President Obama On Global Warming: Finally Part Of The Solution

Let's give a cheer for President Obama's order Monday that his Environmental Protection Agency reconsider President Bush's rejection of the request by California and 13 other states to write their own rules on greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, they will be tougher than anything the Federal government has produced.

On his fifth full day in office, the president did what he said he'd do on a central environmental question. Excellent.

Now, on to why it matters, and, most important, what's next.

The decision sends these important signals:

It says the Obama administration is taking with utmost seriousness the challenges posed by global warming, regardless of the obstacles erected by the struggling auto industry.

It is a sign to the states that when they come up with good ideas, they should take the lead--and to the federal government to get in line.

The United States has produced more greenhouse gases than any other nation. Now, after years of knuckle-dragging, Washington is willing to step to the front of the line in decisions that will slash the amount of carbon we pump into the global atmosphere.

The background: In December, 2007, the Bush administration's EPA refused to give California and 13 other states a waiver to allow them to impose tailpipe emissions on vehicles sold on their car lots.

The Bush administration argued that by increasing the required fuel economy of U.S. cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, the president was already addressing the issue.

However, the California standards will save Americans billions of dollars at the gas pump by cutting America's addiction to oil--meaning cuts in petroleum imports that will alone be greater than the amount of oil we bring in annually from Saudi Arabia.

In short, they will be the biggest single step we can take to curbing global warming. That's nothing to sneeze at when the auto companies charge back with their likely complaints that the tougher standards will force them to raise prices--at a time when they are already struggling to sell their cars, pickups and SUVs.

California and the other states acted under Clean Air Act provisions that allow them to set standards stronger than those of the federal government, but only if the federal EPA grants them a waiver. California was joined by Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, along with the District of Columbia.

California sought that permission in 2005, coming up with standards it said would cut by 30% the greenhouse gas emissions from its passenger cars and light trucks by 2016. Detroit resisted mightily--and found a friend in the Bush White House.

With Monday's action, the President recognized Washington's past failures and committed the federal government to strong action.

"Year after year, decade after decade, we've chosen delay over decisive action," Obama said. "Rigid ideology has overruled sound science. Special interests have overshadowed common sense. Rhetoric has not led to the hard work needed to achieve results -- and our leaders raise their voices each time there's a spike on gas prices, only to grow quiet when the price falls at the pump."
"The federal government must work with, not against, states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," Obama said. He added: "The days of Washington dragging its heels are over. My administration will not deny facts; we will be guided by them."

To be sure, the auto industry will be gunning to shoot down the president's decision. It will argue that specially in its currently debilitated state, it cannot afford to comply with new "costly" government mandates. In truth, the industry that can't sell its gas-guzzlers, can't afford not to.
So, what do we get as a result?

For one, dramatically cleaner cars.

For another, a presidential commitment to put technology to work to green-up the economy.
But perhaps most important, we are getting a change: A government ready to demonstrate that it can be part of the solution--rather than part of the problem.

Dan Becker is director of the Safe Climate Campaign. James Gerstenzang covered the environment for the Los Angeles Times.

Comments

[Dutchrev]

The "global warming" which the automakers have been fighting has been fairly solidly demonstrated to be nothing but a FRAUD. The earth has been COOLING, not warming for about 12 years because of solar forcing (mainly sunspots) which has completely obliterated any effect of CO2. The consequential damage to the American automobile industry caused by irresponsible peddlers of fraud such as Al Gore and Barack H. (for hapless) Obama is impossible to estimate, but clearly amounts to many billions of dollars. Surviving stockholders should sue for damages, especially targeting multi-millionaire Gore. Even some left wing newspapers are carrying the truth. The real risk today is global cooling, not warming. Google Pravda-Ice Age and read "Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age", Or read what the "climate change warrior" Dr. S. Fred Singer has to say about the subject. The American Auto Industry is done, and you can thank the enviro wackos.

[Davwbaird]

From the nyt About 140,000 houses will be weatherized with public help this year, a total that President-elect Barack Obama has promised to raise to one million, to reduce energy consumption and cut energy costs for households and taxpayers, who often absorb those costs for the poor. This would represent a historic shift in emphasis for the federal and state governments, reducing poor people’s energy bills instead of helping to pay them.

[informedcounsel]

One must applaud President Obama for the carefully selected words he spoke in his historic inaugural speech, wherein he said, the "US will 'roll back the SPECTER of a warming planet'".

Consequently, one cannot question whether he is aware of the disconnect between the science surrounding global warming/climate change and human perceptions of the problem, let alone, its potential causes and/or correlations (because it is evident that he is). After all, the word 'SPECTER' is defined as an apparition, a phantasm, an illusion, as something other than reality.

This makes it all the more remarkable that NOAA yesterday released a report concluding that the effects of carbon dioxide emission triggered global warming are irreversible for a period of approximately 1,000 years thereafter. What makes this report fantastic is that, while the report's authors state there is nothing that can be done, they yet implore the public to buy into a prohibitively costly and intrusive regulatory approach in order to avert the dreaded compound impacts that we would all (I presume humanity) have to adapt to in 1,000 years! Is this not the epitome of remote consequences of one's actions??

For an enjoyable article poking fun at this thesis, See: Of Great Expectations and Climate Change Chicanery: Even Charles Dickens Has Been Outdone!, ITSSD Journal on Energy Security.

[NewYorkJ]

"while the report's authors state there is nothing that can be done"

Nice try. It seems difficult for a contrarian to make an accurate representation of anything. The report says that some of the impacts are irreversible and dependent on where concentrations end up.

"Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450-600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the ”dust bowl” era and inexorable sea level rise."

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html

A key figure from the study. Note how CO2 concentrations directly and significantly effect the level of severity.

http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/pnas-big.jpg

Note from the author: "Our study convinced us that current choices regarding carbon dioxide emissions will have legacies that will irreversibly change the planet,” said Solomon

[NewYorkJ]

"specter" definition, from Webster's:

something that haunts or perturbs the mind :

[SallyVCrockett]

I congratulate President Obama for addressing the very real issue of climate change so early in his administration. I do hope that any comprehensive discussion of the issue includes a revenue-neutral carbon-tax. A carbon-tax would directly raise the price of carbon-based energy and would provide powerful incentives for the development of new, climate-friendly technologies. www.climatetaskforce.org

[NewYorkJ]

Great news!

Schwarzennegger: "It is clear that California and the environment now have a strong ally in the White House"

I'm surprised how swiftly Obama is moving on improving our energy and environmental situation and bringing back jobs. In addition to this measure, Obama looks to be slowing the growth of dirty coal power and is proposing a significant investment in a smart energy grid, renewables, and energy efficiency of buildings.

I hope most Americans will get the take-home message of the inaugural speech. While government can take very meaningful action, we all must do our part. So rather than complaining, let's pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off and help renew America.

[agwscam]

What they're trying to do is cram as much legislation in as soon as possible because the scam is beginning to unravel. All the latest data proves what a complete scam global warming is - and the scientific community is starting to loudly rebel against this putrid hijacking of science for financial gain.

[NewYorkJ]

The denial crowd is throwing fits these days. The recent political shift explains why. Regardless, the shrill blogosphere, nutty Senator Inhofe press releases, and uninformed idealogues are not the "scientific community".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Or, a recent study published in EOS:

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

A scientific peer-reviewed study that compares the view of the public with the view of the scientific community on the issue of global warming and the significant human contribution. Key conclusion:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long- term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists­."

Among the general public, views are mixed, with a 57%-38%(Gallup poll) agreement with the significant human contribution. We see that sort of vehement denial among the blogosphere and various media outlets.

Among scientists, there's very little doubt. Among non-climate scientists and non-publishers, there's a 77%-8%(nearly 10 to 1) agreement (the remaining 15% unsure). 8% is pretty small considering the political implications of the topic. This consensus increases among active published scientists to 89%-3%. Among active climate scientists, it's 97%-1%. The greatest doubt is held by petroleum geologists (what a surprise).

[NL207]

Where does your scientis poll information come from?

I'd like to see the original survey questions and the sampling data. The 'numbers' you present in no way reflect the general scientific community I am aquainted with. I can only conclude they are fabrications.

Tha vast majority of my colleagues are convinced that Al Gore's alarmist predictions of 7 meter sea level increases in the 21st century are pure poppycock as are all the wild claims of 5, 6 or more degrees celsius warming.

[MGhamma]

Praytell agwscam, what data and which scientists are you refering to?

[ROWSSC]

How about the "data" you will find when you walk outside and stick your tongue on a lampost right now? How about 650 of the top climate scientists in the world standing up and declaring that AGW is a complete myth? How about the arctic sea ice reaching levels not seen since 1979? How about Al Gore testifying before congress today while hundreds of people have died nationwide from record cold temps this winter? Good God man, take off your blinders and face the reality that is right on the end of your nose!

[MPeter]

President Obama is the Real Deal. He is the man for our times--bold, decisive and honest. Congratulation Mr. Prez!!!!!