Barack Obama

How Obama can get a better climate bill in 2010

Update: The Center for American Progress has the post "Timeline: A Fight for State Fuel Efficiency Standards, President Obama Moves on Issue After Years of Roadblocks."

My new Salon piece is out: "Real science comes to Washington: Myopic conservatives and the media still don't get global warming. But if anybody can preserve a livable climate, Obama's amazing energy team can."

Besides exploring how the media clearly doesn't get the dire nature of the climate problem (duh) and how Obama's amazing team of radical pragmatists clearly do, I discuss what Obama needs to do in 2009 to justify not passing a major climate bill this year.

I am trying to make lemon out of lemonade here. I can't find a single reporter, staffer, or wonk who thinks we're going to have a climate bill this year. As the NYT reported earlier this month, "advisers and allies have signaled that they may put off ... restricting carbon emissions." Noting that many in Congress "question the pace at which lawmakers will be able to move on a climate legislation," Climate Wire ($ub. req'd) even quoted the uber-progressive Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, Barbara Boxer, as "acknowledging this" and saying, "If that doesn't all come together within a year, I would expect EPA would act."

Boxer's comment gets at one of the two key issues, namely, what does team Obama need to do in 2009 to make up for the fact that there won't be a climate bill? The other issue is, what does team Obama need to do in 2009 to get a better bill next year than they could get this year? I have already blogged on one part of the answer to the second question -- they need to get China onboard with a hard emissions cap (see "Part I, Does a serious bill need action from China?").

Here is my answer to both questions from the Salon piece:

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."

Air Force to announce the fate of a synthetic fuel plant

President Barack Obama gave a powerful call to action on energy and climate, and he has given the order to halt Bush's final rules. But if he really wants to send a quick, strong signal that he intends to preserve a livable climate, he should intervene immediately to stop the Pentagon's toxic dalliance with liquid coal.

As reported by Air Force Times on Tuesday:

The future of a synthetic fuel plant that would power fighters and cargo planes with processed coal will be announced this week.

The Air Force decided on Friday whether to move ahead with a plan to build a synthetic fuel plant at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont.

Due to the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and the inauguration, Air Force spokesman Gary Strasburg said the decision will not be released until Wednesday.

(Note: I can't find any notice of this decision on Google News or Montana newspapers.)

UPDATE: My sources say the decision "has been delayed."

This is simply a terrible idea (see here), especially since clean alternatives are on the way "Boeing: Jet biofuel in three years").

Obama said in his powerful inaugural address: "we will work tirelessly to ... roll back the specter of a warming planet." That can't be done running your Air Force on liquid coal:

What the Obama presidency means

For several days I've been pondering how to write something interesting or insightful about Obama and What It All Means -- something that hasn't been written a hundred other places. (The internets are choked with Obama-related profundity right now.)

In the end, though, profundity is not what's needed. Obama did plenty of that on the trail, and the very fact of his ascension to office speaks for itself.

Instead, what's called for is some bluntness. The Obama presidency is in a political vise grip, squeezed between two facts:

1. The dire situation described by the fourth IPCC report is, by all indications, an underestimate. We are careening toward catastrophe, and to avoid it we'll likely have to virtually eliminate U.S. carbon emissions by 2050, while also engineering a whole range of difficult international agreements. If we don't, it's not exaggerating to say that unprecedented human misery will result, potentially putting at risk the very preconditions of human civilization.


2. There is nothing close to the public or political support necessary to pass the kind of sweeping policies necessary to eliminate America's emissions. The U.S. political class, to say nothing of the public, is nowhere near understanding or internalizing the implications of fact No. 1. By and large climate change is still viewed as a nagging, marginal, far-off problem to be addressed to the extent (and only to the extent) that it doesn't cause any economic dislocation.

This is just another way of rephrasing Gore's famous warning that the politically possible falls well short of what's necessary. The politically possible has moved forward considerably with Obama taking office, Pelosi running the House, Waxman running the Energy Committee, Markey running the Energy Subcommittee, and competent professionals in charge of executive branch agencies. But it is still far, far short. Even many people in the green world don't really get the existential urgency involved.

Over the next four/eight years, Obama (with help from many others) will bridge that gap, and we'll have a shot at a prosperous green future. Or he won't, and our children and grandchildren will inherit a world filled with unthinkable suffering.

That's it.

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.

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.