Change is what the Obama campaign was advertising. They won and I, for my part, am not complaining about false advertising. I’ve been raving here (and here, and here, among other places) about how the new administration is really rolling up its sleeves and getting down to cases on climate change, renewables, the green economy, etc. So is the new Congress, as I’ve also duly noted a fair number of times, including in the last two posts below.
Friday’s “NY Times” had an article summarizing some of the salient differences between the Bush and Obama administrations on key environmental issues. On climate change, the article says that Bush promoted “…a series of mainly voluntary climate and energy initiatives intended to slow the release of such gases, with no commitment to binding reductions at home or abroad.
“Mr. Obama has taken precisely the opposite track. He spoke late last month of the specter of ‘violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines’ and other perils from unchecked warming, while pressing his vision of prosperity rebuilt around clean cars and pollution-free power from the wind and sun.”
In another somewhat stunning indication of the change of direction, the “LA Times” reports that U.S. financing groups pledge change on climate policies. In 2002, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and four cities in the Western US brought suit against the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp. because they’d financed projects abroad that exacerbated global warming and thereby harmed the cities that joined the suit. The plaintiffs argued that the federal aid agencies had not subjected the projects to environmental review as they should have under the National Environmental Policy Act, the foundation of American environmental law.
After seven years, the agencies and the plaintiffs settled the suit. According to this release from Friends of the Earth, “…the Export-Import Bank will begin taking carbon dioxide emissions into account in evaluating fossil fuel projects and create an organization-wide carbon policy. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation will establish a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with projects by 20 percent over the next ten years. Both agencies will commit to increasing financing for renewable energy.” For much more on the lawsuit, see this.
Coincidence that the suit was settled less than a month into the new administration?
Here’s another significant example of Obama and Co. switching things up: EPA drops appeal over utility mercury ruling. The Bush EPA had contested “…a ruling by a U.S. appeals court that the EPA violated the Clean Air Act in 2005 when it exempted coal plants from the strictest emission controls for mercury and other toxic substances like arsenic, lead and nickel.” The utility industry is keeping their appeal active and the Supreme Court will consider it on February 20. According to this Reuters story, “The nation’s 1,100 coal-burning units emit about 48 tons of mercury each year, the largest unregulated U.S. source.”
Mercury? So what? See this report from the consortium of Northeast US states fighting air pollution. Do you eat fish? You probably know then about the dangers of mercury. If not, see this report from NRDC.”
