Tag Archives: Obama

Obama Admin Announces Massive Coal Mining Expansion

Posted on by
1

Interior Dept.’s plan could increase U.S. carbon emissions by one-half.

Cross-posted from RYSE.

If you were worried that the U.S. might cease to be a world leader in climate pollution, the Obama Administration has just put your fears to rest. Last week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazarannounced a massive increase in Wyoming coal mining — 2.3 billion tons, to be exact. When this coal is burned, it could increase U.S. climate pollution by over 50 percent, according toGrist. In a joint statement, WildEarth Guardians, Sierra Club, and Defenders of Wildlife explained,

When burned, the coal threatens to release more than 3.9 billion tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, equal to the annual emissions from 300 coal-fired power plants…. Salazar’s announcement is a stark contrast to his call for clean energy… in today’s press conference, Secretary Salazar announced Interior’s intent to authorize more than 12,000 megawatts of renewable energy by the end of next year…. Yet in opening the door for 2.35 billion tons of coal mining, Salazar’s announcement effectively enables more than 300,000 megawatts of coal-fired energy — 30 times more dirty energy development than renewable energy.

It seems that the Administration’s strategy is to hang a bright green sign out front, while letting fossil companies in through the back door. Obama didn’t come up with this idea on his own, though. Companies like BP and Chevron like to advertise their modest investments in clean energy, but their big money goes toward fossil fuels (and disinformation campaigns to promote fossil fuels). Well, Mr. President, here’s a tip: If you want climate hawks and enviros on your side, oil giants are the wrong crowd to hang with.

Indeed, it’s looking as if Obama is not actually that determined to build a more sustainable country. For many greens, that is hard to accept. Obama was supposed to be our president. He was backed by the biggest environmental groups and was swept into office largely by an unprecedented turnout of young voters. And, to be fair, he probably is one of our greenest presidents. His Recovery Act included $70 billion for renewables and efficiency, and he’s made some moving speeches in favor of clean energy. He also supported the late climate bill, although he chose to fight for healthcare reform instead. In addition, smaller changes throughout the government have generally reversed the anti-environmentalism of the Bush era.

But such progress could be easily outweighed by expanding fossil fuels. In his State of the Union address, Obama himself set a goal of 80 percent clean energy by 2035, comparing the green movement to the Space Race (“This is our generation’s Sputnik moment”). How does Salazar’s massive push for coal fit in with that plan?  Even Joe Romm says that question “may have no good answer.” Grist offers one explanation: The Administration can’t wait to sell China all the coal it can burn.

So do environmentalists need a new president? It’s looking that way, but the solution isn’t as simple as finding a greener Democratic challenger. If the GOP keeps moving to the right, there’s a very real possibility of a Tea Party favorite running on the Republican ticket in 2012. Someone like Newt Gingrich (who wants to chuck the EPA) or Michele Bachman (who thinks CO2 is “harmless” and global warming is “all voodoo”) would be infinitely worse than Obama. The point is that we have to be careful.

That doesn’t mean we should accept the Administration’s irresponsible decisions without complaint. As Glenn Hurowitz writes,

… if Obama’s coal and oil blitz doesn’t spur large protests at the White House, the environmental movement might as well pack its bags, rub on some patchouli, and head to the mountains (at least until the bulldozers come). At the end of the day, if we are to succeed, we will need to earn the respect of our friends and foes alike, and that starts with hitting the ballot box and the streets.

What’s your take? Has the man who promised “change we can believe in” stopped believing in change himself?

Image: Joshua Lawton

Obama is going to Copenhagen

Posted on by
1

President Obama has announced that he will personally attend the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen. Arriving at the beginning of the conference, he is going to pledge for the United States to cut emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020.  That’s only about 3% below the 1990 benchmark — not as ambitious as many scientists recommend.  By comparison, the European Union has pledged at least a 20% cut below 1990 levels.  Then again, the EU always moves faster than we do with progressive changes.

It will actually pretty bold for Obama to pledge any carbon cuts before the Senate has passed cap-and-trade.  He would essentially be ignoring the angry voices in the Senate who will certainly not give up on shouting down the Kerry-Boxer.  Of course, those voices would still have a chance to shout down the international treaty.

Speaking of the international treaty, don’t count on one being signed this year.  It’s possible, but the Danish are proposing to defer a final agreement until 2010, and I wouldn’t be surprised if other countries agree to some extra breathing room.  There are a wide range of opinions on delaying the treaty, so I guess you can choose the one you like best.  The important thing is that the treaty is effective.  It could have a huge impact, so they need to get it right on the first try.

Now back to Obama.  I said earlier that he is attending the beginning of the Copenhagen conference, but he is planning to leave before the other world leaders show up for the major discussions.  (Interestingly, he’s flying from Copenhagen to Oslo, where he’ll receive the Nobel Peace Prize.)  He will be virtually saying “Forget you” to GOP Senators and putting his credibility on the line by promising an emissions cut, but a lot of people would’ve liked to see him take part in actual discussions.

White house rolls out details on fuel economy, emissions standard

Posted on by
Reply

In May,  the Obama administration announced it would move forward on national standards for new vehicle fuel economy and tailpipe greenhouse gas emission.

Today, the White House has announced the final details of that plan.  The AP reports:

The Obama administration is unveiling plans to require higher efficiency standards for cars and trucks and tougher rules on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson planned to release the proposed regulations Tuesday. They call for the auto industry’s fleet of new vehicles to average 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016.

Greenwire (via the NYT) notes:

The Obama administration estimated earlier this year the requirements would cost up to $1,300 per new vehicle by 2016 but take just three years to pay off the investment and save about $2,800 over the life of the vehicle through better gas mileage…

A congressional official briefed on the details said the proposal was expected to increase vehicle fuel efficiency by about 5 percent annually, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 950 million metric tons and save an average car buyer more than $3,000 in fuel costs. The plan would also conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil, according to the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly in advance of the White House announcement.

This improvement will take effect four years ahead of 2007 law approved by Congress, which required a 35 MPG average by 2020.  Even so, it is long overdue.

With the delay of the climate bill, there has been talk about the EPA going beyond the auto industry and setting limits on carbon emissions nationwide.  In 2007, the Supreme Court granted the EPA the right to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act.  The EPA only needs to finalize its “endangerment finding,” which officially recognizes CO2 and similar gases as health threats.

It seems that many lawmakers would prefer cap-and-trade legislature to direct regulation, but EPA limits may turn out to be the fastest way to cut emissions.

A Green Take on the Healthcare Debate

Posted on by
1

originalIn the United States, we love our political battles.  I wonder what people in other developed countries, who take universal healthcare for granted, think of our arguments over it.  All the guns (including two assault rifles) would seem appropriate if we were being attacked by man-eating zombies.  Or Democrats trying to lower healthcare costs and make insurance available to everyone.  Both seem equally controversial.

How does this relate to the global warming movement?  I’ll get to that in just a second.

For now, though, let me say that there some legitimate concerns about the healthcare/insurance reform.  I have concerns about the healthcare plan.  But we won’t get anywhere if one side keeps making wild claims just to stir controversy, while the other side tries to compromise and ends up alienating its own supporters.

Sound familiar?  It should.  Opponents of the climate and energy bill used some of the same tactics, including angry sign-waving and fanciful claims.

There are also some similarities on the other side of the aisle.  In order to secure enough votes, House Democrats weakened the Waxman-Markey bill, losing support from many environmentalists.  When faced with opposition, the White House seemed open to dropping the public option from the healthcare bill.  This irritated liberals and was partially responsible for the drop in Obama’s ratings.

This pattern should serve as a warning for those hoping to pass a climate bill.  The Senate vote will be coming up in the next few months, and we can expect strong opposition fueled by misinformation.

There is one huge difference between healthcare and climate change, though.  American healthcare only affects Americans, but American climate policy potentially affects the entire world.

Good news: Cash for Clunkers benefits environment and economy

Posted on by
Reply

cash-for-clunkersThe Car Allowance Rebate System, informally called “Cash for Clunkers,” had three main goals:

  • To financially aid car companies and dealers
  • To please voters by giving them $3500-4500 dollars for an old car
  • To decrease pollution by taking gas-guzzlers off the road and replacing them with fuel efficient vehicles

The effectiveness of CARS at accomplishing that last goal was in question, because, in the final version, you could trade in an old SUV or truck and get a new one that still made less than 20 MPG (the requirement for trucks was only 15 MPG).

However, as the figures come in, it’s turning out that the public is mostly turning in gaz-guzzlers for more fuel-efficient cars.  The AP reports:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the average mileage of new vehicles purchased through the program is 9.6 miles per gallon higher than for the vehicles traded in for scrap. Buyers of new cars and trucks that get 10 mpg better than their trade-ins get the $4,500 rebate. People whose cars get between 4 mpg and 10 mpg better fuel efficiency qualify for a smaller $3,500 rebate.

LaHood said some 80 percent of the traded-in vehicles are pickups or SUVs, meaning many gas-guzzlers are being taken off the road. The Ford Focus is a leading replacement vehicle. General Motors Co., Chrysler Group LLC and Ford accounted for 47 percent of the new vehicles purchased.

A 9-MPG gain means a savings of 3.8 million barrels of oil per year, and nearly $1000 for consumers at the gas station.  The reduction in CO2 emissions comes out to 660,000 metric tons per year.  And since the trade-ins are recycled, rather than resold, they are being permanently taken off the streets.

Meanwhile,

Ford said its July sales rose 1.6 percent in July from the same month last year, its first year-over-year increase since November 2007, while Chrysler Group LLC posted a smaller year-over-year sales drop compared with recent months, helped by “clunkers” deals. Other automakers showed gains, giving ammunition to supporters of the car rebate program.

President Obama is encouraging the Senate to approve additional funding for Clunkers.  Senate Republicans, who regularly oppose government government programs, no matter how successful, are continuing their “NO” policy.  But with the support of moderate Democrats, the funding has a good chance of passing, though the vote will have to take place before the summer recess, which begins Friday.

Wondering if your clunker is eligible for a $4500 rebate?

infographic-cash-for-clunkers

For more info, see CARS.gov, the official Cash for Clunkers website.

UPDATE: The Senate voted to approve $2 billion in additional funding for CARS.  This money is expected to keep the program alive at least through Labor Day.