Based upon the excerpt (from the article "Obamanomics") pasted below, Obama apparently has the knowledge to put an end to the erosion of common sense that plagued the landscape of our political economy - not to mention our landscape per se! - for the past couple of decades. The bipartisan rhetoric from the highest positions that "there is no conflict between growing the economy and protecting the environment" led citizens to believe it, corporations to hide behind it, and shenanigans all over academia and the civil service. Obama might be the one to tell it like it is.
Of course, no presidential candidate is yet in a position to be a viable contender without putting forth a pro-growth agenda. Obama did that and is now accountable for following through. The best we can realistically hope for is some explicit leadership on the trade-off between economic growth and environmental protection (etc.), even while the growth is being facilitated via macroeconomic policy. Even that is not very likely, though. It is still going to take a ground-up movement, which I believe is best founded upon the professional society position statement, to empower politicians of any party to provide real leadership on this topic; i.e., leadership that will temper consumer behavior and reform macroeconomic policies. Along those lines, I have not yet taken an opportunity to address the activities in ESA in this regard since the annual meeting, which I had to miss. That shouldn't be viewed as a lack of anything other than time. CASSE has been very busy in the wake of the financial meltdowns, with the media finally seeking answers more rooted in reality - i.e., ecological reality - than those of the un-ecologically rooted monetarists. Well, here is the excerpt from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?pagewanted=print <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?pagewanted=print> : "Shortly after I boarded Obama's campaign plane this month, one of his press aides warned me that the conversation might not last long. She explained that he was exhausted from two days of campaigning in Florida and might decide to nap as soon as he got on the plane. But a few minutes later he summoned me to the plane's first-class section, evidently choosing an economics discussion over a DVD of "Mad Men," which was sitting on his side table. His eyes were tired, and he looked a good deal older than he had only four years ago, on the night that he became famous at the 2004 Democratic convention. But we ended up talking for an hour. After I returned to my seat, the press aide walked back to tell me that Obama had more to say. "Two things," he said, as we were standing outside the first-class bathroom. "One, just because I think it really captures where I was going with the whole issue of balancing market sensibilities with moral sentiment. One of my favorite quotes is - you know that famous Robert F. Kennedy quote about the measure of our G.D.P.?" I didn't, I said. "Well, I'll send it to you, because it's one of the most beautiful of his speeches," Obama said. In it, Kennedy argues that a country's health can't be measured simply by its economic output. That output, he said, "counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them" but not "the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play." The second point Obama wanted to make was about sustainability. The current concerns about the state of the planet, he said, required something of a paradigm shift for economics. If we don't make serious changes soon, probably in the next 10 or 15 years, we may find that it's too late. Both of these points, I realized later, were close cousins of two of the weaker arguments that liberals have made in recent decades. Liberals have at times dismissed the enormous benefits that come with prosperity. And for decades some liberals have been wrongly predicting that economic growth was sure to leave the world without enough food or enough oil or enough something. Obama acknowledged as much, saying that technology had thus far always overcome any concerns about sustainability and that Kennedy's notion had to be tempered with an appreciation of prosperity. What's new about the current moment, however, is that both of these arguments are actually starting to look relevant. Based on the collective wisdom of scientists, global warming really does seem to be different from any previous environmental crisis. For the first time on record, meanwhile, economic growth has not translated into better living standards for most Americans. These are two enormous challenges that are part of the legacy of the Reagan Age. They will be waiting for the next president, whether he is Obama or McCain, and they'll probably be around for another couple of presidents too." Brian Czech, Visiting Assistant Professor Natural Resources Program Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, Virginia 22043 ________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Lela Stanley Sent: Wed 2008-11-05 15:54 To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Obama - good news for ecologists? Politico names Jay Inslee (D-Wash) and Robert Kenndy Jr. as potential Interior picks in a recent article ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15142.html). Al Gore is also named as 'Ambassador at large for climate change.' Lela On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Wendee Holtcamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > Does anyone have any idea who the candidates might be for his Secretary of > the Interior? That will probably have an important impact on how he will > impact wildlife biologists, science, conservation, etc. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Wendee Holtcamp, M.S. Wildlife Ecology > Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian > http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com <http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com/> > http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com > <http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com/> > ~~6-wk Online Writing Courses Starts Nov 8~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Jesus spread the wealth - does that make him a socialist? > > Mark 10:21 "Jesus looked at him and loved him. 'One thing you lack,' > he said. 'Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you > will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" (NIV) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Teresa M. Woods > Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:52 AM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Obama - good news for ecologists? > > I think an Obama administration can give us a lot to hope for on the one > hand -- Obama has spoken about restoring an emphasis on science in > education, and he clearly wants to be informed by science. He's > expressed serious concern about addressing global climate change. I've > heard him using some of the rhetoric consistent with Tom Friedman' book, > /Hot, Flat and Crowded/, emphasizing investment in renewable energy > sources and green building, also for wise economic reasons. Obama's > sensitive to the views in other countries, and just as leaders pressed > on President Bush to recognize climate change as real and human caused, > Obama will be under pressure from world leaders as well (and hopefully > more receptive). On the other hand, his administration is going to be > strapped by unimaginable inherited constraints. So what will be > realistic? I think only time will tell. But I am ... well, hopeful. > > Teresa > > > Teresa M. Woods, M.S. > Coordinator > Olathe Educational Partnership > > K-State Olathe Innovation Campus, Inc. > 18001 West 106th Street, Suite 160 > Olathe, KS 66061-2861 > > Office: Olathe Northwest High School > 21300 College Blvd., Rm. 1833 > Olathe, KS 66061 > Tel: 913-780-7150 > Mobile: 913-269-8512 > > > > > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Brian?= wrote: > > What do you think this means in terms of funding, job opportunities, > > environmental education, research and policy, etc.? What major changes > (if > > any) do you think might occur over the next few years that will affect > our > > personal and professional lives as ecologists? Should we be excited? > > > > Kind of a vague and open-ended question, I realize, but I'm curious to > hear > > your thoughts. > > > > >
