Obama’s Coded Climate Politics

Did President Obama blow the dog whistle for fossil-fuel-divestment activists?

National Journal
Ben Geman
June 17, 2014, 10:02 a.m.

Pres­id­ent Obama’s cli­mate speech Sat­urday got plenty of press for its lengthy as­sault on glob­al-warm­ing deni­al. But what ex­cited an ag­gress­ive wing of the cli­mate move­ment were just a few cryptic words else­where in the com­mence­ment ad­dress at the Uni­versity of Cali­for­nia (Irvine):

“You need to in­vest in what helps, and di­vest from what harms.”

Act­iv­ists push­ing uni­versit­ies and oth­er in­sti­tu­tions to dump their fin­an­cial hold­ings in coal and oil-and-gas com­pan­ies be­lieve they heard an un­mis­tak­able White House en­dorse­ment. “People are thrilled about it,” Jam­ie Henn of 350.org, one of the groups lead­ing the di­vest­ment move­ment, said of Obama’s com­ments Sat­urday.

“Stu­dents will be tak­ing the pres­id­ent’s mes­sage to their col­lege pres­id­ents and boards of trust­ees,” he said of the fossil-fuel-di­vest­ment cam­paign, which also in­cludes the En­ergy Ac­tion Co­ali­tion, the Re­spons­ible En­dow­ments Co­ali­tion, the Si­erra Stu­dent Co­ali­tion, and groups on spe­cif­ic cam­puses. The founder of 350.org, Bill McK­ib­ben, a high-pro­file cli­mate act­iv­ist, has been a ma­jor di­vest­ment ad­voc­ate.

It’s Obama’s second ap­par­ent nod to the idea. Dur­ing a Geor­getown Uni­versity speech rolling out his second-term cli­mate plan last June, Obama was even briefer, say­ing “In­vest. Di­vest.”

The “in­vest” part of Obama’s speeches is un­re­mark­able. Obama’s cli­mate and en­ergy speeches are of­ten loaded with ad­vocacy of fed­er­al sup­port for green-en­ergy de­vel­op­ment.

If Obama’s en­dors­ing the fossil-fuel-di­vest­ment move­ment, however, it’s a note­worthy stance from a White House that has ap­plauded boom­ing U.S. oil-and-gas pro­duc­tion that’s un­der­taken by some of the very same com­pan­ies that act­iv­ists tar­get in their cam­paign.

En­dors­ing the cam­paign, which draws in­spir­a­tion from the 1970s and 1980s move­ment ur­ging di­vest­ment from apartheid South Africa, would also be a re­turn to Obama’s earli­est polit­ic­al roots.

In re­marks in South Africa last year when the now-de­ceased Nel­son Man­dela was gravely ill, Obama re­called that his first speech, in 1981, was as an Oc­ci­dent­al Col­lege stu­dent at a rally de­mand­ing the school’s di­vest­ment from the apartheid re­gime.

But were Obama’s brief “di­vest” com­ments Sat­urday really a dog whistle for the fossil-fuel-di­vest­ment crowd? The White House won’t say what, ex­actly, Obama meant on Sat­urday.

In an email ex­change Monday morn­ing, White House spokes­man Matt Lehrich de­clined to elab­or­ate on the com­ment. “I don’t have a pars­ing of the state­ment for you,” he said.

Obama’s latest com­ment drew at­tack from the right Monday af­ter­noon, when Stan­ley Kur­tz wrote on the con­ser­vat­ive Na­tion­al Re­view magazine’s web­site that Obama had “de­clared war” on the na­tion’s con­ven­tion­al en­ergy in­dustry.

Kur­tz urged the press to “force Obama in­to the open” by push­ing the White House to ex­pand on the re­marks, and he sim­il­arly called on Cap­it­ol Hill Re­pub­lic­ans to press for cla­ri­fic­a­tion.

Act­iv­ists, however, already see a clear sig­nal of sup­port for their cam­paign, which gen­er­ally tar­gets in­vest­ment by pen­sion funds, uni­versit­ies, found­a­tions, and oth­ers in the 200 largest fossil-fuel com­pan­ies.

The di­vest­ment cam­paign in re­cent years has won vari­ous levels of di­vest­ment com­mit­ments — or at least re­com­mend­a­tions to in­vest­ment man­agers — from about two-dozen cit­ies, roughy a dozen high­er-edu­ca­tion in­sti­tu­tions, and oth­ers.

The highest-pro­file uni­versity has been Stan­ford, which in May said it would no longer in­vest in coal-min­ing com­pan­ies.

Henn said Obama’s re­marks will provide the move­ment with mo­mentum to pres­sure oth­er in­sti­tu­tions.

“I think stu­dents will see that as a clear sign that the [Obama] ad­min­is­tra­tion is on their side in terms of chal­len­ging their uni­versit­ies to take this step,” said Henn, one of the cofounders of 350.org.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
4 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×