ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

Bush does damage control on troop withdrawal comment.

Earlier this week, President Bush endorsed Gen. Petraeus’s plan for a “pause” in troop withdrawals, eagerly stating Petraeus could have “all the time he needs” before reducing American forces further. Yesterday, in his interview with ABC, Bush tried to backtrack on that comment, reports the New York Times:

Mr. Bush’s remark that the general could have as much time as he needed has been widely interpreted as a signal that the White House expects no further cuts after July. But in the interview, the president suggested that he thought his words were being misinterpreted.

You know, sometimes people read what they want to in the president’s words,” he said. “My statement was, in essence, this: if General Petraeus needs 45 days, he’ll have 45 days.”

Mr. Bush went on to say that he hoped “conditions will enable us to return on success,” the phrase his administration has coined for its policy of bringing American troops home based on conditions there.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said this week that he abandoned “hope” of there being fewer than 100,000 troops in Iraq by the end of this year.

Yglesias

London Congestion

Congestion pricing is working out great in London. Let me add my voice to the chorus pointing out that distributive concerns are a canard in this context. At the moment, the only jurisdictions contemplating congestion pricing are those that already feature fairly extensive public transit networks. In places like that, lower-income people are disproportionate users of public transit. Measures that tax drivers and use the funds to boost transit service help folks at the bottom.

One might note that congestion pricing is also good for people who really really like to drive. It’s not, after all, just a fee in exchange for which drivers get nothing. Rather, the fee is the price you pay for less crowded roads. To some people, that’ll be a price that’s not worth paying and they won’t drive (hence the reduced crowding) but to others it’ll be a price that is worth paying and those people should be understood as beneficiaries of the policy, even though they’re literally the ones paying the price.

Culture

Obama and Lincoln

Garry Wills has a fascinating essay in The New York Review of Books comparing Barack Obama’s race speech to Abraham Lincoln’s Cooper Union address. Wills makes the case that though the situation today is of lesser magnitude than the occurrences of 1860, that Obama and Lincoln faced structurally similar challenges of needing to stay true to their promise of change while offering reassurance that they weren’t closet radicals.

Of course it should be said that for all Lincoln’s greatness, he only got 40 percent of the vote in the 1860 general election, so arguably wasn’t all that successful in reassuring people about his views.

Climate Progress

A Simple Proposal: A Coal Power Non-Proliferation Treaty

[I said that the winner of the explain-why-Roger-Pielke-is-wrong contest would get the chance to blog weekly here. Here is the first post by Ken Levenson, who blogs at checklisttowardzerocarbon. Relatedly, the Center for American Progress has proposed an "Emission Performance Standard for New Coal-Fired Power Plants," which would require that "new coal capacity be built to meet a CO2 emissions standard achievable with the best available CCS technology."]

By Ken Levenson

While the world is awakening to the horrific ramifications of climate change, our progress in combating it is dangerously slow – retarded by an inertia composed of mighty fossil fuel interests, our wanton personal habits, an indifferent press and short sighted political leadership. We await the promise of a new American administration but precious days are passing. What can be done before November, to stack the deck, so that the new administration can’t just do “the right thing” wink, wink – but is compelled to do everything that needs to be done? It is as they say, a defining moment.

In his new slide show Al Gore speaks passionately to the predicament and possibilities of this extraordinary time. Along with his smart and well funded “we” branding strategy — Al Gore for many Americans is the face of global warming. History will treat Al Gore well, yet at this moment he’s unjustly trapped in the warped prism of Bush/Cheney World — and so his message is lost on too many fence sitting Americans.

But there is another leader right now: the conservative, mid-westerner James Hansen. Level-headed and firm, he has embarked on what seems to be a one man quest from another era; to stop the construction of new coal power plants. Hansen rightly defines the issue in terms of security — our existential security. He’s written letters to the heads of Britain and Australia, testified at public hearings and harangued energy officials in his effort to stop new plants.

Hansen sees the politicians as intractably beholden to fossil fuel interests and is increasingly stating that the only way to break the log jam is through the courts. He may be right.

Yet his clear insistence that coal plant construction be halted and that all existing coal plants be shut down – last year by 2050 and now ominously he says by by 2030. Hansen calls for a moratorium on coal as do others, including leading Democrats. A moratorium is the result we require. Yet the mechanism for getting such a moratorium at the requisite global scale remains nebulous and consequently ineffectual. A strong and clear mechanism to achieve a global moratorium on coal power plants is absolutely required. I believe the clear mechanism missing is a Coal Power Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Read more

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up