History books will likely look back on September 2016 as a major milestone for the world’s climate. https://t.co/x3C7ife8Ij
Though I should have seen it coming, I was still a bit taken aback when the first fundraising appeal hit my inbox last week after President Obama announced (to no one’s surprise) that he would be running for re-election in 2012. So soon, I thought?
As you may have heard, the President’s team will attempt to raise a billion dollars to finance his reelection effort, that being the going rate for all the advertising, direct mail, social media, and on-the-ground campaigning required to bring home the big prize. And a friend of mine was reaching out via email out to see if I was ready to start doing my part.
The argument in favor is obvious to anyone who has watched in horror as the Republican-controlled House works to strip the EPA of authority and funding, and to overturn scientific findings relating to climate change. Think about how much worse it would be if we didn’t have President Obama in the White House with a veto pen.
I get that, but still, I can’t help feeling let down by the President. It’s not so much that we didn’t get real action on climate change these past couple years, or even that the term isn’t even deemed important enough to make an appearance in the 2011 State of the Union. It’s that he didn’t seem willing to try. And I really don’t believe he’s likely to try any harder in a second term. Do you?
To be clear, there’s no way I would vote against him, or sit out the election. President Romney/Gingrich/Trump et. al. would be a far worse outcome than another four years of not much happening on the climate change front. But should my money go to supporting the re-election campaign, or to organizations like 350.org, which are taking the climate change agenda to the streets in hopes of getting our policy makers to pay more attention?
I’m curious as to what Footprint readers think. Please let me know in the comments.