BBC NEWS
Obama 'must act now' on climate
The planet will be in "huge trouble" unless Barack Obama makes strides in tackling climate change, says a leading scientist.
Prof James McCarthy spoke on the eve of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which he heads.
The US president has just four years to save the planet, said Prof McCarthy.
If major policy changes do not happen within Mr Obama's term of office, they will not happen at all, he warned.
"We have a moment right now of extraordinary opportunity, with a new president, positioned with scientific leadership that has known no equal in recent times," the AAAS president told BBC News.
"The calibre of scientific advice that is close to this man is truly exceptional.
"If in his first term, in the next four years, we don't make significant progress in these areas, then I think the planet is in huge trouble.
"Without US leadership, which has been sorely lacking, we will not get to where we need to be."
Moment of opportunity
Climate change is high on the agenda of this year's AAAS meeting in Chicago.
Former US Vice President Al Gore is among the speakers at the event, with 10,000 scientists expected to attend across the five days of the meeting.
On the eve of the conference, Prof McCarthy told BBC News there was now a moment of opportunity to draw up policies that would be effective in combating climate change.
He said: "Many scientists have wondered whether President Obama will be able to make commitments to investments in energy technology and understanding climate change - that were an important part of his campaign.
"I know many of my colleagues looking at the fiscal situation, have felt that these good ideas might be put on the back burner.
"That would be a terrible thing if that happened.
"This is our window, with the science advice he has, with the realisation that these issues are pressing, if they are made second order I think we have really lost it."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7885036.stm
Published: 2009/02/12 02:36:06 GMT
© BBC MMIX
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Former US vice-president told Senate that environmental initiatives would help job growth
* Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Al Gore reprised his role as environmental prophet today, laying out a road map for Barack Obama to push through his ambitious green agenda and re-assert American leadership on global climate change negotiations.
The former US vice-president and Nobel prize laureate called for swift passage of Obama's economic recovery plan, with its emphasis on green jobs and renewable energy.
He said Barack Obama's multibillion-dollar stimulus plan was a first step to moving America away from fossil fuels and reaching an international treaty on climate change in Copenhagen later this year.
"The road to Copenhagen has three steps to it," Gore told the Senate foreign relations committee.
Gore urged Congress not to be distracted by the economic recessions. Recent opinion polls have also shown a decline in concern about the environment as economic worries take hold.
Gore said the plan would spur economic recovery - not stand in its way.
"The solutions to the climate crisis are the very same solutions that will address our economic and national security crises as well," he said. "The plan's unprecedented and critical investments in four key areas - energy efficiency, renewables, a unified national energy grid and the move to clean cars - represent an important down payment."
He went on to call for "decisive action" towards mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, saying the reductions achieved under the short-term economic recovery plan would make it easier for America to meet subsequent targets.
The knock-on effect would lay the foundation to a successful negotiation of a sequel to the Kyoto agreements later this year, Gore said.
"The United States will regain its credibility and enter the Copenhagen treaty talks with a renewed authority to lead the world in shaping a fair and effective treaty."
He said the scientific consensus of recent years would ensure support in Congress for an international treaty. Congress refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol a decade ago.
"The scientists are practically screaming from the rooftops," Gore said.
The largely reverential reception for Gore, from Republicans as well as Democrats on the Senate committee, was further evidence of the dramatic shift in thinking on the environment.
With Obama in the White House and Democrats in control of Congress, there is now broad support for dealing with climate change.
John Kerry, the incoming chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, has said he intends to use his new role to help further efforts for an international treaty on climate. "The committee is going to be relentless and super-focused," he said.
"As the new administration sets a new tone with the global community, this issue will be an early test of our capacity to exert thoughtful, forceful diplomatic and moral leadership on any future challenge that the world faces," Kerry said.
With Bush's exit from the White House, there was little sign today of the once formidable constituency of climate change deniers. Instead, the committee room was reduced to respectful silence as Gore deployed his now famous slide show on the urgency of dealing with climate change.
He included data showing that if emissions rise at current levels, the earth could see an 11 degree Fahrenheit rise in global average temperatures.
"This would bring a screeching halt to human civilisation and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on Earth," Gore said. "And this is within the century, if we don't change."
Obama took his first steps to make good on an election promise to put the environment at the top of his agenda on Monday.
In a pair of executive orders, Obama asked the Environmental Protection Agency to review its refusal to allow California and more than a dozen other states to enact stringent emission requirements.
Gore's testimony was part of a broader strategy by Obama to get Congress behind his stimulus package, but also to line up support further down the road for legislation to promote clean energy and counter the effects of climate change.
Since the success of his film An Inconvenient Truth, Gore has launched a public campaign for America to stop using fossil fuels entirely and move to clean energy sources within 10 years. Such targets are more ambitious than those set by Obama.
However, Gore did not refer to those targets today.
* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009
THINK AGAIN by Stanley Fish
February 8, 2009, 10:00 pm
The Two Languages of Academic Freedom
Last week we came to the section on academic freedom in my course on the law of higher education and I posed this hypothetical to the students: Suppose you were a member of a law firm or a mid-level executive in a corporation and you skipped meetings or came late, blew off assignments or altered them according to your whims, abused your colleagues and were habitually rude to clients. What would happen to you?
The chorus of answers cascaded immediately: “I’d be fired.” Now, I continued, imagine the same scenario and the same set of behaviors, but this time you’re a tenured professor in a North American university. What then?
I answered this one myself: “You’d be celebrated as a brave nonconformist, a tilter against orthodoxies, a pedagogical visionary and an exemplar of academic freedom.”
My assessment of the way in which some academics contrive to turn serial irresponsibility into a form of heroism under the banner of academic freedom has now been at once confirmed and challenged by events at the University of Ottawa, where the administration announced on Feb. 6 that it has “recommended to the Board of Governors the dismissal with cause of Professor Denis Rancourt from his faculty position.” Earlier, Rancourt, a tenured professor of physics, had been suspended from teaching and banned from campus. When he defied the ban he was taken away in handcuffs and charged with trespassing.
What had Rancourt done to merit such treatment? According to the Globe and Mail, Rancourt’s sin was to have informed his students on the first day of class that “he had already decided their marks : Everybody was getting an A+.”
But that, as the saying goes, is only the tip of the iceberg. Underneath it is the mass of reasons Rancourt gives for his grading policy and for many of the other actions that have infuriated his dean, distressed his colleagues (a third of whom signed a petition against him) and delighted his partisans.
Rancourt is a self-described anarchist and an advocate of “critical pedagogy,” a style of teaching derived from the assumption (these are Rancourt’s words) “that our societal structures . . . represent the most formidable instrument of oppression and exploitation ever to occupy the planet” (Activist Teacher.blogspot.com, April 13, 2007).
Among those structures is the university in which Rancourt works and by which he is paid. But the fact of his position and compensation does not insulate the institution from his strictures and assaults; for, he insists, “schools and universities supply the obedient workers and managers and professionals that adopt and apply [the] system’s doctrine — knowingly or unknowingly.”
It is this belief that higher education as we know it is simply a delivery system for a regime of oppressors and exploiters that underlies Rancourt’s refusal to grade his students. Grading, he says, “is a tool of coercion in order to make obedient people” (rabble.ca., Jan. 12, 2009).
It turns out that another tool of coercion is the requirement that professors actually teach the course described in the college catalogue, the course students think they are signing up for. Rancourt battles against this form of coercion by employing a strategy he calls “squatting” – “where one openly takes an existing course and does with it something different.” That is, you take a currently unoccupied structure, move in and make it the home for whatever activities you wish to engage in. “Academic squatting is needed,” he says, “because universities are dictatorships . . . run by self-appointed executives who serve capital interests.”
Rancourt first practiced squatting when he decided that he “had to do something more than give a ‘better’ physics course.” Accordingly, he took the Physics and Environment course that had been assigned to him and transformed it into a course on political activism, not a course about political activism, but a course in which political activism is urged — “an activism course about confronting authority and hierarchical structures directly or through defiant or non-subordinate assertion in order to democratize power in the workplace, at school, and in society.”
Clearly squatting itself is just such a “defiant or non-subordinate assertion.” Rancourt does not merely preach his philosophy. He practices it.
This sounds vaguely admirable until you remember what Rancourt is, in effect, saying to those who employ him: I refuse to do what I have contracted to do, but I will do everything in my power to subvert the enterprise you administer. Besides, you’re just dictators, and it is my obligation to undermine you even as I demand that you pay me and confer on me the honorific title of professor. And, by the way, I am entitled to do so by the doctrine of academic freedom, which I define as “the ideal under which professors and students are autonomous and design their own development and interactions.”
Of course, as Rancourt recognizes, if this is how academic freedom is defined, its scope is infinite and one can’t stop with squatting: “The next step is academic hijacking, where students tell a professor that she can stay or leave but that this is what they are going to do and these are the speakers they are going to invite.” O, brave new world!
The record shows exchanges of letters between Rancourt and Dean Andre E. Lalonde and letters from each of them to Marc Jolicoeur, chairman of the Board of Governors. There is something comical about some of these exchanges when the dean asks Rancourt to tell him why he is not guilty of insubordination and Rancourt replies that insubordination is his job, and that, rather than ceasing his insubordinate activities, he plans to expand them. Lalonde complains that Rancourt “does not acknowledge any impropriety regarding his conduct.” Rancourt tells Jolicoeur that “Socrates did not give grades to students,” and boasts that everything he has done was done “with the purpose of making the University of Ottawa a better place,” a place “of greater democracy.” In other words, I am the bearer of a saving message and those who need it most will not hear it and respond by persecuting me. It is the cry of every would-be messiah.
Rancourt’s views are the opposite of those announced by a court in an Arizona case where the issue was also whether a teaching method could be the basis of dismissal. Noting that the university had concluded that the plaintiff’s “methodology was not successful,” the court declared “Academic freedom is not a doctrine to insulate a teacher from evaluation by the institution that employs him” (Carley v. Arizona, 1987).
The Arizona court thinks of academic freedom as a doctrine whose scope is defined by the purposes and protocols of the institution and its limited purposes. Rancourt thinks of academic freedom as a local instance of a global project whose goal is nothing less than the freeing of revolutionary energies, not only in the schools but everywhere.
It is the difference between being concerned with the establishing and implementing of workplace-specific procedures and being concerned with the wholesale transformation of society. It is the difference between wanting to teach a better physics course and wanting to save the world. Given such divergent views, not only is reconciliation between the parties impossible; conversation itself is impossible. The dispute can only be resolved by an essentially political decision, and in this case the narrower concept of academic freedom has won. But only till next time.
copyright: The New York Times
The Two Languages of Academic Freedom
Last week we came to the section on academic freedom in my course on the law of higher education and I posed this hypothetical to the students: Suppose you were a member of a law firm or a mid-level executive in a corporation and you skipped meetings or came late, blew off assignments or altered them according to your whims, abused your colleagues and were habitually rude to clients. What would happen to you?
The chorus of answers cascaded immediately: “I’d be fired.” Now, I continued, imagine the same scenario and the same set of behaviors, but this time you’re a tenured professor in a North American university. What then?
I answered this one myself: “You’d be celebrated as a brave nonconformist, a tilter against orthodoxies, a pedagogical visionary and an exemplar of academic freedom.”
My assessment of the way in which some academics contrive to turn serial irresponsibility into a form of heroism under the banner of academic freedom has now been at once confirmed and challenged by events at the University of Ottawa, where the administration announced on Feb. 6 that it has “recommended to the Board of Governors the dismissal with cause of Professor Denis Rancourt from his faculty position.” Earlier, Rancourt, a tenured professor of physics, had been suspended from teaching and banned from campus. When he defied the ban he was taken away in handcuffs and charged with trespassing.
What had Rancourt done to merit such treatment? According to the Globe and Mail, Rancourt’s sin was to have informed his students on the first day of class that “he had already decided their marks : Everybody was getting an A+.”
But that, as the saying goes, is only the tip of the iceberg. Underneath it is the mass of reasons Rancourt gives for his grading policy and for many of the other actions that have infuriated his dean, distressed his colleagues (a third of whom signed a petition against him) and delighted his partisans.
Rancourt is a self-described anarchist and an advocate of “critical pedagogy,” a style of teaching derived from the assumption (these are Rancourt’s words) “that our societal structures . . . represent the most formidable instrument of oppression and exploitation ever to occupy the planet” (Activist Teacher.blogspot.com, April 13, 2007).
Among those structures is the university in which Rancourt works and by which he is paid. But the fact of his position and compensation does not insulate the institution from his strictures and assaults; for, he insists, “schools and universities supply the obedient workers and managers and professionals that adopt and apply [the] system’s doctrine — knowingly or unknowingly.”
It is this belief that higher education as we know it is simply a delivery system for a regime of oppressors and exploiters that underlies Rancourt’s refusal to grade his students. Grading, he says, “is a tool of coercion in order to make obedient people” (rabble.ca., Jan. 12, 2009).
It turns out that another tool of coercion is the requirement that professors actually teach the course described in the college catalogue, the course students think they are signing up for. Rancourt battles against this form of coercion by employing a strategy he calls “squatting” – “where one openly takes an existing course and does with it something different.” That is, you take a currently unoccupied structure, move in and make it the home for whatever activities you wish to engage in. “Academic squatting is needed,” he says, “because universities are dictatorships . . . run by self-appointed executives who serve capital interests.”
Rancourt first practiced squatting when he decided that he “had to do something more than give a ‘better’ physics course.” Accordingly, he took the Physics and Environment course that had been assigned to him and transformed it into a course on political activism, not a course about political activism, but a course in which political activism is urged — “an activism course about confronting authority and hierarchical structures directly or through defiant or non-subordinate assertion in order to democratize power in the workplace, at school, and in society.”
Clearly squatting itself is just such a “defiant or non-subordinate assertion.” Rancourt does not merely preach his philosophy. He practices it.
This sounds vaguely admirable until you remember what Rancourt is, in effect, saying to those who employ him: I refuse to do what I have contracted to do, but I will do everything in my power to subvert the enterprise you administer. Besides, you’re just dictators, and it is my obligation to undermine you even as I demand that you pay me and confer on me the honorific title of professor. And, by the way, I am entitled to do so by the doctrine of academic freedom, which I define as “the ideal under which professors and students are autonomous and design their own development and interactions.”
Of course, as Rancourt recognizes, if this is how academic freedom is defined, its scope is infinite and one can’t stop with squatting: “The next step is academic hijacking, where students tell a professor that she can stay or leave but that this is what they are going to do and these are the speakers they are going to invite.” O, brave new world!
The record shows exchanges of letters between Rancourt and Dean Andre E. Lalonde and letters from each of them to Marc Jolicoeur, chairman of the Board of Governors. There is something comical about some of these exchanges when the dean asks Rancourt to tell him why he is not guilty of insubordination and Rancourt replies that insubordination is his job, and that, rather than ceasing his insubordinate activities, he plans to expand them. Lalonde complains that Rancourt “does not acknowledge any impropriety regarding his conduct.” Rancourt tells Jolicoeur that “Socrates did not give grades to students,” and boasts that everything he has done was done “with the purpose of making the University of Ottawa a better place,” a place “of greater democracy.” In other words, I am the bearer of a saving message and those who need it most will not hear it and respond by persecuting me. It is the cry of every would-be messiah.
Rancourt’s views are the opposite of those announced by a court in an Arizona case where the issue was also whether a teaching method could be the basis of dismissal. Noting that the university had concluded that the plaintiff’s “methodology was not successful,” the court declared “Academic freedom is not a doctrine to insulate a teacher from evaluation by the institution that employs him” (Carley v. Arizona, 1987).
The Arizona court thinks of academic freedom as a doctrine whose scope is defined by the purposes and protocols of the institution and its limited purposes. Rancourt thinks of academic freedom as a local instance of a global project whose goal is nothing less than the freeing of revolutionary energies, not only in the schools but everywhere.
It is the difference between being concerned with the establishing and implementing of workplace-specific procedures and being concerned with the wholesale transformation of society. It is the difference between wanting to teach a better physics course and wanting to save the world. Given such divergent views, not only is reconciliation between the parties impossible; conversation itself is impossible. The dispute can only be resolved by an essentially political decision, and in this case the narrower concept of academic freedom has won. But only till next time.
copyright: The New York Times
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The ripple effect of cutting water
The ripple effect of cutting water
Clare Davidson, BBC News
Port Sunlight, Merseyside
Less water meant smaller bottles and less packaging
"For far too long, businesses like ours have been effectively shipping water around the globe," says Gavin Neath, a spokesperson for Unilever.
He leans across a table in the firm's London office, as if confiding something secretive.
Like other multinational firms, Unilever is assessing its environmental impact, including how it uses water.
In doing so the firm is reassessing the way it does business, but this also creates a number of benefits.
The firm singles out two detergents - Small and Mighty, and Surf Excel - as examples of this shift. Small and Mighty, for example, requires half as much water per bottle and half as much packaging.
Shift in size
As we arrive at the firm's Port Sunlight factory, near Liverpool, Keith Rutherford - who has been closely involved in developing small & mighty in the UK - has set up a display of detergents to illustrate the change.
Brands sold in different countries over the years are neatly arranged.
What would have been considered the norm now appear absurdly big in scale.
"In the past, especially in the US, big was always best," explains Mr Rutherford.
Old and new versions of detergent
In the past, especially in the US, big was always best
Keith Rutherford, a director of Unilever's laundry R&D
"And the more bubbles and foam the better."
Making goods smaller challenges such assumptions.
As we enter liquid factory number one, we are hit by an intense waft of perfumed detergent.
As a robotic arm lifts bottles into a cardboard box, Mr Rutherford lists the benefits across the supply chain of making the detergent more concentrated.
Smaller bottles mean less packaging, meaning fewer carbon emissions.
"It also means more can be transported on fewer lorries which reduces fuel, which in turn lowers emissions.
"And making a more concentrated liquid means more goes further, so customers don't have to lug as much detergent from the supermarket as often."
'Whole puzzle'
As part of its overall environmental assessment, the firm has also looked at the consumer's role.
This is effectively about looking at water used across the supply chain. While embedded carbon has been much talked about, embedded water, the water that is used in the life cycle of the product, has not. It is also called virtual water.
Water consumption at all stages is calculated; irrigation of the raw materials, the manufacturing process, water per consumer use, waste and greenhouse gas emissions.
"By looking at water we have an opportunity to look at the whole puzzle," says Mr Rutherford, gleefully.
A brief look at the firm's range of goods, from brands such as Knorr stock to Dove soap, underlines how important the end user's role is.
"It might be through boiling a kettle for tea, or making stock cubes or putting on the laundry", he lists.
Even pasta in tomato sauce needs water, albeit indirectly, since pasta needs to be boiled in water.
In fact, Unilever estimates that the water added by end users represents around 45% of the total water used for its products.
For detergent that figure is even greater - around 95% of the water is used by the consumer, mostly for rinsing.
Education
"But you can't just abdicate that aspect, you need to raise awareness," says Mr Neath.
In countries such as India, washing clothes can represent around a quarter of the domestic water used and most water is used in the rinsing phase.
ENVIRONMENTAL SAVINGS SMALL & MIGHTY
Water: 41 million litres
Shelf space: 36 football fields
Carbon dioxide: 1 030 000 kg
Plastic: (equivalent) 272 million bags
Card: (equivalent) 383 million A4 sheets
Surf Excel Quick Wash, used in India, produces less lather, so the clothes need less rinsing, saving around two buckets of water per wash.
Some parts of the world where Unilever operates are water stressed, and many areas have no piped water.
Reducing the amount of water needed not only cuts the water required, it also means less physical work, with women and girls standing to benefit the most since they do most of the water carrying, said Mr Neath.
So reducing the water in goods not only stands to benefit the environment. It also has social implications.
Much has changed since the days of William Hesketh Lever, who co-founded the eponymous soap firm with his brother long before it was incorporated into Unilever.
But he might smile to think that aspects of his mission statement had been carried out.
"To make cleanliness commonplace; to lessen work for women; to foster health and contribute to personal attractiveness."
Clare Davidson, BBC News
Port Sunlight, Merseyside
Less water meant smaller bottles and less packaging
"For far too long, businesses like ours have been effectively shipping water around the globe," says Gavin Neath, a spokesperson for Unilever.
He leans across a table in the firm's London office, as if confiding something secretive.
Like other multinational firms, Unilever is assessing its environmental impact, including how it uses water.
In doing so the firm is reassessing the way it does business, but this also creates a number of benefits.
The firm singles out two detergents - Small and Mighty, and Surf Excel - as examples of this shift. Small and Mighty, for example, requires half as much water per bottle and half as much packaging.
Shift in size
As we arrive at the firm's Port Sunlight factory, near Liverpool, Keith Rutherford - who has been closely involved in developing small & mighty in the UK - has set up a display of detergents to illustrate the change.
Brands sold in different countries over the years are neatly arranged.
What would have been considered the norm now appear absurdly big in scale.
"In the past, especially in the US, big was always best," explains Mr Rutherford.
Old and new versions of detergent
In the past, especially in the US, big was always best
Keith Rutherford, a director of Unilever's laundry R&D
"And the more bubbles and foam the better."
Making goods smaller challenges such assumptions.
As we enter liquid factory number one, we are hit by an intense waft of perfumed detergent.
As a robotic arm lifts bottles into a cardboard box, Mr Rutherford lists the benefits across the supply chain of making the detergent more concentrated.
Smaller bottles mean less packaging, meaning fewer carbon emissions.
"It also means more can be transported on fewer lorries which reduces fuel, which in turn lowers emissions.
"And making a more concentrated liquid means more goes further, so customers don't have to lug as much detergent from the supermarket as often."
'Whole puzzle'
As part of its overall environmental assessment, the firm has also looked at the consumer's role.
This is effectively about looking at water used across the supply chain. While embedded carbon has been much talked about, embedded water, the water that is used in the life cycle of the product, has not. It is also called virtual water.
Water consumption at all stages is calculated; irrigation of the raw materials, the manufacturing process, water per consumer use, waste and greenhouse gas emissions.
"By looking at water we have an opportunity to look at the whole puzzle," says Mr Rutherford, gleefully.
A brief look at the firm's range of goods, from brands such as Knorr stock to Dove soap, underlines how important the end user's role is.
"It might be through boiling a kettle for tea, or making stock cubes or putting on the laundry", he lists.
Even pasta in tomato sauce needs water, albeit indirectly, since pasta needs to be boiled in water.
In fact, Unilever estimates that the water added by end users represents around 45% of the total water used for its products.
For detergent that figure is even greater - around 95% of the water is used by the consumer, mostly for rinsing.
Education
"But you can't just abdicate that aspect, you need to raise awareness," says Mr Neath.
In countries such as India, washing clothes can represent around a quarter of the domestic water used and most water is used in the rinsing phase.
ENVIRONMENTAL SAVINGS SMALL & MIGHTY
Water: 41 million litres
Shelf space: 36 football fields
Carbon dioxide: 1 030 000 kg
Plastic: (equivalent) 272 million bags
Card: (equivalent) 383 million A4 sheets
Surf Excel Quick Wash, used in India, produces less lather, so the clothes need less rinsing, saving around two buckets of water per wash.
Some parts of the world where Unilever operates are water stressed, and many areas have no piped water.
Reducing the amount of water needed not only cuts the water required, it also means less physical work, with women and girls standing to benefit the most since they do most of the water carrying, said Mr Neath.
So reducing the water in goods not only stands to benefit the environment. It also has social implications.
Much has changed since the days of William Hesketh Lever, who co-founded the eponymous soap firm with his brother long before it was incorporated into Unilever.
But he might smile to think that aspects of his mission statement had been carried out.
"To make cleanliness commonplace; to lessen work for women; to foster health and contribute to personal attractiveness."
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
What Obama did on his first day in office (a lesson for India's leadership, and, much more, for its fuddy duddy, recalcitrant, complacent bureaucrats)
Upon taking office, Obama ordered all secret U.S. prisons
closed immediately, and the detention center at Guantanamo
Bay closed within a year; he stopped the torture of
American prisoners; granted access to all U.S. detainees
to the International Red Cross; ended the practice by
which detainees could be sent to countries where they
might be tortured; froze the salaries of all White House
officials making more than $100,000; ordered all
government agencies to "adopt a presumption in favor of
disclosure" regarding Freedom of Information Act requests;
ordered all administration appointees to take an ethics
pledge; ended a government ban on funding for groups that
provide abortion services or counseling abroad; and
revoked Executive Order 13233, which placed limits on
public access to the records of former presidents.
copyright: Harpers Magazine
closed immediately, and the detention center at Guantanamo
Bay closed within a year; he stopped the torture of
American prisoners; granted access to all U.S. detainees
to the International Red Cross; ended the practice by
which detainees could be sent to countries where they
might be tortured; froze the salaries of all White House
officials making more than $100,000; ordered all
government agencies to "adopt a presumption in favor of
disclosure" regarding Freedom of Information Act requests;
ordered all administration appointees to take an ethics
pledge; ended a government ban on funding for groups that
provide abortion services or counseling abroad; and
revoked Executive Order 13233, which placed limits on
public access to the records of former presidents.
copyright: Harpers Magazine
The Greens are going nuclear
Angela Saini
Power struggle
For decades, it was the scourge of the environmental movement. But now, discovers Angela Saini, the greens are going nuclear.
The fight has already been lost. Exactly a year ago, the British government confirmed rumours that a new generation of nuclear power plants would go online by 2020. "They're wrong," insisted Greenpeace. "Nuclear power is not the answer," implored Friends of the Earth. But when their pleas fell on deaf ears, for many environmentalists, it was final, uncomfortable proof that most people simply don't hate nuclear power.
In fact some greens are even switching sides. Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy (EFN), a group that once may have been considered an oxymoron, today boasts more than 9,000 members in 60 countries. At its base in Paris, founder Bruno Comby is building extra space in his new eco-home to store the stacks of membership forms and correspondence he receives. The group has a catalogue of high-profile supporters, including James Lovelock, the so-called "father of environmentalism" and author of The Gaia Theory, and Patrick Moore, a former director of Greenpeace International. In 2008, green activists George Monbiot and Mark Lynas both also admitted that they would be prepared to consider nuclear power, under pressure to find non-carbon solutions to the energy crisis created by climate change.
"In some ways we think religiously about this topic," George Monbiot admitted as I filmed him for a documentary about nuclear power. "People start with a pre-existing position of being anti-nuclear and then go out and find the evidence to justify that position. Faced with this enormous challenge of climate change, we have to throw everything useful at the problem that we can, and it's now beginning to look as if nuclear power might be more useful than we first thought." This may seem a rational enough plea, but it flies in the face of the most entrenched tenet of the green movement: nature is not to be tampered with. Chopping down forests and endangering wildlife are reprehensible, but what could be worse than splitting nature's basic building block, the atom?
When the eponymous logo of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament turned 50 last year, it was remarkable to see that it had kept the power to evoke the same emotions felt by courageous protestors at Aldermaston decades earlier. And for those green activists belonging to the Aldermaston generation, the nuclear question cuts to the heart of their movement. Many have asked whether it is even ideologically possible to be both green and pro-nuclear, which makes it all the more incredible that a few have swallowed longstanding beliefs and embraced nuclear power.
"We've been opposed to nuclear power since our inception," Nathan Argent, a nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace, told me. "And our objections are made through a pragmatic appraisal of nuclear power. There are more effective and much cheaper ways of dealing with climate change." Even as more environmentalists begin to accept nuclear power, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have doggedly maintained that the solution lies in simultaneously slashing fossil fuel usage while ramping up the proportion of renewables in the energy mix. The trouble with this, in the UK at least, is that wind and solar provide only intermittent power depending on the weather conditions. A major move towards alternative energy would still need a constant, baseload source of power, which so far only fossil fuels or nuclear power can provide.
Scientists and engineers have been left with the mammoth task of convincing the public, many dedicating their lives to improving standards in the nuclear industry. In the effort to lose the chronic image problem it has endured under the dark shadows of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and Three Mile Island in 1979, nuclear power is now the world's most regulated energy source, overseen not only by dedicated national bodies but also the UN's eagle-eyed International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Consequently there hasn't been a major nuclear incident since the 1980s. The meltdown at Three Mile Island, which was by any estimate the worst nuclear accident in the West, raised local levels of radiation in the atmosphere to only marginally above everyday background levels. To this day, not a single radiation-related death has been attributed to the accident.
Len Green, an engineer who helped build Sizewell B nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast, explained that modern plants are engineered to meet every possible contingency, including the kind of employee negligence that lead to the explosion at Chernobyl: "The designs have to be thoroughly assessed, then every stage of construction is assessed, and when they're operating, they're assessed." According to Professor Robin Grimes, a materials physicist at Imperial College London and former researcher at the US Los Alamos National Laboratory, they're not just safe, they're foolproof: "The new designs of power stations use passive systems, which means that they automatically behave in such a way as to shut the reactor down. The operator doesn't even have to take any action at all."
The oft-repeated green allegation that nuclear is too expensive holds even less water than the claim it is unsafe. Although a new power station demands a hefty capital investment, when costs are averaged over its lifespan, it is cheaper than oil and gas. And when the costs of carbon capture and storage are factored into the price of fossil fuels, nuclear comes out firmly on top. Meanwhile, renewables cannot even hope to compete on price: a 2004 UK Royal Academy of Engineering report found the cost of generating wind power is more than twice that of nuclear. Also, massively increasing the proportion of renewables would introduce the huge expense of extending the national grid to meet solar panels, tidal barrages and wind farms.
Indeed the latest IAEA projections suggest that raw economics are helping to drive a nuclear renaissance. Nuclear power generation is expected to grow between 27 and 50 per cent by 2030, mainly in India and China. Even Lithuania, a small Baltic state still raising its economy out of the ashes of communism, is resolutely pushing for a new nuclear power station to replace its ageing old one near the small town of Ignalina. Offering cheap electricity and the tantalising assurance of energy independence, it makes economic sense, especially since a single reactor could provide Lithuania with all its electricity needs, plus some left over. In this nation, the director of the Lithuanian Energy Institute told me frankly, green groups haven't even attempted to block nuclear power.
"I think a number of other greens are slowly going to make the decision that nuclear power is better than the alternatives," Prof Grimes explained. Even the most common green objection to nuclear power – radioactive waste – is being resolved. Britain doesn't yet have a repository for spent nuclear fuel and continues to temporarily store it on the same sites as its power stations. After the new generation of reactors are switched on, they will eventually produce almost half a million tonnes of waste, some of which will remain dangerous for millennia. Contrary to green folklore, however, this is not an immutable problem. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, along with the country's best geologists and teams of nuclear engineers, has already begun the hunt for a new waste site. Encased in layers of lead, cement and under hundreds of metres of rock, they are entirely confident (as are those engineers constructing similar repositories in the US and Finland) that the waste will be safely contained. In fact their working timescale is a million years, which means that the repository will outlast not only our progeny, but probably also human civilisation.
For scientists like Grimes, the nuclear debate has become a simple matter of education. The green shift in the nuclear direction is, however marginal, a triumph of rationalism over fear. And the shift hasn't been only one-sided. Scientists and activists are used to finding themselves on opposite sides of a divide, violently clashing on topics like medical animal testing and GM crop cultivation. But pick up a copy of any science magazine these days and you are almost as likely to get advice about how to reduce your carbon footprint or recycle effectively as the latest research news. "The green argument challenges you, it makes you think about the way you apply your engineering and science. I welcome the debate," said Grimes. Climate change has united science and environmentalism as never before: where researchers have provided the critical scientific data, greens have supplied the political momentum, and this co-operation in turn has helped achieve the gradual consensus on nuclear power.
But the consensus remains limited. The nuclear debate is still riddled with irrationalism, to the point where pro-nuclear environmentalists are often criticised by more mainstream greens simply for daring to suggest that nuclear power might make ecological sense. Bruno Comby told me that fellow activists would not force him into silence: "We've been attacked with vitriol. But in the end our ideas will succeed simply because we are right on a scientific level, and the truth always comes out in the end," he said.
So how likely is it that the remainder of greens will be persuaded to join their growing list of dissenters and be swayed to the nuclear side? The signs aren't good. Greenpeace's opposition to anything remotely nuclear has gone so far as to slam one of the most exciting scientific endeavours of the century, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) at Cadarache in France. ITER is a multi-billion-Euro project funded by the European Union, Japan, China, India, the Republic of Korea, Russia and the USA. It aims to develop fusion power by binding pairs of atoms together, as opposed to atom-splitting fission that happens in a conventional nuclear reactor.
Fusion is a huge technical challenge, but if it succeeds it promises to bring almost limitless clean energy to future generations. It could be a green miracle, if only more greens would allow themselves to see it.
Published 2009-01-26
Original in English
First published in New Humanist 1/2009
Contributed by New Humanist
© Angela Saini/New Humanist
Power struggle
For decades, it was the scourge of the environmental movement. But now, discovers Angela Saini, the greens are going nuclear.
The fight has already been lost. Exactly a year ago, the British government confirmed rumours that a new generation of nuclear power plants would go online by 2020. "They're wrong," insisted Greenpeace. "Nuclear power is not the answer," implored Friends of the Earth. But when their pleas fell on deaf ears, for many environmentalists, it was final, uncomfortable proof that most people simply don't hate nuclear power.
In fact some greens are even switching sides. Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy (EFN), a group that once may have been considered an oxymoron, today boasts more than 9,000 members in 60 countries. At its base in Paris, founder Bruno Comby is building extra space in his new eco-home to store the stacks of membership forms and correspondence he receives. The group has a catalogue of high-profile supporters, including James Lovelock, the so-called "father of environmentalism" and author of The Gaia Theory, and Patrick Moore, a former director of Greenpeace International. In 2008, green activists George Monbiot and Mark Lynas both also admitted that they would be prepared to consider nuclear power, under pressure to find non-carbon solutions to the energy crisis created by climate change.
"In some ways we think religiously about this topic," George Monbiot admitted as I filmed him for a documentary about nuclear power. "People start with a pre-existing position of being anti-nuclear and then go out and find the evidence to justify that position. Faced with this enormous challenge of climate change, we have to throw everything useful at the problem that we can, and it's now beginning to look as if nuclear power might be more useful than we first thought." This may seem a rational enough plea, but it flies in the face of the most entrenched tenet of the green movement: nature is not to be tampered with. Chopping down forests and endangering wildlife are reprehensible, but what could be worse than splitting nature's basic building block, the atom?
When the eponymous logo of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament turned 50 last year, it was remarkable to see that it had kept the power to evoke the same emotions felt by courageous protestors at Aldermaston decades earlier. And for those green activists belonging to the Aldermaston generation, the nuclear question cuts to the heart of their movement. Many have asked whether it is even ideologically possible to be both green and pro-nuclear, which makes it all the more incredible that a few have swallowed longstanding beliefs and embraced nuclear power.
"We've been opposed to nuclear power since our inception," Nathan Argent, a nuclear campaigner for Greenpeace, told me. "And our objections are made through a pragmatic appraisal of nuclear power. There are more effective and much cheaper ways of dealing with climate change." Even as more environmentalists begin to accept nuclear power, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have doggedly maintained that the solution lies in simultaneously slashing fossil fuel usage while ramping up the proportion of renewables in the energy mix. The trouble with this, in the UK at least, is that wind and solar provide only intermittent power depending on the weather conditions. A major move towards alternative energy would still need a constant, baseload source of power, which so far only fossil fuels or nuclear power can provide.
Scientists and engineers have been left with the mammoth task of convincing the public, many dedicating their lives to improving standards in the nuclear industry. In the effort to lose the chronic image problem it has endured under the dark shadows of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 and Three Mile Island in 1979, nuclear power is now the world's most regulated energy source, overseen not only by dedicated national bodies but also the UN's eagle-eyed International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Consequently there hasn't been a major nuclear incident since the 1980s. The meltdown at Three Mile Island, which was by any estimate the worst nuclear accident in the West, raised local levels of radiation in the atmosphere to only marginally above everyday background levels. To this day, not a single radiation-related death has been attributed to the accident.
Len Green, an engineer who helped build Sizewell B nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast, explained that modern plants are engineered to meet every possible contingency, including the kind of employee negligence that lead to the explosion at Chernobyl: "The designs have to be thoroughly assessed, then every stage of construction is assessed, and when they're operating, they're assessed." According to Professor Robin Grimes, a materials physicist at Imperial College London and former researcher at the US Los Alamos National Laboratory, they're not just safe, they're foolproof: "The new designs of power stations use passive systems, which means that they automatically behave in such a way as to shut the reactor down. The operator doesn't even have to take any action at all."
The oft-repeated green allegation that nuclear is too expensive holds even less water than the claim it is unsafe. Although a new power station demands a hefty capital investment, when costs are averaged over its lifespan, it is cheaper than oil and gas. And when the costs of carbon capture and storage are factored into the price of fossil fuels, nuclear comes out firmly on top. Meanwhile, renewables cannot even hope to compete on price: a 2004 UK Royal Academy of Engineering report found the cost of generating wind power is more than twice that of nuclear. Also, massively increasing the proportion of renewables would introduce the huge expense of extending the national grid to meet solar panels, tidal barrages and wind farms.
Indeed the latest IAEA projections suggest that raw economics are helping to drive a nuclear renaissance. Nuclear power generation is expected to grow between 27 and 50 per cent by 2030, mainly in India and China. Even Lithuania, a small Baltic state still raising its economy out of the ashes of communism, is resolutely pushing for a new nuclear power station to replace its ageing old one near the small town of Ignalina. Offering cheap electricity and the tantalising assurance of energy independence, it makes economic sense, especially since a single reactor could provide Lithuania with all its electricity needs, plus some left over. In this nation, the director of the Lithuanian Energy Institute told me frankly, green groups haven't even attempted to block nuclear power.
"I think a number of other greens are slowly going to make the decision that nuclear power is better than the alternatives," Prof Grimes explained. Even the most common green objection to nuclear power – radioactive waste – is being resolved. Britain doesn't yet have a repository for spent nuclear fuel and continues to temporarily store it on the same sites as its power stations. After the new generation of reactors are switched on, they will eventually produce almost half a million tonnes of waste, some of which will remain dangerous for millennia. Contrary to green folklore, however, this is not an immutable problem. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, along with the country's best geologists and teams of nuclear engineers, has already begun the hunt for a new waste site. Encased in layers of lead, cement and under hundreds of metres of rock, they are entirely confident (as are those engineers constructing similar repositories in the US and Finland) that the waste will be safely contained. In fact their working timescale is a million years, which means that the repository will outlast not only our progeny, but probably also human civilisation.
For scientists like Grimes, the nuclear debate has become a simple matter of education. The green shift in the nuclear direction is, however marginal, a triumph of rationalism over fear. And the shift hasn't been only one-sided. Scientists and activists are used to finding themselves on opposite sides of a divide, violently clashing on topics like medical animal testing and GM crop cultivation. But pick up a copy of any science magazine these days and you are almost as likely to get advice about how to reduce your carbon footprint or recycle effectively as the latest research news. "The green argument challenges you, it makes you think about the way you apply your engineering and science. I welcome the debate," said Grimes. Climate change has united science and environmentalism as never before: where researchers have provided the critical scientific data, greens have supplied the political momentum, and this co-operation in turn has helped achieve the gradual consensus on nuclear power.
But the consensus remains limited. The nuclear debate is still riddled with irrationalism, to the point where pro-nuclear environmentalists are often criticised by more mainstream greens simply for daring to suggest that nuclear power might make ecological sense. Bruno Comby told me that fellow activists would not force him into silence: "We've been attacked with vitriol. But in the end our ideas will succeed simply because we are right on a scientific level, and the truth always comes out in the end," he said.
So how likely is it that the remainder of greens will be persuaded to join their growing list of dissenters and be swayed to the nuclear side? The signs aren't good. Greenpeace's opposition to anything remotely nuclear has gone so far as to slam one of the most exciting scientific endeavours of the century, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) at Cadarache in France. ITER is a multi-billion-Euro project funded by the European Union, Japan, China, India, the Republic of Korea, Russia and the USA. It aims to develop fusion power by binding pairs of atoms together, as opposed to atom-splitting fission that happens in a conventional nuclear reactor.
Fusion is a huge technical challenge, but if it succeeds it promises to bring almost limitless clean energy to future generations. It could be a green miracle, if only more greens would allow themselves to see it.
Published 2009-01-26
Original in English
First published in New Humanist 1/2009
Contributed by New Humanist
© Angela Saini/New Humanist
Obituary: John Updike
Obituary: John Updike
John Updike's novels, magisterial dissections of the soul of post-World War II middle America, placed him at the very pinnacle of his profession.
Works such as Couples and the Rabbit series chronicled the obsessions, passions and anxieties of three generations.
Whether writing novels, short stories, essays or poems, John Updike's work always seemed to find the pulse of modern America.
Often controversial, he remained at the cutting edge of literature into his 70s and, with his most celebrated character, Harold "Rabbit" Angstrom, he found an authentic 20th-Century everyman.
The son of a schoolmaster, John Updike was born in Pennsylvania in March 1932 and, after attending Harvard, spent a year in the UK, as a student at the Ruskin School of Drawing and Fine Art at Oxford.
Later he joined the staff of the New Yorker magazine, to which he contributed numerous poems, essays and short stories.
Updike's first novel, The Poorhouse Fair, was published in 1959, to mixed, but generally favourable, reviews.
The following year, though, saw the publication of the book which established him as one of the greatest novelists of his age.
Rabbit, Run marked the debut of his most enduring, if not endearing, character, Harold "Rabbit" Angstrom.
In this and its sequels, Rabbit Redux, Rabbit is Rich and Rabbit at Rest - published at ten-yearly intervals - Updike charts the course of one man's life: his job, marriage, affairs, minor triumphs and death.
The Rabbit novels, though, are as much about the changing soul of the United States as about any individual character.
Even so, with all his petty failings and unrequited hopes, their main character presents not a mere cipher but a rounded, fully realised, portrait of a human being.
Updike was clear about the focus of his work: "My subject is the American Protestant small town middle class."
"I like middles. It is in middles that extremes clash, where ambiguity restlessly rules."
During the mid-60s, works such as The Centaur and Of the Farm brought Updike critical acclaim but Couples, published in 1968, gave him his first popular success.
Couples, has been called "the best-written dirty book since the Decameron" - but this does less than justice to either Updike or Boccaccio.
The theme of the book is indeed adultery, as practised by ten middle-class couples in a small New England town
Though the author does not hesitate to give detailed descriptions of sexual intercourse, he does so with a lucidity and reverence that is completely removed from pornography.
Altogether, John Updike published more than 50 novels: one of his novels about Harold Angstrom, Rabbit is Rich, won the 1982 Pulitzer Prize for fiction, while Rabbit at Rest won in 1993.
Though often berated by critics for his seeming obsession with golf and sex, it is his mastery of the English language, its nuances, vagueries and sheer beauty, which brought John Updike millions of admirers.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/3526947.stm
Published: 2009/01/27 18:42:17 GMT
© BBC MMIX
John Updike's novels, magisterial dissections of the soul of post-World War II middle America, placed him at the very pinnacle of his profession.
Works such as Couples and the Rabbit series chronicled the obsessions, passions and anxieties of three generations.
Whether writing novels, short stories, essays or poems, John Updike's work always seemed to find the pulse of modern America.
Often controversial, he remained at the cutting edge of literature into his 70s and, with his most celebrated character, Harold "Rabbit" Angstrom, he found an authentic 20th-Century everyman.
The son of a schoolmaster, John Updike was born in Pennsylvania in March 1932 and, after attending Harvard, spent a year in the UK, as a student at the Ruskin School of Drawing and Fine Art at Oxford.
Later he joined the staff of the New Yorker magazine, to which he contributed numerous poems, essays and short stories.
Updike's first novel, The Poorhouse Fair, was published in 1959, to mixed, but generally favourable, reviews.
The following year, though, saw the publication of the book which established him as one of the greatest novelists of his age.
Rabbit, Run marked the debut of his most enduring, if not endearing, character, Harold "Rabbit" Angstrom.
In this and its sequels, Rabbit Redux, Rabbit is Rich and Rabbit at Rest - published at ten-yearly intervals - Updike charts the course of one man's life: his job, marriage, affairs, minor triumphs and death.
The Rabbit novels, though, are as much about the changing soul of the United States as about any individual character.
Even so, with all his petty failings and unrequited hopes, their main character presents not a mere cipher but a rounded, fully realised, portrait of a human being.
Updike was clear about the focus of his work: "My subject is the American Protestant small town middle class."
"I like middles. It is in middles that extremes clash, where ambiguity restlessly rules."
During the mid-60s, works such as The Centaur and Of the Farm brought Updike critical acclaim but Couples, published in 1968, gave him his first popular success.
Couples, has been called "the best-written dirty book since the Decameron" - but this does less than justice to either Updike or Boccaccio.
The theme of the book is indeed adultery, as practised by ten middle-class couples in a small New England town
Though the author does not hesitate to give detailed descriptions of sexual intercourse, he does so with a lucidity and reverence that is completely removed from pornography.
Altogether, John Updike published more than 50 novels: one of his novels about Harold Angstrom, Rabbit is Rich, won the 1982 Pulitzer Prize for fiction, while Rabbit at Rest won in 1993.
Though often berated by critics for his seeming obsession with golf and sex, it is his mastery of the English language, its nuances, vagueries and sheer beauty, which brought John Updike millions of admirers.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/3526947.stm
Published: 2009/01/27 18:42:17 GMT
© BBC MMIX
Monday, January 26, 2009
Obama aims for oil independence
Obama aims for oil independence
Obama on the three steps to energy independence
President Barack Obama has called for the US to become energy independent, saying its reliance on foreign oil and global warming posed threats.
Outlining his energy priorities, he said the country would not be held "hostage to dwindling resources, hostile regimes, and a warming planet".
He called for greater fuel efficiency and an "energy economy" aimed at creating millions of jobs.
He also ordered a review of whether states can set car emission standards.
This challenges a Bush administration decision which favoured a national standard for vehicle pollution.
At his first White House news conference since becoming president, Mr Obama said he would reverse America's dependence on foreign oil while creating jobs, but warned there was no "quick fix".
OBAMA ENERGY PLAN
A customer at a petrol pump
Reverse US dependence on foreign energy
Review of decision to block states from setting own emission targets
Orders the transportation department to come up with new short-term rules on how carmakers can improve fuel efficiency
Federal buildings to become more efficient
Double 'green' energy from wind, sun and biofuels over next three years
Obama diary: First 100 days
"We will commit ourselves to steady, focused, pragmatic pursuit of an America that is freed from our energy dependence, and empowered by a new energy economy that puts millions of our citizens to work."
He added: "Now is the time to meet the challenge of this crossroads of history, by choosing a future safer for our country, prosperous for our planet, and sustainable."
Mr Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review its refusal of a waiver which had previously allowed California to set its own - stricter - vehicle emission and fuel efficiency standards.
He said California had taken bold moves in implementing the standards.
Mr Obama said: "The days of Washington dragging its heels are over.
"My administration will not deny facts. We will be guided by them."
His statement that the US would lead on climate change was a clear swipe at his predecessor's sceptical view of global warming, says the BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington.
Energy efficiency drive
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had asked Mr Obama to reverse the Bush administration's insistence on a single, national standard.
California wants a 30% reduction in motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 2016, achieved by improving fuel efficiency standards.
President Obama also ordered the transportation department to come up with new short-term rules on how carmakers can improve fuel efficiency.
A 2007 law required that new cars and trucks produced by 2020 obtain 35 miles per gallon of fuel (about 15km/litre).
However, then-President George W Bush did not put in place the regulations to enable the law to be carried out.
Emissions from car exhaust (file photo)
Car exhaust is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions
The new rules Mr Obama wants to put in place would mean the new standard is reached by 2011, the New York Times said.
The president also announced plans to make all federal government buildings more energy efficient, and pledged to cut families's energy bills by "weatherising" 2.5 million homes.
He also said the US would double its capacity for "green" energy generation, from sources such as wind, sun, and biofuels, over the next three years.
More than 3,000 miles of transmission lines would be established to transmit the energy.
In the European Union, a recently agreed climate package set out average emission targets for the whole car industry of 120g of CO2 per kilometre by 2012 for new cars, compared with current levels of 160g/km.
The EU target for 2020 is 95g/km. But CO2 emissions vary from car to car, and manufacturers have been given until 2015 to meet their specific targets for each model.
According to media reports, the state department is to appoint a former Clinton diplomat as its "climate change envoy".
Todd Stern served under Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2001 and was involved in Kyoto climate change talks.
copyright: BBC World News
Obama on the three steps to energy independence
President Barack Obama has called for the US to become energy independent, saying its reliance on foreign oil and global warming posed threats.
Outlining his energy priorities, he said the country would not be held "hostage to dwindling resources, hostile regimes, and a warming planet".
He called for greater fuel efficiency and an "energy economy" aimed at creating millions of jobs.
He also ordered a review of whether states can set car emission standards.
This challenges a Bush administration decision which favoured a national standard for vehicle pollution.
At his first White House news conference since becoming president, Mr Obama said he would reverse America's dependence on foreign oil while creating jobs, but warned there was no "quick fix".
OBAMA ENERGY PLAN
A customer at a petrol pump
Reverse US dependence on foreign energy
Review of decision to block states from setting own emission targets
Orders the transportation department to come up with new short-term rules on how carmakers can improve fuel efficiency
Federal buildings to become more efficient
Double 'green' energy from wind, sun and biofuels over next three years
Obama diary: First 100 days
"We will commit ourselves to steady, focused, pragmatic pursuit of an America that is freed from our energy dependence, and empowered by a new energy economy that puts millions of our citizens to work."
He added: "Now is the time to meet the challenge of this crossroads of history, by choosing a future safer for our country, prosperous for our planet, and sustainable."
Mr Obama ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review its refusal of a waiver which had previously allowed California to set its own - stricter - vehicle emission and fuel efficiency standards.
He said California had taken bold moves in implementing the standards.
Mr Obama said: "The days of Washington dragging its heels are over.
"My administration will not deny facts. We will be guided by them."
His statement that the US would lead on climate change was a clear swipe at his predecessor's sceptical view of global warming, says the BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington.
Energy efficiency drive
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had asked Mr Obama to reverse the Bush administration's insistence on a single, national standard.
California wants a 30% reduction in motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions by 2016, achieved by improving fuel efficiency standards.
President Obama also ordered the transportation department to come up with new short-term rules on how carmakers can improve fuel efficiency.
A 2007 law required that new cars and trucks produced by 2020 obtain 35 miles per gallon of fuel (about 15km/litre).
However, then-President George W Bush did not put in place the regulations to enable the law to be carried out.
Emissions from car exhaust (file photo)
Car exhaust is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions
The new rules Mr Obama wants to put in place would mean the new standard is reached by 2011, the New York Times said.
The president also announced plans to make all federal government buildings more energy efficient, and pledged to cut families's energy bills by "weatherising" 2.5 million homes.
He also said the US would double its capacity for "green" energy generation, from sources such as wind, sun, and biofuels, over the next three years.
More than 3,000 miles of transmission lines would be established to transmit the energy.
In the European Union, a recently agreed climate package set out average emission targets for the whole car industry of 120g of CO2 per kilometre by 2012 for new cars, compared with current levels of 160g/km.
The EU target for 2020 is 95g/km. But CO2 emissions vary from car to car, and manufacturers have been given until 2015 to meet their specific targets for each model.
According to media reports, the state department is to appoint a former Clinton diplomat as its "climate change envoy".
Todd Stern served under Bill Clinton from 1993 to 2001 and was involved in Kyoto climate change talks.
copyright: BBC World News
Thursday, January 22, 2009
9 Ways NASA Can Tackle Climate Change
9 Ways NASA Can Tackle Climate Change
Scientists tell Pres. Barack Obama how the space agency could help solve the world's number-one problem
By William S. Marshall and James Clay Moltz
NASA could be one of the nation's most potent weapons in battling climate change. The space agency has conducted decades of research into weather, life-support systems and the atmospheres of other planets providing it with unique skills to address this problem.
It would be easy for policymakers to overlook NASA as they map out a strategy for solving Earth's biggest environmental woes. But here are some important reasons why they shouldn't.
NASA has 21 Earth-observing spacecraft in orbit today, five more missions in development, and has been studying Earth's climate for the past three decades. This includes, for example, ICEsat, which monitors polar ice cap shrinkage. Scientists from across the globe use the data from these missions to refine their understanding of Earth's changing atmosphere. Some of their number crunching is done on NASA supercomputers (including the largest civilian one in the world). In turn, these models provide us with a basic understanding of the status of our climate and the means to make predictions of future changes.
NASA has a proved ability to accomplish major engineering feats. Climate change is an immense challenge that involves an extremely complex system—the environment—along with advanced technologies that could be used to measure it and mitigate problems. Each of these facets is a significant scientific and technical hurdle, but perhaps the biggest challenge is to bring everything together into a comprehensive, integrated plan. This will require a coordinated effort of thousands of scientists and engineers, and large-scale deployment, perhaps not unlike the retooling of manufacturing during World War II or the Apollo project. There are few organizations with the relevant capacity, and NASA is one.
From the joint U.S.–Soviet Apollo–Soyuz mission during the height of the Cold War to the current International Space Station (ISS), NASA has successfully completed large engineering projects with other nations,and climate change management will undoubtedly require a global effort.
NASA also has decades of experience with green technologies such as solar cells, fuels cells, turbine technology, biofuels, carbon sequestration, and closed-loop life-support systems. This last capability helps NASA to manage the near-100 percent recycling of consumables on board the ISS—an important step to understanding how to do that on a natural spaceship, the one we call Earth.
Finally, NASA enabled the Planet Earth perspective. On Christmas Eve 40 years ago, the first human beings to enter the gravitational sphere of another planetary body, the moon, took a picture of Earth rising above the lunar surface—Earthrise. Pictures like these kicked off the environmental movement; allowing humanity to realize the extreme isolation and fragility of our planet.
But NASA can do more if the new Pres. Barack Obama and Congress give it the chance. The following are nine ways that it can help solve the world's energy and climate change problems:
1. Develop an integrated, global plan for energy and the environment. In collaboration with international partners and other agencies, and taking into account climate change data, the best models of their progression, and characteristics of renewable energy technologies (and the expected rate of their improvement), this plan would, among other things, detail: the rates of renewable technology deployment required; whatever additional climate data is necessary; the proper levels of carbon trading and caps; the data needed to measure the impact of those caps; and what mitigation technologies should be deployed. The plan would make clear whether nations could meet the internationally agreed-on carbon dioxide emission limits and still fulfill their energy needs. And if the current trajectory does not suffice, then what adaptations, in what technological areas, and in what locations would be needed to ensure they are met.
2. Open NASA facilities to "green tech" companies. NASA should be allowed to open its facilities and experts to innovative green technology companies and nonprofits. NASA has a wide range of facilities that are of relevance to green technologies from research stations in the arctic and desert, to the world's largest wind tunnels, to supercomputers. For example, a novel, high-altitude wind energy company Makani Power, partially funded by Google, is making use of the NASA Ames Research Center wind tunnels for advancing their energy production designs.
3. Create an energy/environment data center. NASA has vast amounts of relevant data. This includes Earth observation data and information on the global flow of energy, solar weather, the magnetosphere that influences our system, relevant green technologies, and aviation data. Together with other key agencies—such as the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA could provide all such data in common standard formats. Starting with the approach NASA already takes with its Planetary Data System to host the information, NASA should take it a step further, providing an application programming interface for others to use this treasure trove.
4. Utilize small, inexpensive spacecraft to collect climate data. Following the recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences's first-ever Decadal Survey for Earth Science, NASA should establish a venture class of spacecraft for Earth observing to enable the collection of more data for less cost. Today a great deal of valuable Earth observation data can be collected on small satellites that are an order of magnitude lighter as well as an order of magnitude lower cost. A good example is the Disaster Monitoring Constellation, which is an international constellation of five small remote-sensing satellites, each costing approximately $20 million (20 to 50 times less expensive than typical NASA satellites). Although of lower resolution and finesse than the NASA birds, at so much lower cost they can give higher temporal resolution and certainly more data for a given expenditure.
5. Invest in "green" aviation. Let us not forget that the first A in NASA is Aeronautics. NASA could be tasked to help to develop some of the key technologies that would enable "green aviation"—technologies that could help aircraft use less fuel or be carbon neutral. These include more fuel-efficient air traffic control, lighter-weight structures, more advanced combustion control systems as well as electric, solar or biofuel-based motors. For example, NASA could lead a concerted research effort on electric planes, focusing on production and testing of prototype vehicles whose designs are then made as open hardware, accessible to the aerospace industry.
6. Use of UAVs for regional climate modeling. Currently there is a gap between aircraft observations that are high-resolution but limited in coverage, and satellite data, which provide a global view but with lower resolution. NASA UAVs and other airborne platforms could be used as gap-fillers in a more active program that offers regional, high-resolution, climate data collection, along with immediate response to disasters. For example, in 2008 NASA flew an adapted Predator drone over California wildfires providing real-time, Web-based information delivery to decision makers, which California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger credited with playing a critical role in fighting those fires.
7. Greater U.S. Government collaboration. NASA should be encouraged to work more closely with the other relevant U.S. agencies as well as its international counterparts. Today researchers from NASA and the DoE, for instance, can't even enter one another's facilities without advance permission. Within the U.S., there is a lack of clarity for the roles played by the alphabet soup of federal agencies that have environmental programs—the DoE, NASA, NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Geological Survey, among them. It is NASA and NOAA that primarily collect the climate change data, and it is the DoE that primarily deals with energy. These three organizations alone managed over 80 percent of the $11.6-billion U.S. environment and energy research budget in 2008; they also employ the bulk of government scientists and engineers that can contribute to solving the massive systems engineering problems of climate change and sustainable energy.
NASA and NOAA work together, but the relationship between them and the DOE needs an overhaul. The relevant programs of these agencies could all report to a new energy and climate czar, preferably with budgetary authority (being the convening impetus). Alternatively, the U.S. could even form a new "Energy and Environment Agency," along the lines of a similar department recently created in the U.K.—forcing the marriage of energy and climate change problems and a pooling of all the above investment. The Obama administration should also consider boosting the authority and size of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy so that it has the muscle to coax agencies into working together. It should seriously consider the benefits of such cross-organizational collaboration at an international level, as seen in the successful cases of CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) and the European Space Agency.
8. Create an Earth Systems Directorate. NASA should be instructed to elevate its Earth Science Division to the status of a directorate—bringing it on par with human exploration, space science and aeronautics as key functions of the agency. This directorate would bring together all the other NASA programs relevant to energy and the environment, including Earth observation and modeling, green energy technologies, and supercomputing capabilities.
9. Increasing public participation in green programs. Climate challenge cannot be tackled without the participation of the public, and NASA is well-positioned to help connect the public with the exciting research being undertaken on ways to address our energy and climate change problems. One example of this is an Web effort called OpenNASA.com which is an open dialogue between NASA employees and the public on all of the agency's policies.
Of course, NASA is far from the end-all solution to climate change. Effective solutions must occur on a global scale with all nations coordinating their efforts and even, perhaps, resources. But NASA does have much untapped potential in this regard. Moreover, most of the changes above do not require new money so much as organizational changes: Small satellites just enable more within the same budget and opening up facilities to green tech companies costs very little, relatively speaking. The only recommendation that would require more than several million dollars annually would be a serious program on green aviation. That would likely cost about $100 million annually according to a recent study by NASA Ames: This could either come from new monies forked over by Congress or from existing aeronautics funds diverted toward that effort. All told, the above programs might add up to $200 million, or approximately 1 percent of NASA's annual budget.
NASA's primary function has been the exploration of the solar system. Along the way, however, it has contributed greatly to our understanding of Earth. Whereas NASA should certainly continue to conduct space exploration, its engineering muscle should be applied in a more focused manner to solve the biggest problems in our home world. Thus, the Obama administration should make better use of NASA's talents when implementing its energy and environment plan. Perhaps the new NASA motto could be: Science, Settlement and Sustainability.
Scientists tell Pres. Barack Obama how the space agency could help solve the world's number-one problem
By William S. Marshall and James Clay Moltz
NASA could be one of the nation's most potent weapons in battling climate change. The space agency has conducted decades of research into weather, life-support systems and the atmospheres of other planets providing it with unique skills to address this problem.
It would be easy for policymakers to overlook NASA as they map out a strategy for solving Earth's biggest environmental woes. But here are some important reasons why they shouldn't.
NASA has 21 Earth-observing spacecraft in orbit today, five more missions in development, and has been studying Earth's climate for the past three decades. This includes, for example, ICEsat, which monitors polar ice cap shrinkage. Scientists from across the globe use the data from these missions to refine their understanding of Earth's changing atmosphere. Some of their number crunching is done on NASA supercomputers (including the largest civilian one in the world). In turn, these models provide us with a basic understanding of the status of our climate and the means to make predictions of future changes.
NASA has a proved ability to accomplish major engineering feats. Climate change is an immense challenge that involves an extremely complex system—the environment—along with advanced technologies that could be used to measure it and mitigate problems. Each of these facets is a significant scientific and technical hurdle, but perhaps the biggest challenge is to bring everything together into a comprehensive, integrated plan. This will require a coordinated effort of thousands of scientists and engineers, and large-scale deployment, perhaps not unlike the retooling of manufacturing during World War II or the Apollo project. There are few organizations with the relevant capacity, and NASA is one.
From the joint U.S.–Soviet Apollo–Soyuz mission during the height of the Cold War to the current International Space Station (ISS), NASA has successfully completed large engineering projects with other nations,and climate change management will undoubtedly require a global effort.
NASA also has decades of experience with green technologies such as solar cells, fuels cells, turbine technology, biofuels, carbon sequestration, and closed-loop life-support systems. This last capability helps NASA to manage the near-100 percent recycling of consumables on board the ISS—an important step to understanding how to do that on a natural spaceship, the one we call Earth.
Finally, NASA enabled the Planet Earth perspective. On Christmas Eve 40 years ago, the first human beings to enter the gravitational sphere of another planetary body, the moon, took a picture of Earth rising above the lunar surface—Earthrise. Pictures like these kicked off the environmental movement; allowing humanity to realize the extreme isolation and fragility of our planet.
But NASA can do more if the new Pres. Barack Obama and Congress give it the chance. The following are nine ways that it can help solve the world's energy and climate change problems:
1. Develop an integrated, global plan for energy and the environment. In collaboration with international partners and other agencies, and taking into account climate change data, the best models of their progression, and characteristics of renewable energy technologies (and the expected rate of their improvement), this plan would, among other things, detail: the rates of renewable technology deployment required; whatever additional climate data is necessary; the proper levels of carbon trading and caps; the data needed to measure the impact of those caps; and what mitigation technologies should be deployed. The plan would make clear whether nations could meet the internationally agreed-on carbon dioxide emission limits and still fulfill their energy needs. And if the current trajectory does not suffice, then what adaptations, in what technological areas, and in what locations would be needed to ensure they are met.
2. Open NASA facilities to "green tech" companies. NASA should be allowed to open its facilities and experts to innovative green technology companies and nonprofits. NASA has a wide range of facilities that are of relevance to green technologies from research stations in the arctic and desert, to the world's largest wind tunnels, to supercomputers. For example, a novel, high-altitude wind energy company Makani Power, partially funded by Google, is making use of the NASA Ames Research Center wind tunnels for advancing their energy production designs.
3. Create an energy/environment data center. NASA has vast amounts of relevant data. This includes Earth observation data and information on the global flow of energy, solar weather, the magnetosphere that influences our system, relevant green technologies, and aviation data. Together with other key agencies—such as the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA could provide all such data in common standard formats. Starting with the approach NASA already takes with its Planetary Data System to host the information, NASA should take it a step further, providing an application programming interface for others to use this treasure trove.
4. Utilize small, inexpensive spacecraft to collect climate data. Following the recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences's first-ever Decadal Survey for Earth Science, NASA should establish a venture class of spacecraft for Earth observing to enable the collection of more data for less cost. Today a great deal of valuable Earth observation data can be collected on small satellites that are an order of magnitude lighter as well as an order of magnitude lower cost. A good example is the Disaster Monitoring Constellation, which is an international constellation of five small remote-sensing satellites, each costing approximately $20 million (20 to 50 times less expensive than typical NASA satellites). Although of lower resolution and finesse than the NASA birds, at so much lower cost they can give higher temporal resolution and certainly more data for a given expenditure.
5. Invest in "green" aviation. Let us not forget that the first A in NASA is Aeronautics. NASA could be tasked to help to develop some of the key technologies that would enable "green aviation"—technologies that could help aircraft use less fuel or be carbon neutral. These include more fuel-efficient air traffic control, lighter-weight structures, more advanced combustion control systems as well as electric, solar or biofuel-based motors. For example, NASA could lead a concerted research effort on electric planes, focusing on production and testing of prototype vehicles whose designs are then made as open hardware, accessible to the aerospace industry.
6. Use of UAVs for regional climate modeling. Currently there is a gap between aircraft observations that are high-resolution but limited in coverage, and satellite data, which provide a global view but with lower resolution. NASA UAVs and other airborne platforms could be used as gap-fillers in a more active program that offers regional, high-resolution, climate data collection, along with immediate response to disasters. For example, in 2008 NASA flew an adapted Predator drone over California wildfires providing real-time, Web-based information delivery to decision makers, which California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger credited with playing a critical role in fighting those fires.
7. Greater U.S. Government collaboration. NASA should be encouraged to work more closely with the other relevant U.S. agencies as well as its international counterparts. Today researchers from NASA and the DoE, for instance, can't even enter one another's facilities without advance permission. Within the U.S., there is a lack of clarity for the roles played by the alphabet soup of federal agencies that have environmental programs—the DoE, NASA, NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Geological Survey, among them. It is NASA and NOAA that primarily collect the climate change data, and it is the DoE that primarily deals with energy. These three organizations alone managed over 80 percent of the $11.6-billion U.S. environment and energy research budget in 2008; they also employ the bulk of government scientists and engineers that can contribute to solving the massive systems engineering problems of climate change and sustainable energy.
NASA and NOAA work together, but the relationship between them and the DOE needs an overhaul. The relevant programs of these agencies could all report to a new energy and climate czar, preferably with budgetary authority (being the convening impetus). Alternatively, the U.S. could even form a new "Energy and Environment Agency," along the lines of a similar department recently created in the U.K.—forcing the marriage of energy and climate change problems and a pooling of all the above investment. The Obama administration should also consider boosting the authority and size of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy so that it has the muscle to coax agencies into working together. It should seriously consider the benefits of such cross-organizational collaboration at an international level, as seen in the successful cases of CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) and the European Space Agency.
8. Create an Earth Systems Directorate. NASA should be instructed to elevate its Earth Science Division to the status of a directorate—bringing it on par with human exploration, space science and aeronautics as key functions of the agency. This directorate would bring together all the other NASA programs relevant to energy and the environment, including Earth observation and modeling, green energy technologies, and supercomputing capabilities.
9. Increasing public participation in green programs. Climate challenge cannot be tackled without the participation of the public, and NASA is well-positioned to help connect the public with the exciting research being undertaken on ways to address our energy and climate change problems. One example of this is an Web effort called OpenNASA.com which is an open dialogue between NASA employees and the public on all of the agency's policies.
Of course, NASA is far from the end-all solution to climate change. Effective solutions must occur on a global scale with all nations coordinating their efforts and even, perhaps, resources. But NASA does have much untapped potential in this regard. Moreover, most of the changes above do not require new money so much as organizational changes: Small satellites just enable more within the same budget and opening up facilities to green tech companies costs very little, relatively speaking. The only recommendation that would require more than several million dollars annually would be a serious program on green aviation. That would likely cost about $100 million annually according to a recent study by NASA Ames: This could either come from new monies forked over by Congress or from existing aeronautics funds diverted toward that effort. All told, the above programs might add up to $200 million, or approximately 1 percent of NASA's annual budget.
NASA's primary function has been the exploration of the solar system. Along the way, however, it has contributed greatly to our understanding of Earth. Whereas NASA should certainly continue to conduct space exploration, its engineering muscle should be applied in a more focused manner to solve the biggest problems in our home world. Thus, the Obama administration should make better use of NASA's talents when implementing its energy and environment plan. Perhaps the new NASA motto could be: Science, Settlement and Sustainability.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Energy and emissions top Obama's green tasklist
Energy and emissions top Obama's green tasklist
What can be reasonably expected of the man who was the strongest environmental contender for the White House in US history?
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 January 2009 10.44 GMT
Barack Obama is raising expectations of swift action on the environment - possibly within his first few days in the White House.
At one of two green balls for this year's inauguration, environmentalists were already describing Obama as America's first green president.
Obama, since his election, has repeatedly indicated he wants to push ahead on his campaign promise to create jobs by investing in renewable energy.
He used his last appearance before the start of celebrations for his inauguration on Tuesday to talk up his clean energy plans at an Ohio factory that makes components for wind turbines.
"A renewable energy economy isn't some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future," Obama said during the factory visit. "It's happening all across America right now. It's providing alternatives to foreign oil now. It can create millions of additional jobs and entire new industries if we act right now."
Such early gestures, the appointment of a team of respected scientists and experienced legislators, have fuelled anticipation of what Obama might do in the White House.
Environmentalists praise Obama for putting the environment at the heart of his economic renewal plan - part of the solution to the crisis, rather than the source.
They say there has been little sign that Obama has scaled back his thinking in response to the economic crisis.
"Obama gets it," said Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon congressman who is a member of the house committee on energy independence and global warming.
However, Teryn Norris and Jesse Jenkins, of the Breakthrough Institute, argue that as the recession has deepened, Obama has been relatively silent on cap and trade emissions schemes similar to the one operating in Europe in which companies can trade permits to emit carbon dioxide. "With green jobs now positioned as 'the solution' to both the economy and the climate, Obama has cover to take the politically expedient route of short-term green stimulus while ignoring serious climate policy," they write.
"Obama has made it increasingly clear that public investment is his preferred climate policy mechanism. What Obama has not made clear is whether or not he will embrace the type and scale of investments necessary to seriously confront the climate challenge."
So, once Obama is president, what can be reasonably expected of the man who was the most strongly environmental contender for the White House in US history?
On the campaign trail, Obama supported a 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 80% by 2050. He embraced the goal of obtaining 10% of America's electricity from renewable resources by 2012, and 25% by 2025.
Environmentalists see that translating into results almost immediately after Obama is sworn in with a number of executive orders overturning some of the most controversial decisions by George Bush.
These could include:
• Directing the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide. The Bush administration refused to act on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling giving the agency regulatory and enforcement power.
• Granting authority to California and 16 other states to regulate vehicle tailpipe emissions
• Ordering a ban on mountain-top removal coalmining
Next on the agenda is an economic stimulus package which Obama hopes to pass within the first three weeks. Environmentalists expect a heavily green component in the $775-825bn package.
"I think we are going to see a very large infrastructure proposal with a very strong green component - everything from putting solar panels on the rooftops of government buildings to providing tax credits to home owners to make their homes more energy efficient to retrofitting older buildings to beginning to stress mass transit," said Michael Moynihan.
Obama's stimulus plan revealed last week calls for doubling the production of renewable energy in three years. It envisages energy-efficient retrofits for 75% of government office buildings, and weather-proofing some 2m homes.
He said the plan would create nearly half a million new jobs in production of wind turbines and solar panels, and the building industry.
An early draft of the bill showed about $54bn in measures on weatherisation and retrofitting.
Democratic leaders in Congress hope to pass the package by February 20.
In the longer term, environmentalists were cheered by Hillary Clinton's confirmation as secretary of state last week. They see Clinton as a strong advocate for reaching a successor to the Kyoto protocol. "We have got a whole series of people who want to move in the same direction as the president-elect," said Eileen Claussen of the Pew Environment Group.
But the picture is mixed on domestic cap and trade legislation. Environmentalists who are in regular contact with Obama's advisers say his White House would be prepared to consult widely with Congress.
However, while the Democratic leadership is squarely behind cap and trade legislation, Republicans as well as some Democrats from coal-producing states are not behind a domestic cap and trade regime. Nancy Pelosi, the house speaker, said earlier this month that she was not hopeful of passing legislation this year.
What can be reasonably expected of the man who was the strongest environmental contender for the White House in US history?
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 January 2009 10.44 GMT
Barack Obama is raising expectations of swift action on the environment - possibly within his first few days in the White House.
At one of two green balls for this year's inauguration, environmentalists were already describing Obama as America's first green president.
Obama, since his election, has repeatedly indicated he wants to push ahead on his campaign promise to create jobs by investing in renewable energy.
He used his last appearance before the start of celebrations for his inauguration on Tuesday to talk up his clean energy plans at an Ohio factory that makes components for wind turbines.
"A renewable energy economy isn't some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future," Obama said during the factory visit. "It's happening all across America right now. It's providing alternatives to foreign oil now. It can create millions of additional jobs and entire new industries if we act right now."
Such early gestures, the appointment of a team of respected scientists and experienced legislators, have fuelled anticipation of what Obama might do in the White House.
Environmentalists praise Obama for putting the environment at the heart of his economic renewal plan - part of the solution to the crisis, rather than the source.
They say there has been little sign that Obama has scaled back his thinking in response to the economic crisis.
"Obama gets it," said Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon congressman who is a member of the house committee on energy independence and global warming.
However, Teryn Norris and Jesse Jenkins, of the Breakthrough Institute, argue that as the recession has deepened, Obama has been relatively silent on cap and trade emissions schemes similar to the one operating in Europe in which companies can trade permits to emit carbon dioxide. "With green jobs now positioned as 'the solution' to both the economy and the climate, Obama has cover to take the politically expedient route of short-term green stimulus while ignoring serious climate policy," they write.
"Obama has made it increasingly clear that public investment is his preferred climate policy mechanism. What Obama has not made clear is whether or not he will embrace the type and scale of investments necessary to seriously confront the climate challenge."
So, once Obama is president, what can be reasonably expected of the man who was the most strongly environmental contender for the White House in US history?
On the campaign trail, Obama supported a 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and 80% by 2050. He embraced the goal of obtaining 10% of America's electricity from renewable resources by 2012, and 25% by 2025.
Environmentalists see that translating into results almost immediately after Obama is sworn in with a number of executive orders overturning some of the most controversial decisions by George Bush.
These could include:
• Directing the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon dioxide. The Bush administration refused to act on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling giving the agency regulatory and enforcement power.
• Granting authority to California and 16 other states to regulate vehicle tailpipe emissions
• Ordering a ban on mountain-top removal coalmining
Next on the agenda is an economic stimulus package which Obama hopes to pass within the first three weeks. Environmentalists expect a heavily green component in the $775-825bn package.
"I think we are going to see a very large infrastructure proposal with a very strong green component - everything from putting solar panels on the rooftops of government buildings to providing tax credits to home owners to make their homes more energy efficient to retrofitting older buildings to beginning to stress mass transit," said Michael Moynihan.
Obama's stimulus plan revealed last week calls for doubling the production of renewable energy in three years. It envisages energy-efficient retrofits for 75% of government office buildings, and weather-proofing some 2m homes.
He said the plan would create nearly half a million new jobs in production of wind turbines and solar panels, and the building industry.
An early draft of the bill showed about $54bn in measures on weatherisation and retrofitting.
Democratic leaders in Congress hope to pass the package by February 20.
In the longer term, environmentalists were cheered by Hillary Clinton's confirmation as secretary of state last week. They see Clinton as a strong advocate for reaching a successor to the Kyoto protocol. "We have got a whole series of people who want to move in the same direction as the president-elect," said Eileen Claussen of the Pew Environment Group.
But the picture is mixed on domestic cap and trade legislation. Environmentalists who are in regular contact with Obama's advisers say his White House would be prepared to consult widely with Congress.
However, while the Democratic leadership is squarely behind cap and trade legislation, Republicans as well as some Democrats from coal-producing states are not behind a domestic cap and trade regime. Nancy Pelosi, the house speaker, said earlier this month that she was not hopeful of passing legislation this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
