Obama Recognizes What Must Be Done to Save the Planet

David Korten of YES Magazine poses the question of what must be done to save the planet.

Cheap oil provided an energy subsidy that defined the wars, economies, settlements, values, and lifestyles of the 20th century. The result was a century of wasteful extravagance and inefficiency that encouraged us to squander virtually all Earth's resources -- including water, land, forests, fisheries, soils, minerals, and natural waste recycling capacity. We are now waking up to the morning-after consequences of a brief but raucous party. These include depleted natural systems, unsustainable economies, an obsolete physical infrastructure, and a six-fold increase in the human population dependent on the diminished resources of a finite planet.

He continues:

Cheap oil also fueled a zero sum global competition for access to resources -- particularly cheap oil -- and for the military superiority required to secure that access. The United States combined the global projection of military power with the global projection of economic and cultural power to achieve unchallenged global dominance as the sole reigning superpower.

Cheap oil is no more and the global projection of military and economic power it made possible is no longer viable. In May 2008 the price of oil hit a new high of $135 a barrel in contrast to the historic inflation adjusted price of $27.00. We are only beginning to awake as a nation to the reality that our reign as a global superpower is coming to an abrupt end. (See the summer 2008 issue of YES! Magazine.) If we hold to business as usual, we will exhaust what remains of our power and credibility in a bloody and violent no win-competition to consume the last tree, fish, drop of oil, drink of potable water, and breath of clean air -- sealing our own fate as well as that of our species.

The answer is, yes, Obama does recognize what must be done. John McCain, on his website, has been talking all he can about how much he is committed to the environment. He even frames it as the "Lexington Plan" of independence from foreign oil. But there is a key difference between his plan and Obama's plan -- John McCain has refused to commit to doing what scientists say is necessary to avert global catastrophe. However, Barack Obama has already committed to doing whatever it takes to reduce our carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.

Korten argues that in order for us to achieve that goal, we must end war as an instrument of statecraft. And Obama implicitly understands this; as early as 2002, when everybody thought that he was being too radical, he advocated the return of the US to a policy of diplomacy first -- the policy that was followed by Presidents of both parties throughout the 20th century. On the other hand, John McCain would continue the right-wing business as usual policies that have led to the devastation of our economy -- he would attack Iran, keep us in Iraq for 100 years, and abolish the minimum wage so that the only economically viable option for many young people growing up in poverty would be to enlist and fight John McCain's wars.

And what's more, John McCain can't possibly achieve his stated energy goals with his reliance on George Bush's highly militaristic foreign policy. Our ships, planes, and military vehicles are gluttonous consumers of oil as Korten points out; what's more, John McCain's reliance on the Neocon policy of war would render more and more of the world increasingly uninhabitable. That would turn this world into a vicious cycle where more and more wars would be started over an ever-decreasing share of habitable land. Therefore, environmental policy will become a major national security issue for the 21st century.

On the other hand, Barack Obama's stated goal of 80% carbon reduction is doable because he would use war as a tool of last resort. In the meantime, he would not only talk to our enemies like North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela, he would also bring other countries around the world to the table so that they could talk peace together. He would restore the Clinton policy of active engagement in foreign disputes in order to bring about historic peace treaties.

Korten argues that conventional warfare, as fought by the US for the last 225 years, is rapidly becoming obsolete with the rise of unconventional methods of warfare such as blending in with civilian populations and the kind of hit and run tactics that we have seen in both the Afghan and Iraq wars. As we painfully learned through Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, we can beat the other guy on the battlefield every single time and still not win the war. Part of it is because of a lack of political will.

For instance, the Romans had to kill or enslave millions of people in order to subdue Gaul during Julius Caesar's time. And even then, their conquest was a near thing as they were surrounded by a hundred thousand men fighting for their homes and freedom. In order for us to subdue Iraq, we would have to kill or imprison about 15-20 million Iraqis -- something that  the world will simply not allow us to do. We have currently killed about 1 million Iraqis. We face a fundamental choice -- at this pace, we can kill off 15-20 million Iraqis like Julius Caesar did with Gaul within 50-100 years -- assuming no increase in population through high birth rates -- or we can decide that we have done all we can and that the rest is up to the Iraqis.

Korten, arguing from a pacifist perspective, argues that we should first work for worldwide nuclear disarmament, a goal that is shared by former Reagan Secretary of State George Schultz. His second goal is for all the world's parliaments to renounce war as a sovereign objective. The first is doable -- we should build on the efforts of Sam Nunn and John Kerry and Christopher Hill to reduce nuclear proliferation; Obama would talk to our enemies, and that would be one of the main issues he would talk about. Hill, who engineered the deal between the US and North Korea dismantling their nuclear weapons, could be tasked with brokering similar deals with Iran and Syria.

The second objective, however, has to come from the bottom up. And Obama, while not a pacifist, has laid the groundwork for that; last night, thousands of people all over the country in every single state met to help Obama get elected in November. For there to be world peace, enough people have to get together to agree never to take up arms or take the life of another person under any circumstances whatsoever. And it is a basic fact of life that people are more likely to consider only their immediate needs when they are living in poverty; therefore, we must first address the problems of poverty both in this country and then around the world. That is the message that John Edwards preached when he ran for President, and the need to address this problem has not gone away.