The inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States is a defining moment in American history. For most Americans and countless others around the world, this is an inspiring political transition. The question we must face, however, is whether compelling inspiration will lead to effective action. As I wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed (November 12, 2008) one week after election day, environment and energy issues—particularly climate change policy—provide a microcosm of the forces that are shaping and will shape the actions of the new administration and Congress.
About eight years ago, President-elect George W. Bush promised to be President for all the people, not just those who had voted him into office. Bush’s ability as Texas governor to bridge differences across the political aisle provided cause for optimism.
But hope for a centrist and sensible presidency dissolved under the influence of White House political operative Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney. The Bush Administration moved not to the center, but toward solidifying its base on the political right. Nowhere was this more apparent than in energy and environmental policy, with Vice President Cheney running energy policy, and EPA Administrator Christie Whitman virtually driven from office.
Will the environment and energy team of President Obama respond effectively to the serious challenges that lie ahead? Or will we find that the corporate lobbyists who filled so many key environmental positions in the Bush administration have simply been replaced by strident advocates from the other end of the political spectrum? In other words, will ideology trump reason?
The first sign of trouble will be if the Administration issues an “endangerment finding” for carbon dioxide, as promised by the Obama campaign, thereby pleasing and solidifying President Obama’s political base, but also playing into the hands of those who oppose climate policy action, tying up progress with litigation, driving up costs, and accomplishing little or nothing.
Ultimately, will the Obama White House work with Congress to develop climate strategies that are scientifically sound, economically sensible, and thereby politically pragmatic? Will the new President —with impressive Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress—take on the difficult task of crafting meaningful climate legislation?
The only politically feasible approach that can make a real dent in the problem is a comprehensive, upstream cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 50 to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The declining cap will increase the cost of polluting, thereby discouraging the use of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuels and providing powerful incentives for energy conservation and technology innovation.
The system could start with a 50-50 split of auctioned and free allowances, gradually moving to 100 percent auction over 25 years. To establish political support in the short term, free allowances should be targeted to sectors that are most burdened by the policy. And the auction revenue—which will increase over time—can be used to compensate low-income consumers, finance research and development, reduce the federal deficit, or cut taxes.
The best option may be to make the program revenue-neutral by returning all of the auction revenue to citizens through direct cash dividends or annual tax credits. This can go a long way towards making the legislation palatable to Republicans and Democrats alike who are reticent to take any actions that even resemble a tax increase.
By making the overall emissions cap gradually become more stringent over time, costs can be greatly reduced by avoiding premature retirement of existing capital stock, reducing vulnerability to siting bottlenecks, and ensuring that long-lived capital investments incorporate appropriate advanced technology.
Still, the costs of meaningful action will be significant, with impacts on gross domestic product eventually reaching up to 1 percent per year. But the longer the world waits to begin taking serious action, the more ambitious will emission reduction targets inevitably become, as atmospheric greenhouse gases continue to accumulate.
The bottom line is that getting serious about global climate change will not be cheap and it will not be easy. Beware of claims to the contrary. In the midst of a significant economic downturn, with businesses closing and unemployment on the rise, it makes sense for the new administration to give its greatest attention to economic recovery. There is nothing wrong with sequencing policies. But if current predictions about the consequences of another few decades of inaction are correct, this defining moment provides an important opportunity for serious and sensible action.
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
Climate change and God
One year after his election, Obama on verge of audaciously fulfilling his promise as the green FDR
Comments
View as Flat
Pompey Road Posted 4:43 am
26 Feb 2009
He has been methodical and persistent and seems confident he can use the opportunity to come out on the other side of this recession stronger than we were when we went in. I have made up my mind to be patient and not rush to judgment, at least give the man a full year to see what transpires. In my book you are either a part of the problem or a part of the solution. Anyone can stand back and throw stones. There are times in our nations story when we are faced with unprecedented challenges and teetering on the edge of destruction. One would have to have a bad case of ostrich syndrome to not understand that we stand on the precipice of either economic collapse or a brave new energy independent, green manufacturing economy.
No matter what kind of boat we all got here on or where we rode on the boat there is one thing for certain. We are all in the same boat now. One man can't do all the rowing!
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
JosephThePoet Posted 11:47 pm
26 Feb 2009
Propping up banks or homeowners is not the answer either. If a pile of money is put into the economy in employment, manufacturing and construction then the banks will be tripping over each other to get their share so credit will flow, and people who are employed can afford to make their mortgage payments and will support other businesses. Most people will not get help to keep their homes even under his plan so it makes more sense to give all the people a better future opportunity, so they may in the future be able to buy another home under smarter terms. And, small businesses first and foremost need people to support them, because being told they can pay a lesser tax rate on no income from the unemployed won't keep them in business.
Cleaner and locally produced energy and its continent wide distribution is THE PRIORITY need of the country. If we don't have energy we won't have any other of the many luxuries we currently enjoy. If you think economic, unemployment, education and health concerns are bad now then just try to imagine how bad things will get if there is a severe lack of electrical power available for the country. Don't forget to add in the rioting due to the severe lack of employment, services, and food (especially in the cities). Secure energy sources is more important than the large military force the US has for the security of the country.
The full dollar amount should have been spent on the refurbishing and rebuilding our country's infrastructure needs. Power, water, transportation and communication infrastructure promotes and supports our society.
America currently has the perfect opportunity and the technologies to address these problems and Obama had the opportunity to start us on the right path but, like any other politician, his concern is simply Playing the "Game" or "Sport" (his own words, describing politics).
My first book "Life is a Puzzle" was recently published by PublishAmerica.com, under my pen name of JosephThePoet.
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 2:00 am
27 Feb 2009
Yes, certain of Obama's appointments also struck me as a 'reverse-Bush' move, differing from his predecessor only in replacing inappropriate right-wing figures with at least as inappropriate left-wing figures.
John Holdren, the most spectacular example - my jaw dropped and I gaped in amazement at the appointment. Instantly I scrambled for non-suicidal explanations: He's a disposable, sacrificial goat? A bargaining chip that never had any intrinsic value or role? Holdren is and has been for decades among the most extreme of extremists, and the punchline is - That's where he likes to be!
Imagine Dr. James Hansen appointed to Science Advisor - then imagine him on psychedelics.
John Holdren's proclivities make Joe Biden look like a verbal choir boy. Holdren in his native, default form is a rhetorical human flame-thrower: Scorched earth everywhere he goes, every direction he looks.
John Holdren is figuratively what happened to the Equal Rights Amendment - they had a shot at it, but extremist leaders & bizarre spokespeople froze the voters blood to ice. He would be the guy the FBI really wanted, at the great Hippie & Anti-Vietnam War riots ... the guy who thrived in the mayhem.
There is a role for people like John Holdren, and they deliver irreplaceable, unsubstitutable values to society (I don't want to get rid of the guys who are geniuses at riot ... any more than I want to scrub the Second Amendment). But sitting on the Presidential Cabinet, constructively? That's far-fetched.
No, Holdren in the Whitehouse is the living embodiment of the Peter Principle."In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence."
The real question is, what does this outlandish Cabinet-selection tell us about what Obama is really thinking & planning? I don't believe the answer is likely to be in the interests of the Anthropogenic Global Warming movement and their policy-priorities.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 2:14 am
27 Feb 2009
If the first 350 billion of tarp money had been put into comercial banks the credit log jam would have been fixed and half of what you alluded to would have been fixed. I see no benifit buying trillions of toxic debt with the taxpayers for two generations after ours having to pay for it.
Different administrations follow the advise of the two main branches of economics. The government intervention model, manipulation of the free market system. And the purist who think no government intervention is necessary, the market always know best and corrects itself over time. You will have different variations of the two with varying amounts of government intervention.
The question to be answered was the wisdom of becoming a comsumer nation based on credit while striving to do away with our manufacturing base. In the process becoming dependent upon other countries with a strong middle class building manufacturing base that are now our bankers, holding most of our debt and funding our economic recovery.
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
JosephThePoet Posted 2:48 am
28 Feb 2009
Apparently Pompey Road doesn't live in the real world. They got almost that full amount, with no strings attached, and it did nothing.
If the jobs were not shipped out of the country under pretended free trade policies or had been replaced by others of equal value to maintain the economy, then the abusive affects of the massive number of failing ARM loans the unregulated bankers wrote would have been diminished. Because we also didn't have enough employed people able to keep buying properties the Banks greedy abuse was amplified and became a threat to all the economies of the whole world. The banks abuse was only able to sustain itself during an increasing economy, and that means when more good jobs are being created so more people can purchase things.
My first book "Life is a Puzzle" was recently published by PublishAmerica.com, under my pen name of JosephThePoet.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:55 am
28 Feb 2009
How to avoid a climate crisis, similar to the credit crisis, but with the added weather disaster effects? Regulation.
Not "free" markets, that isn't any kind of solution.
Simply regulate carbon emissions. If it hurts lower and middle income families with higher energy prices, issue tax rebates.
And steer consumers towards carbon-free energy with direct subsidies and low interest loans for those who can afford them, and government supported programs who can't afford them.
Keep it simple. Don't use unregulated "free" market scamming, use direct government subsidy and regulation.
Pay for energy cost tax rebates for consumers and subsidy programs by ending corporate welfare for agribizz, fossil and nuclear fueled power.
Ignore the fast talking unintelligable think tankers and economists. If you can't figure out what they are saying, don't trust them.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 4:43 am
28 Feb 2009
The commercial banks did not receive the first 350 billion of the 700 billion TARP fund. They are just now getting around to talking about them. They made an attempt at solving the core problem housing last week and of course have done the economic recovery act but the commercial banks have not been funded.
They raised the FDIC and guarantee some debt of commercial banks but I was talking about a direct funding of the commercial banks with the first 350 billion. If this had been done with the money earmarked for lending only the average Joe could now go down and get that auto loan.
Matter a fact unless you have been in a cave without cable or satellite the big controversy now is what happened to the first 350 billion TARP Funding. Deregulation took all transparency out of the markets and the SEC is about as much in the loop as you are so no one knows where the first 350 billion went. Well someone knows but not the sheep that got sheared or the taxpayer who fronted the 350 bil.
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
JosephThePoet Posted 6:46 am
28 Feb 2009
Dumping money into banking type businesses run by morally bankrupt idiots who destroyed people's lives and the viability of their institutions by their greedy selfish actions only supports the bankrupt idiots so they can continue to act like idiots and cause even more damage.
The banks should be allowed to fail if their leaders put them into that position by abusing people with their ARM loans and bad banking business practices. They should be forced into bankruptcy and allow the FDIC to serve the function it was created for. If the ARM garbage loans were revalued and the payments made better so mortgage owners could make their payments then the bank will continue to receive income and that could be the basis of acquiring the assets. The government could claim first bankruptcy purchasing rights (so others don't just ransack them for the more profitable assets and leave the rest) then adjust the necessary asset values and people's payment terms under the adjusted mortgage rates then sell the bank assets back into the private sector. So what if the investors who bought the bad ARM loan packages from the failed banking institutions don't get their greedy profits at the expense of others.
Employment drives a consumer driven economy, not shoveling massive amounts of borrowed tax money into financial institutions that have proven their leaders morals and banking practices to be bankrupt of value.
My first book "Life is a Puzzle" was recently published by PublishAmerica.com, under my pen name of JosephThePoet.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 7:35 am
28 Feb 2009
One more time the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 seperated commercial banks for the lending investment type banks for a reason. The problems with the commercial banks only started again in 99 after the repeal of Glass Steagall and later the loosening of prudent rules pertaining to lending.
Regulations keeps morrally bankrupt idiots in check, your description not mine!
The seperation of commercial banks from the investment banks or markets was done because of the same market corruption that caused the 29 crash.
Funding the commercial banks with an earmarked transfusion of cash to the tune of the 350 billion they can't seem to account for now would have gone a long way toward freeing up the credit block. As I said there is no such thing as an investment bank now, In the last 6 months they have been relegated to the dust bin of history.
Regulatory reform needs to take place however in the international markets to get the trust back into the system and the fear out.
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