A Climate Plan for the New Administration

President-elect Obama has said he plans to move forward with legislation to address global warming. But he needn't wait to get started. Laws already on the books provide authority for swift Presidential action on this most pressing environmental problem. We propose a dozen initiatives that President Obama can undertake right away. (The Op-Ed below summarizes a longer paper written by Mr. Ayres and others under the pen name 'Justinian,' which can be found on the web at http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcqm4999_1f7h4xjgm&hl=en.)

1. Aggressively Pursue International Agreements to Address Global Warming
An international agreement to cut emissions of greenhouse gases will stimulate a new industrial revolution in renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency technologies that will contribute to energy independence, provide hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the United States, improve our national security, and open new markets for American low-carbon technology.

2. Reorganize the Office of the President

To address global warming domestically, President Obama should reorganize his own office. First, he should elevate the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to its intended role as the President's chief environmental advisor. He should appoint Council members who are widely respected experts on how to achieve the interrelated goals for global warming and energy independence.

Second, President Obama should, in the words of a panel of administrative law experts, "take decisive action to fix a regulatory system that, after a generation of attacks, has become dysfunctional." He should begin by abrogating Executive Order 12866, which empowers the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB to review proposed environmental regulations. OIRA and its predecessors are notorious for blocking the kind of regulations the President will need to address global warming.

3. Formally Find that Greenhouse Gases Endanger Public Health and Welfare

The new EPA Administrator should formally find that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare under the Supreme Court's ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA to initiate regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Such a finding would have an enormous symbolic effect, ending eight years of denial and deception about the causes and consequences of climate change.

4. Increase the Fuel Efficiency of New Motor Vehicles

EPA should immediately grant California permission to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. It should also examine whether new fuel efficiency standards proposed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are strict enough to comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. If the federal government decides to provide a capital infusion for the Big Three, it should be on condition that the industry commercialize advanced vehicles capable of fuel economy well above that required by current NHTSA fuel economy standards.

5. Increase Building and Appliance Efficiency

President Obama should order the Department of Energy (DOE) to strengthen national building and appliance efficiency standards as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). DOE's consistently tardy standard-setting demonstrates that clear presidential direction is needed.

DOE should also be directed to issue a national model "green" building code, using California's new code as a template. After DOE issues the code, the President could authorize an DOE incentive program for states that adopt it by linking adoption to increased federal funding for state energy efficiency efforts.

6. Manage Energy Production to Reduce CO2 Emissions

CO2 emissions can be reduced almost immediately by adopting a better management system for current electric generating plants. President Obama should instruct the Secretary of Energy and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to develop an agenda of such measures and identify Presidential actions needed to implement them.

For example, today cost largely determines which electric generating plants are operated ("dispatched") at any given time. Global warming is not considered. In China generating plants are dispatched according to their emissions, even if the cost is greater. Surely if China can afford such a system, the U.S. can too.

7. Curtail Emissions from Coal-Fired Power Plants

Using the Clean Air Act, EPA should set a "new source performance standard" for new coal-fired power plants based on the greenhouse gas emissions profile of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants. IGCC plants are capable of sequestering carbon when sequestration technology becomes available. Moreover, they produce 12 percent less CO2 than today's best conventional coal-burning units and 30 percent less carbon than the average coal-fired power plant.

8. Eliminate Subsidies to High Emission Energy Resources

During the last fifty years the federal government has spent $644 billion on energy incentives, of which more than eighty percent went to fossil fuels. Reducing these subsidies could provide badly needed funds for tax reduction measures or for the President's new energy independence initiatives and reduce incentives for investment in outmoded fossil power plants.

Because of the political power of energy interests, the President should create an Energy Subsidies Commission, made up of individuals who are not in the energy industry, to examine the priorities represented in current energy subsidies and make recommendations for eliminating those that are counter-productive to the president's global warming and energy independence policies.

9. Manage the Public Lands to Sequester Carbon and Provide Habitat for At-Risk Species

The loss of forested land around the world contributes as much to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as does the world's industry. As the largest intact ecosystems in the country, forests provide habitat for animals and plants displaced by global warming. President Obama should use his powers of appointment and budgeting to make sequestration of carbon dioxide and provision of habitat for species at risk from climate change, the highest priorities in the departments that manage the public lands.

10. Create Green Markets with Defense Department Procurement

DOD and OMB should be tasked with altering defense procurement policies to provide a new market for green technology. Under earlier presidents, including Presidents Truman and Eisenhower, the military was required to give priority to important civilian objectives, such as integration of the races. Experience demonstrated that integration strengthened the military and provided new leadership to civilian society.

11. Create a National Climate Corps

The President should create a "Climate Corps," patterned after the Peace Corps and Americorps. The Climate Corps would educate the public and engage citizens in the fight against climate change by (1) educating children about climate change and what they can do about it, (2) helping poor individuals and households increase energy efficiency and educating them about tax credits and other government benefits for energy efficiency investments, (3) planting forests domestically and internationally, (4) assisting farmers to conserve energy and water, (5) promoting recycling programs to reduce waste, and (6) supporting organic community gardens.

12. Presidential Leadership

President Obama should use the bully pulpit of the presidency to encourage citizens to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with individual and household choices. According to a post-election poll by Zogby International, sixty percent of U.S. voters thought that addressing climate change should be a "high priority" of elected officials. It seems plausible to imagine that those same individuals would be receptive to a plea to make addressing climate change a high priority in their personal lives as well.

Comments

[Martymar74]

Gore may have a point, but I also know that Earth as well as other planets in our solar system have experience warming trends throughout time and we are the only ones with human activity. There has also been about 650 scientists that oppose global warming, and that's an awfully high sample size of scientists who refute something. I think we are being rushed into action ala the Iraq War and there needs to be sufficient spotlight given to viewpoints opposing Al Gore and the global warming proponents. Let's see which one stands up after that.

[Michale32086]

Exactly..

In his book, ASSAULT ON REASON, Al Gore castigated the American Public for their lack of debate on the Iraq War.

Yet, in his Human Caused Global Warming(Yet The Planet Is Cooling) con, Al Gore states that the time for debate is over...

Why won't Al Gore debate the issue? It's obvious that, if Al Gore were to actually WIN such a debate, it would expand his influence a thousand fold.. And, if the science is such a slam dunk as the disciples of the Gore'acle claim, a debate would be an easy win...

Michale.....

[research]

Look, let's all reasonable people agree:

Hidden agendas by the conservatives against global warming are bs.

"No one shall challenge foe TRUTH of human global Warming" is ALSO BS.

Now,

That's argue facts.

[research]

@Michale

Since Weather gets more extreme during global warming periods no matter what causes the warming,

Your smug purity that cold weather invalidates global warming is ignorant.

There's nothing wrong with being ignorant, just go learn something.

[Michale32086]

So, the fact that it's colder is "proof" of Global WARMING??

Hmmmm Sounds like people who point at all the contradictions of the bible and say that is PROOF that there is a god...

In other words, in your mind, everything that happens is PROOF that Human Caused Global Warming exists no matter how illogical and ridiculous it sounds..

Gotcha {{wink}} {{wink}}

Michale.....

[research]

No, cold Weather is not a proof that Global Warming is not happening.

You really have trouble with complicated concepts, don't you.

[alvdh1]

Yeah Michael,

The Arctic Ice sheet is disappearing, Greenland's continental glacier is melting at an unprecedented rate and a massive chunk of Antarcitca's ice sheet is on the brink of breaking off into the ocean while you claim the Earth is getting cooler. Do you have an explanation for this phenomenen. Respiration of the world's organic matter is no doubt the largest contributor of greenhouse gases. But to say that man's burning of fossil fuels, carbon that was stored over millions of years, coupled with widespread deforestation is not having any impact on global temperatures is disingenuous at best. CO2 levels are soaring to a level not seen in over 640,000 years according to the ice record.

What happens if you turn out to be dead wrong and we have done nothing to confront climate change? What happens if we are wrong, but took the steps anyway. The planet will be better of because not only will we have reduced CO2, but we will have curtailed all of the toxic gases associated with the burning of fossil fuels. Gee, your grandkids insurance permiums will be lower. Gee, you wont pay as much in taxes to subsidize the oil, coal and ngas industries. Give it a rest fella. Tell your boss over at Exxon that times are a changing.

[Michale32086]

CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'
Network's second meteorologist to challenge notion man can alter climate.
http://businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx

I believe I made the same exact claim quite a while ago...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}
President-elect Obama has said he plans to move forward with legislation to address global warming.
{{{{{{

What "Global Warming"??

The Global Average Temp peaked in 1998. It's been going down since then.

Snowstorms in Vegas?? Snow in Houston?? Record cold temps all across the country and the world??

Does this sound like a problem of Global WARMING??

Tell ya what.. When Al Gore and Richard Branson start living their lives like there is a imminent threat to the planet from Global Warming, I'll be the first to step up and concede that there MIGHT be a problem...

Not until then...

Michale.....

[Martymar74]

Snowstorms in Palmdale, Ca, 40 miles outside of Los Angeles as well........

[Michale32086]

Yea, I lived in Mojave for a while, which is about 30 miles north of Palmdale. We had a really good snow there once.. Which was really kewl, because under normal conditions, we would have to travel to the Tehachapi Mountains to play in the snow...

Michale.....

[mnyegele]

Richard Ayers has mentioned carbon sequestration twice in this article. That technology does not exist. In addition to non-existent technology, how does Ayers propose to pay for keeping carbon emissions in the ground and what happens in the future if these carbon emissions escape?
We already have one form of carbon sequestration - trees, particularly in rain forests. Perhaps we could pay people in tropical countries to preserve their rain forests rather than cut them down. Also, according to the October 2007 edition of National Geographic Magazine, carbon emissions could be used to produce specially bred forms of algae which could be converted into fuel. According to an article I read last summer in Newsweek, (Fahreed Zakaria's interview with Craig Vetter) we could breed special forms of e. coli bacteria to produce fuel. We could use carbon emissions for this purpose as well.
Many of Ayers ideas are quite good, but carbon sequestration needs more thought.

[Wake-up]

This is all the scam of a century... in past 100 years the surface temp has risen just over 1 degree F and there's no evidence (I said evidence not theory) that that was caused by humans...

Carbon and overwhelming about or that comes from the Ocean (YES we should take care of our Oceans) and as a % of the atmosphere the level have risen (in all of recorded history) less than 4%... 4%!!

In the meantime, the over focus on Bio-Fuels has dramatically raised the price of corn and other grains which is starving people now...

I say we let private companies play with this one and worry about 100 years from now... Besides, who's going to control India and China?

[Bonobo]

I am nervous about Obama's level of understanding of the science/technology involved. I hope he was lying about corn ethanol and clean coal just to pander for votes, but it's looking more and more like he was sincere. He doesn't have any real background in scientific thinking, and his environmental appointments have records that are somewhat less than admirable when it comes to speaking truth to power.

[richardel]

#13. Read Tom Friedman's Hot, Flat & Crowded.

#14. Raise the federal gasoline tax until gasoline prices equal that of most of Europe ($6.00+)

[DIAGUY]

#15 After what the American people went thru this summer with $4.00 fuel, (particuarly low-income people) if Obama even thinks about playing with fuel prices 2012 will be too easy for the GOP.

#16 Until India and China agree to EXACTLY the same protection measures as us, it can't work for our economy.

[Geoark]

I agree with richarddel and Tom Friedman.
The most efficient and effective way to reduce carbon emissions, reduce our dependence on foreign petrol-dictatorships, and build a sustainable planet would be to put the true cost of fossil fuels into our price system via a direct carbon tax -- and not mess with the convoluted cap-and-charade schemes. Furthermore, the raised revenue should be seen as an "Earth-Inheritance" to be given back to us as a citizen's dividend into individual retirement, health savings, and energy transition accounts. With the appropriate price signals and the removal of fossil fuel subsidies we will see a geo-green revolution in the research, development, and implementation of resource conserving technologies.
We all need to contact our congressional representatives in support of the Green Tax Shift and Geo-Greenism.
Geoark
Save your job, save your business, save your planet: Tax Waste, Not Work: Support the Green Tax Shift.

[Martymar74]

Great, double-penalize individuals like me who went out and bought a Hybrid before gas prices even went up. Also, further make it more difficult to get to the few jobs that are left. Not a good recommendation. I think we should implement a 30-40% luxury tax to individuals who choose to buy SUV's and big pick up trucks. There will be many soccer moms and so-called tough guys who think they're being more patriotic by still driving them and will want to trade in their current big vehicle for another in within about 3-5 years. That way those who are doing the right thing are incentivized and those who don't get it will bear the costs.

[coupeditor]

Time magazine reported that Carol M. Browner's nomination Monday for the newly-created Energy Czar position, raises embarrassing questions in the Environmental Protection Agency's employee relations history due to Ms. Browner's loss in Coleman-Adebayo v. Carol Browner on charges of discriminating against employees based on sex and race, as well as retaliating against whistleblowers and denying them their civil rights. The announcement was 2 weeks ago just as the successful plaintiff in the case, Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, was illegally fired by the present EPA Administrator, one of Ms. Browner's former assistant administrators.

Time quotes Coleman-Adebayo as saying Administrator Browner "...wasn't at all sympathetic to complaints about civil rights abuses. We were treated like Negroes, to use a polite term. We were put in our place." — Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, former EPA employee who exposed a "racially toxic" environment there led to the signing of the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2001.

"It is disturbing on the heels of my firing," said Dr. Coleman-Adebayo, "not fired for cause, not fired for performance issues, but for health concerns while —a woman disgraced in court irises to a White House position. —What message does this send to others in the government who could expose corruption or discrimination? Government managers cannot have employees prevail against them in court, Congress unanimously condemn their leadership and pass a law to stop them, and still be tapped for a high level position. How tragic."

[research]

There is such hysteria against the statement that humans are causing global warming, that If there is a way to avoid that issue, but still move away from dirty fuels...

So here's the argument for what you have suggested, but with the human global warming hot point:

We are running out of oil and it's destabilizing the world.

Coal is destroying the landscape, polluting ground water and rivers and real ugly.

Affordable coal plants emit mercury radiation and a whole stew of nasty pollutants.

Solar wind natural gas, p hybrids are all viable now and ready to take on the energy burden.

We need large public works project, energy is a great one.

[GaDove]

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity." MLK That applies to all of you idiots that don't believe global warming is going on right now.

Even if not all global warming is caused by mankind, scientists know ways to slow it down. Is it somehow ok to ignore global warming and not do anything about it because people disagree on whtat causes it?

Obama should also address the 'inconvenient truth' that factory farms are the top producers of water pollution and destruction to the environment. Al Gore didn't have the guts to say it, but maybe Obama will.

[Michale32086]

Global Warming going on right now??

Vegas: Biggest Snow in 30 years...
FREAK: SNOW IN MALIBU...
Surprise flurries warm Houston hearts...

Florida, where I live, has constantly set cold temp records all thru the months of October and November..

So, please explain to me how Global Warming is going on right now, when all the evidence proves that global average temps have dropped since 1998?

}}}}
Al Gore didn't have the guts to say it, but maybe Obama will.
{{{{

Al Gore is a con man. Pure and simple... He latched on a hysterical fear-mongering "threat" and then, lo and behold, comes up with the "solution" that is expected to make him BILLIONS a year in the coming decade...

Michale.....

[canuckmoose]

Mr. Ayres,
Thank you for this. I'm not sure why you have not mentioned consumer conservation as your first point.
The most obvious saving would be that all drivers drive the speed limit; which would require each of us to take personal responsibility.
Secondly, mandating of lower speed limits would reduce oil consumption significantly.
These two measures alone would reduce automotive oil consumption by a minimum of 15%.

If speed limits were lowered to 55mph, and enforced, the savings would be more in the order of 20%.
Politically, this is win/win across the spectrum. One can save the earth, save money, and contribute to oil self-sufficiency all at the same time.

[JanP]

Maybe 55 will increase the mileage for a single car. With more cars, you end up with congestion (and more accidents) and poorer mileage.

Not all cars are best with 55 MPH. Back in the 1980's, I had a Saab 900 Turbo. It got its best gas mileage at 80 (28 MPG). at 55, it got 22-24 MPG.

55 MPH has zero effect on congested rush hour traffic.

So, when you are all through, 55 MPH makes hardly any difference in the nations oil consumption.

[canuckmoose]

Hi, Jan,
Thanks for your comments.
-I'm not sure how decreasing the speed limit will put more cars on the road.
-I have never personally driven a car that did not get significantly better mileage at 55 than 85mph.
-The *only* time 55mph does not save fuel is in stop-and-go traffic. However, a hybrid vehicle shines in conserving fuel under those conditions.
-So, when you are all through, 55mph can make a huge difference to the nation's oil consumption.
-Of course, there is still the issue of deciding whether or not to take personal responsibility.

[TMann99821]

I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

[canuckmoose]

Concur that it may not be within the power of humans to assure that the climate does not change.
However, to deliberately change it, with no idea of the outcome, is more than arrogant, it is folly at best. One might call it Mutually Assured Destruction.

[DIAGUY]

AHHHHHHHHH....a wave of common sense in a sea of wishful thinking. You're my hero !!!!

[Bonobo]

It's not a matter of "best". It's a matter of massive species extinction, because it's so fast, and there are now so many humans using so much land and sea resources. And it's a matter of great human misery (and death) when climate patterns become more extreme and crop production and water availability crashes. And it's not merely a matter of shifting production to Canada and Siberia, for a variety of potential problems, such as poor nutrient reserves and sea level rise flooding.

[Chip W]

To me, the global warming issue is welcome because it's serving to focus attention on the impact we (humans) have on this planet. Maybe we'll do something about it.
I'm not so concerned with humans; we'll survive global warming. My concern is for the other critters we share the planet with.
We're just one of the critters.

[BlackbirdHighway]

The biggest problem is coal. We need to phase out coal, but it is the most popular and least expensive source for electricity. Any move at all to even start eliminating coal will generate huge resistance from the coal states.

To win over the coal states, we are going to have to provide them incentives, lots and lots of them over many years. Their economies must be transformed to focus on new, clean energy production.

[JanP]

The new adminstration doesn't want coal, oil, nuclear or pwoer lines runing from solar and wind farms to major population centers.

What does that leave except dried dung?

Even if we hase out coal, it leaves china's coal, doesn't it?

[canuckmoose]

Hi, Jan,
We are an imaginative and resourceful people. Perhaps we can find some solutions to the problems you mention.
We could start by educating our children and funding the required research.
Burying power lines in the ground might also be a good infrastructure project.

[WilliePilgrim]

There are dozens of ways to address the impacts of industrial emmissions, particularly when it comes to stuff like soot and other combustion by-products using scrubbers and cleaner fuels. Try those and see if getting rid of the dirt on the ice that results form all these unburned hydrocarbons we're tossing into the air doesn't result in more sea ice cover? Fewer scientists are convinced of the concept that CO2 is some kind of toxic super warming blanket that will make Earth just like Venus. And why the insistance on this Cap and Trade fiasco? Where do scientist get the idea that in a system as complex as climate that there is a straight line correlation with CO2 and climate? It's preposterous on the face of it and ignores the obvious flaws in the model...really a model that's even more complex than the sytem it's attempting to emulate?
I'm all for a vigorous international effort to address the actual verifiable human impacts that we unquestionably are having on the environment, but CO2 just isn't it and these AGW alarms do little but deflect attention from where it's needed now.
The real good news is more scientists are seeing some reason . As the actual costs of cap and trade are made apparent there are leaders who are putting on the brakes and keeping a firm grip on the steering wheel as they follow reasonable advice from sensible advisors. Hurray, I hope.

[topgunna]

Well said, Willie. It's a little silly to think you can tease out the impact of a single variable (CO2 concentrations) in a complex system like the world's climate. To go further and suggest that the trace gas will trigger runaway warming is even sillier.

I'm with you on cap-and-trade as well. If they were serious about reducing overall emissions, why not just institute a straight carbon tax? Cap-and-trade is a special interest/lobbyist dream - why should we implement a system that can be so easily corrupted.

[Geoark]

For a good comparison of cap-and-trade vs. a straight Carbon Tax please see:
http://www.carbontax.org/issues/carbon-taxes-vs-cap-and-trade/
The Congressional Budget Office released a study that shows a Carbon Tax would be five times more effective than any cap-and-trade plan. Furthermore, the atmosphere belongs to all of us and we should all benefit from its economic rent -- via an equal citizen's dividend for all of us.
GeoArk
www.geo-greenism.org