7 Executive Orders President Obama Should Sign to Protect the Environment: Center for Progressive Reform
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 11.11.08
photo: Nils Geylan
At the time of this writing, Barack Obama has been president-elect for less than a week and no one is wasting any time in making suggestions for actions he should take once he’s President Obama. The Center for Progressive Reform passed on their suggestions for 7 Executive Orders for the President’s First 100 Days and so I pass them on to you to debate, discuss and otherwise armchair analyze.
They cover a range of perennial issues familiar to TreeHugger readers—Climate change, chemicals in products intended for children, pollution, preserving ecosystems on public lands. Here they are:
1. Reduce the Federal Carbon Footprint
The new President should issue an Executive Order requiring each federal agency to measure, report, and reduce its carbon footprint. Not only would the Executive Order have a meaningful impact on the federal government's carbon emissions, it could also lead to the creation of uniform, practical standards for measuring such footprints, standards that could be applied government-wide and beyond. Each of the provisions of this proposed Order is consistent with the goals of the National Environmental Policy Act.
2. Consider Climate Change in All Decisions
The next President should issue a new Executive Order clarifying that all federal agencies are obligated to consider the global climate change-related implications of their actions. This proposed Order is consistent with the goals of the National Environmental Policy Act.
3. Protect Children from Chemicals
The next President should amend Executive Order 13045 (issued initially by President
Clinton and then amended by President Bush) to mandate that agencies establish an affirmative agenda for protecting children from lead, mercury, perchlorate, phthalates, fine particulate matter, ozone, and pesticides; require the reform of risk assessment policy so that children are accounted for as a vulnerable group; and end the use of discounting the value of children's lives in cost-benefit analysis. As is the case with the provisions of the existing Order on Protecting Children, each of these recommendations is consistent with the goals of the various environmental, safety, and public health statutes.
4. Environmental Justice
The next President should amend or replace the original Executive Order [12898] on Environmental Justice. The new Order should require a meaningful analysis of the environmental justice impacts and implications of all major new rules; impose on agencies a substantive obligation to take affirmative steps to ameliorate environmental injustice; launch an affirmative Environmental Justice agenda; hold agencies accountable for carrying out their environmental justice obligations; and clarify key terms from the current Order, including “environmental justice communities” and “subsistence,” to avoid the kind of narrow interpretation of the terms applied by the Bush Administration. As is the case with the existing Executive Order on Environmental Justice, these recommendations are consistent with the goals of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
5. Transparent Regulatory Review
The new President should issue an Executive Order restoring open government in three areas where unwarranted secrecy has developed. The Order should restore the presumption of disclosure concerning exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) so that political appointees and career government employees cannot operate free of scrutiny; forbid agencies from taking advantage of loopholes that limit the transparency provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) so that the public can be assured that special interests do not have undue influence on agency decision making; and improve the transparency of regulatory review by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) so that efforts by political appointees in the White House to override the judgment of scientists and other experts in regulatory agencies can at least be transparent to the public. All of the proposed Order's provisions are consistent with the goals of FOIA and FACA.
6. Protect Stronger State Laws from Weaker Federal Ones
CPR points out that the Bush Administration often preempted stronger state laws on environmental regulation with weaker federal ones,
The next President should [...] should amend the existing Executive Order on Federalism to strengthen provisions setting forth a presumption against preemption; require agencies to provide a written justification for preemption; and require that, when a federal statute allows states to adopt more stringent standards or seek a waiver of statutory preemption (as in EPA's denial of California's Clean Air Act waiver), agencies must provide a written justification to the White House before denying the state's regulatory authority or waiver request. As is the case with the existing Executive Order on Federalism, these recommendations are consistent with the goals of the various statutes under which the environmental, safety, and public health agencies operate, including the National Environmental Policy Act.
7. Promoting Ecological Integrity
The next President should issue a new Executive Order declaring a national policy of
promoting ecological integrity as a baseline requirement for sustainable public land use. The President should also revoke two Bush Administration Executive Orders issued in 2005 (Executive Orders 13211 and 13212) that made it easier to develop energy resources on public lands, even at the risk of causing long-term degradation of natural resource values. In addition, the President should amend a third Bush Order (Executive Order 13443) by providing equal opportunities for public participation in federal land use decision making to a wide variety of constituencies, in addition to those promoting hunting. All of these measures are consistent with the goals of the various public lands statutes.
These are just the summaries of what CPR believes President Obama should do (obviously the document was worded with either Obama or McCain in mind). The full version of Protecting Public Health and the Environment by Stroke of a Presidential Pen goes into much more detail as to why these Executive Orders should be enacted.
Barack Obama
Barack Obama Faces Environmental Clean Up After Two Centuries of Bingeing: Bill McKibben
Obama Cites Michael Pollan's Sun-Food Agenda
Be the Change... Obama Should Reinstall White House Solar Panels
How to Find Lost User Manuals, Green Office Birthdays and the Upcycled Party Contest
|
Vattenfall to Build 300 MW, £780M Offshore Wind Farm in Kent, UK
|
I am completely against #1: "The new President should issue an Executive Order requiring each federal agency to measure, report, and reduce its carbon footprint."
This is the same thing as the requirement for Federal projects to have an ESA. Meanwhile industry is free to run a muck and destroy the environment. What's good enough for large bureaucratic organizations like the US government is good enough for industry. BUT, if it doesn't work for industry, then DON'T roll it out for the government for taxpayers to foot! DUH!!!!
Needed:
Executive order banning housing starts, new mall starts, apartmemt complex starts, WalMarts, strip malls and highways for 2 years in all 50 states is what is needed.
Re-training of developers and construction workers as border guards will follow:
40,000 new Coast Guard vessels (600,000 new CG employees)
700,000 new guards on canadian and mexican borders
Same with airport guards--500,000 new.
Hummm - stroke of the pen, law of the land - kinda cool or kinda scary??
dictator
Noun
1. a ruler who has complete power
2. a person who behaves in a tyrannical manner
see also, dictatorship
I am also completely against #1. To me it sounds like any benefit that could come from it would fall under #2. As long as they consider the effect on the environment in all decisions, I would think their carbon footprint would come down. You don't have to know your carbon footprint to reduce it. Considering the size of the federal government, calculating their carbon footprint would probably just add to it.
My favorite is #6. Federal law should be the bare minimum, not the law of the land. Strange how the CPR leaves President Clinton's name off the orders they want repealed though...
As for turban joe, I'm not sure if banning housing starts or asking for 2 new Coast Guard vessels for every kilometer of U.S. coastline is more absurd.
@ Don: Actually, most of the work for Obama would be to reverse executive orders from Bush Jr. So who is scary?
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. . . . The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
The First Global Revolution, page 115
#2 Would be nice. Doubtful but nice.
Executive orders are not for making arbitrary law!! Learn your civics. There is nothing at all ok with using executive orders for something like this.
Protect children from chemicals? How about protecting ALL people from chemicals. Shocking as this may sound, I consider my life to have the same value as YOUR kids' lives. I know that sounds selfish, but hey, you know. Almost 50% of Americans will get cancer in their lifetime because of environmental contaminants - we need protection too! {Cancer researches now estimate that 85% of cancers are caused by environmental toxins}
People like this terrify me, you demand a questionable benefit to the environment for a very real bankrupting of America.
yea..... when he said change.... he meant that the same companies and powers that be will still be in charge... and your going to get more of the same. I wish we could move towards a greener planet, but its not going to be as easy as putting in a new president. There's this think called globalization... and whoever can afford it now owns any nations national treasures and resources. And with the military industrial complex, we have been doing this to other countries for the past 50 years... so get used to it happening to us. What was McCains or Obama's stance on the Federal Reserve, and our monetary policy.... oh .. thats right, they didn't even mention that. You will all understand what I'm talking about in 20 -40 years when we've destroyed ourselves so much, that we will begin questioning these things. Until then, good luck
I propose an executive order, limiting a sitting president to 4 executive orders during his/her term. Additional orders may be granted by vote from the Congress and Senate.
Because a ruler who can sign things into law without the oversight of a parliament is a monarch, not a president.
I must second Don's concern here. No matter how virtuous an individual order may be, the tool of the "executive order" is still a dangerous one. The executive order and presidential signing statements circumvent our supposedly representative government. One agent should never wield such power for good or ill.
When does it become clear that a government has overstepped its bounds?
Where exactly in the US constitution does the Executive Order appear? Pretty sure Obama will only be able to sign and enforce laws enacted by congress...
I really don't see #1 being useful. They already waste so much, by having them examine their own footprint, they'll find a way to put 20 miles of red tape around it and make it worse all the while spending an excessive amount of money to do so. Or if you're going to do it, have an independent NGA do it, and make them stick to a budget.
And we'd have to be careful with #6, because the debate of what's stronger and what's weaker depends on what side of the issue you are on. I can see a state writing a law to reverse gun ownership laws for individuals and some lawyer sues because the EO didn't specify the law was intended for environmental and health concerns. Now all of a sudden someone's carrying 50 concealed weapons all at the same time into a federal building.
In a time of economic depression the last thing we should do is lay forth fascist mandates to restrict production in american companies, which need more than ever to be competitive in a world market. In addition, I wonder what your stance is on strong state laws that disagree with your agenda preempting weak federal laws that you support.
Why, when President Obama (love the sound of that) will have a majority-Democratic Congress on honeymoon with him, should he go throwing his weight around with executive orders?
I agree with Turban Joe - this is a dangerous precedent. We have a DEMOCRACY - of the people, by the people, and for the people. Three branches of government, checks and balances. Bush tried to break that model - unsuccessfully, thanks be. Let's not call for Obama to finish the job. An autocrat, whether enlightened or not, is still an autocrat.
It seems to me that fundamental shift in our accounting laws is in order-- shifting to methods that accurately track the extraction of our natural capital: trees, minerals, fossil fuels... all the things that we like to use because we have yet to invent better human-made versions. Why spend our time trying to figure workarounds for resource depletion when nature already has figured most things out for us-- we just need to let her do her thing. Does anybody know if/how the President can make a shift towards more inclusive accounting practices?
Then there's the more immediate concern of peak oil and "powering down" gracefully before we're forced to change by the simple cost of scarce oil. Last year I spoke with Wes Jackson from the Land Institute, and he outlined what HE would say if he were to become President of the United States. I think it's relevant to this topic, too... Here's the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDSn-bDyvdA
Peace,
Mark
These are all sound recommendations.
Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol would be a step in the right direction too.