Watching Barack Obama and the appointments since the election has created the foundation for an emotional roller coaster while been a serious one for those concerned about energy and environmental issues. When it comes to Obama’s own actions, elation that his first major policy statement/engagement after the election was a strong statement on the need for action on climate change and his desier to lead. Confusion (concern) that, however, his targets for action fall far short of what science recommends.
Elation comes with many appointments. John Podesta as head of Transition, Hillary Clinton as SecState, Bill Richardson at Commerce, Carol Browner in the White House on Energy/Climate Issues. Truly, elation. All of them ‘get’ global warming and the challenges we face and the opportunities we have in creating a clean energy future. And, it goes further than that with many appointments. Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy: Super Elation.
But not all the appointments are as clear cut for standing ovations when it comes to energy and environmental issues. Jim Jones, as National Security Advisor, is coming from a Vice-Presidency at the global warming denier / delayer supporting US Chamber of Commerce where he developed energy policy that is best described as ‘climate delayer’ in tone. Tom Vilsack, perhaps due to the state he governed, is a massive promoter of questionable (fiscally, environmentally, energy balance) corn-based ethanol. Ray LaHood, for Transportation, has (generously) an uneven record on energy and environmental issues and strongly supported drilling and increased oil supplies as an ‘answer’ to our petroleum addiction. Being generous to the situation on those and other appointments, confusion about the centrality of sensible energy and global warming policies to an Obama Administration.
Yesterday, science and better paths in the face of global warming hit the trifecta. It is Congresswoman Hilda Solis for the Department of Labor, Professor Jane Lubchenco to direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and John Holdren as the Presidential Science Advisor (and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy). A massive turn back to ELATION!
Three fantastic appointments
Holdren was an Obama campaign advisor and an international expert on energy and climate issues. He has been the director of the Woods Hole Research Center for the past three years, was the President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2006, and has been associated with Harvard University and Berkeley Universities as a professor on energy and environmental sciences/public policy. Department of Energy: Nobel-prize winning scientist. Science Advisor: a science held in quite high regard by the community. From Holdren’s bio:
Dr. Holdren’s work has focused on causes and consequences of global environmental change, analysis of energy technologies and policies, ways to reduce the dangers from nuclear weapons and materials, and the interaction of content and process in science and technology policy.
While there is no such thing as an all-encompassing or perfect fit, those interest arenas seem a strong fit with many of the challenges this nation faces and the opportunities that science/technology might offer in better understanding them and help us (the US and all of us) deal with them.
As with Steven Chu, Holdren adds quite a bit of material to the reading list for anyone seeking to understand his thinking:
Dr. Holdren is the author of some 300 articles and papers, and he has co-authored and co-edited some 20 books and book-length reports, such as Energy (1971), Human Ecology (1973), Ecoscience (1977), Energy in Transition (1980), Earth and the Human Future (1986), Strategic Defences and the Future of the Arms Race (1987), Building Global Security Through Cooperation (1990), Conversion of Military R&D (1998), and Ending the Energy Stalemate (2004).
Holdren has a strong science background and, as well, a strong background in thinking about and being engaged in the policy challenges of applying science to solve problems.
And, as David Sasson highlights, Holdren has no desire to waste time with global warming deniers and "skeptics".
The few climate-change “skeptics” with any sort of scientific credentials continue to receive attention in the media out of all proportion to their numbers, their qualifications, or the merit of their arguments. The attention and credence they receive are a menace, of course, insofar as this delays the development of the political consensus that will be needed before society embraces remedies that are commensurate with the magnitude of the climate-change challenge…..
Members of the public who are tempted to be swayed by this vocal fringe should ask themselves how it could be, if human-caused climate change is just a hoax, that the leaderships of the national academies of sciences of every country in the world that has one are repeatedly on record saying that global climate change is real, dangerous, caused mainly by humans, and reason for early and concerted action to reduce those causes; that this is also the overwhelming consensus view among the faculty members of the earth sciences departments at every major university in the world; and that all three of holders of the one Nobel prize in science that has been awarded for environmental science (Crutzen, Rowland, and Molina, in 1995, for figuring out what was happening to stratospheric ozone) are all leaders in the climate-change scientific mainstream.
The fact is that anybody who could believe that the cream of the part of the world scientific community that has actually studied this phenomenon could be co-opted by hoaxers or suffering from mass hysteria is just not thinking clearly.
Rather than the White House being a core ally and supporter of Global Warming deniers and skeptics, reality-based respect for and promotion of science seems likely to be the ruling paradigm. (John Holdren reader)
From Joe Romm who calls this "Obama’s strongest message on climate yet".
[Holdren] probably has more combined expertise on both climate science and clean energy technology than any other person who could plausibly have been named science adviser. [The appointment is] an even stronger signal than the terrific choice of Steven Chu for Energy Secretary that Obama is dead serious about the strongest possible action on global warming. After all, the science adviser works out of the White House and oversees science and technology funding, analysis, and messaging for all federal agencies. … Kudos to Barack Obama for another terrific choice.
From this corner, too, a standing ovation.
Professor Jane Lubchenco will move from Oregon State University to direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). According to one report,
one of the nation’s most prominent marine biologists, … a conservationist who has devoted much of her career to encouraging scientists to become more engaged in public policy debates, is also a vocal proponent of curbing greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
The appointment marks a shift for NOAA …. Lubchenco has criticized the agency in the past for not doing enough to curb overfishing.
Lubchenco, much like Steven Chu and John Holdren, has sought to move science from the laboratory to a central role in policy-making, bridging a gap that has grown over the past several decades, with a decaying voice for science in the halls of power. These appointments clearly signal a 180 turn as to that trend.
But these aren’t ’simply’ policy wonks, but each is a serious scientist. A, as with Chu and Holdren, Lubchenco is held in high regard within the scientific community. As with Holdren, for example, Lubchenco is a past President of the American Advancement for the Advancement of Science, received a MacArthur (genius) award, numerous honorary degrees, etc …
Andrew Rosenberg, who served as deputy director of NOAA’s Fisheries Service under Clinton and is now University of New Hampshire professor of natural resources and the environment, praised Lubchenco as an "absolutely world class scientist."
"When has NOAA been headed by a member of the National Academy and a fellow of the Royal Society?" he said, referring to America and Britain’s most prestigious scientific societies. "That’s exactly the right signal. It establishes NOAA as one of those key scientific agencies."
Yes, NOAA is a "key scientific agency" with a real role in increasing our understanding of and helping to find solutions to some of the most critical problems before us. Rosenberg continued,
By selecting someone who’s both a respected researcher and an active player in national policy discussions, Rosenberg added, "it’s saying that science agencies have a role in policy. They need to be tightly connected, and I believe they will be tightly connected under Jane."
These thoughts about Lubchenco working on the connection between science and policy almost certainly could have been written of Chu and Holdren as well. This is a quite positive statement after eight years of active efforts to denigrate science and avoid having science actually influence policy decisions. Lubchenco is, well, a "powerhouse appointment".
Secretary of Labor
Not to forget about Representative Solis.
My one chance to shake Hilda Solis’ hands came as she introduced, with passion, one of my heroes, Van Jones. Solis is closely aligned on Green Jobs as one might tell by the fact that she introduced, fought for, and celebrated the Green Jobs Act (video statement).
Solis highlights the win-win potential for Green Jobs, which don’t ‘just’ help the planet but also will help citizens across the country.
There is tremendous job growth potential associated with green sector jobs. The Green Jobs Act will help train workers for jobs which offer higher wages, greater access to benefits and more career choices by authorizing $125 million for workforce training programs. The training will be targeted to veterans, displaced workers, at risk youth, and individuals in families under 200% of the federal poverty line.
In addition to Green Jobs, Hilda Solis has also been a voice for environmental justice, including HR 7194, the Climate Change Rebate Act "to hold low-income individuals and households harmless" in the face of any carbon tax or cap and trade program.
Solis’ appointment merits applause for many reasons, but one of the chief ones is that "green jobs" is now front and center for the Department of Labor’s agenda, starting from the Oval Office and amplified, almost certainly, from the Secretary of Labor’s desk.
Applauding Today’s Trifecta
Today’s news of Obama Administration appointments merits, without question, elation on the part of those concerned about fostering a prosperous and climate-friendly future for America, Americans, and the rest of humanity.
Let’s hope tomorrow brings reason not for confusion but even more elation.
Related posts:
- Breaking: House Passes Waxman-Markey Energy Legislation
- Climate Change: Interior Dept Then and Interior Dept Now
- Republicans Reject Science; Scientists Reject Republicans
- Progressive Groups Target Companies over Their Chamber of Commerce Membership
- GRITtv Live: Wangari Maathai – The Politics of Global Climate Change
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
We shouldn’t crow too loudly about this– he may feel he has to distance himself from us by appointing someone from the Discovery Institute.
Do you think that Obi is bringing some seemingly wrong headed folks in order to get those who support them to lay off for while he tells these apppointments what the policy will be and they will be “executive” and not policy drivers, while other such as those mentioned above WILL be expected to drive policy.
I am quite certain that were Obi to tack left and make all the progressives (and thinkers) happy, he would alienate about 40% of the “lost” Americans who are clueless and ideological. If you want evangelicals to even “listen” to an idea it might better come from a “trusted” evangenical that some atheist “scientist”.
So, if this is a strategy and he is simply “using” these people “unknowingly” by them to enact his policies and at the same time get some breathing space so he is not under constant attack… it may be a clever jujitsu. It is said that one has to resort to such “tactics” as opposed to “reason”, but whatever works in the end matters I suppose to a certain point. We don’t want to simply go with the ends justify the means rubbish.
I am not happy with most of his pics INCLUDING Clinton, who is smart but made some very bad decisions re the Iraq war and will not be forgotten or forgiven for that one and other “sabre rattling” position she takes. Ken Salazar? What was Obi thinking? He couldn’t find someone better? Come on…
It’s the old BS about letting all points of view be heard in a debate and that would include creationism. That’s BS of course.
I felt the same way about Salazar, but someone pointed out that it does get him out of the Senate.
And on the point about Clinton and the Iraq war, I think it should be obvious by now that he is politically very cynical and he would have certainly voted for the invasion if he had been in the Senate at the time.
You Obama worshippers really crack me up– you’re Charlie Brown, Obama is Lucy and any issue important to liberals is the football.
As I mentioned in the last thread:
All of these names seem to have scientific backgrounds mainly in biology and environment. Holdren is described as a physicist but I’m not really sure what that means. In any case, there is a real emphasis on life sciences as opposed to physical sciences.
The other thing that Obama did not mention is money. Here is item 39 from my scandals list.
Some money may actually have entered the budget through the energy bill that was attached to the $700 billion bailout. But the government needs to spend less on defense related research and more on other kinds both in the life and physical sciences. This is even more true now. The recession and still possible depression will take a lot of money out of the new paradigm of university-industry research partnerships. So my take is: Choosing scientists is fine but where is the money?
Re Carol Browner, I would suggest reading this piece from someone from New Jersey.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wo…..o_pre.html
Got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? :)
I would agree about Salazar and Vilsack. These are very standard choices. A pro-development Westerner for Interior and a pro-agribusiness Midwesterner for Agriculture. I would offer an alternative explanation for Obama’s nominees. They represent the Establishment. The Establishment is not anti-science but at the same time it tends to confine science (and scientists) to specific niches.
I certainly haven’t seen any Obama “worshippers” here. In fact this is a really really cynical place. I think there are those of us who are willing to give him a chance and will wait until he is in office.
Native American perceptions of Salazar
http://www.indiancountrytoday……37254.html
from glenn greenwald yesterday:
oops. that was supposed to be in response to SanderO @2
Obama is an ethanol fan. Most midwestern politicians are. They know it’s bullshit but it’s the price of admission.
Thanks for the post.
digg
Here in California, a state about to go bankrupt cause the goopers won’ raise taxes and the dems won’t cut spending, we are going to spend the next several years fighting about gay marriage. Ken Starr leads the war for the neandrathals- and Jerry Brown is stepping up for the sane..
We won’t even notice the state being foreclosed on.
Obama seems to be developing multiple centers for every problem and policy, and establishing czars all over the place. I distrust that method because it will make it difficult to figure out who the movers & shakers are.
Obama has enough bad and powerful (economics & foreign policy) appointees to at least raise the question as to whether he’s appointing a few others as cover.
We’ll see what happens when the corp fin interests come in conflict with ’science.’ Obama has already made that decision against science wrt agribusiness and corn-based ethanol. People are more likely to be consistent that erratic in their behavior patterns.
I have been alive through 12 presidents and I have never seen one, before Obama, being so thoroughly trashed by his own party. Just amazes me.
SanderO, I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to hear you arguing that there is a possible Machievellian twist to all this progressive bashing of Obama for some of his picks.
I would have thought you would have called BS on it all!*g*
Personally, I am not a center-right strategist nor a politician, so who the hell knows?
I don’t care if Obama nominates Satan as long as he successfully delivers on Iraq withdrawal, health care reform, and massive increases in renewable energy…Proof’s in the puddin
do you think the criticisms are unjustified or are you surprised the criticisms are being made public?
Before the election, I lobbied hard for people to vote for the Democratic nominee for President. Now that the election is over, however, imho FDL has to reconnect with many disillusioned liberals. We’ve got very serious problems with a lot of Congressional Dems. Our next chance to impact them comes in the 2010 primaries.
Remember when we tried to unseat John Barrow and Obama went down and campaigned for him?
If Obama DOESN’T succeed in deliverables, then all the fine nominations in the world won’t save his worthless ass.
That’s because he’s behaving like a moderate R. Most prior prezes, Rs in particular, at least pretend to be members of the party that they were elected on.
Health care reform is going to be a battle.
Health care reform is one of the keys to revitalizing the big three. I hope Obama doesn’t try to put it off, even though it will be a battle, as you say. He may put it off until he gets his first first down. The go long on health care.
Were you here for the FISA fight?
You might want read the OT comments of Mary in this emptywheel post. Here’s a linklink.
Dems have completely rolled over on torture.
I’m by nature a big tent guy, but we have to keep the possibility of a third party open, just for leverage.
I also think there’s nothing to be gained by “going easy” on Obama. I call it loyal dissent. We have to find ways to pressure Congress. That’s the only we can influence Presidential policy.
Yep–The Clintons fucked it up big time through naivete, arrogance, and poor political skills. Obama has the advantage of having seen that train wreck. To the extent that he can appear moderate while espousing a fairly radical plan, his chances will increase. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt at this point because I have been impressed with his political skill throughout the election
Agree.
Obama will have his best opportunity to get things done during the first six months in office. Health Care MUST be on the agenda during that period or it will never happen.
Hope OBAMA can pull it off- but when I see the state of california fighting about gay marriage as it goes down for the third time fiscally- I wonder if the human race is too stupid to be saved.
I didn’t say we should “go easy” on Obama. He is not in office yet. It matters what he does THEN. I have sent a number of e-mails to change.gov since he was elected. We are always talking about not using Republican talking points but that must have flown out the window re Obama.
I have no problem with anyone who wants to give Obama hell about his appointments, the color of his ties, or anything else. I’ll hold fire for six months or so.
agreed. big time.
this gives me an excuse to plug your most excellent diary: Obama Transition Health Care Community Discussions. and also include some background on how this is playing out from our prior discussion in ian’s thread, The Hacker Public Healthcare Report: Twisting Itself into Pretzels to Avoid “Medicare for All. (see especially comments 7, 16, 30 and 35)
now is our chance to influence what is meant to be a sham process.
Biden taking shit about gettin a puppy from a breeder rather than a pound- so now he’s gonna get a second dog- this time from the pound…
Glad I’m not a politician…ya really want to say “Look- I wanted a puppy of a certain breeding cause I want him to be show quality- go fuck yerselves”.
After the spike in food prices earlier this year, most farmers realized that ethanol was not going to part of the answer to our energy needs but, backpedaling, part of a transition to meeting them. Then oil prices tanked after speculators fled the market. Now ethanol producers are losing money on every gallon of ethanol they make, and either they are going out of business or new plants are not being built. So perceptions on ethanol are changing fast in corn country.
Apologies, didn’t mean to imply that you did.
I like the fact that FDL represents many different views.
One path to single payer is to have medicare pick up all claims in excess of- say $100,000. 90% of health care costs come from 10% of the patients. If the government picks up those cases and manages them aggressively financially- it would lower the cost of “health care insurance” dramatically- to the point where anyone could afford it. It would be the first big step to having the government take over the whole thing- the second step would be to offer a govt. plan as an alternative to private plans- as Obama seems to be considering.
Good. I play golf with a guy from Nebraska who owns a plant (or something) back there. He’s not enthused about his profits.
Then it won’t happen. Or to be more accurate something might get enacted but it won’t be much. Obama’s healthcare plan was lamer even than Clinton’s, and neither came close to single payer universal healthcare. So what we are most likely looking at is not the whole pie or even a piece of it but a piece of a piece of it.
I hope you are premature in the judgement- we’ll see.
Sorry, but I live in New Mexico and I have strong reservations about elation over Bill Richardson’s nomination for commerce. When a man gets his start in politics with Henry Kissinger, as Bill did in 1971 in the Nixon whitehouse, that legacy does not wear off. Mr. Richardson was executive officer of Kissinger/Associates in 2002, a + 30 year span with Mr. K. As governor, he has pushed much harder for nuke and coal than for renewables. More importantly, he’s pushed for the nuke/coal system of centrally controlled power, rather than a decentralized system which would support correctly scaled and deployed renewables along with energy independence. It’s that “independence” thing that the corporate boys object to and it’s the corporate boys who talk to Bill.
Well I’m basing my prediction partly on how much time and capital Obama will have to expend on healthcare given the economic problems the country is facing, the likely bitterness of the Republican opposition, the general tenor of his Cabinet choices, and, of course, his own plan.
If he packages the reform as an economic stimulus measure designed in part to make american companies more competitive, he may be able to put the issue front and center. If he concentrates on having the federal govt. take over the most expensive cases through medicare, he may buy off the insurance companies who hate those cases like the plague- and would certainly buy off the docs and the hospitals who could look forward to getting PAID for those cases- even with a medicare discount.
The production of ethanol steals the world’s food supply. It increases the price of everywhere.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t…..061354.ece
The US Military is already planning for resource wars over food and water. They are planning ahead for 30 to 40 more years of fighting in other people’s countries.
http://www.the-gates-of-hell.c…..urce-wars/
egregious is up
thanks to Howie
is there any evidence that this is the plan?
based on what been done so far (via HCAN, etc), what i see is a PR campaign aimed at us – to convince us to give up on signal payer – not to explain why a plan that is good for americans would be good for business.
I really have no idea what his game plan is- I’m just thinking of ways of approaching the issue that might work.
Polls show the public is in favor of Universal Care- but they wimp out after the first half million insurance company commercials.
The Clintons unleashed Monsanto on the world.
http://www.celsias.com/article…..wellesley/
OpEdNews has an article on Monsanto illustrating their accelerated efforts to gain control of the world’s seed supply.
http://www.opednews.com/articl…..15-45.html
i guess the way it looks to me so far (please note the “so far”) is that while there are ways universal health care (vs near universal access to insurance) could be approached (as your suggestion shows), i have yet to see obama move in that direction. indeed, i see millions of dollars being spent to undermine the grassroots organizing for single payer. that is bad news. very bad.
I haven’t given up on Obama—he has yet to serve one minute in office. If he does nothing, then he deserves what he gets but there’s no downside to giving him a chance….HIS plan has a public component which he wants to see compete with private plan–if that happens- it’s WAR
ah, i think this is an important disagreement. the way i see it is that there is a tremendous downside to a temporary disengagement to “give him a chance” – right now, today, the parameters of the health care debate are being formed by hundreds of meetings all over the country. the insurance companies are and have been engaged – if we take ourselves out of the process then we can be sure that our interests will not be represented.
i don’t expect obama to do it all on his own, there is no way one person can do that. if we don’t participate, if we sit back and hope obama will be our saviour do what needs to be done – then it will be our own damn fault when obama betrays our hopes.
i don’t want to wait and then condemn obama for fucking up. everyone loses that way. i want obama to succeed and i want us to have the best health care system we can get.
that’s my take anyway, ymmv.
I’m with you. I wasn’t an Obama (more of a Michelle fan) and was slow coming over. He’s not in office yet and I’m growing weary of folks freakin’ the fuck out.