future generations or destroy its true livability. The bottom line is that Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has been named to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt shares in spades all the president-elect’s catastrophic views on a safe environment and climate change against all sound science. Both have made their political life based on lies and deceit and in support of these industries that are bringing cataclysmic end to a truly livable planet. They both have made this quite clear by their actions.
This choice was made just after Donald Trump met with Al Gore and it seems made some kind of more moderate noises that indicted Gore might come back for a further chat and might have an open mind. This now seems a calculated charade and an effort to mislead the public and the press to his real intentions. Trump has said all along that he did not believe in human impact on climate change and supported the coal and carbon-based energy industries during his campaign and in his policy statements.
In reality Pruitt is about to be the worst person ever to head the EPA. It seems from this pick Trump truly means to give a mandate to destroy the very purpose of this agency and the goals of that agency under its legislation which goes back to the Nixon administration and The Environmental Protection Act. That responsibility is to “protect ” our environment, but it is clear from Pruitt’s positions and stated goals it is to dismantle that agency and do the bidding of the oil, mining, coal, and gas industries which he has supported most of his professional life.
This pick just abut firmly eliminates any notion that Trump would maintain an “open mind” on climate change or do anything to protect our environment. President-elect Donald Trump has chosen a strong climate denier, a darling of the oil and gas industry and opponent of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in all that it does to protect our citizens ands especially children from the health and environmental impact of pollution, toxic chemicals, air and water, and climate change.
It is just not doing simply anything at all but turning back the whole effort of protecting our environment and safety of our people and turning over to the polluters the running of this key agency and undermining efforts keeping our globe habitable.
Pruitt has supported fossil fuel industry with extraordinary tenacity. He tweeted that if Climate “Skeptics” Can Be Prosecuted for Fraud, So Can “Alarmists.” He has led the Republican Attorneys General Association, which has acted together in opposition to the legal investigation into Exxon’s climate denial, and they have, in general, been collaborating with corporations and lobbyists in filed lawsuits and challenged federal regulations on everything from fracking to air pollution.
But that is the least of Puitt’s many attacks on the EPA. Pruitt was caught in 2014 in a conspiratorial alliance with oil and gas industry leaders aimed at tearing down environmental protections. Emails obtained by the New York Times show Pruitt and other Republican attorneys acting to protect industry, not their citizens.
According to reports one fossil fuel insider was Harold Hamm. Hamm was Trump’s top energy adviser and a CEO of the country’s largest fracking company. Hamm ended up chairing Pruitt’s 2013 re-election campaign. He was reported to be as one of the biggest proponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline and his company’s fracked oil would have flowed through the pipeline if completed. Not least, it is reported that Pruitt has received $318,496 in campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry since 2002. Not a good sign for a man whose job is to protect our environment!
What is interesting as a side factor, the head of EXXON as noted above has been mentioned as a possible cabinet pick as Secretary of State and that position plays a key roll in the negotiation of climate change agreements and policy on a global scale….the same company that has for decades denied climate change science with some minor revisions just recently.
We welcome your comments, click here to add to the discussion.
By Harry C. Blaney III
The debate on Sunday night October 9th was one of the most depressing debates on record. The personal invective and behavior of Trump and avoidance of any positive elements or real substance made for an ugly debate and loss of time to address many foreign affairs key issues. This debate only confirmed that this format is a disaster and did not permit the candidates to fully address most of the key issues America and our allies face in a landscape filled with complex choices, instability, nuclear weapons and many high risks.
This debate started focusing on Trump’s previous behavior, but the debate made a new low in American politics. Trump brought up sordid elements that debased himself and dominated much of the debate. What it also clearly demonstrated was that Trump is unfit even as a decent human being, let alone fit to be Commander-in-Chief with his finger on the nuclear button.
Moderators permitted Trump especially to use his time and interfered with Clinton’s time to let him do inflammatory and off subject general personal attack statements. These included: Trump threatened to jail Clinton…….he said about e-mails: “You’d be in jail.” About Clinton and Obama, Trump said “Never been so many lies, so much deception….never been anything like this.”
He added “She has tremendous hate in her heart.” He said he would instruct “a Special Prosecutor to look into [her] situation” against Hillary. Trump also invoked extreme religious reference when expressing his shock of Bernie’s support for Clinton as “I was so surprised to see him sign on with the devil.” How does any of this help American understanding of key issues like nuclear weapons or climate change?
The thought that he might gain the power to send US forces mindlessly into harm’s way and alienating ourselves permanently through reckless actions, which he has already done from the statements of many key leaders around the world (as seen in our post on Voices Beyond Our Borders), is very disturbing. But his behavior in his personal life has already proved that he has no internal moral core, which should be a vital precondition for anyone to head the American government domestically or globally. His actions as well as his words all indicate that the man is either very stupid or mentally unbalanced. The debate only reinforced this judgement.
As for Clinton, on foreign and national security issues, she showed again a command of the issues and the problems the US faces abroad. But there was little time to get into details.
The problem with both the questions and the moderators, Anderson Cooper of CNN and Martha Raddatz from ABC, were that once again they did not get into or demand any real depth on most of these issues. Rather they permitted repeated statements by Trump to avoid any questions of his behavior and his substantive policies. They let Trump ramble on off topic statements while cutting off Clinton. This made the debate a bit more one sided than it would be with some real, fair discipline. They let Trump repeatedly interrupt Clinton even as she talked on serious issues. In sum, the candidates were not challenged or forced to reply to the questions asked except in one case, so we lost much insight about topics of great significance.
Perhaps the greatest cost of this display of utter coarseness and continued show of hate for much the world’s people especially women, Muslims, Latin Americans and beyond has threatened respect for and willingness to follow our leadership. How can anyone who is a true decent leader look to this brute of a man ever and give any respect or believe in his word? That does not and will not happen with Obama and nor for Clinton. Trump’s dark and brutish gutter talk only deepens fear abroad. His behavior along with his attacks and false accusations only contributed to the sense around the world that America itself has lost its way. People of substance abroad are asking how American politics could produce such a man of such abhorrent quality.
Looking at a Few Key Subjects That Were Raised or Not Raised with Commentary :
General Foreign Policy and Security:
This needs little commentary:
Trump cited “stupidity” of our foreign policy, but refused to give much specifics of how or what he would do.
Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control:
There was almost nothing said on nuclear weapons or arms control. The blame lies with the commentators and the networks that ran this debate that avoided real strategic issues and what direction they would take.
Trump – “But our nuclear program has fallen way behind, and they’ve gone wild with their nuclear program. Not good. Our government shouldn’t have allowed that to happen. Russia is new in terms of nuclear. We are old. We’re tired. We’re exhausted in terms of nuclear.”
Clinton – “I think wherever we can cooperate with Russia, that’s fine. And I did as secretary of state. That’s how we got a treaty reducing nuclear weapons [referencing coarsest New START treaty]. It’s how we got the sanctions on Iran that put a lid on the Iranian nuclear program without firing a single shot.”
Terrorism, Syria and Domestic Security Policy:
Trump once again took up terrorism as an attack in response to a question about hate statements about Muslims. Trump brought up again “extreme vetting” again citing the example of the refugees from Syria.
Clinton on the other hand made a strong case of accepting Muslims and not discriminating while saying that ISIS would be defeated and Trump played into the hands of terrorists. Clinton defended Syrian refugees while bringing them under tougher vetting.
On the question of Syria, Clinton said the situation was catastrophic and noted in the Aleppo bombing there is Russian determination to destroy Aleppo. She reaffirmed the need for a safe zone, that we need leverage over Russia, and to work with partners on the ground. Regarding the aggressiveness of Russia, she said that she stood up to Putin. She added that we should continue diplomacy and would hold Russia accountable for humanitarian crimes.
Trump did take up ISIS in the context of Syria and other nations like Libya but did little to enlighten onlookers with specifics of how he would address the multiplicity of terrorism threats. He gave the impression that he would be more aggressive without much specifics on how and at what risk or costs. Clinton did outline how she would deal with ISIS in Syria. She also noted that progress against ISIS was being made in both Syria and Iraq without putting our troops into danger.
Key quotes are:
Donald Trump – “I think Aleppo is a disaster, humanitarian-wise…I think that it basically has fallen”
Hillary Clinton – “I do think that there is a good chance that we can take Mosul….I would go after Baghdadi. I would specifically target Baghdadi, because I think our targeting of Al Qaeda leaders – and I was involved in a lot of those operations, highly classified ones – made a difference… I would also consider arming the Kurds. The Kurds have been our best partner in Syria, as well as Iraq.”
Building The Wall on Mexico’s Border and Relations with Latin America and US Latinos:
The coverage of this topic was, except for building “a strong border,” not deeply addressed and neither were the means and costs addressed except Trump said, as he has in the past, keep illegal immigrants out and send them back.
Donald Trump – “We’re going to have borders in our country, which we don’t have now…We have many criminal illegal aliens. When we want to send them back to their country, their country says we don’t want them. In some cases, they’re murderers, drug lords, drug problems. And they don’t want them. And Hillary Clinton, when she was secretary of state, said that’s OK, we can’t force it into their country. Let me tell you, I’m going to force them right back into their country. They’re murders and some very bad people.”
The Russia-Putin Challenge: NATO, Ukraine, Syria and Defense of Europe and EU Unity:
There was only very short mentions about Russia and Putin. There was no policy or specific approaches discussed or really asked by the unenlightened and unbalanced moderators. Clinton noted broadly she would be tough on Putin’s aggression. Trump, against reports to the contrary, said he had no interests in Russia. Other documents show Russian investors and his staff included a key advisor who helped the Russian-backed Ukrainian President as a political advisor. When Clinton said he could prove this by releasing his taxes, Trump went on an attack against Clinton not related to Russian influence.
International Trade, Global Economic Policy and Global Poverty and Inequality:
Trump again went after TTP and demonstrated he might close much of our trade with large parts of the world. Clinton did not engage in this subject in any specific way. Global poverty and inequality were never mentioned.
Climate Change and other Environmental Issues:
This topic was never really addressed. The only mention was in relation to the issue of the energy industry. Trump said he would support clean energy but clearly was in favor of expanding coal and other fossil fuels. Clinton argued in favor of using natural gas as a transition to reliance on green energy, which would help address the serious problem of climate change.
Asia: North Korea, China, Japan, South China Sea, South-East Asia Pakistan- India Conflict and Africa:
These topics were not asked about by the moderators and the subjects never came up in substance
We welcome your comments which can be posted here.
Visit our regularly up-dated Race to the White House section covering quotes, foreign affairs statements and policies of the presidential campaign candidates and parties.
RNS is also on twitter! Be sure to follow us @RNS_CIP
THE 2016 DEMOCRAT PLATFORM’S FOREIGN AND NATIONAL SECURITY POSITIONS:
GLOBAL CLIMATE LEADERSHIP
Harry C. Blaney III
Our final look at the Democratic Platform foreign and national security issues focuses on Climate Change and other international environmental issues. This topic like nuclear weapons is one of global “existential” consequences and deserves the highest level of attention and resources. In our previous look at the Republican platform and statements of “climate denial,” support of the most dirty form of energy, and ignoring the health consequences also of our own citizens in the process their policies are a model of concerted deliberate obstruction of any real effort to deal with our warming climate and its horrific consequences. The question now is does the Democratic Platform and the statements of Hillary Clinton clearly reflect a significant path towards avoiding cataclysmic outcomes of doing too little too late.
TEXT OF 2016 DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM:
Global Climate Leadership
Climate change poses an urgent and severe threat to our national security, and Democrats believe it would be a grave mistake for the United States to wait for another nation to take the lead in combating the global climate emergency. According to the military, climate change is a threat multiplier that is already contributing to new conflicts over resources, catastrophic natural disasters, and the degradation of vital ecosystems across the globe. While Donald Trump says that climate change is a “hoax” created by and for the Chinese, Democrats recognize the catastrophic consequences facing our country, our planet, and civilization.
We believe the United States must lead in forging a robust global solution to the climate crisis. We are committed to a national mobilization, and to leading a global effort to mobilize nations to address this threat on a scale not seen since World War II. In the first 100 days of the next administration, the President will convene a summit of the world’s best engineers, climate scientists, policy experts, activists, and indigenous communities to chart a course to solve the climate crisis. Our generation must lead the fight against climate change and we applaud President Obama’s leadership in forging the historic Paris climate change agreement. We will not only meet the goals we set in Paris, we will seek to exceed them and push other countries to do the same by slashing carbon pollution and rapidly driving down emissions of potent greenhouse gases like hydrofluorocarbons. We will support developing countries in their efforts to mitigate carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases, deploy more clean energy, and invest in climate resilience and adaptation.
As a proud Arctic nation, we are against putting the region at risk through drilling in the Arctic Ocean or the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Instead, while protecting our strategic interests, we will seek collaborative, science-based approaches to be good stewards of the rapidly changing Arctic region.
There can be little doubt about the difference between the Trump/GOP stance on climate change, on environmental stewardship, and on the proactive stance towards dealing with it on a global scale and the Democratic Party’s perspective. But here there is not much in terms of specifics except the promise to exceed the Paris goals which indeed is necessary to stave off massive damage to life and economies, especially those with coastlines. The calling of a major conference in 100 days is fine but unless there is a willingness to put on the table major resources, work with others, and come away with hard commitments, too many meetings end without real follow-on. I say this as a person who worked hard in this area while in government to get binding treaties in these areas.
There are no pledges of specific levels of resources in the platform, or levels of Green House gasses that will be eliminated by transportation, burning of coal for energy nor of dealing with a harmful environmental trend in our oceans. Nor is there any specific indication of how to protect key rain forests that are important to getting C02 out of our atmosphere, and setting specific priorities in terms of slowing carbon emissions and how much to invest in clean energy. The media and citizens need to ask these specific questions of our candidates.
I know that Platforms are designed to make people feel something will be done and set general goals but not alienate some blocs of voters with narrow perspectives and interests with hard specifics as to how and at what cost. But after decades of debate the time has come to very much get to very specific programmatic promised actions.
But as noted, the differences here are choices between a party acting to address these challenges and the party of anti-science, pro-unlimited polluting of our environment no matter the health costs to our people and the deaths they cause, coupled with the pernicious interests of the “old” energy companies especially coal. We need to add the influence of what I call “bought ideologues” on the far right our wrongheaded advocates for doing nothing, along with conservative business interests and the pliant media who refuse to tell the truth on climate science. There is little doubt we need a party that is dedicated to some significant action and acknowledges the problem and wants to really fix it for the sake our on-coming generation and survival of a livable planet.
What will be interesting in the coming months is whether this topic will resonate in all the hubbub of this election season.
We welcome your comments in the box below our post!!!!
In this series, we will be looking at positions taken by the Republican Party in their 2016 Platform on issues pertaining to national security. First up is climate change.
Information concerning a changing climate, especially projections into the long-range future, must be based on dispassionate analysis of hard data. We will enforce that standard throughout the executive branch, among civil servants and presidential appointees alike. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy. We will evaluate its recommendations accordingly. We reject the agendas of both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which represent only the personal commitments of their signatories; no such agreement can be binding upon the United States until it is submitted to and ratified by the Senate. We demand an immediate halt to U.S. funding for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in accordance with the 1994 Foreign Relations Authorization Act. That law prohibits Washington from giving any money to “any affiliated organization of the United Nations” which grants Palestinians membership as a state. There is no ambiguity in that language. It would be illegal for the President to follow through on his intention to provide millions in funding for the UNFCCC and hundreds of millions for its Green Climate Fund. We firmly believe environmental problems are best solved by giving incentives for human ingenuity and the development of new technologies, not through top-down, command-and-control regulations that stifle economic thousands of jobs.
This is probably the most dangerous and stupid stance any political party can take on the threatening issue of global climate change, which both imperils the entire globe and which is accepted by almost every reputable scientist and organization in the world. This rejection of every climate change agreement including the key recent Paris Agreement and the threats to destroy every effort that the world has taken to protect our environment are irresponsible and beyond belief. It shows that indeed the inmates have taken over the asylum and the modern Republican Party is dictated by the crazies and the major oil companies and that mankind and our ecosystem are the losers. I am left aghast at what kind of Kool-Aid the Republican leaders are drinking, but it is for future generations that I fear for the most.
“All local leaders, investors, economic and social actors, citizens, must understand that the things have changed.” –Hollande
“We are the first generation to feel climate change and the last that can do something about it.” –President Obama
Harry C. Blaney III
With the opening in Paris of the 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) the ecological stakes are the highest, not just for dealing with the serious catastrophic impact of climate change, but also the ability of the international community to deal with high existential risks for the entire planet. As President Obama has noted, this generation is the last that can possibly make a difference. But frankly, if participating parties do not all contribute to mitigating the danger, and let bitterness and self-interest overcome the common peril, then we are doomed.
As a person who has held positions in government that dealt with global environmental issues, and wrote about climate change four decades ago as part of what I characterized then as a “world at risk,” we are still sadly debating the reality of this at home, and even abroad. There are strong moneyed groups that are not just “climate deniers” but actively working to destroy any effort to acknowledge the problem and above all do anything about it.
The hopes are that somehow an agreement can be reach and likely some document will emerge but will it be enough to really have people and nations and institutions and the world’s power brokers on board? That last question in not likely to be answered for another decade. But you will know when each country adds or does not add to the resources necessary to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gasses and adds to the technology that can replace fossil fuel, and our oceans and forests are protected and made whole.
To simplify, somewhat, a very complicated problem, can’t be solved by just one action like a carbon tax, or one country like China or America taking initiative. The path towards addressing climate change is doing globally a million things, doing them well, and doing them as quickly as possible.
The reason to care is very simple; we are at the 11th hour of acting and beyond that is total disaster from the analysis of the best minds in this field on the globe. Yet if one had to bet, it is now sadly possible that the Paris negotiations will fail as we see initially a repeat of some of the vindictive and inaction that took place in the last meeting in Copenhagen. People came to avoid action and accuse others, and did nothing themselves. But from the speeches and some early indication progress and perhaps compromise, may yet emerge. The earth has already paid a price in floods, droughts, hurricanes, heat waves, starvation, spread of disease, loss of forests, and habitat for the earth’s diverse species on land and in the ocean.
Yet, our global political and institutional system was not, and may not be up to the task of acting together and with the necessary political and economic commitment to get the job done. I’d first blame weak leaders and the corrosive and myopic politics back home, not only in America but in many other countries as well. But equally, one could attribute the blame then and now to the powerful forces of the “polluters,” corrupt politicians, and countries and companies that profit from dirty energy, the destruction of forests, and the plundering of the ocean’s resources.
Real progress will not be made unless we recognize and act in light of today’s realities of what is possible and what can be achieved via some compromise.
The second factor that needs to be highlighted is recognizing the absolute actions that are necessary to get the world community on a clear path towards sustainability, and “institutionalizing” the process of stewardship of the earth beyond words and pieces of paper.
Here are some key points the reader can look for that may indicate we have returned to some rationality:
– The first is to recognize what ,in reality, a country or a political leader can or cannot do and work to maximize what is possible. For example, President Obama will never get the Senate to ratify a binding Climate Change treaty. But what he can do, and is doing is by executive authority and regulatory power, and diplomacy is achieving significant reductions in greenhouse gasses. So some countries are trying to find a modality that will permit less than “legal” commitments to achieve the necessary reductions.
– The second reality is the need to go beyond the old destructive North-South divide and the useless blame game that some developing nations are playing to push the whole effort of solving climate change upon the “rich countries,” and absolving themselves thereby of doing nothing but asking for amounts of money they are not likely to get. And on the other hand, the need for the “rich” countries to recognize that real major support for the transition to a clean energy economy in the developing world will not take place without some external significant investment, probably from public and private sources, the EU, World Bank, and IMF. Sadly, it is unlikely that the Republican dominated climate denial Congress will add much to this effort and “other ways” will need to be found to contribute to a “global solution.” If both sides accept they ALL must make a concrete effort instead of throwing bricks at each other, and recognize that the developing world is most vulnerable, will we make real progress.
– The third outcome that one needs to look at is the acceptance of the need to reform or create new capabilities and responsibilities and resources on a broad international institutional scale that empowers old or new institutions to undertake major global commons repair and renewal. The creation of the most transparent and reliable organization to hold countries and institutions accountable for their actions or in-actions on a frequent basis, staffed by the most prestigious scientists, economists, and other experts, led by the highest profile hard headed global leader available, is also necessary.
There are clearly a thousand things that need to be done, like bring forth new clean technologies, restore denuded forests, invest in closing down dirty energy sources as quickly as possible, make cars and planes more efficient and less polluting, put in place more quickly and efficient machinery and conserving resources, making houses, buildings, and factories more conserving of energy, etc. Great strives have been made by London School of Economics scholars among others, in indicating that such efforts can be economic, grow our economies, and even save in the long run our earth and make our societies more sustainable.
In the coming days, the indicator of success and failure or in between, will emerge but in Pogo’s words “it is us” that must take responsibility if we are to save our next generation, and those that follow. Diplomacy and leadership is now key. Keep watch.
Please click on the title of this post where we welcome your comments!