How could Obama put climate and energy policy under a single roof? 11

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   ECUS Posted 1:30 am
   04 Nov 2008

   BiofuelsIt will be interesting to see how the combination of energy and environment policy in the UK affects the adoption of the use of biofuels, since (according to the Gallagher report) current evidence suggests that the proposed EU biofuels target for 2020 of 10% by energy is unlikely to be met sustainably.
   
   Richard Lawrence
   
   
   
   
   
   ECUS - Environmental Consultancy.
   
   

   Permalink

2. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 1:42 am
   04 Nov 2008

   A Department of Infrastructure?You might want a super-cabinet position, which would put the departments of transportation, energy, EPA, Interior, agencies dealing with water, the FCC (although I think that that's partly Congress' jurisdiction) -- because right now, having everything split apart gives the department of defense a huge place at the table, the department of justice, homeland security, and treasury -- maybe commerce -- and then the power drops off -- including unfortunately, education (maybe put education in a department of infrastructure?).

   Permalink

3. 

   sindark Posted 3:43 am
   04 Nov 2008

   Canada"Last week, the Canadian government put the economy, environment, and energy security together under a single ministry."
   This sentence strikes me as rather misleading. There has been no re-organization of government departments. The environment ministry did get a new minister, but talk of change beyond that seems to be just rhetoric at this point.
   
   a sibilant intake of breath

   Permalink

4. 

   politicalhack Posted 3:52 am
   04 Nov 2008

   AmalgamationI like the idea of amalgamating several different federal Departments: Interior, Energy, and EPA, into the Department of Energy and Environment, or something like that. Such a massive government reorganization would require Congressional approval, and would probably meet stiff resistance from the separate agencies. But merging these departments would cut down on government redundancy, and create a coherent go-to agencies for these increasingly related issues.

   Permalink

5. 

   sindark Posted 4:24 am
   04 Nov 2008

   Re-orgs not the answerBureaucratic reorganization is probably the last thing we need, in order to see effective action on climate change. It is a slow and inward-looking process.
   What is necessary is a new seriousness from top politiicians, as well as a willingness to use effective instruments like standard setting and carbon pricing.
   
   a sibilant intake of breath

   Permalink

6. 

   gmobus Posted 4:56 am
   04 Nov 2008

   I agree with sindarkReorganizing politicos and lawyers is not going to accomplish anything.
   In my Oct. 24th blog I recommended that Obama get to work even now (as part of the transition) assembling an advisory board of top scientists working on the problem areas we are facing. I would also suggest that he give the chair (or co-chairs) ready access so that they can keep him effectively apprised.
   Or, actually, he needs an education. And he needs to get his info from people truly qualified to provide it. And it needs to be integrated since all of the major world and national problems are systemic and interrelated. He can use his own lawyerly knowledge and that of his retinue of advisers for working out policy. But the first thing he really needs is to understand the problems from a scientific perspective. His stump speeches don't leave me with the impression he is getting that now.
   The Question Everything blogs of Oct. 24 and 25 (scroll down the page) offer a completely different approach to tackling these problems by an Obama presidency. FWIW.
   George
   
   
   
   George Mobus,
   
   Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
   
   University of Washington Tacoma,
   
   and Professional Student for Life

   Permalink

7. 

   Backcut Posted 5:37 am
   04 Nov 2008

   Chief of the Forest Service?In the last millenium, the Chief of the orest Service was basically selected to a lifetime position. However, the Clinton Administration changed all that into a purely political position.
   That being said, I nominate the utmost expert on old growth forests, Dr. Jerry Franklin, the be the head honcho.
   Politics be DAMNED! Science should rule and Dr. Franklin's resume is unchallengable.
   
   Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

   Permalink

8. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 6:17 am
   04 Nov 2008

   Are all "environment" departmentslike Forestry, Bureau of Land Management, Minerals, etc., under Interior? (in my previous superinfrastructure position I forgot to include Housing and Urban Development...redesigning the Federal Government is fun!).

   Permalink

9. 

   Backcut Posted 6:38 am
   04 Nov 2008

   NopeThe Forest Service is still under the USDA, although many times in the past, people have talked about combining the Forest Service, BLM, and the Soil Conservation Service all together into the Department of the Interior. Probably a good thing to consolidate services.
   
   Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

   Permalink

10. 

    Jon Rynn Posted 6:51 am
    04 Nov 2008

    ThanksYeah, maybe even Ag should be in something like an infrastructure or environmental department, might make them a little more sustainable?

    Permalink

11. 

    krazedkeeshond Posted 10:59 pm
    07 Nov 2008

    More reorganization needed than what is proposedClinton's plan has some real advantages in that it keeps the sometimes conflicting priorities of Energy and the EPA separate yet forces them to coordinate to reach our overriding national priorities and goals.
    The problem with Clinton's plan is that it will probably lead to not just one but two additional levels of bureacracy - one the National Energy Council that she envisions, but also a second level over the National Energy Council and the National Security Council, to coordinate the efforts of the two as energy independence increasingly becomes more of a priority for our nation.

    Permalink