The Himalayan glaciers are melting, hurricanes are strengthening, deserts are spreading and the U.S. government is dozing. Yet, the boiling pot that is the planet’s health is being put on the back burner.

President Obama is spending precious political capital (and potential real capital) on a quagmire that is healthcare debate, when more issues need to be addressed, such as climate change.

A new poll by the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation shows that in health care, Obama is losing ground with independents. In July, 53 percent agreed with him on health care; that number has now plunged to 43 percent. Tom Brokaw on ‘Meet the Press’ summed it up nicely: ‘What the president needs to do…is clarify what he really does want out of health care.’

Legislation is in the works: A climate-change bill passed through the House in June, but is still awaiting Senate approval. However, this bill doesn’t come close to what is really needed. The New York Times describes the squabbling in the Senate as ‘[a] difference of opinion…about more than what is best for the environment… Industry profits are riding on the outcome of the discussion – a rich mix of politics, environment, science and business.’ It sounds more like Washington-as-usual than real progress.

Obama has made wonderful, poetic promises, yet has only lived up to some of those promises. I agree, wholeheartedly, with the president’s speech on March 19: ‘we have a choice to make. We can remain one of the world’s leading importers of foreign oil, or we can make the investments that would allow us to become the world’s leading exporter of renewable energy. We can let climate change continue to go unchecked, or we can help stop it.’

The WhiteHouse.gov Web site lists the policy goals of the administration clearly and brilliantly, but with unspecific terms. I support the president’s main goal for energy that states: ‘It is time for the United States to lead again…we will lead again, by developing an American clean energy industry, a 21st-century economy that flourishes within our borders.’ That’s an idea I can get behind.

With all this in mind, why aren’t more time and political energy being devoted toward re-shaping the American economy to become a leader in green jobs? We spent almost $790 billion on the stimulus package, committed $247 billion to TARP loans, another $85 billion to bail out AIG, and the list goes on. Yet according to the White House, plans are in the works to spend a measly $150 billion over 10 years in energy research and development. This is an underinvestment in the future of our economy.

If the United States has to reduce 80% of greenhouse emissions by mid-century, this is not an issue to be pushed down to the next administration, or next generation. The president must devise a healthcare bill that is fiscally-responsible and has bipartisan support.

Assuming this major healthcare victory, Obama must spend his remaining political capital on collaborating with Congress on a comprehensive long-term energy bill that enables the ‘United States to lead again.’

The opportunity will present itself at the U.N. Climate Summit in Copenhagen this December. The White House and Congress have a chance to make sure the U.S. economy is focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and producing energy for the 21st century. If they succeed, they will not only have prevented some of the catastrophic problems associated with climate change, but may win the vote of this independent.

Andrew Swab is a sophomore magazine and international relations major. His columns appear weekly. He can be reached at ajswab@syr.edu

Published on September 7, 2009 at 12:00 pm