Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Climate Czar Has Socialist Ties
The Washington Times ^ | January 12, 2009 | Stephen Dinan

Posted on 01/12/2009 6:16:43 AM PST by kellynla

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.

Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.

The group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization's action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Obama, who has said action on climate change would be a priority in his administration, tapped Mrs. Browner last month to fill a new position as White House coordinator of climate and energy policies. The appointment does not need Senate confirmation.

Mr. Obama's transition team said Mrs. Browner's membership in the organization is not a problem and that it brings experience in U.S. policymaking to her new role.

"The Commission for a Sustainable World Society includes world leaders from a variety of political parties, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who succeeded Tony Blair, in serving as vice president of the convening organization," Obama transition spokesman Nick Shapiro said.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: broner; browner; climate; climatechange; globalwarming; obama; socialism; socialist
"Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P.J.O'Rourke
1 posted on 01/12/2009 6:16:46 AM PST by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Obama Climate Czar Has Socialist Ties

You can say this about anyone in the Obama administration. They're all tied to Obama.

2 posted on 01/12/2009 6:21:59 AM PST by The_Victor (If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Cheddar Cat

Considering the media has been successful in branding Crony Capitalism as a “free market” it’s not surprising that more and more Americans “prefer” Socialism.


4 posted on 01/12/2009 6:24:30 AM PST by Boiling Pots (The USA has become one huge pyramid scheme. Thanks George, John, Nancy and Harry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

I am shocked! SHOCKED! that a “climate czar” would be a socialist.

Actually, show me someone that supports the idea of AGW that isn’t a socialist at heart,

and THEN I’ll be shocked.


5 posted on 01/12/2009 6:26:40 AM PST by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, Thuggery, and Censorship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Under the Bus
6 posted on 01/12/2009 6:28:11 AM PST by End_Clintonism_Now (POLITICAL DISSIDENT as of 11/4/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Obama Climate Czar Has Socialist Ties

THIS is news?

I thought everyone knew by now that virtually EVERYONE who is even peripherally associated with the Obamessiah has "Socialist ties".

7 posted on 01/12/2009 6:29:59 AM PST by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Hussein is simply not the president. Period.


8 posted on 01/12/2009 6:40:35 AM PST by Dallas59 (Not My President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheddar Cat

Excuse me but the USA just went Socialist. Big time. Once the moochers do not get any freebies who know what they will do.


9 posted on 01/12/2009 6:45:19 AM PST by screaminsunshine (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

I plan to refer to him as the Present.


10 posted on 01/12/2009 6:46:01 AM PST by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (If you want Palin in 2012, better start closing those primaries now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Why are we suddenly calling American officials, “czars”??


11 posted on 01/12/2009 6:51:11 AM PST by St. Louis Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Just another small step in the direction of “WEALTH REDISTRIBUION” that this country has signed up for—by electing Hussein.


12 posted on 01/12/2009 6:59:54 AM PST by stockstrader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Mr. Obama, who has said action on climate change would be a priority in his administration, tapped Mrs. Browner last month to fill a new position as White House coordinator of climate and energy policies.

NEW POSITION???

Our government just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

That's just what we need--more and more bureaucracy. Yep, that is CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN. /s

13 posted on 01/12/2009 7:03:05 AM PST by stockstrader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 668 - Neighbor of the Beast

Present Obama. I like it.


14 posted on 01/12/2009 7:10:04 AM PST by VR-21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Here’s just another Clintonista—why are we surprised she’s a Commie???


15 posted on 01/12/2009 7:15:11 AM PST by browniexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

And that they are all associated with Hillary!


16 posted on 01/12/2009 7:15:49 AM PST by browniexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

17 posted on 01/12/2009 7:50:10 AM PST by GalaxieFiveHundred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

“global governance”......Oh yeah!...just what we need with the U.S. taxpayer picking up the tab!


18 posted on 01/12/2009 7:51:58 AM PST by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

I'm looking in my Constitution for something that empowers the President to put somebody in charge of the weather...

19 posted on 01/12/2009 8:16:07 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to manage by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

We elected a PRESIDENT with socialist ties, what else should we expect?


20 posted on 01/12/2009 8:26:29 AM PST by Hatteras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

(Anyone surprised?)


21 posted on 01/12/2009 8:33:06 AM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
The Obama Objective

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

Barak Obama, May 17, 2008 while speaking in Oregon prior to the primary election the following Tuesday.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TonyBlankley/2008/06/11/who_is_obama_where_is_the_press

This has been the plan for a long time - next is from 1997.

The Way Ahead
Our Planet 9.1
June 1997

Now the rich must adjust

SHRIDATH RAMPHAL says it is the turn of affluent countries to embrace the discipline of structural adjustment if the crisis over consumption and resources is to be addressed

There is little cause for pride on the world's score-card five years after Rio - and still less for complacency. It is worthy neither of the process of the Earth Summit itself, nor of its promises, qualified as they were. Five years on, humanity barely earns an 'E' for effort. Astonishing, when it is all about survival. Yet we still claim to be Homo sapiens.

In the review of progress now being undertaken by the international community, there is a case for weighing up developments on all the separate issues that together make up the environmental problem facing the world - and for being concerned with the detail. But there is also a danger that, engrossed in the detail, we may miss the larger picture, and that in focusing on a number of issues, however important, we might lose sight of the big one.

The big issue posed by the challenge of environment is that of resources versus consumption. The crux of sustainable development is to order global development in such a way that its impact on the Earth's resources does not imperil the life chances of those who will follow us. We who live now do not have freehold rights to the Earth's ecological capital: we are only tenants with temporary custody and the moral obligation to act as responsible trustees. We say this almost rhetorically; we do not live by its precepts.

Resources, and how we use them, are at the heart of most of our environmental problems. There are questions about the world's continuing capacity to produce the food - grain, fish, meat - needed for an expanding population. There has been worry that water scarcities could become dangerously acute. There are signs that the modern world's love affair with the motor vehicle is coming under strain. Concern has been expressed about land, energy, raw materials, wastes, pollution.

Environmental disquiet has undoubtedly spurred action on all these - and other - fronts. But the push for growth, the drive to increase the gross domestic product, goes inexorably on, as if it had no link to all these other issues. It is assumed without question that people in even the most affluent countries must have a higher standard of material well-being year after year - and that this process of enrichment must go on without interruption, without end.

The impulse to achieve economic growth is natural and necessary in poorer countries. Living standards are, on average, much lower, and many hundreds of millions of their people are still to be lifted out of the most abject poverty and deprivation. The dazzling performance of some developing nations, primarily the 'Asian Tigers', has tended to obscure the stubborn persistence of poverty. The success of these countries notwithstanding, the poor are not only still with us, but now with us in larger numbers than ever.

Globalization may have transformed the world economy in many respects but there are parts it has not reached, people it has not touched, and others it has affected not to enrich, but to impoverish. As many as 1.6 billion people - more than a fourth of the world population - are poorer than they were 15 years ago, says the United Nations Development Programme. In 19 countries, people are poorer than they were 35 years ago. Not for them the easy assumption that living standards would continue to improve from year to year; the hard reality has been that their incomes, meagre as they are, have gone on falling, year after year.

Roughly three-quarters of the world's people live in developing countries - but, because they are poor, they account for only a quarter of the world's consumption. Their living standards urgently demand to be raised, not least so that their basic needs of food, health, education and shelter may not remain unfulfilled. They have as much right to the use of the world's resources as any other of the world's people. But if total world consumption cannot be increased without running down the world's ecological capital, poor countries can only have a larger slice of the pie if rich countries are ready to countenance a different distribution - and adjust to a smaller share for themselves. Need to adjust For over two decades the world's financial institutions - and the industrial nations that control them - have prescribed structural adjustment to poor countries, who have had little choice but to take this medicine to recover their economic health. Now the world's ecological health - and therefore the interests of all humankind - requires a similar prescription for the rich. They need to undertake adjustment - to a lower level of consumption, to a more equitable distribution of resources, to an acceptance that economic growth cannot be boundless. How industrial countries respond to the need for adjustment on their part is becoming increasingly vital to our common future on planet Earth. That is how the big issue of resources versus consumption now confronts us.

So far there is no evidence that this issue is being faced seriously. Some developments suggest that people in industrial societies are becoming aware that growth cannot continue unchecked, at least in some fields. There is, for instance, enlarging resistance to the encroachments of motor vehicles; protests against new motorways are no longer rare, nor are demands for car-free zones. But these local expressions of civic impatience do not add up to a general acknowledgement that environmental dangers require affluent countries to embrace the discipline of adjustment. Crucial impact So far in the global discussion of our environmental predicament, the tendency has been to put the focus on human numbers, on population growth, as the crucial source of environmental stress. Population is undoubtedly part of the picture, and the developing world, where the growth in numbers is predominantly taking place, must hold its growth down. But it is through consumption that people impact on the environment, and because people in industrial countries consume much more per head, the one-quarter of the world population living in them presses far more heavily on the environment than the poorer three-quarters who live in the developing world.

Five years after Rio, we need a wider acceptance that how much we consume - and therefore how aggressively, and often unthinkingly, we go for growth - is critical to our common future on this planet.

Sir Shridath Ramphal, for 15 years Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, is Co-Chairman of the Commission on Global Governance, and author of Our Country, The Planet, written for the Earth Summit.

22 posted on 01/12/2009 11:03:15 AM PST by StopGlobalWhining (Only 3 1/2-5% of atmospheric CO2 is the result of human activities. 95-96.5% is from natural sources)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; calcowgirl; Horusra; CygnusXI; Entrepreneur; Defendingliberty; WL-law; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

23 posted on 01/12/2009 12:11:56 PM PST by steelyourfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson