Skip to comments.Obama Climate Czar Has Socialist Ties
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 ...
You can say this about anyone in the Obama administration. They're all tied to Obama.
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.
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.
THIS is news?
I thought everyone knew by now that virtually EVERYONE who is even peripherally associated with the Obamessiah has "Socialist ties".
Hussein is simply not the president. Period.
Excuse me but the USA just went Socialist. Big time. Once the moochers do not get any freebies who know what they will do.
I plan to refer to him as the Present.
Why are we suddenly calling American officials, “czars”??
Just another small step in the direction of “WEALTH REDISTRIBUION” that this country has signed up for—by electing Hussein.
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
Present Obama. I like it.
Here’s just another Clintonista—why are we surprised she’s a Commie???
And that they are all associated with Hillary!
“global governance”......Oh yeah!...just what we need with the U.S. taxpayer picking up the tab!
I'm looking in my Constitution for something that empowers the President to put somebody in charge of the weather...
We elected a PRESIDENT with socialist ties, what else should we expect?
"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.
This has been the plan for a long time - next is from 1997.
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.
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.