Climate Politics

Obama's early actions bode well for the environment

Within a few hours of inauguration on Tuesday, President Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel issued a memo [PDF] telling agency and department heads to freeze movement on 11th-hour regulations from the Bush administration. He wrote:

... no proposed or final regulation should be sent to the Office of Federal Register for publication unless and until it has been reviewed and approved by a department or agency head appointed or designated by the President after noon on January 20, 2009

Exceptions can be made for regulations pertaining to "health, safety, environmental, financial, or national security matters" -- but of course it will now be the Obama administration determining what qualifies for those exceptions.

The memo also asks department heads to consider pushing back for 60 days the effective date for new regulations that have been published but have not yet gone into effect.

Among the rulings put on hold was the Bush administration's revision to endangered species rules, which would have blocked the Endangered Species Act from being used to curb global-warming emissions and given scientists in the federal government less input on listing species. More to come on other environment-related regulations now on hold.

UPDATE: The freeze on publishing new regulations also means that the Bush administration's controversial decision to take gray wolves off the endangered species list won't go into effect.

Critter fans are applauding: "The past eight years have been a nightmare for wildlife. Fortunately, within hours of assuming office, President Obama has put the brakes on the Bush Administration's 11th hour attacks on wolves and the environment. President Obama is a breath of fresh air," said Brian Vincent, communications director for the group Big Wildlife.

Bills for highways, no change for transit

Think all news is bad news during this epic recession of ours? Think again -- over the past three months, real wages have increased 23 percent, an enormous gain. At a crucial period for many working families, paychecks are going a lot farther than they did back in the summer.

The explanation is simple: wages are flat, prices are down. The labor market operates on a bit of a lag, so while the recession affected oil demand and prices very quickly, layoffs and falling wages are emerging more slowly. Eventually, the weak economy will catch up to workers (those who still have jobs), and spending power will decline.

But this is important to remember given the trends of the past decade. When economies are growing, oil prices rise. This means that even while wages are growing, it's difficult for consumer spending power to keep up, unless we reduce the intensity of oil in our economy. How can we do this? Easy -- cut commuting times, reduce driving, reduce congestion, green intercity travel and green freight shipping (so that rising oil prices don't feed through to prices for other goods, including food).

This, of course, is the logic behind a push for greener infrastructure. Better transit and rail systems boost productivity -- by improving movement of goods and people -- which increases wages. They also reduce the petroleum intensity of the economy. In a boom period, you then have rising wages that aren't much eroded by rising energy costs. And that means a richer and greener society.

Barack Obama understands this; at least, that's what we've been led to believe by his speeches. Many Congressional leaders understand it too. And it is therefore very disappointing to see the contents of the new American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- also known as the stimulus bill. As has been widely reported, roughly $30 billion of the proposed infrastructure spending will go to highways, while only $10 billion is allocated toward transit and rail.

Grist special series on George W. Bush's environmental legacy

After eight years, the whole world is ready to be rid of him. But the damage George W. Bush did to the environment will be around long after he goes back to clearing brush in Crawford. What exactly did he accomplish? We take a look at the good (yes, there was some), the bad, and the ugly.

• David Roberts sets the scene
• An interactive time line of Bush's environmental actions
• The WTF moments that surprised even us
• Bush's environmental team as Simpson characters
• Bill McKibben on the worst of the Bush years
• Jim DiPeso on the best of the Bush years

Gore’s inaugural ball was star-studded (even without Obama)

On Monday night, I got to check out this week’s premier environmental event, Al Gore’s Green Inaugural Ball, held at the National Portrait Gallery. The food and décor were eco-friendly, though one couldn’t tell by looking, as recycled-fiber carpet looks exactly like regular carpet. What really stood out were the star power and festive air. […]

Eight more environmental Bushisms

George W. Bush is, by far, the greatest mistake ever made by the American people -- or was that by Gore for running such an inadequate campaign, or by Ralph Nader for running at all or at least by one idiot in South Florida who designed the butterfly ballot, or by the Supreme Court (Note to self: let it go, let it go, let it go, on this day of all days).

It is amusing to read the delusionary op-eds of conservatives who think Bush's legacy will be determined by Iraq, and therefore Bush will be vindicated and rehabilitated by history. Not!

Even if we could forget Katrina, torture, Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, and the worst economy since the great depression, his legacy, with a near-absolute certainty, will be set by his policy of wanton climate destruction (see "the Worst President in American History") -- unless, of course, Barack Obama can somehow put us on a truly sustainable path, but that rejection of everything Bush stood for will hardly rehabilitate W. Quite the reverse.

Anyway, the real point of this final post on Bush -- final at least until the media or the Obama team uncover yet another unbelievable environmentally destructive thing he did that we are as yet unaware of -- is to share a list of eight environmental Bushisms I just found to make my list of the top 25 Bushisms of all time complete:

An open letter to President Obama on how to make the climate challenge real and urgent to Americans

Dear President Obama,

James and Anniek Hansen urge you to pay attention to the particulars of your administration's climate policy as a first order of business. The devil's in the details, the Hansens argue, and the broad language with which you address the crisis does not seem to acknowledge the "profound disconnect" between climate policy and climate science.

Your approach to global warming was deftly crafted to appear strong and be vague, of course, a smart reading of what the electorate, even in Democratic primary states, would tolerate and one reason why you triumphed in a field of candidates that included several who tried to run on climate.

It is one thing to sidestep a campaign issue voters are unwilling to face -- but pragmatic campaign decisions are not binding on the President of the United States of America when the world is coming to an end.

You are faced with an insoluble crisis and are weaker for the subtle campaign strategy that helped elected you. There is no functional solution to the climate catastrophe in policies now on the table and you take office with no mandate to advance one.

The U.S. cannot muster the resources and resolve necessary to lead the world to safety if your administration does no more than plump domestic "green jobs" and "equitable stimulus" programs -- progressive rhetoric for the stump and nothing more -- and endorse decades-old cap-and-trade policy ginned up by environmentalists looking for policy acceptable to corporate "climate action" partners.

As our first organizer President, you know that the right course of action is not to tinker with the details of policy, as Hansen does, but to rewrite the terms of the debate. The problem is that there is no conflict and it is therefore difficult to bring the resources of the "bully pulpit" to bear.

The bold move is to do nothing.

The four global warming impact studies Bush tried to bury in his final days

NOTE TO U.S. MEDIA: Please don't fall for the Bush administration's final climate trick -- don't ignore these important studies.

-----

Normally, when an administration wants to bury bad news -- such as a government report it doesn't like -- the story gets released Friday afternoon. That ensures minimal media coverage. For news it really doesn't like, the Friday of a three-day weekend is ideal.

So what subject matter is so abhorrent it would motivate the Bush administration to release multiple reports simultaneously the Friday before the four-day weekend that culminates in their loss of power, and when they can be certain the media will be focused on other matters?

Answer: The impact of human-caused global warming on Americans -- arguably the single most taboo subject in the entire Bush administration. For eight years they have avoided their statutory obligation to detail the impacts of climate change on this country. And they have systematically muzzled government climate scientists from discussing those impacts with the public or the media.

It was easier to find people in the Bush administration to talk about torture or warrantless wiretaps, than it was to get someone to speak on (or off) the record on the likely impact of Bush's policy of unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions on Americans.

On Friday January 16, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program actually released four major Synthesis and Assessment reports. You may remember the last report the CCSP released -- U.S. Geological Survey stunner: Sea-level rise in 2100 will likely "substantially exceed" IPCC projections, SW faces "permanent drying" by 2050. I was told by scientists knowledgeable about the CCSP process that all of the major impact reports were slowed down in the review process to make sure they came out after the election.

So what are the reports the Bushies have tried to bury? From the CCSP website:

Wherein life teaches a journalist a lesson

I'll write something on the larger themes and context soon, but for now, I'm exhausted, my feet hurt, my back hurts, and all I've got in me is an account of my own experience, which turned out to be not at all what I expected.

Grist had one press pass to the swearing-in ceremony. Since Kate got to go to the green ball (more on that from her soon), I got the pass. Great, right? A chance to see history up close, surrounded by other privileged and important members of the media.

Because I assumed I'd basically cruise in past the crowds, as we did on Sunday for the concert, I didn't leave the house until about 10am. The ceremony started at 11:30 and I had about a half-hour walk ... I thought. On the Obama site's media guide, it said that the press entrance is "TBA." (Kinda wondering when they're going to announce it.) Anyway, I tacked toward the Capitol, assuming I'd be close to the proceedings, and approached a cop at the first entrance point.

"Where's the media entrance?"

"I don't know, but you can't come in here, it's for ticket holders."

Hm. Okay. Next entrance point, slightly farther away.

"Where's the media entrance?"

"Oh, it's on 15th and H, I think."

"Are you sure? That's the other way, away from the ceremony."

"That's what I heard."

Grr. Fine. I schlep through the packed crowds, eight or nine blocks to 15th and H, glancing nervously at my watch.

Finally get there. "Is this the media entrance?"

"This is for Lafayette media pass holders. You have a national mall media pass. You want to go a a couple blocks over."

Fine.

"Is this the media entrance?"

"No, that's at 15th and H."

Parsing Section 451 of the House stimulus package

Here are some thoughts on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act recently unveiled by House leaders -- specifically, the appropriation of Section 451 (aka "Subtitle E") from the 2007 Energy Bill.

For obvious reasons, we've been following this bill very closely, which not only provides $10 per MWh to waste heat recovery and high-efficiency cogeneration projects, but it also provides a nice suite of carrots to induce the states to reform their paleolithic electricity regulatory laws. Often these laws have long been perhaps the biggest barrier to reducing the carbon footprint of U.S. electricity generation and distribution.

For less obvious reasons, it's hard to get programs like this through the Congress. This is the result of some peculiarities of the way the federal government makes decisions to spend money:

1. Tax bills require one vote to enact (OK, technically three, since they have to be approved by both houses and then signed by the President, but it is a single vote on a single decision throughout). All other fiscal bills require two votes: the first authorizes the funding, and the second appropriates the money through the budget process. Since no vote is certain, this makes it much easier for regulators to get things done by tinkering with tax policy than through any other measure. In no small part, this is why the tax code is so full of complexity, loopholes, and social-engineering run amok. But I digress.


2. Any appropriation process must be "scored." This is the process by which the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of the legislation to the Treasury for the purpose of figuring out whether we can afford it. That's quite reasonable, but the nature of the process is such that it tends to ignore most of the upside because it does not readily differentiate between good and bad investments. (It is as if you made a decision to buy a stock based on the price per share without any consideration of whether it was likely to rise or sink in the future.) This becomes especially problematic when the economy sours, as the stimulative effects of investments are not readily quantified or evaluated precisely at the time when they are most needed.

Frustrating as this may be, the good news is that the limitations are well-understood by those inside the Beltway. Setting aside what the scoring rules say, here is what Section 451 will actually do for the U.S. economy ... with lessons broadly applicable to investments in all flavors of enhanced resource efficiency.

Senate confirms Obama's picks to run Energy, USDA, and Interior

Just hours after President Obama took the oath of office, the U.S. Senate confirmed three Cabinet members who will play a role in shaping energy and environmental policy, National Journal reported. By voice vote, senators approved Steven Chu as Energy Secretary, Ken Salazar as Interior Secretary, and Tom Vilsack as Agriculture Secretary.

Interior's Web gurus were quick to note the official installation of their new boss. The department's site features a photo of Salazar front and center on the homepage, along with a press release with background on the new secretary. As of late Tuesday afternoon, Energy and Agriculture hadn't updated their sites to reflect their new bosses.

Check out Grist's profiles of these Cabinet members:

• Steven Chu
• Ken Salazar
• Tom Vilsack

The Senate adjourned Tuesday without taking action on Lisa Jackson's nomination to run EPA or Nancy Sutley's nomination to run the Council on Environmental Quality.