Twenty-nine of the country's biggest green groups today rolled out a comprehensive list of actions and policies they'd like President-elect Barack Obama to adopt after he takes office Jan. 20. In it, the groups stress the need for an approach that unites environment, energy, and economic policies. "We need to dig ourselves out of the financial hole we're in with a green shovel," said National Wildlife Federation President Larry Schweiger during a conference call with reporters.
The groups' 391-page document [PDF], which was delivered to Obama's transition team yesterday, emphasizes the need for green investment to achieve economic growth. It calls for the creation of jobs in the renewable energy sector, building weatherization, a retooled auto industry, investment in infrastructure like public transportation, and major improvements to the electrical grid. The guidelines also detail what can be done in every executive branch agency, department, and office on a number of other environmental issues.
"The entire federal government has a critical role to play in unleashing these innovative solutions, but it is the president who will set the tone," write the groups. "President-elect Obama has an opportunity to galvanize the nation -- to announce bold measures that will channel America's ingenuity into solving the entwined economic, climate, and environmental crises. "
The report is notable for its breadth, as well as the fact that it unites 29 different groups representing a range of issues and positions on the political spectrum. The endorsers include groups that focus primarily on wildlife and public lands, transit groups, and environmental health advocates. Also included are groups that have publicly sparred over climate legislation in the past.
On the intersecting issues of climate and energy, the groups call for Congress to pass legislation in 2009 to cut emissions 35 percent below currently levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by midcentury. They also call for movement toward 100 percent clean electricity through "energy efficiency, modernizing the grid, and greatly expanding power generation from renewable energy resources."
The groups urge Obama to grant California's request for waiver to allow the state to enforce tougher standards for cutting emissions from vehicles, and that he use the Clean Air Act "to declare that global warming pollution endangers public health and welfare and to set standards for power plants, vehicles, and fuels." Other recommendations include a call for tougher fuel economy and appliance efficiency standards,and a mandate that government agencies take into account and plan for climate change in all of their actions regarding energy use and natural resources. The groups also urge Obama to reengage in international climate negotiations.
The leaders participating in the press call on Tuesday seemed confident that Obama's rhetoric on the environment is sincere. "This is an incoming president that on the campaign trail articulated a farsighted agenda," said Union of Concerned Scientists president Kevin Knobloch, noting that the agenda combines economic vitality, clean energy, and climate solutions. "Those of us in the environmental community share a lot of the priorities he laid out."
League of Conservation Voters president Gene Karpinski said he hopes Obama or a high-level appointee will take the lead on climate and energy. While he didn't exactly call for the appointment of a "czar" to head the effort, he said, "We want to make sure the White House creates a very clear authority in the White House to coordinate the work going on in the different agencies ... coordinating all the action we believe needs to occur on energy and global warming."
The groups involved were:
- American Rivers
- Center for International Environmental Law
- Clean Water Action
- Defenders of Wildlife
- Earth Justice
- Environment America
- Environmental Defense Fund
- Friends of the Earth
- Greenpeace
- Izaak Walton League
- League of Conservation Voters
- National Audubon Society
- National Parks Conservation Association
- National Tribal Environmental Council
- National Wildlife Federation
- Native American Rights Fund
- Natural Resources Defense Council
- Oceana
- Ocean Conservancy
- Pew Environment Group
- Physicians for Social Responsibility
- Population Connection
- Population Action International
- Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
- Sierra Club
- The Wilderness Society
- The Trust for Public Land
- Union of Concerned Scientists
- World Wildlife Fund.
E.U. pushes China further after pledge to slow carbon intensity
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Threaded
greenTmom Posted 9:50 am
25 Nov 2008
For more information on "going green" check out http://www.greenearthfriend.com
Green Earth Friend
Permalink
Jake Schmidt Posted 10:56 am
25 Nov 2008
My comments on the key international climate provisions are here: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/actions_to_res ...
Jake Schmidt
International Climate Policy Director
Natural Resources Defense Council
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 10:14 pm
25 Nov 2008
But wow, almost 400 pages of demands from Big Green? Couldn't they have narrowed it down a bit? I would hesitate to behave like all the other lobbyists out there right now. Strategy or not, seems like a bit of a turnoff to a new Administration official charged with green initiatives who's not even in DC yet.
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:27 am
26 Nov 2008
Since my biggest priority is to have a foolproof solution of eliminating fossil-fuel-use, I am seriously concerned about the possibilities of 4th generation nuclear reactors.
All the government funding that comes to these reactors exists in the GNEP program (This is woefully insufficient, but that's another story).
The 391-page report explicitly calls that the GNEP should be dismantled. I would like to ask which specific environmental purpose would that serve ?
I will quote the exact statement from the report
Terminate the GNEP Program, including its associated Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) process. The hugely costly long-term GNEP "vision" is not relevant to urgent GHG reduction efforts in the 2009-2030 time period, and confronts high technical and financial hurdles to the deployment of commercially viable fast reactors, which have proven after six decades of development and billions of dollars expended, to be very costly, unreliable, and unsuited to commercial deployment
Two words : "total bull shit". Who are the guys who wrote this ? Do they have any background in nuclear physics or engineering ? Do they understand even the basics of what fast reactors are, and whether they are better or worse than LWRs ? What are the supposed high technical and financial hurdles ?
None of the claims that these people make stand to debate. All these are outrageous lies.
The IFR project has been a brilliant success, and it solved all the problems that we associate with nuclear power. Snatching defeat from the mouths of victory, the Clinton administration dismantled the project in 1994. At that moment, they were listening exactly to people like these. I would like to ask, "which specific environmentalist cause did it serve : the dismantlement of the IFR project ?" We would have been shutting down coal plants left and right, if not for the utter stupidity in 1994. Should we do the same in 2008 ?
Would it improve the rivers, if we close research on fast reactors ? Then why did the American Rivers Coalition sign on this ?
Would it ensure we have clean waters ? Then why did the Clean Water Action sign on this ?
Would it protect the wild life ? Then why did the
defenders of wild life sign on this ?
I would like to ask the same question to all the organizations who signed on this report.
In fact, these recommendations are exactly opposite to what Dr Hansen asks for. Increased R&D, prototyping of fast reactors and international collaboration in these areas is the NEED OF THE DAY. Even people who don't particularly have any love for nuclear power (Joe Romm, for example) acknowledge that R&D in 4th generation nuclear power should be increased.
This document (prepared in Nov 2008) says exactly the opposite thing. Stupidity is not a strong point for being an environmentalist. These people who prepared this document blindly should be taken to task.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
guade00 Posted 9:27 am
26 Nov 2008
Transparency was a promise of the Obama campaign. Agree with the policies or not, the document and its authors are there for us to debate and discuss. This is the way it is supposed to be, and for many of us, what we voted for.
Permalink
racc Posted 5:39 pm
26 Nov 2008
Permalink
Terry Mock Posted 12:20 am
28 Nov 2008
In answer to the worldwide call for sustainable development to combat the current financial crisis, Sustainable Land Development International (SLDI) respectfully offers a solution that balances the needs of people, planet and profit - for today and future generations.
SLDI, a developer-led and cooperatively-owned technology and information resource company, is now fully positioned to transform the industry that creates the very infrastructure of our civilization. Sustainable development starts with our global infrastructure. If it is unsustainable, ultimately nothing else can be. Featured products and services include clean energy technology, carbon sequestration technology, soil enhancement technology, water purification and retention technology, sustainable land development best practices systems and certification programs.
Your participation and comments are welcome.
Terry Mock
Executive Director
Sustainable Land Development International
http://www.SLDI.org
http://www.SLDTonline.com
http://www.SURmag.com
http://www.LDBreakthroughs.com
SLDI Newsletter - http://www.sldi.org/newService/SLDINov2008.html
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:21 am
28 Nov 2008
Yup, every loon group with a mouth to feed is standing in line waiting to eat up at the Federal trough.
Texeme.Construct.Questioner
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 10:15 am
30 Nov 2008
This is true. There's almost no chance that we could construct enough 4th generation reactors in that time period (2009-2030) to make a serious dent in GHG emissions.
Even without the technical problems, it's just a matter of construction time and geopolitics. It usually takes at least several years to approve the construction of a new nuclear plant. Then, it usually takes close to a decade for actual construction to finish and the plant to come fully online (so by the time even the first plant comes online, it'll probably be 2023-2025 at the earliest). Then allow typically 2-3 (at the least) years for power from the plant to offset the GHG emissions released from the plant's own construction.
In other words, even if it first plant were to begin serious planning in 2009, it'd probably be close to (if not beyond) 2030 before it was up and running and had offset it's own construction in energy.
We need large scale emission reductions long before 2030.
So, no offense, but in terms of global climate change, it won't make any large-scale difference/reductions in emissions on any reasonable timescale to help us.
Permalink
wolfger Posted 6:06 am
01 Dec 2008
One would think that they might at least request that President-Elect Obama create a Population Comission and give them the task of recommending a Population Policy for the US, the largest historical carbon dioxide emitter.
The again, we already had two population commissions which have basically said that there is nothing to be gained by having more people in the US. Unfortunately, Obama's handlers will see to it that the population problem is not brought forth as an urgent issue needing attention. Like the financial meltdown and the energy crisis we'll just have to wait until it's too late to do much about overpopulation. 3 million more this year, 3 million more next year, possibly 150 million more by 2050.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 12:08 pm
01 Dec 2008
It'd also help if they restored federal funding to AIDS groups in Africa who also support abortions (a practice which was suspended under bushy).
Permalink