Climate Politics

Adopting tougher emissions standards, new eco-label in Washington

California gets all the glory. As Kate mentioned, President Obama has ordered the EPA to reconsider a request from California and 13 other states to set automobile emissions standards that are tougher than federal standards. It's that "13 other states" phrase that should be most important to Puget Sound readers, as Washington is one of the bunch.

Along with Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont, Washington has pledged to adopt California's standards, which would aim to reduce vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions 30 percent by 2016.

So what has to happen here once the California waiver is OK'd? Well, technically, nothing. Once those stricter standards are approved for California, they'll go into effect here in Washington, starting with the 2011 model year vehicles (which you'll start to see on dealer lots next year). That is, unless state courts get involved. According to Sandy Howard of Washington's Department of Ecology, there are still some pending state lawsuits that could affect the overall outcome.

Well, if we can't force automakers to build greener cars, how about shaming consumers into buying greener cars?

EPA administrator details her priorities to staffers

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson issued a memo on Friday highlighting her top priorities for the agency and the philosophy she will use in setting policy.

"Science must be the backbone for EPA programs. The public health and environmental laws that Congress has enacted depend on rigorous adherence to the best available science," she wrote. "The President believes that when EPA addresses scientific issues, it should rely on the expert judgment of the Agency's career scientists and independent advisors. When scientific judgments are suppressed, misrepresented or distorted by political agendas, Americans can lose faith in their government to provide strong public health and environmental protection."

Jackson took a specific swipe at the Bush administration's policies in this regard. "The laws that Congress has written and directed EPA to implement leave room for policy judgments," she said. "However, policy decisions should not be disguised as scientific findings. I pledge that I will not compromise the integrity of EPA's experts in order to advance a preference for a particular regulatory outcome."

She also outlined her top five issues:

• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The President has pledged to make responding to the threat of climate change a high priority of his administration. He is confident that we can transition to a low-carbon economy while creating jobs and making the investment we need to emerge from the current recession and create a strong foundation for future growth. I share this vision. EPA will stand ready to help Congress craft strong, science-based climate legislation that fulfills the vision of the President. As Congress does its work, we will move ahead to comply with the Supreme Court's decision recognizing EPA's obligation to address climate change under the Clean Air Act.

• Improving air quality. The nation continues to face serious air pollution challenges, with large areas of the country out of attainment with air-quality standards and many communities facing the threat of toxic air pollution. Science shows that people's health is at stake. We will plug the gaps in our regulatory system as science and the law demand.

• Managing chemical risks. More than 30 years after Congress enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act, it is clear that we are not doing an adequate job of assessing and managing the risks of chemicals in consumer products, the workplace and the environment. It is now time to revise and strengthen EPA's chemicals management and risk assessment programs.

• Cleaning up hazardous-waste sites. EPA will strive to accelerate the pace of cleanup at the hundreds of contaminated sites across the country. Turning these blighted properties into productive parcels and reducing threats to human health and the environment means jobs and an investment in our land, our communities and our people.

• Protecting America's water. EPA will intensify our work to restore and protect the quality of the nation's streams, rivers, lakes, bays, oceans and aquifers. The Agency will make robust use of our authority to restore threatened treasures such as the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay, to address our neglected urban rivers, to strengthen drinking-water safety programs, and to reduce pollution from non-point and industrial dischargers.

Clinton taps Todd Stern as her climate envoy

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton today announced that Todd Stern will serve as her special envoy for climate change, signaling that the issue will be a key one for her department.

In this role, Stern will be the country's lead climate negotiator at the United Nations and other international summits.

"President Obama and Secretary Clinton have left no doubt that a new day is dawning in the U.S. approach to climate change and clean energy. The time for denial, delay and dispute is over," said Stern at a press conference today announcing his appointment.

"Containing climate change will require nothing less than transforming the global economy from a high-carbon to a low-carbon energy base," he said. "But done right, this can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and become a driver for economic growth in the 21st century."

Stern, who served as an adviser to the Obama transition team on environmental issues, was an assistant and staff secretary to Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1998. He was the senior White House negotiator for the Kyoto negotiations and coordinated the administration's Initiative on Global Climate Change from 1997 to 1999. From 1999 to 2001, he worked at the Department of Treasury as an adviser to the secretary. He was an adjunct lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and a fellow at the German Marshall Fund after leaving government.

Stern now works as a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he focuses on climate change and environmental issues. He drafted a proposal for creating a National Energy Council, an idea published in CAP's Change for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President. He is also a partner at the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, where he is the vice chair of the firm's Public Policy and Strategy practice.

Stern's background on both the climate issue and the inner workings of the White House signal that he's likely to play a big role in international negotiations for the State Department, and that it will be a key issue under the new Secretary of State.

Clinton echoed as much in her remarks today: "With the appointment today of a special envoy, we are sending an unequivocal message that the United States will be energetic, focused, strategic and serious about addressing global climate change and the corollary issue of clean energy."

It's an open question, however, how Stern will coordinate his actions with Carol Browner, the White House's top adviser for climate and energy issues.

More on Illinois' Clean Coal Portfolio Standard

Now that I've had time to review the legislation [PDF] that begat Illinois' Clean Coal Portfolio Standard, I offer a few tidbits.

Short version: We're not even going to pretend that coal is clean or cheap anymore. The bill actually defines "clean coal" as high-sulfur coal, and defines "cheap" as being that which doesn't raise electricity rates too fast.

Specifics:

Legislative proposals must be judged not only as policy, but also as politics

Consider the following two undertakings:

1. Policy analysis, of the sort think tankers, bloggers, and occasionally journalists do.
2. Passing legislation through Congress, the kind of thing lawmakers, Congressional staffers, lobby groups, and occasionally the public do.

The first is about policy abstracted from politics. The second is about policy immersed in politics. The first makes use of scientific findings, economic models, and conceptual analysis. The second, by and large, does not. Congresscritters are rarely persuaded to vote for (or against) particular bills on the basis of white papers. They are persuaded by retail politics -- arguments about how constituents/contributors in their states/districts will benefit/not from legislation. That's how they keep their skins. So it ever has been; so it ever shall be. Democracy is the worst system of government except the alternatives, etc.

This is not to say that No. 1 is useless, or irrelevant to No. 2. (God forbid, it's what I do with half my waking hours!) Good analysis can serve as a kind of guidepost or compass to show how close lawmakers are coming to the ideals of efficacy, fairness, etc. It can clarify choices.

Nonetheless, the two are often confused. Policy submits to policy analysis; people -- people developing, endorsing, lobbying for, and passing legislation -- submit to political analysis. Criticism of legislative proposals must perforce have two parts: how they fall short as policy, and how they fall short as politics, i.e., how stronger legislation is politically possible.

Making the latter case requires a decent sense of the political players involved. It has to show how lawmakers could be persuaded that their constituents' interests, and/or their own political careers, are at stake. It requires a decent sense of the political dynamic: competing priorities, competing lobbies, and the tools available to those pushing to strengthen bills.

Poll shows more Americans do not believe global warming is result of man-made activity

Amidst the chaos of the Inauguration events and Obama administration's transition, Rasmussen Reports conducted a global warming poll late last week. As I perused through the poll questions and responses I could barely believe what was reported: An increasing number of people do not think global warming is caused by human activity.

According to the poll, 44 percent of all people polled thought long-term planetary trends were the primary cause of global warming as opposed to the 41 percent of people who blamed human activity. In 2006, only 35 percent of people believed that global warming was caused by planetary trends. Overall, 41 percent of people polled stated global warming was a very serious problem, and 23 percent of people polled thought that it was a somewhat serious problem. Interesting though, according to Rasmussen Reports, 64 percent of Democrats think global warming is a serious problem while only 18 percent of Republicans believe the same.

Affiliations aside, this news is not only disheartening, but it is also downright disturbing.

Video of Obama's press conference on environmental directives

Here's the video of today's Obama press conference on energy and environmental executive orders:

Obama issues a flurry of environment-related orders

President Obama today signaled a stark departure from Bush-era environmental policies with the signing of executive orders aimed at kick-starting the manufacture of more efficient automobiles.

Obama ordered the EPA to reevaluate a request from California and 13 other states to set automobile emissions standards that are tougher than federal standards. He also directed the Department of Transportation to act swiftly to establish higher fuel-economy standards, starting with model year 2011.

The president called for significant investment in energy and efficiency measures in the economic stimulus package, and affirmed his desire for the United States to take charge on an international climate change treaty. He also pledged to require U.S. automakers to meet a 35-miles-per-gallon fuel-economy standard by 2020, as called for in the 2007 energy bill.

Today's executive orders are the "first steps on our journey toward energy independence," Obama said, and would reduce dependence on foreign oil by 2 million barrels a day. Dependence on foreign oil "bankrolls dictators, pays for nuclear proliferation, and fuels both sides of the war on terror," he said. This is "compounded by the long-term effects of climate change," he continued, which could result in violence, shrinking coast lines, and environmental catastrophes. "There is nothing new about these warnings. Presidents have been sounding these alarms for decades. Year after year, decade after decade, we've chosen delay over decisive action."

With regard to California's emissions policy, Obama said the EPA will "determine the best way forward," taking into account the challenges to the auto industry. The Bush administration and other opponents of California's request have argued that granting the waiver would create a patchwork of laws across the country that would make rules difficult to enforce. Though he voiced sympathy to that concern, Obama added that "we must help [the auto industry] thrive by building the efficient cars of tomorrow."

Move would allow California and 13 other states to set tougher tailpipe standards

President Barack Obama on Monday will direct federal regulators to move quickly on a waiver request from California and 13 other states that want to set higher fuel-economy standards for vehicles, according to a New York Times report citing two administration sources.

The Bush administration denied California's request for a waiver in December 2007, despite evidence that the majority of the Environmental Protection Agency's scientists supported the petition. Bush's EPA head argued that it would result in an unenforceable patchwork of laws around the country.

Obama had promised to reverse the Bush decision during last year's campaign, and on Jan. 21, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols sent letters to the new administration asking them to follow through. In her confirmation hearing, new EPA administrator Lisa Jackson indicated that she would reconsider their request.

The New York Times also reports that Obama will direct the Department of Transportation to begin drafting new national automobile fuel-economy regulations in compliance with the December 2007 energy bill. He is also planning to call on federal agencies to begin making government buildings more energy efficient, according to the Times.

The Washington Post also has the story, reporting that White House officials "privately trumpeted [the emissions move] to supporters as 'the first environment and energy actions taken by the President, helping our country move toward greater energy independence.'"

While the Times says Obama's decision will result in quick approval for California emissions waiver, the Post's story has a more conditional tone, saying only that the president has ordered the EPA "to reexamine two policies that could force automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars which yield fewer greenhouse gas emissions."

UPDATE: Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) issued this statement Sunday night praising the move: "As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I will be working with the new EPA Administrator to ensure that the California waiver moves forward as fast as possible. When the waiver is signed, it will be a signal to Detroit that a huge market awaits them if they do the right thing and produce the cleanest, most efficient vehicles possible."

UPDATE: And this from Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope: "This action deserves the loudest applause. President Obama is making good on campaign promises and sending yet another clear signal that global warming and a clean energy economy are top priorities for his administration. By beginning this process and directing EPA to review the Bush administration's lack of action, President Obama is turning the Federal Government into a force for positive change instead of a roadblock."

On Maddow show, Oberstar DeFazio fingers Larry Summers as destroyer of transit spending

You want to know why it's important to have a genuine, intelligent progressive on cable news? Here's why: