Eleina
Eleina is a member of ECO Singapore, hoping to bring forward the gravity of the climate change issue in Copenhagen this December. The group is part of the International Youth Climate Movement (IYCM) at the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) 15th Conference of Parties (COP15).
So far, many view Obama as being a leader who wants to push for climate change but his hands are tied due to the requirement of needing an agreement by the Congress for any legislation to be passed, i.e. to be ratified by 67 senators.
However, this does not reflect the actuality. Obama can work towards reducing emission if he truly wants to. Through an alternative mechanism called Executive Agreements, Obama can choose to act unilaterally through a ‘sole executive agreement’ or a ‘legislative executive agreement’ which have been employed before by former presidents for various issues.
This was the basis of arguments made by lawyer Ms Kassie Siegel. Obama can act if he wants to. So why isn’t he?
Further, what caught my attention was Marcelo Furtado from Greenpeace statement that though the American’s elected Obama as their president, at the same time during the elections, the global community elected a ‘moral leader’ through him. And it’s time Obama plays the role we expect him to.
True, Obama won the hearts of many (the man won a Nobel prize within a year of being president!). Now it seems that the world has pinned their hopes on a man they believe would be the answer to the leadership the world needs.
My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process…”
- US President Barack Obama (2008)
But is Obama really the leader we should look at for strategic moves against climate change? Is Obama morally answerable to the international community? More importantly, we should consider: who is Obama dependent on?
During the elections last year, when Americans elected their president, they focused not on what he would do for the world but in light of the economic crisis among other problems the US faced, they focused on what he would do for them.
Thus, I believe the pressure shouldn’t be placed on Obama’s shoulders. He is NOT the person we are dependent on. Rather, the pressure is on the Americans to act. The persons we are dependent on are the people of the United States of America.
The people have to see that Climate Change is their issue too. It is not a spoof but it is real and it’s time they stepped up and supported their president on this. Only will a nation wide support force the Congress to give in, or a leeway for Obama to deliver.
This, to me, is crucial. As moral as Obama may want to be, he is dependent and answerable on his people. According to a survey done by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, fewer Americans are seeing global warming as a serious problem falling from 44% in April 2008 to 35% in October 2009. This is not surprising.
Quoting the Worldwatch institute, ‘Americans have been subjected to many confusing messages this year from conservative media, fossil fuel-dependent industries, and politicians who question the scientific certainty of climate change’. Furthermore, members of the Congress are being lobbied more by those who oppose climate legislations rather than its supporters.
Though, as argued as by Ms Siegal, Obama has been given flexibility in passing bills to support his aims which is constitutionally provided, his hands are indeed tied by the majority who do not believe in the cause. It is within this that our solution lies.
This article was originally published at http://unfcccecosingapore.wordpress.com/
Read also: Press Conference by US Chief Climate Change Negotiator
Read also: US outlines dual-path plan for climate change action
I analysed Obama.
He did not speak a word on the plight of the opposition.
My analysis has nothing to do with Climate change. Sorry. But that is my personal analysis of Obama.
One thing he did right was to donate the Nobel prize award of more than 1 million usd. Not all leaders donate like this. Some just want to count the zeroes in his bank.
Obama’s rating is going down in 2010.
I don’t see any difference between him and bush.
Aiyaah!,what is there to analyze?Americans at this point in time only concern of one
thing:bread and butter issues.More than 10% of the population are unemployed and
the rest are left dangling onto their current jobs.Who cares about what those
elitists in Copenhagen thinks, as most of them are not Americans.Even if ‘green’
policies are being implemented right now,it takes yrs to see a transition of new
‘green jobs in to the society.
Mr.Obama can do either one of these two things.He can ramp thru the bill
by means of executive order and face the consequence of being one term president.
Or he can just tinker or water-down the whole darned thing and wait for his 2nd term in office.Remember,he is a typical politician who wants to hold onto power and play politricks with his electorates.Anybody can talk the talk.Can Mr.OBAMA
walk the walk?That is a trillion dollar question.
I think the expectations pinned on Obama is kind of overwhelming; it’s like they expect him to be a saviour and solve every single issue with a wave of his hand. And comparing him with Bush? I have to disregard further remarks once that statement is made. It has only been almost a year since Obama started his presidency, and he has done some good within his nation (push for healthcare reforms) and is doing more now.
On climate change issues in America, the solutions are still too vague and the economy too poor currently to have people want the government to do more regarding unemployment. It is pretty much a vicious cycle (solutions too vague, lack of government funding in eco areas, no change in unemployment rate in that area in short term). But the issue is still important and needs the support of the world right now.
Obama may still be another politician, but including himself, I doubt every single person in Congress is in it for their personal gain. I have no doubt he would deliver on his promise to have in place a long-term place in terms of climate change, and for which I really hope he would, but I would not be surprised if the priority drops because of the economy he has still to fix.
Most important note is that this is an issue the entire world needs to face up to, not make Obama/US the leader to follow. Why depend on Americans to push Obama for change? Why not every single one of us push our own government for it?
The era of America as a power house is ending and future solutions to any world problem will come from the European Union.Even the present conflicts in the middle east,America will not be the peace maker as before.Yap!,we should not depend
solely on America and its president to deliver the goods for us.
that is why over a year ago, when people in the united states around the world are hanging on to every word obama was saying, i said that it will be a disaster when obama became the president. like bush, he’s just another puppet with a different colour. no one person can change everything, that’s the mistake most people made believing in “change, yes we can”
i’m not sure what good has he done. if i’m an american i’d be pissed. the healthcare reform? haha of course he’s pushing for that, look up at what he did between 2003-2005.
funny thing is, as obama’s rating in america goes down, his rating around the world, including in singapore, goes up.
hi preston
I think u hit the bulleye when u said obama’s hand is tied.
“ramp.. bill by… executive order and face… being one term president”.
Theortically speaking, obama can ramp the climate legislation thru if he needs to. But tat will be disastrious for his re-election prospect. Worst still, his democratic party will go down with him in the mid-2010 congress election if obama decides to force his will on his people.
He is now busying convincing his fellow americans to accept his HIGHLY UNPOPULAR health reforms, financial reforms plus his escalation of war in Afghanistan.
I suppose that Eleina should have realised the political cost obama needs to bear if he choose to “act unilaterally through… a ‘legislative executive agreement’”.
To even write article, I can only say that her idea is naive.
When the Nobel committee awarded obama the peace award, it is not for his accomplishments but rather for his vision of peace for the future.
Obama’s ideals are all very noble: anti-nukes, green movement, universal healthcare for all, monetary regulatory to prevent another financial crisis, bababa…
But EVERY SINGLE LEGISLATION of his white house administration had been vigorously opposed by the GOP in the congress and the opposition are gaining momentum due to poor economy outlook and high unemployment in USA.
If Obama decides to enact legislation by a ‘legislative executive agreement’ or by mean of Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pollution enforcement, then I hope I can restate my point plainly enough,…it will be a POLITICAL SUICIDE.
This event will be what Michael Steele and his buddies hope for.
In my earlier posts, I may have divert from the key message of this article. I believe the key point is this:
“Obama… is NOT the person we are dependent on. The persons we are dependent on are the people of the United States of America… It is within this that our solution lies.”
I agree with the general idea that the public opinion in USA must change for its government to tackle the climate change effectively.
But keep in mind that there is this big group of conservatives in central and south USA. These people like to watch Fox News and listen to Glenn Beck. I can tell you that saving Mother Earth is not their top priority right now. Heck, it is not even a priority for majority of americans.
I posted a comment on a US online news journal once to inform the americans about our nationalised healthcare system in Singapore. I can’t believe that some americans told me that it is not their business to take care of the uninsured sicks because universal healthcare is not provided for in their beloved Constitution.
Fyi, the “right to bear guns” is written in the US Constitution. And the republicans are damn proud of it.
it IS their 2nd amendment rights to bear arms, what’s wrong with that?
people have this misconception that the world will be safer without firearms, is that really true? safer for who? safer for tyrannical governments. safer for criminals who do not give up their firearms. when that happen, will the ordinary folks be safer without any firearms to defend themselves against these people?
Hi niagara
Have u watch “bowling for columbine”? Massacre is wat will happen when government let ordinary folks bear guns for leisure and “self protection”.
Gun violence is a serious issue with more than 10 thousands deaths per year in USA. This statistic is much higher than any other developed country in the world.
Like many countries that ban public sales of arms, Singapore is safe place to live in.
I dun wanna be shot if I am having a heated argument with someone else. I dun do that when I travelled in USA or Philippines because u never know if the other party has a gun with him.
Btw, I was threatened by a cab driver with a gun in Manila, Philippines some years back because we had an argument over the cab fare.
I was with some friends when we boarded the cab. The fare was agreed with the driver before the trip. But the driver asked for more money at the end of the trip.
Of course, we refused to pay higher fare to the driver. But our argument ended abruptly when he showed us his gun.
haha norman, our peace and loving friend. and no i have not watched the movie you mentioned.
you are talking about people who will abuse it. a man with an intent will go and find a gun or a weapon irregardless of the law.
yes singapore is fairly safe. i am talking in context of america. it is their right to bear arms, i don’t see any wrong with that.
if you are someone about to commit a crime, you would think twice if you know your potential victim is armed. but if you know your potential victim is not armed due to the law, you will not really think twice in that aspect.
i respect that we have different views, i’m one of those who view no guns = no freedom. maybe many people are comfortable living under a socialist or “socialist” state or government, if it is fine with them then it is fine with me.
i’m aware that the united nations are pushing for the ban of arms around the world. if you look at what happened in australia and england, their crime rates actually went UP after the banning of firearms.
you will see what will happen when obama take away the american 2nd amendment rights, he’s pushing for it, and you will see what happen, very soon.
i’m talking about owning a small firearm for protection, not build an amoury of rocket launches.
this is my opinion, banning guns will not stop criminals, but at the same time will leave innocent victims defenseless. i understand that we all want to be peace leaving human being. but i think you’re a fool if you think you can fight tyranny with “peace and love”.
I respect ur view “no guns = no freedom”.
I thank you for respecting mine even though I dun believe that civilians bearing guns is the right way to stop or even to reduce crimes.
America is not under tyranny, so I dun think tyranny and gun violence in USA is really comparing apple with apple, at least not in this context.
I would also categorically disagree with you that banning sales of guns would automatically equalize that country into a socialist state.
And no, I dun believe in fighting tyranny with “love”. But tat topic is too far-fetched from my original meaning.
I believe the keys to reduce crimes are:
1. Good Education
2. Just Laws
3. Proper Law Enforcement
I forget the fourth key. This is too important for me not to mention it. Here it goes:
4. Social Equality