Obama: 'We Understand that the Facts Demand Bold Action'

Obama just got done officially announcing his energy and environment team. A few things that jumped out at me:

Not for nothing: the guy's a rhetorical Jedi.

Unless I'm mistaken, the term "clean coal" was not uttered once.

Of Steven Chu, he said: "His appointment should send a signal to all that my Administration will value science, we will make decisions based on the facts, and we understand that the facts demand bold action."

In Q&A, in answer to a question about California's tailpipe standards waiver, Obama made a "key point" that he intends to make "again and again: There is not a contradiction between economic growth and sound environmental practices." Building a new energy economy by upgrading the grid and making buildings more efficient is a "twofer" -- it boosts short-term economic growth and lays a "path to long-term sustainable growth." (He did not answer directly when California might get its waiver.)

Also in Q&A, he stressed that his "21st century investments" will create jobs "that would not otherwise have been created," kickstarting city and state investments that have been put on hold. They aren't intended as a full solution, however, but a means to "jumpstart an era of innovation" in the private sector.

Introducing Carol Browner, he said, "the scope of the effort before us will demand coordination across the government, and my personal engagement as President." How can Americans measure his success and hold him accountable? "By whether I create these jobs," he said.

He concluded:

Looking ahead, I am confident that we will be ready to begin the journey towards a new energy frontier on January 20th. This will be a leading priority of my presidency, and a defining test of our time. We cannot afford complacency, nor accept any more broken promises. We won't create a new energy economy and protect our environment overnight, but we can begin that work right now if we think anew, and act anew. Now, we must have the will to act, and to act boldly.

grist.org

Follow David Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/david_h_roberts

Comments

[idyl]

Obama has said two things regarding U.S. commitments to participate in international talks on climate change: 1) he seek targets that scientists say are necessary to deal with the problem, and 2) establish a benchmark to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. But frankly, these two statements are at odds (and his commitment of $150 billion over 10 years on clean technologies is too small). Scientists say we need to be 10% below 1990 levels by 2020, and very aggressive about emissions reductions in the next 30 years (finding ways to work with developing countries to do the same). I am hoping he is starting with what he thinks he can accomplish, and will increase targets and efforts from there. I think his political style (compromise, trust and fair dealing) and use of the grassroots is the right approach, and I expect that for once he will succeed in winning over some opponents, and moving the goal posts forward. It's about jobs, global competitiveness, health, sustainability, energy independence, and all the rest ... and I believe it is an opportunity that cannot be missed (and must not be missed).

[arkansasgirl]

I'm extremely disappointed that Obama selected Clinton's old environmental bureaucrats to be his environmental bureaucrats. The old Clinton team did not make great strides in protecting the environment, either here or abroad, during their eight year tenure and the same old people mean the same old tactics and strategies.

I would have liked to have seen Obama show some courage and enlightened forseight by appointing an advocate like Robert Kennedy Jr to head the EPA. Kennedy is extremely well-versed in environmental issues and would have make some major progress in solving our huge environmental problems.

Shame on you Obama for seeking the safe way instead of creating a bold new team to help save our planet.

[MSiddique]

Capitalist ideology and its defenders have to support unlimited, unconstrained growth. This must not be hindered under any circumstance if we accept search of profit, i.e., to continue social production in the service of private gains, including those of the shareholders - the result of ‘socializing’ capitalism, is the goal. Yet, simple computation of ‘balance’ would suggest that unlimited growth while the resources are inherently limited (something Econ 101 starts with) is not possible. And the signs are all around that that is the case. Yet even folks like Al Gore and Barak Obama would not, at least in public, recognize this fact. How can they? What politician would get elected promising limits on the quality of life, since that is what would be needed if the economy is actually tailored to limited resources? Fact is, we have unquestionably accepted the mantra of never ending growth. Until nature forces us to, we are not getting off of this joy-ride, even if we can see the precipice right in front of our nose! This is why capitalism survives in spite of repeated proof that it simply does not work except for a few, and it is leading us to irreversible changes we may not dig out of with scientific facts.

[Beachrunner]

"We value science . . ." Blah, blah, blah. Why is Obama going to dump $1 trillion into new roads if he's so dedicated to ending global warming? Does not compute.

[rockyb26]

last time i checked hybrids, flexfuels, and electric cars still drive on roads.

[goldrush]

"There is not a contradiction between economic growth and sound environmental practices."

But there is a contradiction between economic growth and government growth. So if "sound environmental practices" come out through forced compliance to nonexistent technologies or a heavy regulatory and tax burden then you can expect less economic growth.

[Leatherhelmet]

Absolutely. This is my biggest fear. More and more scientists are doubting the legitimacy of man-made global warming and we are talking instituting heavy taxation via carbon trading in an economy which cannot afford more drags on it.

[DuPageDem]

Yeah. Just look at all those asthma doctors and pharmaceuticals -- not to mention undertakers and coffin makers -- a carbon tax could put out of business.

[LeLoup]

All nice things for sure. But will this broken Congress let him do anything?

[noneIn2008]

Obama has already succeeded, it is cooling. I hope he did not overshoot and we have a longer cooling trend? Why no mention of the lack of sunspots?

[David Horton - Huffpost Blogger]

Mr Obama could help by getting on the phone to Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd, who yesterday reneged on an election promise and set a target of only 5% reduction in emissions by 2020. The Australian population, other than the Murdoch Press, and the coal industry, are screaming blue murder, but this may well not be enough, since the conservative opposition party, full of denialists, is unlikely to commit to even 5%. A quiet word from Obama, that he expects Mr Rudd to get on board with a cut of 25% or more, might be effective. The previous leader, John Howard, of course, worked hand in glove with Bush to prevent global action. It would be good to see Americans and Australians working together in a positive way to help clean up the mess our wasteful habits have helped cause.