

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Though President Obama made headlines Sunday night by signing an executive order that officially renames Alaska's Mt. McKinley to Denali--the name used by Indigenous people and most Alaskan residents--his visit to the country's most northern state remains clouded for many by a contradictory stance in which he calls for strong climate action on one hand while simultaneously championing offshore Arctic drilling with the other.
In restoring Mt. McKinely's name as Denali--which at 20,320 feet is North America's tallest mountain--Obama was instating, as the Associated Press notes, a moniker Alaskans have informally used for centuries. The name means "the high one" in Athabascan.
With Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry now in Alaska for a three-day visit, the optics are challenging for the two men. They have used powerful speeches to indicate the administration's understanding of the threat posed by human-caused global warming but continue to fall short, in the eyes of experts and environmental campaigners, when it comes to taking concrete steps.
As Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, expressed in an analysis on Sunday parsing the divisions between climate politics and climate physics, "the alarm [the president] is sounding is muffled by the fact that earlier this year he gave Shell Oil a permit to go drill in the Arctic, potentially opening up a giant new pool of oil."
And writing at the Washington Post on Monday, Chris Mooney points out that though Obama certainly has the power to rename a mountain, there is no executive order by itself that can stop the "loss of ice" experienced by Denali and the clear and present impacts climate change is having across Alaska's wild spaces in recent years.
Taking to social media following the news about Denali, several users on Twitter--with varying degrees of charity--pointed out that even as the restitution of the mountain's name is welcomed by the Athabascan tribes and others, the gesture should not overshadow the inherent threat of offshore drilling in Alaska's pristine coastal waters:
In recent statements, Obama has defended the drilling as economically necessary even as experts warn that a large-scale spill in the region is not only "inevitable," given the harsh conditions, but represents humanity's worst instincts when it comes to going after increasingly hard-to-reach fossil fuel deposits as a time when scientists are saying the majority of the world's untapped reserves must stay in the ground.
"There is a very obvious contradiction between meaningful action to address climate change and continued exploration for remote and difficult hydrocarbon resources," said Michael LeVine, Arctic campaigner for Oceana, ahead of Obama's arrival. "Moving forward with exploiting Arctic oil and gas is inconsistent with the Administration's stated goal and meaningful action on climate change."
And as Hannah McKinnon, a writer and campaigner for Oil Change International, wrote just as Obama and Kerry touched down in Alaska on Sunday:
The Obama Administration is planning its energy policy on the basis that its own climate policy will fail (as well as any that comes in the coming years). It is reckless, disingenuous, and downright offensive to those living the impacts of climate change everyday around the world.
Scientists are clear that we must leave at least 80% of the fossil fuels we already have access to in the ground. Exploration and expansion of resources like the Arctic that wouldn't come online for at least a decade is nothing short of climate denial.
President Obama and Secretary Kerry seem to get the urgent need to tackle climate change, at least on a rhetorical level. We have heard compelling speeches, seen noble policy efforts, and heard about the impact having children has had on the urgency felt to leave a strong climate legacy.
But until President Obama and Secretary Kerry actually work towards an end to exploration, expansion and production of oil, coal and gas that we clearly cannot afford to burn - their legacy threatens to ultimately be one of denial of what this crisis truly requires. Alaskans will undoubtedly be sharing compelling stories this week, and it is time for the President to listen, do what is right, and put an end to high risk Arctic oil exploration.
The crux of the contradiction and Obama's dilemma, according to 350.org's McKibben, is that planetary warming driven by human activity does not conform to most other policy issues lawmakers face. "Climate change is not like most of the issues politicians deal with," he wrote, "the ones where compromise makes complete sense."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Though President Obama made headlines Sunday night by signing an executive order that officially renames Alaska's Mt. McKinley to Denali--the name used by Indigenous people and most Alaskan residents--his visit to the country's most northern state remains clouded for many by a contradictory stance in which he calls for strong climate action on one hand while simultaneously championing offshore Arctic drilling with the other.
In restoring Mt. McKinely's name as Denali--which at 20,320 feet is North America's tallest mountain--Obama was instating, as the Associated Press notes, a moniker Alaskans have informally used for centuries. The name means "the high one" in Athabascan.
With Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry now in Alaska for a three-day visit, the optics are challenging for the two men. They have used powerful speeches to indicate the administration's understanding of the threat posed by human-caused global warming but continue to fall short, in the eyes of experts and environmental campaigners, when it comes to taking concrete steps.
As Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, expressed in an analysis on Sunday parsing the divisions between climate politics and climate physics, "the alarm [the president] is sounding is muffled by the fact that earlier this year he gave Shell Oil a permit to go drill in the Arctic, potentially opening up a giant new pool of oil."
And writing at the Washington Post on Monday, Chris Mooney points out that though Obama certainly has the power to rename a mountain, there is no executive order by itself that can stop the "loss of ice" experienced by Denali and the clear and present impacts climate change is having across Alaska's wild spaces in recent years.
Taking to social media following the news about Denali, several users on Twitter--with varying degrees of charity--pointed out that even as the restitution of the mountain's name is welcomed by the Athabascan tribes and others, the gesture should not overshadow the inherent threat of offshore drilling in Alaska's pristine coastal waters:
In recent statements, Obama has defended the drilling as economically necessary even as experts warn that a large-scale spill in the region is not only "inevitable," given the harsh conditions, but represents humanity's worst instincts when it comes to going after increasingly hard-to-reach fossil fuel deposits as a time when scientists are saying the majority of the world's untapped reserves must stay in the ground.
"There is a very obvious contradiction between meaningful action to address climate change and continued exploration for remote and difficult hydrocarbon resources," said Michael LeVine, Arctic campaigner for Oceana, ahead of Obama's arrival. "Moving forward with exploiting Arctic oil and gas is inconsistent with the Administration's stated goal and meaningful action on climate change."
And as Hannah McKinnon, a writer and campaigner for Oil Change International, wrote just as Obama and Kerry touched down in Alaska on Sunday:
The Obama Administration is planning its energy policy on the basis that its own climate policy will fail (as well as any that comes in the coming years). It is reckless, disingenuous, and downright offensive to those living the impacts of climate change everyday around the world.
Scientists are clear that we must leave at least 80% of the fossil fuels we already have access to in the ground. Exploration and expansion of resources like the Arctic that wouldn't come online for at least a decade is nothing short of climate denial.
President Obama and Secretary Kerry seem to get the urgent need to tackle climate change, at least on a rhetorical level. We have heard compelling speeches, seen noble policy efforts, and heard about the impact having children has had on the urgency felt to leave a strong climate legacy.
But until President Obama and Secretary Kerry actually work towards an end to exploration, expansion and production of oil, coal and gas that we clearly cannot afford to burn - their legacy threatens to ultimately be one of denial of what this crisis truly requires. Alaskans will undoubtedly be sharing compelling stories this week, and it is time for the President to listen, do what is right, and put an end to high risk Arctic oil exploration.
The crux of the contradiction and Obama's dilemma, according to 350.org's McKibben, is that planetary warming driven by human activity does not conform to most other policy issues lawmakers face. "Climate change is not like most of the issues politicians deal with," he wrote, "the ones where compromise makes complete sense."
Though President Obama made headlines Sunday night by signing an executive order that officially renames Alaska's Mt. McKinley to Denali--the name used by Indigenous people and most Alaskan residents--his visit to the country's most northern state remains clouded for many by a contradictory stance in which he calls for strong climate action on one hand while simultaneously championing offshore Arctic drilling with the other.
In restoring Mt. McKinely's name as Denali--which at 20,320 feet is North America's tallest mountain--Obama was instating, as the Associated Press notes, a moniker Alaskans have informally used for centuries. The name means "the high one" in Athabascan.
With Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry now in Alaska for a three-day visit, the optics are challenging for the two men. They have used powerful speeches to indicate the administration's understanding of the threat posed by human-caused global warming but continue to fall short, in the eyes of experts and environmental campaigners, when it comes to taking concrete steps.
As Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, expressed in an analysis on Sunday parsing the divisions between climate politics and climate physics, "the alarm [the president] is sounding is muffled by the fact that earlier this year he gave Shell Oil a permit to go drill in the Arctic, potentially opening up a giant new pool of oil."
And writing at the Washington Post on Monday, Chris Mooney points out that though Obama certainly has the power to rename a mountain, there is no executive order by itself that can stop the "loss of ice" experienced by Denali and the clear and present impacts climate change is having across Alaska's wild spaces in recent years.
Taking to social media following the news about Denali, several users on Twitter--with varying degrees of charity--pointed out that even as the restitution of the mountain's name is welcomed by the Athabascan tribes and others, the gesture should not overshadow the inherent threat of offshore drilling in Alaska's pristine coastal waters:
In recent statements, Obama has defended the drilling as economically necessary even as experts warn that a large-scale spill in the region is not only "inevitable," given the harsh conditions, but represents humanity's worst instincts when it comes to going after increasingly hard-to-reach fossil fuel deposits as a time when scientists are saying the majority of the world's untapped reserves must stay in the ground.
"There is a very obvious contradiction between meaningful action to address climate change and continued exploration for remote and difficult hydrocarbon resources," said Michael LeVine, Arctic campaigner for Oceana, ahead of Obama's arrival. "Moving forward with exploiting Arctic oil and gas is inconsistent with the Administration's stated goal and meaningful action on climate change."
And as Hannah McKinnon, a writer and campaigner for Oil Change International, wrote just as Obama and Kerry touched down in Alaska on Sunday:
The Obama Administration is planning its energy policy on the basis that its own climate policy will fail (as well as any that comes in the coming years). It is reckless, disingenuous, and downright offensive to those living the impacts of climate change everyday around the world.
Scientists are clear that we must leave at least 80% of the fossil fuels we already have access to in the ground. Exploration and expansion of resources like the Arctic that wouldn't come online for at least a decade is nothing short of climate denial.
President Obama and Secretary Kerry seem to get the urgent need to tackle climate change, at least on a rhetorical level. We have heard compelling speeches, seen noble policy efforts, and heard about the impact having children has had on the urgency felt to leave a strong climate legacy.
But until President Obama and Secretary Kerry actually work towards an end to exploration, expansion and production of oil, coal and gas that we clearly cannot afford to burn - their legacy threatens to ultimately be one of denial of what this crisis truly requires. Alaskans will undoubtedly be sharing compelling stories this week, and it is time for the President to listen, do what is right, and put an end to high risk Arctic oil exploration.
The crux of the contradiction and Obama's dilemma, according to 350.org's McKibben, is that planetary warming driven by human activity does not conform to most other policy issues lawmakers face. "Climate change is not like most of the issues politicians deal with," he wrote, "the ones where compromise makes complete sense."