So What's in Obama's Overstuffed Environmental Suggestion Box?
by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 11.16.08
Photo courtesy of Timeout
After Election Day yielded a brand new (allegedly) environmentally progressive president-elect, the green-mined media and blogosphere predictably spawned a deluge of To-Do and Should-Do lists for the new head of state-to-be. Everyone from the prestigious New York Times to humble ol' yours truly was guilty of contributing to the advisory frenzy. But as resident TreeHugger John Laumer sagely pointed out shortly after, such suggestions are largely ineffective and potentially counter-productive: the most important thing we can do at the moment is fall in—Obama's suggestion box is full.
However, that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to peruse the suggestion box for recommendations drafted by some of the most respected environmental committees and organizations in the nation—even if Obama will likely never get around to reading them. Here are three leading environmental organizations' outlined suggestions for the new president-elect:
1. Presidential Action Climate Project
This group features a panel consisting of former senators and the likes of Ray Anderson, the CEO gone-green and now-chairman of Interface. And its contribution to the burgeoning box of environmental advice is:
-A tenfold increase in the federal investment in developing and commercializing clean energy technologies;-A 30 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and 50 percent reduction on petroleum consumption by 2020
-A CAFE standard of 50 miles per gallon by 2025; and
-Meeting America's energy needs without constructing any new conventional coal power plants.
2. The American Wind Energy Association
Seems like AWEA will be swinging by Washington to drop off a few suggestions too. And it looks like they'll mostly concern—surprise—the importance of investing in wind power. Randall Swisher, AWEA's executive Director has issued the following advice:
" . . . Federal policy adjustments are needed to help the industry perform well in the context of the current financial situation. More broadly, the nation needs an energy policy that places a high priority on renewable energy both to stimulate the economy and fight climate change. With demand for clean, domestic energy resources on the rise and the need for environmental solutions becoming more urgent, wind power is the best option to quickly and lastingly address some of our nation's most pressing challenges."
AWEA also outlines the following suggestions:
-A national renewable electricity standard,-A long-term extension of the renewable energy production tax credit,
-A process to facilitate investment in transmission lines to tap the nation's vast wind and other renewable energy sources
-Meaningful climate change legislation measures
3. American Farmland Trust
With Mr. Obama heading for office, the AFT has issued a release with the following heading: "America Has a Historic Opportunity to Shape Farm and Food Policy." It includes, of course, a list of recommendations regarding agricultural policy for the upcoming term. Some highlights:
-Focus greater attention on protecting farmland and improving the economic viability of farms;-Increase the availability of fresh, local foods;
-Give farmers incentives to protect the environment; and,
-Strengthen the connection between local farms and consumers.
Some sound suggestions, there. But . . .
On one hand, these organizations' commendable initiatives and readiness to engage a new political era is admirable. But looking over just these three organizations' varied suggestions, you get a sense of how exhausting this incessant advice-giving is—and that, if anything, it might be overwhelming any potentially receptive parties. I'll refer you again to the sound call for patience and cooperation advocated by Mr. Laumer—and reiterate that once all the well-meaning white noise fades, we should all be ready and willing to help usher in the new era of environmental policy.
More on Obama and the Environment:
Obama and McCain Discuss Global Warming, Environmental Views in ...
Obama v. Bush: Climate Change Executive Order Reversals, Could ...
Green Eyes On: President Obama , How About Organic Farming ...
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Un-Treehugger Events of the Year
- How to Find Green Energy Anywhere
- De-facto Commercial Construction Moratorium: What Good May Come For Sustainable Development?
- So Long 2008, and Thanks for All the Posts
I had the great honour to meet and spend several hours with Ray C. Anderson in Atlanta in February 2006. It was he that suggested my book
www.strategicbookpublishing.com/ZEROGreenhouseEmissions.html
Ray did much to advise on sound poilcy for the Clinton administration. Obama would be well advised to do the same. But we need to get the will for change to come from the person in the street, not just those informed in the environmental area. Politicians will always walk in front of a popular parade of the people.
Bob Williamson
Chair & Founder
Greenhouse Neutral Foundation
The advice given by the lobbyists for these groups is no different from the advice given by lobbyists for tobacco industries. Both lobbying groups advocate economically unsound policies that would directly benefit their employers. The only difference is that environmental advice is given under the guise of altruism, meant to deceive easily-misled voters.
The advice given by the lobbyists for these groups is no different from the advice given by lobbyists for tobacco industries. Both lobbying groups advocate economically unsound policies that would directly benefit their employers. The only difference is that environmental advice is given under the guise of altruism, meant to deceive easily-misled voters.
The government can't fix it all.
It's got to be up to us. Check this out:
http://www.filthyrichmond.com/2008/11/its-up-to-us-to-save-environment.html
I can see that President-elect Obama would be very overwhelmed by all the proposed environmental changes, but I also think that there is great overlap in the policies described in this article. I think that Obama could potentially, at least minimally, address some of the proposed policy changes collectively if he realizes the relational aspect of them. For instance, by increasing the local foods as proposed by AFT, Obama's administration could begin to work towards a goal of decreased use in greenhouse emissions and petroleum consumption because the local shipments would require less travel nationwide. I think the task is daunting, but I am certain that Obama has the potential to meet the challenge head on.
What really stands out are the silly objectives of the American Farmland Trust. Nowhere did I see remove government subsidies from crops that contribute to the detriment of the nation's health, e.g. corn. If they want to promote the availability of fresh, local foods, then fresh, local foods need to be cheaper and/or provide better quality than what's shipped in without sacrificing convenience. Not every community is lucky enough to have a farmers' market and even those that do, they're not always convenient to go to. It's why produce delivery services which buy local produce wholesale and deliver direct to the home are attractive. Unfortunately some of those services sacrifice choice and selection and those services are only available in select markets. One of the benefits of high fuel costs is the fact that domestic products are price competitive to imported products where overseas labor tends to be cheaper.
Step 1: Reverse every single thing ordered by George Bush.
For a quick summary of what the Obama-Biden campaign promised and, if enacted, what those policies would mean for the environment, this article by Kindy Kruller of the Delta Institute is pretty helpful:
http://www.greenexchange.com/read.php?id=25
Yes but... the problem with many of the suggestions listed is that they are either expensive (at a time the budget is strapped beyond all experience), economically dysfunctional (at a time we can't afford to further depress the economy) or unambitious, at a time we need to pull out the stops.
The Obama team is actively soliciting suggestions because they really do need some fresh ideas that are cheap, effective and won't kill the economy. They know it. So please don't discourage the flow of suggestions that team Obama wants and needs -- just encourage some original thinking, in the interest of meeting the above criteria. This is a time for brainstorming, and it would be nice to see TreeHugger championing and debating the best fresh ideas.
Good ideas may come from outside the fold. For instance, few traditional environmentalists, who may love the idea of an economy-killing carbon tax, would come up with the alternative of tax cutting their way to a greener future with a pro-growth, no-carbon tax cut Because it would be heresy in some ways to use a favorite Republican, Neo-Conservative, Supply-Side policy tool. But in fact, making all green energy, green infrastructure and green vehicles 100% tax free at all levels (sales, income, interest, capital gains, dividends) is probably the most effective way to supercharge private investment in green energy way beyond what Obama could accomplish through Federal spending -- and BTW, simultaneously reduce energy costs, save the economy and the auto industry all at the same time. Because, dang it all, Milton Friedman was right when he said" If you want more of something, tax it less."
'Nuff said here, but you can read more at http://www.greenenergytaxcuts.com/2008/11/since-you-ask.html
So TreeHugger, so Brian, please keep the new ideas rolling.
Yes but... the problem with many of the suggestions listed is that they are either expensive (at a time the budget is strapped beyond all experience), economically dysfunctional (at a time we can't afford to further depress the economy) or unambitious, at a time we need to pull out the stops.
The Obama team is actively soliciting suggestions because they really do need some fresh ideas that are cheap, effective and won't kill the economy. They know it. So please don't discourage the flow of suggestions that team Obama wants and needs -- just encourage some original thinking, in the interest of meeting the above criteria. This is a time for brainstorming, and it would be nice to see TreeHugger championing and debating the best fresh ideas.
Good ideas may come from outside the fold. For instance, few traditional environmentalists, who may love the idea of an economy-killing carbon tax, would come up with the alternative of tax cutting their way to a greener future with a pro-growth, no-carbon tax cut Because it would be heresy in some ways to use a favorite Republican, Neo-Conservative, Supply-Side policy tool. But in fact, making all green energy, green infrastructure and green vehicles 100% tax free at all levels (sales, income, interest, capital gains, dividends) is probably the most effective way to supercharge private investment in green energy way beyond what Obama could accomplish through Federal spending -- and BTW, simultaneously reduce energy costs, save the economy and the auto industry all at the same time. Because, dang it all, Milton Friedman was right when he said" If you want more of something, tax it less."
'Nuff said here, but you can read more at http://www.greenenergytaxcuts.com/2008/11/since-you-ask.html
So TreeHugger, so Brian, please keep the new ideas rolling.