Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

A Message From the President of the United States of America

In Reference to:
Values Based Marketing

"The choice we face is not between saving our environment and saving our economy.  The choice we face is between prosperity and decline."

President Barack Obama

Earth Day, 2009

While watching the video presentation above, I was struck by similarities between the guy's presentation of Spiral Dynamic's approach to sustainable initiatives and President Obama's speech to Iowans on Earth Day.  To me, the President's speech exemplificizes the essence of how to communicate sustainable initiatives to people at many different levels, across 2 party lines, and addressing every quadrant of being of Americans. 

 

This, of course, is not to say that such an initiative will ultimately "work" to resolve both the environment and the economy.  It could be too little too late, for all I know...yet, better late than never.  As with any new sustainable initiative, there's bound to be some trial and error involved and loopholes to close.  Clearly, the ceiling on CO2 will have to be reduced on a drastic scale down to the magic number of 350 ppm.  I think that the President's explanation of "cap" or "ceilings" on CO2 to Iowans is presented in a manner that is comprehensible to most adults.  So at least it is a start, unless the bill dies in Congress.  And as the country moves along, I suspect that it will become easier politically to implement such a plan as people domestically and worldwide begin to experience and witness first-hand the effects of global climate change, crop failures, food shortages, water shortages, climate change refugees, or other devastations.  As to reaping the benefits of a new energy economy and living prosperously, Obama addresses that as well, although I am not competent to speak on business-related matters so am in a "wait and see" mode to see if it would really "work" as he has made it out to seem.  At any rate, I see no alternative plan that seems any better than this one for solving the climate crisis.  Needless to say, a "business as usual" approach is no longer acceptable. 

Is it a second-tier solution--or speech?  Ken Wilber points out that only 2% of a population will agree with a Yellow solution, anyway (unless it's "snuck in" 'without their knowing').  Likewise, only 30% will agree with a "Green" solution, only 40% with an Orange solution and so on.  It must therefore be an initiative that addresses and motivates the support of all stages of development in a language that resonates with all centers of gravity and all four quadrants. 

It may well be a "Yellow" solution disguised as a first-tier solution.  It certainly meets the qualifications to pass for a Yellow speech, at least in my estimation. I will try to analyze it later to see if it conforms with the basic structures of an Integral form of communicating a sustainable initiative.  Feel free to offer your own analysis or feedback. 

Below is a copy of the President's speech (below the horizontal bar) with an introduction by Joe Romm at Climate Progress:

Source: http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/22/obama-earth-day-speech-win/#more-5904

 

Obama gets the Ponzi scheme: “The choice we face is not between saving our environment and saving our economy. The choice we face is between prosperity and decline.”

(appeal to red--->)

President Obama spoke at a wind tower production facility in Iowa today.  It was another brilliant speech underscoring his commitment to climate action and the clean energy transition.

Like no President before him — indeed, like no major U.S. politician — he has stated again and again that our current path is unsustainable and doomed to fail, using language very similar to the

global economy is a Ponzi scheme metaphor.

President Obama spoke at a wind tower production facility in Iowa today.  It was another brilliant speech underscoring his commitment to climate action and the clean energy transition.

Like no President before him — indeed, like no major U.S. politician — he has stated again and again that our current path is unsustainable and doomed to fail, using language very similar to the global economy is a Ponzi scheme metaphor.

  • “We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand.” (4/14)
  • “We can let the jobs of tomorrow be created abroad, or we can create those jobs right here in America and lay the foundation for our lasting prosperity.” (3/19)

His speech today was equally blunt and equally visionary — testimony to the fact that the best messaging on this subject has both the positive vision of the future if we change our path and the painful reality facing us if we don’t.

And don’t miss his extended discussion at the end about “closing the carbon loophole through this kind of market-based cap” and trade system.  Anyone who thinks President Obama is not serious about passing a climate bill in the next year or so, that he is somehow softening on his campaign commitment, is simply not paying attention:


 

 

But just as we’ve led the global economy in developing new sources of energy, we’ve also led in consuming energy.  While we make up less than 5 percent of the world’s population, we produce roughly a quarter of the world’s demand for oil.

And this appetite comes now at a tremendous cost to our economy.  It’s the cost measured by our trade deficit; 20 percent of what we spend on imports is the price of our oil imports.  We send billions of dollars overseas to oil-exporting nations, and I think all of you know many of them are not our friends.  It’s the same costs attributable to our vulnerability to the volatility of oil markets.  Every time the world oil market goes up, you’re getting stuck at the pump.  It’s the cost we feel in shifting weather patterns that are already causing record-breaking droughts, unprecedented wildfires, more intense storms….

Now, the choice we face is not between saving our environment and saving our economy.  The choice we face is between prosperity and decline. We can remain the world’s leading importer of oil, or we can become the world’s leading exporter of clean energy.  We can allow climate change to wreak unnatural havoc across the landscape, or we can create jobs working to prevent its worst effects. We can hand over the jobs of the 21st century to our competitors, or we can confront what countries in Europe and Asia have already recognized as both a challenge and an opportunity:  The nation that leads the world in creating new energy sources will be the nation that leads the 21st-century global economy.

… the bulk of our efforts must focus on unleashing a new, clean-energy economy that will begin to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, will cut our carbon pollution by about 80 percent by 2050, and create millions of new jobs right here in America….

My administration has already taken unprecedented action towards this goal.  It’s work that begins with the simplest, fastest, most effective way we have to make our economy cleaner, and that is to make our economy more energy efficient. California has shown that it can be done; while electricity consumption grew 50 percent in this country over the last three decades, in California, it remained flat.

Think about this.  I want everybody to think about this.  Over the last several decades, the rest of the country, we used 50 percent more energy; California remained flat, used the same amount, even though that they were growing just as fast as the rest of the country — because they were more energy efficient.  They put in some good policy early on that assured that they weren’t wasting energy.  Now, if California can do it, then the whole country can do it.  Iowa can do it….

And today I’m announcing that my administration is taking another historic step.  Through the Department of Interior, we are establishing a program to authorize — for the very first time — the leasing of federal waters for projects to generate electricity from wind as well as from ocean currents and other renewable sources.  And this will open the door to major investments in offshore clean energy.  For example, there is enormous interest in wind projects off the coasts of New Jersey and Delaware, and today’s announcement will enable these projects to move forward.

It’s estimated that if we fully pursue our potential for wind energy on land and offshore, wind can generate as much as 20 percent of our electricity by 2030 and create a quarter-million jobs in the process – 250,000 jobs in the process, jobs that pay well and provide good benefits.  It’s a win-win:  It’s good for the environment; it’s great for the economy….

But we haven’t placed any limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.  It’s what’s called the carbon loophole.

Now, last week, in response to a mandate from the United States Supreme Court, the Environmental Protection Agency determined that carbon dioxide and other tailpipe emissions are harmful to the health and well-being of our people.  So there’s no question that we have to regulate carbon pollution in some way; the only question is how we do it.

I believe the best way to do it is through legislation that places a market-based cap on these kinds of emissions.  And today, key members of my administration are testifying in Congress on a bill that seeks to enact exactly this kind of market-based approach.  My hope is that this will be the vehicle through which we put this policy in effect.

And here’s how a market-based cap would work: We’d set a cap, a ceiling, on all the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that our economy is allowed to produce in total, combining the emissions from cars and trucks, coal-fired power plants, energy-intensive industries, all sources.

And by setting an overall cap, carbon pollution becomes like a commodity.  It places a value on a limited resource, and that is the ability to pollute.  And to determine that value, just like any other traded commodity, we’d create a market where companies could buy and sell the right to produce a certain amount of carbon pollution.  And in this way, every company can determine for itself whether it makes sense to spend the money to become cleaner or more efficient, or to spend the money on a certain amount of allowable pollution.

Over time, as the cap on greenhouse gases is lowered, the commodity becomes scarcer — and the price goes up.  And year by year, companies and consumers would have greater incentive to invest in clean energy and energy efficiency as the price of the status quo became more expensive.

What this does is it makes wind power more economical, makes solar power more economical.  Clean energy all becomes more economical.  And by closing the carbon loophole through this kind of market-based cap, we can address in a systematic way all the facets of the energy crisis:  We lower our dependence on foreign oil, we reduce our use of fossil fuels, we promote new industries right here in America.  We set up the right incentives so that everybody is moving in the same direction towards energy independence.

Hear!  Hear!

var addthis_pub="climateprogress"; var addthis_options = 'digg, email, stumbleupon, print'; var addthis_test0309 = false;
Share

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

the world's last chance

 Too little too late? A report from M.I.T. and the University of Pennsylvania saying that even if the governments fulfill their obligations to cut carbon emissions 80% by  the year 2050, global temperatures will still rise by a minimum of 4 degrees celsius.

- The "magic number”: 350 parts per million, the level scientists have identified as the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere.

- The importance of political activism: 350.org and its impact around the world.

--from Bill McKibben-Jim Garrison audio discussion

Cutting carbon emissions by 80% by 2050 as currently proposed by the President and other world leaders will result in CO2 concentrations of 600 ppm and a +4 C (+8 F!!) temperature rise by the year 2050.  In other words, it will result in 2 C above the tipping point that triggered a sudden and catastrophic climate change prior to the year 2050.

(The "tipping point" is currently thought to be anything above a +2 C temperature rise).

Lester Brown recommends that in order to prevent a "tipping point," emissions will have to be reduced by 80% by the year 2020 instead of by 2050.

The chair of the IPCC says that we have until 2012 to enact global policies (after which time, it is too late).

If passed, we would have 8-10 years to reduce CO2 by 80% worldwide by the year 2020 in order to prevent a tipping point and catastrophic climate change.

Needless to say, these new emissions standards and deadlines will have to be decided in Copenhagen in December 2009 (the world's last "chance").  So the President's job--so far as I can see it--is to carry on with his sustainable effort, enact current climate legislation, and fulfill his promise to join Kyoto or whatever it is to be called once Kyoto expires.  Hopefully, the new treaty will be updated and revised to meet new emission standards and deadlines. 

He could be straight up with the American public and go ahead and tell them the revised goal of 350 ppm and an 80% reduction of carbon emissions by 2020--but considering the strong opposition already being expressed by Republicans in Congress, Wall Street Journal, and industries and the like--perhaps it is best for him to sell his current plan, and then revise to new initiatives if and when they are agreed upon internationally.

It would seem that with so much at stake here with, people would at least be as concerned with the environment as they currently are with the economy.