Obama Has Little To Offer
Published in Die Zeit
(Germany) on 27 October 2009
by Christoph von Marschall (link to original)
The United Nations Climate Conference begins six weeks from now in Copenhagen. President Barack Obama will probably not attend, because he has nothing to contribute.
Athletic teams have feared rivals, i.e., teams who usually defeat them. Copenhagen has such an aura for Barack Obama. He was defeated when his hometown of Chicago was dropped from the competition there to host the 2016 Olympic games. The president himself was in attendance, but Chicago was eliminated in the first round nonetheless. America considered that a personal defeat for Obama.
The U.N. Climate Conference starts there in six weeks, and Obama probably can’t contribute to any possible successes. He would like to reduce greenhouse gases, but the U.S. Congress isn’t eager to pass the legislation necessary to accomplish that. Even if it did [pass such legislation], this would garner little applause from Europeans who consider the proposed American guidelines a disappointment in the first place.
The British newspaper, the Times, plausibly claims that Obama will not attend. The U.S. media reports nothing similar and the White House remains silent. But the president probably has other, more pleasant things to do than go empty handed, return the same way and in between stand in the pillory because the United States can offer nothing constructive – not to mention the torrent of abuse he would have to endure from Republicans for just being there when he should be home worrying about his own country.
The argument against playing hooky, on the other hand, goes like this: whoever wants to lead the world has to show up. And, unlike the Olympics, with climate change you can postpone your decisions and offer your improvements at a later date. But only if you show up in the first place.
Athletic teams have feared rivals, i.e., teams who usually defeat them. Copenhagen has such an aura for Barack Obama. He was defeated when his hometown of Chicago was dropped from the competition there to host the 2016 Olympic games. The president himself was in attendance, but Chicago was eliminated in the first round nonetheless. America considered that a personal defeat for Obama.
The U.N. Climate Conference starts there in six weeks, and Obama probably can’t contribute to any possible successes. He would like to reduce greenhouse gases, but the U.S. Congress isn’t eager to pass the legislation necessary to accomplish that. Even if it did [pass such legislation], this would garner little applause from Europeans who consider the proposed American guidelines a disappointment in the first place.
The British newspaper, the Times, plausibly claims that Obama will not attend. The U.S. media reports nothing similar and the White House remains silent. But the president probably has other, more pleasant things to do than go empty handed, return the same way and in between stand in the pillory because the United States can offer nothing constructive – not to mention the torrent of abuse he would have to endure from Republicans for just being there when he should be home worrying about his own country.
The argument against playing hooky, on the other hand, goes like this: whoever wants to lead the world has to show up. And, unlike the Olympics, with climate change you can postpone your decisions and offer your improvements at a later date. But only if you show up in the first place.
Next article![]( "Polanskalifornia")
