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.
It will require immense determination to forestall the political forces coiled in anticipation of quick administration action on climate, but you must stiff-arm your advisers, step outside the Congressional climate quagmire, leave environmentalists hanging, and delay international engagement.
It is crucial that the nation does not move directly from the old conflict, “is global warming real?” directly into action, without first facing the terrible questions “how bad is it?” and “what do we need to do?”
There are two aspects to our national character, and the flip side of our refusal thus far to deal with the gathering crisis will be another great awakening of American optimism, energy, and willingness to sacrifice. That national spirit is only called forth by terrible risk and resolve in leadership.
By breaking free from awkward compromises and dismal tradeoffs and flexing unilateral powers of the Presidency, a dynamic, realistic, yet optimistic agenda can be set in motion that will draw our reluctant eyes to the danger, put dramatic examples of rapid change on display, and demonstrate bold and vigorous leadership. Then the time will be propitious to propose a new domestic and international agenda.
Consider how different the political climate would be if you were to take the following actions as your first order of business:
Gore’s Challenge
Although there is some question about whether or not you actually endorsed Al Gore’s call to shift U.S. electricity generation to renewables,1 no matter; make Gore’s challenge U.S. policy, Mr. President, by issuing an Executive Order setting a national goal of zero carbon emissions electricity generation by 2020.
275 ppm
As Jim Hansen suggests, the National Academy of Sciences should review and comment on recent climate science findings. You should use the opportunity, Mr. President, to explain the precautionary principle to the American people and demonstrate both intellectual integrity and political courage by asking the NAS to consider whether a rapid return to pre-industrial concentrations of atmospheric carbon (265-275 ppm) is warranted.
Climate Civil Defense
FEMA should undertake a nationwide inventory of civil defense preparedness for storm surges on rising sea levels and conduct preliminary engineering studies on the feasibility and costs of erecting dikes, constructing hurricane barriers, reconstituting coastal wetlands, and other necessary measures to protect coastal homelands.
Driving Hybrids
Of 60,000 vehicles added to the U.S. government fleet in 2008, 239 were hybrids and 2 were all electric. You should combine vehicle needs for the next four years, roughly 250,000 vehicles, and put them up for bid, Mr. President, specifying standards for a hyper-efficient, highly crash resistant, durable fleet of hybrid vehicles averaging 65 mpg.
Climate Early Warning
There are three ice shelves large enough to end the world, yet none are being monitored on a constant basis. Congress should be asked for immediate, emergency funding to place permanent research camps on the Eastern and Western Antarctic Ice Shelves and in Greenland, military satellite capacity should be reassigned to monitor ice shelves for early signs of breakup, other key factors (i.e. ocean temperature/current) should all be monitored, and an international command center should be established to coordinate information (an NSA for climate intelligence).
Hawaii Poster Child
Go home, hang with your friends, focus the nation on our own island-in-rising-seas story, and invest hugely in making Hawaii a demonstration renewables state. Already on the forefront, with a federal partnership and funding, Hawaii could aim for a realistic zero carbon (net) goal.
U.S. Military & Renewables
Iraq has taught some in the U.S. military that renewables strengthen war-fighting capabilities.2 The military has set the relatively ambitious goal of generating 25 percent of its energy from renewables by 2025 and is making good headway, but more in response to ad hoc initiatives than determined Pentagon leadership. Acting as Commander in Chief, Mr. President, you should double the goal. This will strengthen centers of leadership aiming to put the U.S. military onto a new footing of efficiency and renewables (the same folks thinking in terms of climate challenges), and use the institution to fuller advantage as an important agent of U.S. social change.
Solar Iraq
Electricity demand in Iraq is 4,000MW greater than utility supply, the difference made up by neighborhood entrepreneurs with diesel generators. The U.S. should insist that half of the $12 billion (World Bank) to $35 billion (Iraq Ministry of Electricity) of U.S., Japanese, and European funds estimated necessary to rebuild Iraq’s shattered electric utilities be budgeted for solar and wind generation. (GE, which just signed a $3 billion contract with the Ministry of Electricity won’t be ruffled a bit.)
Measures such as these will go a long way to transform a vague and distant worry into an urgent, local, political problem—and your stalwart refusal to take action until the nation is ready and the moment is ripe will be compared with the genius of another tall, thin Illinois politician.
Sincerely,
Ken Ward
——-
Footnotes:
1 Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Democratic presidential candidate statement: "I strongly agree with Vice President Gore that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels, and those are the investments I will make as president."
Arizona Sen. John McCain, Republican presidential candidate, statement: "There may be some aspects of climate change that he and I are in disagreement (on)," but "if the vice president says it’s doable, I believe it’s doable."
2 A Less Well-Oiled War Machine, Sandra Upson, IEEE Online, October 2008
Comments
View as Flat
davedenali Posted 1:31 am
21 Jan 2009
---------
I don't know of any respected observer who believes that 275 ppm number is politically achievable and I have trouble seeing the point in that request. It would accomplish nothing more than giving fuel to critics who call us extremists.
Permalink
davedenali Posted 1:35 am
21 Jan 2009
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 2:50 am
21 Jan 2009
I am an admirer of the man and supporter from the first time I listened to him speak. I sing his praises everywhere I go but must tell you I never have seen him walk on water.
The problem being now is no one is listening to his call for service and sacrifice. He has made it plain he can't make it all better alone.
14,000 corporate lobbyist will be shadowing him and thwarting his every move. All the things you clamor for will not be in the interest of big oil and coal to support. If you want true change and action on your agenda get off his back and onto theirs.
If you want to write a letter send it to all the elected representatives and demand lobby reform. It will have to be done before you get anything done on your environmental wish list or he gets anything done on the economy.
I don't mean to be crude here but I will say it plain. If you don't get corporate lobby reform done first Obama might as well piss on the fire and call in the dogs and go back to Illinois.
This hunt is over!
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 3:29 am
21 Jan 2009
Transparancy was key to this also.
If we can get this for him in the Legislative Branch the things you ask for will become a reality.
I believe we have truly found in this man some hope.
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
Robco1 Posted 6:14 am
21 Jan 2009
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:51 am
21 Jan 2009
In truth, greater than 50% of the electorate decided to ignore all problems in the hopes that they would go away or alternatively elect the party of fairy-tale policies and wishful thinking economics.
It's pretty much up to the engaged elites to push them into a mental framework where they comply with what has to be done. That means big-rock-candy-mountain promises of easy work, warm houses and cheap power.
The only way we get THAT is by subsidizing the snot out of retail-level conservation, demanding PHEV's from Detroit (or no signing bailout bills) and installing wind towers and solar panels on anything that holds still or anywhere a kite can fly.
If the public can be suckered into a continuing program of submarine and aircraft carrier building they will pretty much buy anything a good marketing campaign drops in front of them. Time to sell a survivable planet like we sell beer and chips.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
davedenali Posted 7:26 am
21 Jan 2009
275 is achievable if the public understand the alternatives.
--------
By doing what, exactly? This is nonsense. There's no danger of Obama actually adopting this suggestion, but I am astonished at the naivete I see from some well-meaning people. A call for pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide would be suicidal.
Permalink
randino Posted 7:44 am
21 Jan 2009
Thanks Ken. I needed that.
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
randino Posted 7:51 am
21 Jan 2009
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 9:17 am
21 Jan 2009
Those people had all the time to reflect on the volatile nature of oil prices that I did. Me, I'm a high school drop-out. I'm as common as you get with the exception being that I read. I work and live with "the masses" and they pretty much don't care. Actually most college graduates couldn't give you a reasonable synopsis of how to deal with climate change more detailed than the words "solar" and "wind."
The masses need options presented to them where their own personal power bill goes down, the car they buy is automatically a fuel saving version and that's built into the price, and the business they go to work at has better insulation and solar panels on the roof because every business pays that as a gate fee. The masses don't have to worry about whether the milk is sterilized or if the bridges are safe; the government takes care of that. They need conservation and alternative power to be just that seamless.
Now we can wait for them to get a clue prodded by resource shortages but then the best options to minimize the damage have already passed by. Or, we can roll out what solutions we have now in force and avoid most of their pain.
I'll take the snotty liberal elite title if it gets the job done; call me whatever you like.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 3:40 pm
21 Jan 2009
So I see our task as revitalizing democracy so that people can break free of the alienation that fosters consumerism. In my understanding, it is the elites who are invested so heavily in the status quo that are the main obstacles to ecological sanity.
I can see your point that having green consumer goods available beats having brown ones. But look at how the auto companies have undermined clean air laws, oil companies have funded a denial industry, and how the clean coal and biofuel lobbies have greenwashed destructive industries. Then compare that level of corruption with Joe Sixpack driving himself to work in comfort, having been kept in the dark about climate change by a media itself underwritten by auto, oil and coal advertising dollars.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:00 am
22 Jan 2009
And even if they did push solar energy, they're building it for an activity which in the main shouldn't exist. We'll never get the funding without cuts in the military budget (please note, I'm not conjuring the wrath of the military by saying this). In fact, more profoundly, we may never get to a social consensus about global warming if people don't move away from their knee-jerk support of a huge and politically overpowering military.
Permalink
mwildfire Posted 10:22 am
22 Jan 2009
As for someone else's saying "as long as it doesn't involve horses"--sorry, but it may have to. We really don't know yet if renewable technologies will enable us to keep dashing about at high speeds like we do on oil. If not--better grow some oats, or fix your bicycle. Aside from climate change, the oil supply is pouring past the peak right now and no reakistic scenario is going to shut it off like a spigot. Well, no desirable one, anyway. Our ancestors did well enough with horses, and canoes and such--in some ways, they lived better than we do. But we would have the internet, along with out horses and bikes--not such a bad arrangement, methinks.
Permalink
AntonT Posted 8:03 pm
22 Jan 2009
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 3:02 am
23 Jan 2009
The carbon savings from military renewables may be small (I'm taking our word on that), but then the list I proposed isn't based on that criteria, it's based on changing the climate story, and from that perspective, the military matters. It is a powerful example because if one can do away with fossil fuels in combat situations, there can be no question that we can to it elsewhere. It is a hugely efficient institution of mass education, particularly for those who don't go beyond high school.
In the end, it's where the power is and even if we don't reach the straits some folks predict, New Orleans showed us that the military will be more engaged in civil defense and martial law situations; don't we want to make sure that the officer corps is thinking in terms of preparing for climate crisis and views the world through a post-carbon, renewables paradigm?
Ken Ward
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[24]='\"';l[25]=' 103';l[26]=' 114';l[27]=' 111';l[28]=' 46';l[29]=' 115';l[30]=' 101';l[31]=' 110';l[32]=' 105';l[33]=' 108';l[34]=' 116';l[35]=' 104';l[36]=' 103';l[37]=' 105';l[38]=' 114';l[39]=' 98';l[40]=' 64';l[41]=' 110';l[42]=' 101';l[43]=' 107';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='\"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:03 am
25 Jan 2009
Anyway, let me respectfully submit a few points:
The military will probably always be petroleum based. And I mean, always, which means when the last of the wells are drying up, it will be the militaries of the world that will get the last drops. This is because there is no way to replace the various qualities of energy density, transportability, etc., and they will move to coal-to-liquids and even corn ethanol if necessary. Argument 1a in this, I see no way they can have high-performance fighters and bombers without petroleum.
The important work of dealing with emergencies does not need to be a military function, although I could see where it would help. Actually, that's what the National Guard is for, I believe, and I think that they are relatively cheap.
I see in the post about coal from JMG that we have a similar situation here -- should we spend time saving something that should not exist, or at least not in its current form?
I don't know how much influence the military would really have in showing the way to a post-carbon world. Even if all their electricity were solar, for instance, I don't know if that would do much for the typical conservative. And to get back to point 1, I think the use of solar may be helpful but will always take a back seat to fuels.
One of the important processes in the militaries of world before WWII was the decision of whether or not to convert from coal to oil, particularly for ships. Churchill chose oil for the British Navy,which was hugely expensive. In other words, it's been bred into the very definition of the modern military for over a century.
If the military decides for whatever reason that solar/wind/geothermal are getting in their way, they will not help make the jump to a post-carbon world. There are undoubtably some in the Pentagon who can see what's coming, but like much else in the society, it's business-as-usual dominating group-think. In fact, one of the reasons for the size of the military has been to protect oil -- the Middle East would not be a big object of interest if not for oil.
Finally for this exchange, it can be argued that the military is a drag on the manufacturing economy, which will be an essential part of creating a post-carbon world.
So I hope you consider or keep your eyes open to the issues involved here.
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 8:48 pm
28 Jan 2009
My anti-militarism is probably not as strong as yours, and so I do not have as great a values conflict thinking in terms of military engagement on climate...
But (and it's an important "but"), I would not be thinking along these lines at all unless there were the very strong signals coming from the military that climate and alternative fuels are a very serious matter of engagement. See, for example, the excellent blog http://dodenergy.blogspot.com/ which has a lead story today on Sec. Gate testimony on whether USAF goal of reaching 50% non-fossil blended fuel within 2 years should be expanded to all services.
What the military does and thinks on climate is a different question than how big is the military; we would want even a downsized Pentagon to be right-thinking on this. As to the social role of the military, I think you are giving less credit than is due to the role military service plays in our society. I think it can be well argued that the military has had more impact on addressing racial divide in America, for example, than all other social forces - it did this by becoming the first institution to be genuinely race-neutral, by installing an African-American as top dog, and by training a lot of soldiers to think differently. I don't assume that the military couldn't do something similar on climate.
Ken Ward
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[24]='\"';l[25]=' 103';l[26]=' 114';l[27]=' 111';l[28]=' 46';l[29]=' 115';l[30]=' 101';l[31]=' 110';l[32]=' 105';l[33]=' 108';l[34]=' 116';l[35]=' 104';l[36]=' 103';l[37]=' 105';l[38]=' 114';l[39]=' 98';l[40]=' 64';l[41]=' 110';l[42]=' 101';l[43]=' 107';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='\"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='
Permalink