Jennifer Granholm’s Rousing Call To Action On Climate: Get Political To ‘Allow Your Children To Have A Future’

Even as extreme weather worsens and the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change gets more alarming, it was hard to find any television outlets touching the subject this Earth Day.

However, there was one show that addressed climate change with a sense of urgency.

While CNN ran stories about “acts of green” and Fox News hilariously lamented that the earth “is not friendly to human beings,” former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm devoted a large portion of her show, The War Room, to the most pressing environmental story in history.

Granholm featured three segments on climate and energy issues, bringing in Al Gore, Robert Kennedy Jr., and Jeffrey Sachs to talk about the consequences of inaction. She also gave her own forceful monologue urging people to put politicians in office that “will allow your children to have a future on this planet.” As Granholm put it, “Your thinking small does not serve the world”:

“Across the political spectrum Democrats, Independents and Republicans now see that the climate is changing….

The climate is changing. But excuses for inaction have not. And nature doesn’t care about excuses.”

Watch it:

Al Gore appeared on the show, saying that he believes the small group of vocal climate deniers will eventually lose their voice: “We have got to win this. And we will win this. Because the reality is what it is.”

Watch it:

Grahholm also interviewed Robert Kennedy Jr., who lamented the amount of money being spent by large energy companies to sow the seeds of doubt on climate. “You’re getting a tsunami of cash that is pouring into this political process and we know that it has a huge impact. We know propaganda works.” Watch it:


26 Responses to Jennifer Granholm’s Rousing Call To Action On Climate: Get Political To ‘Allow Your Children To Have A Future’

  1. Mark E says:

    She’s my hero! Let’s hear it for Michigan Autoworkers former guv! Now if she can just get Obama to do the same

  2. Dick Smith says:

    Too bad she’s Canadian born. Can’t be pres.

  3. Wes says:

    If we do nothing, here’s one forecast of the results:

    The bottom line in this analysis is that by 2100 the Earth will only support 1 billion people, down from today’s 7 billion. Even if he’s wrong by 50%, it’s still a terrifying prediction.
    With the new data on how fast the arctic is warming, it appears we don’t have much time to stop the methane bomb, which would be a tipping point of no return.

  4. fj says:

    Voices of outrage must drown out virtually any action that does not include climate change as a primary concern.

  5. Dan Ives says:

    “She also gave her own forceful monologue urging people to put politicians in office that ‘will allow your children to have a future on this planet.'” – Having watched many episodes and interviews conducted by Granholm, I can say with 99% certainty that when she calls for putting politicians in office that “will allow your children to have a future on this planet,” what she really means is, “Elect more Democrats.”

    It’s good that she connected climate change to Earth Day. But before we bust out the pom poms for her, recognize that her agenda here doesn’t necessarily prioritize climate change.

    So my question to Ms. Granholm is, “Considering that both the Democratic and Republican Parties have a history of careless inaction on climate change – particularly their candidates for President – while the Green and Justice Parties have made climate change a priority of their platforms, which party should voters support if they are concerned about the planet and our children’s future?

  6. Jan says:

    Too bad she’s an environmental hypocrite and political partisan. She won’t hold Obama accountable for his tarsands flip flop or lack of using the bully pulpit to address climate change and actually supporting the Republican “all of the above” energy policy. She was also recently a board member of DOW Chemical who allowed them to pollute Michigan’s water with Dioxin on her watch while helping them greenwash their image. She’s just another political insider seemingly trying very hard to interview for a position in the next Obama administration as she uses this show to do it every chance she gets. Nothing she says on climate change (and I think this show was pretty much it and more than likely done in the first place because of people who really care every day like myself wondering why Al Gore wasn’t using this station just for this purpose) or the environment has any credibility with me. There are many of us out here every day already working for a better planet who actually see that status quo working against us and are trying to change that. And that means holding politicians across the political spectrum accountable. Not picking and choosing who to hold accountable to use it for your own political agenda.

  7. Paul Magnus says:

    I think she is being up front here…

  8. Paul Magnus says:

    WOw. And good luck.

  9. Jan says:

    The Earth needs that luck more than I do. Too many players on all sides here.

  10. Dan Ives says:

    I largely agree. Granholm isn’t to be trusted. I sense that climate change isn’t the real priority of her statements. I’ve seen many of her shows, and she is extremely preferential to Democrats. Why should we expect anything different on the issue of climate change? Cheers.

  11. Jan says:

    She’s an Obama supporter. The administration like the one before it that is allowing more drilling and fracking. The administration like the one before it giving approval to open up the Arctic to drilling. The administration like the one before it now into supporting tarsands pipelines. The administration like the one before it too politically indebted to call for a revenue neutral carbon tax to spur renewable investment and give back incentives to consumers to put the price on carbon we need to see in order to tackle this effectively. The administration like the one before it giving lip service to the WW2 effort we need to see now to stave off the worst effects of climate change we will see unless we get serious. So when she says stop complaining and start campaigning, I would presume she is speaking about supporting Obama more than likely. This is how you can tell when someone is only playing politcs with an issue. The ones who talk, but don’t walk.

  12. Dan Ives says:

    Based on what? As I said, I’ve watched many of her shows and interviews. She is extremely partisan and preferential to Democrats on all the other issues she discusses. It would be insane to expect anything different on this particular issue.

  13. Dan Ives says:

    Agreed. It’s the typical tactic loyal partisan Democrats use to silence the dissenters who understand how corrupt and useless the Democratic Party is.
    “Stop complaining and start campaigning” = “Shut up and fall in line.”
    And when that fails, they’ll say, “What, you want Romney to win?” It’s so predictable.
    You comments are refreshing. The repellent, condescending views expressed by Granholm here are pervasive on this blog, particularly in the comments. Cheers.

  14. Jan says:

    Thank you. And just to explain, I have no love for the denier Republicans who have done all in their power to polarize this crisis and prevent progress. But what angers me more as a Progressive is as you said seeing these died in the wool Democrats with blinders on as well. They are just as much a part of the impasse on this crisis as their RW counterparts. To me true Progressives hold politicians accountable regardless of the letter after their name when what they do goes against the principles of morality and equality, and they don’t just fall in line out of party allegiance. That has been a big reason why we are at the impasse we are at now. Thanks for your responses.

  15. Brooks Bridges says:

    I just read an article on the first Earth Day and on why Richard Nixon did things like create the EPA. It was NOT because he was an environmentalist but because he was afraid of the high level of environmental activism at that time.

    When are you people going to wake up and realize it’s not “supporting” the Green party or NOT supporting the Democrats/Obama that’s going to get something done?

    It’s US (that’s you and me) getting a million people marching on DC. Do you REALLY think Obama and Congress wouldn’t pay attention and change? Do you really think the MM wouldn’t pay attention and change?

    Pogo said it long ago: “We have met the enemy and he is us”.

    Yes, the fossile fuel companies/Kochs are the bad guys but “All that is required for evil men to succeed is for good men to do nothing”

    I’m including at myself but I have lots of company reading this blog.

    The question is: What’s wrong with US? What’s wrong with ME? NOT: What’s wrong with Obama and congress and the media?

  16. Dan Ives says:

    I agree with you that mass marches on DC are needed to help solve the climate issue. However, there are far too many people who think that taking action on climate change = voting for Democrats. That’s the mentality Granholm is presenting here. I’m simply pointing out that such a strategy is doomed to failure and is actually counterproductive.
    I’m all for mass protests and taking to the streets to fight for climate justice. At the same time, we have the power to vote and we shouldn’t squander it on a corrupt political party with a history of inaction. If you REALLY want to get Obama and Congress to pay attention to you, pose a legitimate threat at the polls. Look at what the Tea Party did by using that tactic. Once it was evident that their mass protests were going to generate viable primary challengers, the GOP’s knees hit the floor immediately. There is no silver bullet. We need a combination of viable strategies to get the policies we need.

  17. SecularAnimist says:

    Dan Ives wrote: “Look at what the Tea Party did by using that tactic.”

    The difference is that every Republican politician knew full well that the so-called “Tea Party” was a fake, phony, astroturf fraud, created by the Koch Brothers and other ultra-rich right-wing extremist oligarchs in collusion with Dick Armey and Fox News.

    And they knew full well that if they didn’t toe the Koch Brothers line, they would face a primary challenge from a fake, phony “Tea Party” stooge, backed up by millions of dollars of Koch money.

    So, if you know any billionaires who are prepared to put millions of dollars behind Green candidates to challenge Democrats in the primaries, then sure, that’s a great “tactic”.

  18. Brooks Bridges says:

    It was my understanding that the Tea Party was never a truly separate entity but like a party within the Republican Party. Tea Party candidates were simply people claiming to adhere to a certain dogma but still Republican. So what they did was attract enough votes to beat more moderate Republicans.

    This is considerably different from trying to vote for some one in a third party. It would be like the Green and Justice party people ran within the Democratic party. I see the possibility that this might be the more successful tactic. I think this approach could attract more campaign contributions for the type of candidates you want.

    I guess I figure if you can’t get a million people marching on DC then it’s a given you’re also never going to get sufficient votes to elect Green party/climate hawk candidates.

    My question again: If, before the election, a million people marched on DC for climate change action, can you imagine Obama and other Democrats continuing to ignore it? It would even impact certain Republicans in close races. It would change “climate change” from a four letter word not used in polite society into something cool. I think the implicit threat would be more than sufficient to effect a change.

    So, which is easier and faster to do? Start a new party or kick the present ones in the ass?

  19. D. R. Tucker says:

    “This is Earth Week, that brief period once a year, when you might actually see an in-depth green story, series, or panel discussion about an environmental topic on TV, or hear a few on the radio. Newspapers and magazines can be counted on to do an eco-themed article in late April, but that’s about it.”

  20. I sense here that the climate hawks are tying themselves up in knots of contention: who is ‘really green’, who is ‘pale green’, who has a ‘hidden agenda’, who is ‘purely partisan’, who is only in it to advance their ‘political ambitions’. It doesn’t make much difference if they all help the environment. That should be the bottom line, let’s not start an ‘Inquisition’ about who is a true believer.
    As a climate defender and physicist for the environment, it is more than clear to me that the single most important event that needs to happen this year for the environment is the re-election of President Obama. Without that single event this year, as James Hansen summarized, it’s game over for a livable planet, and perhaps for democracy itself. Look at what the alternatives are before us!
    The call to action by everyone here should be to vote, donate, volunteer for the re-election of President Obama, and then look at the environmental voting records or platforms for each of our representatives in Congress and senators and vote, donate, volunteer to elect them (I’m certain they will be mostly Democrats).
    Use your energy to halt global warming.

  21. DRT says:

    Let’s do it. I suggest Labor Day weekend.

    Joe, can you help?

  22. Dan Ives says:

    Ok I’ll answer your question: “If, before the election, a million people marched on DC for climate change action, can you imagine Obama and other Democrats continuing to ignore it?”

    No they would certainly not ignore it. But they would certainly not immediately pass viable legislation to solve the problem. I imagine they would express sympathy towards the protestors and make some promises (in exchange for your votes, of course). Then after the election, with the help of the subservient media, they would let things fade back to the status quo and we’d be right back where we are now.

    If, however, the march on DC could be sustained and could resist co-opting, then we might actually get more than crumbs.

  23. Dan Ives says:

    “Use your energy to halt global warming.” – Wait, I’m confused. Should we use our energy to halt global warming or should we use our energy to re-elect president Obama? Because those are not remotely the same choice.
    Voting for Obama because he’s the lesser evil is still voting for a climate disaster. The only difference is that Romney gets us there at 55mph and Obama gets us there at 45mph. We’ve reached a point where the lesser evil is still far too evil and simply unacceptable.

    But one thing I know for a fact. The majority of this blog’s readers will heed your call to action.
    And that’s truly sad.

  24. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Wes, one billion is optimistic. That forgets ocean acidification, biodiversity loss and the general toxification of the planet through relentless pollution of all types. And with the human population crashing, massive refugee flight and the general struggle to survive will provoke war, and we haven’t disinvented nuclear or biological weapons.

  25. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    In my opinion, Dan, you are quite correct. Neither the Demopublicans nor the Republicrats (the ‘indispensable enemies’)can be trusted to act.

  26. Raul M. says:

    Would have, could have ,should have.
    We need to, still greed too.

    In conclusion, self control is an active passive endeavor and we should be real about our influences on our environment, and in larger scope the Earth.
    In knowing that our influence are real, we are not left to be only passive to our influence on the environs, we may actively peruse a cleaner way of influence to the environ. Thank You.