John Kerry Says 'The Science Is Screaming At Us' But Would Approving Keystone Destroy His Climate Credibility?

Secretary of State John Kerry delivered another set of powerful remarks on climate change last night. But all his poignant words will come to nought - indeed, they'll come back to haunt him - if he makes the wrong decision on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

How precisely could Kerry lobby other countries to join an international climate treaty (and move away from fossil fuels) - perhaps his primary goal as Secretary - after enabling the accelerated exploitation of one of the dirtiest sources of fossil fuels in the world?

I had thought that Obama's strong post-reelection words on climate, coupled with the choice of climate hawk Kerry as Secretary of State, might be a double signal that the administration was prepared to kill the Keystone XL pipeline. But last week, the White House started sending signals "the president is inclined to approve the Keystone XL pipeline."

Keystone is a gateway to a huge pool of carbon-intensive fuel most of which must be left in the ground - along with most of the world's coal and unconventional oil and gas - if humanity is to avoid multiple devastating impacts that may be beyond adaptation. That can't happen without some sort of international agreement (or multi-lateral or bilateral agreements). And such an agreement is not possible without the U.S. taking a leadership role, since we are the richest country and the biggest cumulative polluter.

Kerry certainly understands the risks posed by climate inaction. Yesterday at the National Geographic Society's Ross Sea Conservation Reception, he said:

I have seen this fragile ecosystem change before our very eyes, whether it's a problem of acidification, a problem of pollution and development, a problem of ice melt and potential ecosystem collapse, to the rise of the sea levels, which is happening in various parts of the world....

The entire system is interdependent, and we toy with that at our peril....

So climate change is coming back in a sense as a serious international issue because people are experiencing it firsthand. The science is screaming at us, literally, demanding that people in positions of public responsibility at least exercise the so-called "precautionary principle" to balance the equities and not knowing completely the outcomes at least understand what is happening and take steps to prevent potential disaster.

... I'm here to tell you that, proudly, President Obama has put this agenda back on the front burner where it belongs, that he has in his Inauguration Address and in his State of the Union Address and in the policies he's working on now said we are going to try to exercise leadership because of its imperatives.

[Well, figuratively, not literally....]

But I'm not sure if Kerry has thought through the international implications of approving Keystone. The United States has already undermined its standing to cajole other countries into climate commitments by expanding oil and gas drilling as well as coal exports. But none of those were Kerry's decision, whereas Keystone is.

Yes, the U.S. has a serious shot at hitting Obama's Copenhagen pledge of a 17% cut in CO2 emissions from 2005 levels - if the President embraces strong emissions reductions from existing power plants. But let's not pretend that target is either especially hard to hit or scientifically meaningful (see "Developed Nations Must Cut Emissions In Half By 2020, Says New Study").

That is to say, the fact Kerry can go to the other big emitters and commit to meeting Obama's pledge is a necessary minimum condition to achieve a climate agreement - but it is not sufficient. He needs some moral standing, he needs to be able to demonstrate to the world the U.S. understands that far deeper cuts are needed post-2020 and that means not sticking new spigots into huge, dirty carbon pools like the tar sands.

Kerry needs to show that his words are more than words, that he actually hears the screams from the science - and from generations yet unborn. Kerry must recommend to Obama that Keystone be killed. And Obama must agree - and no, Kerry will not gain anything if Obama were to over-rule him. Quite the reverse: That would be a vote of no-confidence in his Secretary of State on climate issues and make of Kerry a paper tiger.

Kerry starts as Secretary with clean hands on climate. But approving Keystone would be like dipping his hands into the dirtiest, stickiest tar imaginable - they could never be cleaned again.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/19/1743291/john-kerry-science

Obama To Name Climate Hawk John Kerry Secretary Of State

In the first serious indication Obama will focus on climate change in his second term, media outlets report the President will nominate Senator John Kerry (D-MA) to be Secretary of State.

http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/158956/obama-name-climate-ha

Obama To Name Climate Hawk John Kerry Secretary Of State

In the first serious indication Obama will focus on climate change in his second term, media outlets report the President will nominate Senator John Kerry (D-MA) to be Secretary of State.

Kerry is one of the Senate's leading climate hawks who has said he believes that climate change is the "biggest long term threat" to national security.

Of course, team Obama is known for effectively muzzling the most ardent of climate hawks. Back in February 2009, for instance, Energy Secretary and Nobelist Steven Chu said "Wake up," America, "we're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California." But one hardly hears such language from him these days. Same goes for science advisor and one-time climate hawk John Holdren.

Kerry, however, seems far less likely to be muzzled. Indeed, in a speech this summer on the Senate floor, he slammed the U.S. political discussion as a "conspiracy of silence ... a story of disgraceful denial, back-pedaling, and delay that has brought us perilously close to a climate change catastrophe." He called it:

... a silence that empowers misinformation and mythology to grow where science and truth should prevail. It is a conspiracy that has not just stalled, but demonized any constructive effort to put America in a position to lead the world on this issue....

Climate change is one of two or three of the most serious threats our country now faces, if not the most serious, and the silence that has enveloped a once robust debate is staggering for its irresponsibility....

I hope and pray colleagues commit to transformative change in our politics. I hope we confront the conspiracy of silence head-on and allow complacence to yield to common sense, and narrow interests to bend to the common good. Future generations are counting on us.

One would certainly expect Kerry to not merely use his position to speak out on the issue but also to push both domestic and international action. He was after all coauthor, with Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), of broad climate legislation in 2009 and 2010 (that withered like our wheat crop in a Dust Bowl as Obama tended to other matters, like health care).

National Journal reports:

"No senator since Al Gore knows as much about the science and diplomacy of climate change as Kerry," said David Goldwyn, an international energy consultant who served as Clinton's special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs. "He would not only put climate change in the top five issues he raises with every country, but he would probably rethink our entire diplomatic approach to the issue."

Climate hawks should be enthusiastic supporters of this nomination, which is expected to sail through the U.S. Senate (in part because Republicans want Scott Brown to have another shot at a Massachusetts Senate seat).

I'm not sure Kerry could become Secretary of State fast enough to influence the Keystone XL pipeline decision, but it is hard to believe he would not have raised this issue with the President, since a go-ahead decision would immediately undercut the Administration's credibility on the climate issue both at home and abroad.

Related Post:

• Obama Wins Reelection, Now Must Become A Climate Hawk To Avoid Dust-Bin Of History, Dust Bowl For America

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/16/1342191/obama-to-name-clim