Climate Politics

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.

President Barack Obama's call to action on energy and climate

Considering that this was an inaugural address, a speech whose aims are primarily rhetorical and visionary, our 44th president devoted more of his remarks to clean energy and global warming than anyone could have expected.

Yet it may be these muscular and optimistic lines that offer the greatest encouragement to the nation and the world:

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions -- who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

Obama believes the simple yet powerful words, "Make no small plans."

We can preserve a livable climate, but it will require the biggest of plans. It will require a memory of what we have accomplished in the past, most especially during World War II -- the only true model for the scale and speed of effort required.

Let's look at what he said specifically related to energy and climate, starting with the fourth paragraph:

The energy and climate challenge for Obama

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this day.

-----

The excitement here in D.C. is palpable. We have friends in town who brought their five-year-old and are walking down to the National Mall. My wife got an invitation to watch the whole thing from an office that overlooks the Capitol.

I'm an indoor type (Duh!) -- especially on a cold day with a wind chill that could only warm the hearts of anti-scientific global warming deniers. And someone needs to stay home with my 21-month-old daughter and blog.

She is so excited. She keeps saying "Where is Barack Obama?" and "Is Joe Biden here?" (Note: If you ask her who ran against Barack Obama, she'll answer "Grumpy old man." Go figure!)

So what is the great challenge for Obama?

Global warming, obviously, but what does he need to do?

Yes, he needs to pass a major climate bill and accelerate the deployment of cleantech. But those are really secondary challenges.

No, the single most important thing he needs to do is to change the political equation in this country.

Remember this?

Energy and environment front and center on White House website

The White House website made an apparently smooth transition from George W. Bush to Barack Obama today, and energy and environment get a starring role on the new administration's homepage.

There's nothing really new here; the details of the new president's environment and energy agenda were announced long ago. But it's good to see these issues taking center stage on day one of the Obama administration. Lest anyone doubt the significance of the change, Obama's agenda declares: "The energy challenges our country faces are severe and have gone unaddressed for far too long. Our addiction to foreign oil doesn't just undermine our national security and wreak havoc on our environment -- it cripples our economy and strains the budgets of working families all across America. President Obama and Vice President Biden have a comprehensive plan to invest in alternative and renewable energy, end our addiction to foreign oil, address the global climate crisis and create millions of new jobs."

Also included is the White House's intent to "Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050" and "Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change."

Finally, it appears blogging has finally made its way to 1600 Pennsylvania. The White House site now includes: www.whitehouse.gov/blog.