We’re told this federal election is going to run on “leadership” something Mc Cain is said to be endowed with. Apart from a deeper hole in the Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps Iran quagmire, I haven’t been aware of any place Mc Cain has promised to “lead” us to. So I found his concept of leadership puzzling. When I saw the Conservative TV ads and realized that leadership is about wearing a flag on your lapel… seemed like Dumb and dumbo teamed up to be cowards for the environment.

Now I don’t mean to be a stickler for substance, but isn’t leadership supposed to be about leading people, about guiding them to a better place than they’d be able to get to on their own?

Guiding the people to that better place isn’t easy since there are plenty of powerful interests anxious to hijack the caravan, and detour it to their own advantage. Fending off those interests, and protecting the public, could be called leadership.

If there’s one issue that’s emerged as pivotal in the past decade – and promises to become more so – it’s global warming.  So a politician claiming “leadership” as his strong suit is presumably as adept at tackling the climate threat as he is at playing musical house.

Indeed, climate change is the issue of our time. Ignoring it isn’t an option. Given what’s at stake and the array of powerful interests resisting change, it’s fair to say that how politicians tackle climate change is a good measure of real leadership.

Exactly what “leadership” attributes does McCain-Palin bring to the climate battle?

Well, let’s see, he’s steely-eyed, angry white man, aloof, tolerates no dissent and pronounces English words very nicely with a drawl. His running mate is on a fecundity league all her own: “Drill baby Drill” is her morning mantra and a quickie “burn the books” is her evening fireside chat.

On the down side, McCain barely budged from his past as a climate-change denier, he’s blocked progress toward solutions at key  meetings, and he’s introduced  regulations that support unregulated free market gas emissions. He never supported emission reductions as he said in the past he doesn’t understand their impact. Now his running mate fecund Sarah… well she first wants to put her daughter in the electric chair for being a little slut (local warming) and then she might burn the library books in her fireplace for efficient heating in the cold Alaskan winter (home warming). Further as she says Alaskans don’t mind some warm weather…

Meanwhile, his chief rival, Obama, has proposed a far-reaching plan to introduce a tax on carbon, and compensate with income tax reductions, particularly at the lower end. Unfortunately his electability after failing to grab Hillary as his running mate, is near nil. His running mate cotton mouth Joe, is unintelligent on the environment but maybe an improvement on family values and following Obama’s lead they just might save the world. Given half a chance to lead and try to fight for the earth and not blowing it like their Democratic predecessors Bill and Al who miserably failed us all. And then came out crying wolf. But who when they had the opportunity to sign the Kyoto accords in consequence in Hague they seized up. America could have led the world and even the developing nations would have followed except that pragmatist Bill and scardy cat Al just sold us all down the river of eternal promises. They could have just signed, lead the world and create the momentum we needed a full decade before this new contest.  No sense crying over spilled milk but Obama and Joe ought to know the past if they want to lead and avoid a repeat of an emasculated president like Bill going down literally on the environment with his sidekick Al just watching…

Most serious observers say that some method of putting a price on carbon – either through a carbon tax or “cap-and-trade” system – will be necessary. The respected environmental group, Sierra Club, gives Obama  a B+ when the Republican candidates are scoring a kind F- and stand out as climate change renegades in the Sierra Club’s rankings.

Not content to just do nothing, the McCaines are trying to scare Americans about Obama’s Green stand.  McCain said and was echoed by Palin last week: I think it’s a crazy time for the country to take risks. We need to get more cheaper oil in our reserves…

That means explicitly that we should find new areas to drill: Drill off coast, off shore, arctic drills and invade a few countries that have it to steal…

Mad Max as national energy policy… What a concept.

Really ?  We’ve tried that and here we all are. No risk of change and leadership in a changing world now ? When then, would be a good time for the country to take risks ?

After 2050 ?

The year 2050 is when the assorted global environmental scientists on the UN’s affiliated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (long words) say it will be too late.

That is if we haven’t reduced global emissions by 50% per cent below 1990 levels, it will be too far gone; too late to reverse any long term trends.  A goal we’re nowhere near achieving in the trend projections even by 2150?

So this is the Republican leadership.  But one might think that doing nothing invites disaster. Also,  doing nothing is a rather risky systems analysis approach and the cost of inaction in absolute terms is just a few trillion $US. So money now or money later ? A bird in the hand is worth…  how many in the future?  Sadly there might be no birds left after these yahoos are done with their next term in office.

The misguided war on terror would have been far better if it was a war targeted at CO2 emissions. Consumming less fluorocarbons would have been a solution to the terrorism problem as it might have stemmed the flow of finance from the wealthy and belligerent oil producers to their fundamentalist brethren. So do nothing (at our risk) is not a good leadership game plan. Polluting more is a little like homeopathy. It’s been tried and didn’t work. A change of tack is needed. That much real leaders know. McCain starts talking about change and then he goes out and hires a bimbo for a lap dance (of victory).  Good call John, those pesky Charlies messed with your mind. No real leader left here but an empty husk of a rich, anger consummed, ambitious  homeboy pandering to his lower chackras. This looks like a hit and run.

No big deal for the rich knowing what type of whopper punch we know climate change can pack for this earth and the species survival. But shuffling among various houses the McCains will survive. It is the poor I am concerned with here; those that will not survive, as they haven’t got another highland house to hide in when the tsunami blasts the levies. I live most of the time in the lowlands of Holland and is there where people take the rising sea levels seriously. If you want to see environmental defense in action try living 13 feet under the level of the surrounding sea as all of Amsterdam and most of Holland is.

Our survival is uncertain… and I am not just speaking of the human species in particular here.

McCain’s dismissive approach is reminiscent of Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s pit-bullish attack on Barack Obama for, among other things, trying to save the planet. At least he is bold enough to have a goal to do something. If it was me I would start by saving the Caribou.

The slogan for McCain-Palin presidential leadership team is BBB. Burn Baby Burn.  The planet that is.

Among neo-cons like McCain-Palin and Bush-Chenney, any attempt to actually address real problems like climate change – with solutions other than military contracts – is ridiculed.

What’s the difference between Palin and Bush? Lipstick.

And a favorite past time activity?  Killing things…

Am I alone or…  Do you also feel the hair sights on your forehead?