In just over 12 hours, Barack Obama will take the oath of office and become the 44th President of the United States. In less than one hour, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day will pass for another year. And yet, my guess is that tomorrow's inauguration would mean a hell of a lot more to Dr. King than his own holiday, and it no doubt means a great deal to those for whom he fought and those he inspired (myself certainly included). As Tavis Smiley noted on Meet the Press this past Sunday, Obama's election is not the fulfillment of Dr. King's dream, but rather another down payment on it. But it is the most significant down payment our nation has made since the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment.
Of course, Tavis also urged us not to give Obama a free pass. His election and forthcoming inauguration are profound moments in our collective history and psyche, and should be celebrated as such. But the new president must be held accountable. However, we must also remember that he is inheriting some of the most severe messes ever handed to an incoming president. The legacy of Dr. King that makes this moment so important unfortunately will be compromised by the legacy of George Bush that will limit what can be done with the moment at hand.
Still, I head into tomorrow with a hope that is genuine and not simply a campaign slogan. Part of that hope comes from the man who will take the oath of office. I see his intellect, trust his integrity, and believe that he will take measured but meaningful steps to move our country and our world forward, more often than not with success. But more of my hope comes from a sense that something has been awakened in the nation. That something is a belief that we are not powerless, that we can take our destiny into our hands, and that we can all act to make this world a better place. Barack is ultimately fairly moderate, and even where he is more progressive he will be constrained by the problems he is now charged with fixing. But the other 300 million of us, despite not holding the highest office in the land, are less constrained, if only by the strength of our numbers. It is now our choice as to whether we let his rhetoric, which channels that of Dr. King, be simply the text of a political stage show or instead be a call to arms to build the world and the future that we want.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Science and the environment: what was and what will be
I had planned for many weeks to compose an indictment of the Bush administration's record on science and the environment, a post-mortem of sorts on eight long, long years, and an examination of the final flurry of efforts to undermine science and abuse the environment. Indeed, the record is long and inglorious. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) provided a comprehensive look at scientific integrity (or, more precisely, the lack thereof) in policymaking in the first term of the Bush White House. Since then, UCS has examined media policies concerning science in government agencies under Bush.
The UCS assessments were not positive, to say the least. To rectify this disturbing trend, they called upon both the White House and Congress to codify policies of freedom within, transparency of, and support for science as a central component of responsible government. Not surprisingly, the Administration did not respond. Instead, Bush et al. planned a broad slate of rollbacks on environmental regulations. Most disturbing among those proposals, in my mind, was a plan to allow federal agencies planning actions that might harm endangered species to determine for themselves whether harm will come to the species in question, rather than consulting the agencies with both the expertise and the legal mandate to assess threats and protect species (i.e., the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service). This is disturbing not only because it puts biodiversity, ecosystems, and the jobs and communities that depend upon them at risk, but also because it continues the dangerous trend of suppressing and marginalizing sound science.
However, events have unfolded that make me feel less interest and urgency in outlining and critiquing this disgraceful record. One was Bush's decision to declare 200,000 square miles of ocean within the United States' Exclusive Economic Zone as three new national monuments. Combined with Bush's earlier designation of a national monument in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, this recent action raises the total area of the marine environment protected under Bush to around 350,000 square miles. Let me repeat that number: 350,000 square miles, and all very remote and pristine, major repositories of biodiversity, and generally free from severe anthropogenic impacts (climate change aside). That is a mind-boggling step forward for conservation, and one for which I am - and I can't quite believe I'm about to write these words - incredibly grateful to President Bush.
Do these bold steps negate or offset the other detrimental actions Bush has taken to politicize science and threaten the environment? Of course not. But these ocean protections will have more permanence than those other actions. Monuments generally remain as part of our natural heritage, while regulations and processes can and do change. And, the second event (or series of events, actually) suggests those needed changes might be coming.
In her blog for the New York Times, Dr. Olivia Judson issued a call to arms to President-elect Obama to restore the role of and respect for science in policymaking. Our next President has answered the call so far. Obama held a high-profile meeting after the election with former Vice President Al Gore, one of the most scientifically literate men ever to hold the office of President or Vice President, and a tireless crusader for meaningful action to curb global climate change. This seemed to signify that his earlier pledge to make reduction of greenhouse gas emissions a high priority was genuine. Obama then went on to nominate a suite of top scientists to key positions, signaling the very central role that science will play in his administration.
The final event that quelled my once seething drive to craft a lengthy and scathing condemnation of the Bush record on science and the environment was that mid-January rolled around. And with mid-January comes both my birthday and that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Thinking about Dr. King, his work, his dream, his death, tomorrow's inauguration, and my own path forward in life all make any more energy and emotion directed toward Bush seem rather like a waste.
The UCS assessments were not positive, to say the least. To rectify this disturbing trend, they called upon both the White House and Congress to codify policies of freedom within, transparency of, and support for science as a central component of responsible government. Not surprisingly, the Administration did not respond. Instead, Bush et al. planned a broad slate of rollbacks on environmental regulations. Most disturbing among those proposals, in my mind, was a plan to allow federal agencies planning actions that might harm endangered species to determine for themselves whether harm will come to the species in question, rather than consulting the agencies with both the expertise and the legal mandate to assess threats and protect species (i.e., the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service). This is disturbing not only because it puts biodiversity, ecosystems, and the jobs and communities that depend upon them at risk, but also because it continues the dangerous trend of suppressing and marginalizing sound science.
However, events have unfolded that make me feel less interest and urgency in outlining and critiquing this disgraceful record. One was Bush's decision to declare 200,000 square miles of ocean within the United States' Exclusive Economic Zone as three new national monuments. Combined with Bush's earlier designation of a national monument in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, this recent action raises the total area of the marine environment protected under Bush to around 350,000 square miles. Let me repeat that number: 350,000 square miles, and all very remote and pristine, major repositories of biodiversity, and generally free from severe anthropogenic impacts (climate change aside). That is a mind-boggling step forward for conservation, and one for which I am - and I can't quite believe I'm about to write these words - incredibly grateful to President Bush.
Do these bold steps negate or offset the other detrimental actions Bush has taken to politicize science and threaten the environment? Of course not. But these ocean protections will have more permanence than those other actions. Monuments generally remain as part of our natural heritage, while regulations and processes can and do change. And, the second event (or series of events, actually) suggests those needed changes might be coming.
In her blog for the New York Times, Dr. Olivia Judson issued a call to arms to President-elect Obama to restore the role of and respect for science in policymaking. Our next President has answered the call so far. Obama held a high-profile meeting after the election with former Vice President Al Gore, one of the most scientifically literate men ever to hold the office of President or Vice President, and a tireless crusader for meaningful action to curb global climate change. This seemed to signify that his earlier pledge to make reduction of greenhouse gas emissions a high priority was genuine. Obama then went on to nominate a suite of top scientists to key positions, signaling the very central role that science will play in his administration.
The final event that quelled my once seething drive to craft a lengthy and scathing condemnation of the Bush record on science and the environment was that mid-January rolled around. And with mid-January comes both my birthday and that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Thinking about Dr. King, his work, his dream, his death, tomorrow's inauguration, and my own path forward in life all make any more energy and emotion directed toward Bush seem rather like a waste.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)