John Kerry happy that John Kerry wasn't elected in 2004

John Kerry in 2004:

John Kerry and John Edwards believe that the Kyoto Protocol is not the answer. The near-term emission reductions it would require of the United States are infeasible, while the long-term obligations imposed on all nations are too little to solve the problem. Unlike the current administration, John Kerry and John Edwards will offer an alternative to the Kyoto process that leads the world toward a more equitable and effective answer, while preserving coal miners' jobs.

In the Kerry-Edwards Administration, the U.S. will equitably match the initial efforts of our  industrial-country trading partners and competitors.  U.S. reductions will be achieved in a reasonable and realistic timeframe.  American workers and industries should not be forced to shoulder the costs of these reductions.

(The standard translations apply: "coal miners' jobs" actually means "coal corporations' profits" and "workers and industries" means just "industries".)

John Kerry now:

"It's a moment we've been waiting for, many of us, for some period of time - for eight years, to be blunt. ... after eight years of obstruction and delay and denial, the United States is going to rejoin the world community in tackling the global climate challenge," Kerry said.

I at least give him credit for recognizing that his corporation-servicing stance on global warming in 2004 didn't represent a break in the eight years of obstruction, delay, and denial.

BUT: Kerry's deft rewriting of history won't come as a surprise to most of the people who voted for him, since 74% of them had no clue about his 2004 position on Kyoto anyway.

Comments

[Harold M]

I at least give him credit for recognizing that his corporation-servicing stance on global warming in 2004 didn't represent a break in the eight years of obstruction, delay, and denial.

Once again, I find cause for optimism. Senator Kerry's moment on his own road to Damascus sets a standard I'm sure his colleagues will strive to attain, gawdbless'em. But even if they're mired in petulance, greed and stupidity, his understanding is boundless enough to be contagious.

That said, I'm glad I voted for Ralph Nader. And with his newfound enlightenment, I'm sure Senator Kerry is too. Obstruction, delay, and denial are very bad.

[SteveB]

This whole Presidential transition reminds me of what happened in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe after the fall of communism. Except for the leaders at the very top, most of the people in power stayed in power, and just changed the words they were mouthing from Marxist dogma to free-market dogma (while grabbing a piece of the newly-privatized state for themselves).

So now we still have Larry Summers, but because the times have changed, he needs to talk more about Green Energy and less about free trade.

Oh well, I guess that's progress of a sort.

And, in both cases, the dissidents who were right all along are still on the outside, with no rewards and no power.

[beachmom]

Talk about taking out of context. What unbelievable dishonest spin. John Kerry has been a champion for the environment since 1970, when he participated and helped organize the first Earth Day. He talked about the environment and Energy Independence in every speech he gave in 2004. He wrote a book in 2005, called "This Moment on Earth". Given the name of your blog, how the heck do you not know about Kerry's long time work on Fisheries and the oceans?

That document you linked to is very long, and shows Kerry, as he always been, was serious about combating global climate change. Kyoto was fundamentally flawed in that the Clinton Administration did not bother to make sure it had a snowball's chance of passing the Senate. They negotiated with the world but not with their own legislative body. That is why it failed.

From your link, look who came up with the green economy:

"The Kerry-Edwards Administration also will address climate change in a serious, responsible,
and balanced way. John Kerry and John Edwards recognize that solving this problem will take
decades and require meaningful efforts by all nations, but we must get started now. In sharp
contrast to the head-in-the-sand approach of the current administration, John Kerry and John
Edwards believe that with technology leadership from U.S. industry and policy leadership from
the U.S. government, America can once again guide the world to a more secure future.

This strategy can also prove to be a powerful tool for economic growth here at home. The
United States is one of the world’s leading developers of clean energy technologies. We ought
to take advantage of that fact and export our technologies to the world. By opening and
expanding international markets for a wide range of American-made clean energy technologies,
we create jobs at home, expand opportunities to more broadly use our natural resources, and
improve the environment around the world."

Oh, and the Nader voter is an idiot.

[Harold M]

I heard you the first time, beachmom. There's no need to keep pulling the trigger. Your comment would be no less cogent if you only posted it once.

[THE INTERNET]

NOTICE: In order to preserve the precious and rapidly dwindling supply of bits on The Internet, beachmom's duplicate postings have been removed.

[SteveB]

By opening and expanding international markets for a wide range of American-made clean energy technologies,

I assume that's code for more "free trade" agreements.

Look, the fundamental problem with Kerry/Edwards/Obama approach to this problem is that it's all carrot and no stick. Sure, it's great to talk about green jobs and all the money we're going to make selling US-made windmills to the rest of the world, but a SERIOUS approach to climate change means saying "no" too. As in "no" to more coal plants (something Obama and Kerry were not willing to do.) And "no" to more highways, and "no" to more car-dependent development. I'm all for emphasizing the positive - except when it's being used to cover up a policy of avoiding the tough decisions we need to make to avert a climate catastrophe.

And I'll do you the favor of not calling you an "idiot." After all, I hardly know you, and all the evidence isn't in yet. But so far, I'd say things aren't looking good.

[Harold M]

Thanks, Internet! There's a lesson for conservationists in your tidying up after Beachmom. There's a lesson for Beachmom too: the standard, and in the past justifiable, liberal complaint about right wingnuts was that they 1) made a terrible mess that they expected others to clean up; 2) argued through tedious repetition and unsupported assertion that their catastrophes were righteous and their right to create disasters was inalienable; 3) were ungrateful, and resentful of the people who cleaned after them.

Beachmom, I looked at Kerry's record on the fisheries. I found a lot of hostile rhetoric from him against regulators(!) and some bail out measures aimed at factory fishing operations. As he is somewhat liberal, well, was somewhat liberal, I'm willing to believe he supported sensible regulation at one point. But it looks like ambition got the better of him, as it did in every other area where he once supported the liberal reform agenda. The difference now between him and a wingnut is that he's articulate and believes in the formalisms of governance. As SteveB points out, his approach is toothless.

[John Caruso]

I'm all but certain that beachmom was doing a drive-by and won't be back, but: I could scarcely have given more context to Kerry's position, which I quoted at length (in addition to tracking down and linking to his entire position paper, since it had otherwise vanished from the Internet since 2004). This was Kerry saying the Kyoto protocol—the only major framework for reduction of greenhouse gases at the time, no matter how flawed it might have been—was "not the answer", specifically because the reductions it would call for from the US would be "infeasible", "[un]reasonable", and "[un]realistic." All of which he was saying in order to curry the favor and calm the fears of the coal industry (just as Obama has done). And I should point out that this was Kerry's only official position statement on Kyoto in 2004.

If you think you can sell that as proof that Kerry was "serious about combating global climate change," good luck to you. I'm content to let other people read it for themselves and then decide which one of us they think is practicing "unbelievable dishonest spin."

And as for your "idiot" comment, you apparently didn't realize that Harold's rubber and you're glue, so whatever you say bounces off him and sticks to you.*

* Except for good stuff.

[John Caruso]

SteveB: This whole Presidential transition reminds me of what happened in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe after the fall of communism.

Good analogy. There's definitely major political greenwashing going on—and what else should we expect in a world where a major oil company invites us to join them in saving energy?