When the People Lead….

by Matt DeNoto

There is good news and there is bad news. The good news is that Congress seems well on its way to passing through a cap-and-trade scheme to begin the process of lowering our country’s carbon pollution.

The White House had been pressing for the cap-and-trade program to start with 100% of the pollution permits being auctioned off. This would give companies the financial incentive to begin thinking about ways to cut down on their carbon output now.

But the bill recently unveiled by the House of Representatives details a plan that would call for only 15-20% of the permits to be auctioned off. The large majority of the permits would be given away to the polluters.

That is the bad news. As if the mere numbers weren’t enough of a clue, it should also be taken as a bad sign that energy companies, such as Constellation Energy Group, Inc., are applauding the bill. If the people who should stand to lose the most money are praising the new system, it’s probably not going to be very effective.

I understand the arguments. If we force companies to pay for the right to pollute, those companies will simply pass those costs along to consumers. We, ultimately, will pay for the pollution.

And that’s the whole point. Just like businesses, we regular folk need incentives to clean up our act. Because it is our responsibility. Companies don’t pollute for the fun of it. They do it to create products and services that we, the public, pay them for.

Near the end of March, the Environmental Protection Agency finally announced that it had the authority to regulate Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant. Since then, not much has been done about it because lawmakers have stated that they would prefer to regulate CO2 through new legislation than through EPA regulation.

As I watch the legislative process at ‘work,’ I secretly hope that the Obama Administration is keeping the EPA under the radar to use as a secret weapon, in the event that Congress is unable to pass effective legislation.

In other words, if it turns out that ‘The American Clean Energy and Security Act’ is a lot of hot air that sets up a useless program with no chance of actually effecting real change, I hope the White House isn’t afraid to point out to the world that the legislative angle didn’t get the job done, but luckily the EPA still has the power to regulate the pollutants and it will enforce that power.

It’s depressing to have so little faith in our ‘representatives,’ knowing that nothing matters to them except the perception of their constituents and major contributors. Their habits seem so disconnected from the real world. When Clinton was in office and pushing for fiscal responsibility, Congress abided by the Pay-Go practice, not submitting for new spending without finding somewhere appropriate to cut in order to pay for the new program. When Bush stripped away any sense of idealism, Congress dove in head first, racking up a debt that now chokes us all and still somehow getting shockingly little done.

Now, with a new President actually trying to change things, the Congress seems incapable of making strong choices, bold decisions. In sports, it is sometimes said that the best offense is a good defense. In politics, it seems, there is only defense.

Obama’s Dream Green Team

 

Today, at 12p EST, the United States of America welcomed our 44th President, Barack Hussein Obama.  While it is expected that he will assist this country out of its vast inadequacies created by the Bush Administration, the one great hope, is the ‘green’ hope.  Many have talked in the weeks past of the Dream Green Team. But, we felt that on this day, it bears reminding who is on this team and welcoming them in their leadership roles of combating climate change.

 

Dr. Steven Chu – Department of Energy

Nobel Prize winning physicist.  He has a sophisticated grasp of the complexities of global warming and a strong belief that it needs to be fought agressively.  He has long been an advocate to alternative energy and nuclear power, arguing that a shift away from fossil fuel is necessary for our long term survival.

Lisa Jackson – Environmental Protection Agency

She comes from the post of serving as the New Jersey head of the  Department of Environmental Protection.  She has been a staunch defender of the environment in her state, setting policy on clean water, clean air, and land preservation.  During her confirmation hearings, many heard music when she said, “Science will be the backbone of what the EPA does.”

 

Jane Lubchenco – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Dr. Lubchenco is a marine ecologist and Professor of Zoology at Oregon State University.  Her expertise includes ocean ecosystems and the human/environment nexus: biodiversity, climate change, sustainability science, ecosystem services, marine reserves, coastal marine ecosystems, the state of the oceans and of the planet.

 

Carol Browner – Asst. to the President for Energy and Climate Change

She was the head of the EPA under President Clinton.  She believes that global warming is the greatest challenge we have ever faced.  She will act as a coordinator for environmental, energy, climate, transport and related matters for the federal government.

 

Nancy Sutley – White House Council on Environmental Quality

She is currently serving as the Deputy Mayor for Energy and Environment of Los Angeles.  She brings with her more than a decade in senior environmental, energy and water policy-making positions in California. She also has experience dealing with budget and legislative matters at the state and federal level.

 

Dr. John Holdren – White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Dr. Holdren is a professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University.  His work has focused on causes and consequences of global environmental change, analysis of energy technologies and policies, ways to reduce the dangers from nuclear weapons and materials, and the interaction of content and process in science and technology policy. 

to further explain

In the last post, I did not do any service into explaining how climate change could affect national security. (As a side note, I want to emphasize that I tend to not fall into a mass fear mentality state of mind, and this is no indication that I am moving towards that, I just feel it is important to note.)

I found two other articles today that start to highlight why climate crisis and national security have the potential of being inextricably linked.

In the first article, Financial Crisis May Worsen Food Crunch it Eclipsed, via the Christian Science Monitor, the impact of the global food crisis is discussed.

And, although commodity prices for a wide range of crops have fallen by as much as 50 percent from record highs in June, the financial crisis is expected to make it dramatically worse: credit for farmers could dry up, meaning less money to buy fertilizer and seed, leading in turn to greater global shortages of food.

Why does this tie into climate change? Because the impact of global warming is going to make our food crisis that much worse. We are already seeing dead zones where nothing can be grown or raised. If we continue to have a water crisis, crops will not be able to grow. And, then there is the whole discussion of GMO food and it’s potential impact on food supply.

The next article, Mob runs riot as Zimbabwe runs out of water, via the Times UK, shows in concrete terms what happens when communities run out of natural resources:

The seething anger felt by ordinary Zimbabweans exploded yesterday as hundreds of off-duty soldiers went on the rampage in the centre of Harare. Witnesses said that the violence erupted at a bus depot on the edge of the city centre where soldiers, frustrated at not being able to draw cash from banks, confronted illegal moneychang-ers. The dealers scattered and the soldiers turned on the city, followed by civilians spurring them on.

Now, I do not want to lessen the reality that Zimbabwe is being affected by a dictatorial political climate, as well. But who is to say that couldn’t happen to us? In a worse case scenario, if we run out of food or water, do you not think that the President would institute curfews and martial law to prevent any social unrest? You bet he or she would. Or, if we were the only country that still had food and water, do you not think our borders would need to be protected? That is not to say we wouldn’t be helping people, but protecting ourselves may be something we would have to seriously consider.

My point being is that until recently we haven’t had to link national security and natural resources. But, things have dramatically shifted in the global arena, that results in the shift of policy. As I think about this, I feel more and more confident that we have chosen the best man, and therefore the best staff, for the job.

sneaky, aren’t they?

So there are two types of positions in the White House… appointed and career positions. If you are an appointed employee, you leave with the exiting administration. If you are in a career position, you get to stay.

so…..

Between March 1 and Nov. 3, according to numbers released by the OPM, the Bush administration allowed 20 political appointees to become career civil servants. Six appointees to the Senior Executive Service, the government’s most prestigious and highly paid employees, have received approval to take career jobs at the same level. Fourteen other political, or “Schedule C,” appointees have also been approved to take career jobs.

It is a technique called “burrowing in”, and while many ex-presidents have had this happen during their administration, it seems that the Bush Administration has a special flare with theirs:

In its report, the GAO concluded that administration officials apparently did not follow appropriate procedures in 18 of these conversions and that some workers were not qualified.

The Washington Post has many articles about this phenomena, which are worth the read if you care about politics and our government. This is especially important if you are one of those that has high expectations of our President-Elect and start vilifying him for not getting things accomplished. By embedding a group of employees that honor the Bush Doctrine, it may be difficult to get things done at the speed the citizenry demands.

You can find the articles:
The Burrowing of the Bushies
Administration Moves to Protect Key Appointees
Senators Urge Bush To Halt Job Shifts

ny times readers to obama: earthly ideas

The New York Times has an environmental blogcalled DotEarth. Recently, there was a post where the author pondered what Obama should do to combat climate change, and readers submitted their ideas, as well.

The top ten reader suggestions were posted today: Readers to Obama: 10 Earthly Ideas on a Budget. I think they are all valid and well worth the read. However, to stick with the theme of the morning, this is the one I will share:

4 — Launch a national campaign with the E.P.A. and Department of Health encouraging Americans to consume fewer animal products. The livestock sector worldwide contributes more to climate change than transportation. The US consumes more animal products than any nation on earth. The problem is mostly cultural, and can be overcome by re-branding meat as more of an optional side dish than the essential center of any meal.

By curbing animal product consumption, we can tackle two of the country’s most pressing dilemmas (the climate crisis and obesity) with only minor investment and the smallest of sacrifices from consumers.

There are many things that can be and should be done. We know we cannot fix global warming by, in Obama’s words, changing a f—ing light bulb. It is a very daunting task because all changes need to be implemented. I think the key is to find the most appropriate change that could have a domino effect on all the other requirements. In my opinion, that is food. I will wait to see which one Obama chooses.

vroom, vroom

When many of us think about what we can do about climate change, we go to obvious: lightbulbs, recycle, bring a bag, short shower. We demand of our government to invest in clean energy and protect lands.

However, in light of the rumblings of a auto industry bailout, I think an article from The Economist, is an important read: A Survey of Cars in Emerging Markets

We forget that with a growing population comes a growing demand for goods and the infrastructure to match. So what is going to happen when more people want more cars?

…the IMF have calculated that the number of cars worldwide will grow from 600m in 2005 to 2.9 billion in 2050. By 2030, they believe, China’s car fleet will have overtaken America’s (which itself will have increased by 60%), and by 2050 China will have almost as many cars as the entire world has today. India will be catching up fast, with a fleet of 367m, 45 times the number on its congested roads today.

Cars made up an estimated 6.3% of all global emissions in 2000. Eight years later, you know that number is higher and climbing.

This is why it is so important for a green initiative to be built into any auto bailout that either the Bush or Obama Adminstrations would consider. If the estimated car purchase growth becomes reality without a major push to reduce emissions and create fuel efficient, hybrid, or electric cars, we can assume that any net positive effect in other green initiatives will be negated due to autos, alone.

In a way, we should hope for a continued rise in fuel prices, so the desire to own an automobile is lessened.

Read the article, it is very interesting.