Bill: "We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy" to Fight Global Warming

[jefferson_dem]

Bill: "We Just Have to Slow Down Our Economy" to Fight Global Warming
January 31, 2008 9:26 AM

Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"?

I don't really think there's much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?

He went on to say that his the U.S. -- and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases -- could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan..

So there was something of a contradiction there.

Or perhaps he mis-spoke.

Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn't a worldwide effort…I'm not quite certain.

<SNIP>

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bill-we-just-ha.html

[mac2]

1. I don't agree Bill on a slow down.

We have Congress and Bush to do that.

Gore said we could profit and have jobs related to recycling, etc.

How about talking about population control or would the clergy get bent out of shape? Can't anger the religiously insane can we?

[Maribelle]

6. Maybe you don't, but Al Gore does

consume less
buy things that last
pre-cycle
reduce waste
re-cycle
bag your groceries
purchase in resuable totes
compost
carry refillable bottles
less meat
buy local

[karynnj]

21. That's why I saw Kerry's way of framing the issue better than Gore's

(See #10) Also in 2004, Luntz found that the Kerry statement when speaking of alternative fuels/environment that scored higher than any other thing that any Democrat was saying at that time was that the action of finding more effecient technologies and alternative fuels cut our dependence on the middle east where our energy purchases sometimes fund hostile regimes.

Kerry spoke of how developing the new technologies and new products would create new good jobs because they are products that will sell here and abroad. He gave a great example on his book tour. HP was going to build a plant overseas instead of the US. They were pushed to consult with people on the feasibility of building an energy efficient plant that would lower the cost of the US alternative. This worked and the plant was built in the US - saving those jobs and creating an example for other companies of saving costs and improving the economy.

I think that there may come a time where even the best science can do is not enough. In a Senate speech, Kerry also defended the estimated 1% of GDP to fight global warming using two arguments:
1) The cost of doing nothing, per the British government's Stern report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096084.stm) is not zero, but very high - likely higher than the cost needed to fight global warming.
2) That taking the actions needed to fight global warming has many positive side effects - cleaner air and water, thus better health; less dependence on an unstable Middle East and the boost that spending on research leads to.

Kerry is not running, but he is a leader in this area. His words on this got little notice in 2004 - though he spoke of it every day. It would be good for Clinton or Obama to look at the ways Kerry spoke of it in 2004 and since. They could likely adapt much of the way he made the case to their own style.

[msongs]

2. dear obamanistas - bill Clinton is not running for president nt

[MoJoWorkin]

5. Sure he is---in his own mind and in a lot of voters minds.

We don't need a battle royale within the White House over who is going to make the decisions, and I fear that is EXACTLY what will happen if BIllary wins.

[pdxmom]

7. He was stumping for his wife. His words are representing her. N/T

[KittyWampus]

12. he sure is. just cause we are ALL uncomfortable about it doesn't mean we should deny the facts.

[Tellurian]

22. What facts? That you and MoJoWorkin make your decisions based on "fear"..

Thats a Big Red Flag whenever anyone sees a post based on : "I'm afraid"..then another poster popping us seconding that fear... Certainly a way to quickly discount your opinion. We like opinions based on "fact"..not fear!

[milkyway]

26. Only because he can't legally put his name on the ballot along with hers. But they've made it clear

it would be a co-presidency, and he is a candidate. They only muffled him when there was a strong reaction against this idea. Do you really think he'll be nothing more than a figurehead in a Clinton adminstration?

Hillary Clinton: the first female to ever have her husband win her the presidency.

[NashVegas]

3. We Need to Let Our Economy Do What It Will For a Lot of Reasons

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm a little tired of the Habitrail Wheel.

Having to have a buzzing economy is a direct cause of the housing meltdown that's happening right now, and will continue to happen again and again if the Fed doesn't stop fucking around with the prime rate.

[Maribelle]

4. An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore page 314 - - Consume less

perhaps you need to educate youself more befor you go bashing Clinton on this.

[jefferson_dem]

13. Is less consumption and conservation necessarily inversely related to economic "progress"?

Of course not.

Another stupid statement by Bill.

[Maribelle]

19. Less consumption is certainly directly related to a slowing economy. Even Bush knows better.

Bush has pushed hard to spur the economy by encouraging folks to go out and shop.

[KittyWampus]

14. consuming less doesn't mean slowing the economy. It means transforming it.

[Maribelle]

17. Wrong.

Give it up.

[george_maniakes]

8. Bill is right...bill is NOT saying that we have to have high unemployment...

to fight GW, hes just stating what others are either too afraid to say for political reasons or are making too much money from the way things are that they dont care: that we gotta start making some hard choices. I wish this was the bill clinton that was campaigning for his wife after iowa, its the guy we like, or i like anyways. I just dont know what caused that campaign to act the way it did from iowa to south carolina.

[pdxmom]

9. Poor choice of words on his part, considering what the public perceives. He

should have said "consume less" and specified recycling, reusables, etc. The public currently perceives that the economy is on a downturn and a slowdown and that has become their primary concern, if you believe the polls. I don't think it was smart on Bill's part to use the term "slow down the economy", given the current climate.

[george_maniakes]

11. I think he used the right phrase in that people have to understand there will be....

hard choices to make if this issue will really be taken care of, or just constantly pushed back and left for the next generation to take care of.

[pdxmom]

16. I understand what you're saying, but the point, at the moment, is

to win the primaries. And then the GE. You can couch the language for now, then put it in the black and white at a later time. I just don't think that it was a good choice of words for the campaign. Perfect choice of words after the campaign for bringing the message truly home.

[george_maniakes]

18. wouldnt you agree than that clinton is at least being more honest about this...

issue than others, who do couch the language?

[pdxmom]

20. I think that putting it in terms of buy less, recycle, etc. would

be saying the same thing without causing a knee-jerk reaction from those that would use it. It's a campaign and I wouldn't feel that him using that language would have been less honest at all. I see it as saying "I'm not sure I like that shade of green on you" instead of "That's a butt-ugly dress". I guess I'm just thinking strategically and looking ahead. You can guarantee that if Hillary herself had said it, you'd hear that clip in an ad every day during the GE, saying that Hillary thinks an economic slowdown is good for you.

[george_maniakes]

24. I googled "ugly green dress" ...this is what i found

[pdxmom]

27. I don't think that color of green would look very good on me. N/T

[beachmom]

10. That is the opposite of what Kerry has been saying. Kerry says

that combatting global warming actually has the potential to GROW our economy. How? By American invention and ingenuity, coming up with technology that is clean energy. A LOT of money can be made on this both in America and abroad. This is the equivalent of going to the moon. We need a leader who will ask this to happen.

What this statement by Bill Clinton tells me is that if the going gets tough (and it will), the Clintons will do nothing on global climate change. They have stamped it in a right wing frame, which means when the R's get mean, they'll capitulate.

Thanks for posting.

[KittyWampus]

15. That's because Clintons are afraid of the word of "Transforming". Good forbid the economic structure

change in such a fundamental way that his corporate cronies have to cede power.

And I frankly don't know what Obama would say on that topic or how willing he'd be to actually make such changes.

[Rockerdem]

23. What irony

Bad stewardship of the economy means that Bush is unintentionally solving the problem that he is in denial of.

[agdlp]

25. Debunking ABCNEWS Swiftboating Bill Clinton. He never proposed to slow down our ecomy. What a lie !!

Well, lets deal with the facts shall we ?


In the video from the speech:
http://mfile.akamai.com/12930/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2008/01...

we go to 13:17:

And Bill Clinton Says this:
****************************************************************************************

This might be the most important thing that I have to say to you about why I believe you should support Hillary.

Everybody knows, everybody knows that global warming is real. That’s why Al Gore got the Nobel Prize right, but we cannot solve it alone.

****************************************************************************************
And maybe America, Europe and Japan, Canada, the rich countries in the world, would say...
Okay...we just have to slow down our economy, and cut back our green gass emisions, because we got to save the planet for our grandchildren.

We can do that, but if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia, and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and Ukraine, and all the other countries that is coming behind us, they will never agree to stay pore. To save the planet for our grandchildren.

The only way we can do this, is if we, get back in the worlds fight against global warming, and prove it’s good economics, that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren.

***************************************************************************************
It’s the only way it will work. And guess what?

The only places in the world today, in rich countries were you have rising wages, and declining inequality, are the places that have generated more jobs, and in rich countries because they made a comitment that we didnt

They got serious about a clean, efficient, green, independent, energy future. A post carbon energy future.

If you want that in America, if you want the millions of jobs, that will come from it, if you would like to see a new energy trust found, to finance solar every, and wind energy, and geo thermo and bio mass, and responsible bio fuels, and electric hybrid pluggin vehicles, that will soon get a 100 miles a gallon.

If you want every facility in this country, to be made maximum energy efficient, that will create millions, and millions, millions, and millions of new jobs, vote for HER.