5 Climate Policy Priorities That Should Top President Obama's To-Do List
On the eve of President Barack Obama’s second inauguration in Jan. 2013, the Center for American Progress recommended 10 energy and environmental priorities for President Obama’s second term to build on his first-term clean energy successes. Now, one year later, with the annual State of the Union address coming up, we can assess the status of these recommendations and add five new actions that would further enhance our health and safety, grow our economy, and protect our air, water and climate.
A quick review of the past year reveals that President Obama has made important strides toward accomplishing most of our second-term priorities. His historic Climate Action Plan, announced in June, should achieve many of these goals if it is fully implemented and enforced.
Nations have so dragged their feet in battling climate change that the situation has grown critical and the risk of severe economic disruption is rising, according to a draft United Nations report. Another 15 years of failure to limit carbon emissions could make the problem virtually impossible to solve with current technologies, experts found.
Because of this urgency, Center for American Progress recommends that the Obama Administration promptly take the following steps in addition to completing the aforementioned tasks.
1. Establish an ambitious 2025/2030 national climate pollution reduction goal
In 2009, President Obama committed the U.S. to a 2020 climate pollution reduction goal of 17 percent below 2005 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions levels. The 2014 U.S. Climate Action Report determined that the Climate Action Plan has “the potential to bring emissions within the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels.”
The aforementioned U.N. report makes it clear that additional dramatic pollution reductions levels will be essential after 2020 to stave off the worst impacts of climate change. The administration should adopt an ambitious 2025/2030 national climate pollution reduction target within the context of a new international climate agreement to be finalized in 2015. The agreement should include significant new GHG reduction contributions from all of the major economies.
2. Extend wind, solar, and other renewable energy tax incentives through 2020
Federal tax incentives for wind power expired in 2013 and will expire for solar electricity in 2016. This creates market uncertainty for investors and leads to boom-bust investment cycles. A study by the Nuclear Energy Institute found that renewable electricity sources received only 9 percent of total federal support between 1950 and 2010, compared to 60 percent for the oil and gas industry. President Obama should urge Congress to extend these tax incentives for renewable technologies until 2020.
3. Permanently protect the Arctic Ocean from high-risk oil production
Shell and ConocoPhillips want to tap the Arctic Ocean’s subsea wealth by drilling for oil. However, this undeveloped area’s absence of coastal infrastructure, severe lack of oil spill response capacity—called “minimal at best” by the U.S. Coast Guard—and harsh climate make responsible oil production impossible. Despite $4.5 billion in preparations, Shell’s 2012 Arctic operations collapsed after a series of accidents and failures, showing that even world-class oil companies can be confounded by the unforgiving Arctic Ocean. The risk posed by offshore drilling there is simply incompatible with Northern Alaska’s ecosystem-dependent communities. Arctic oil should remain in the ground.
4. Keep American oil at home
The U.S. now produces more oil—and uses less—leading to a nearly one-third decrease in oil imports. This change makes us less vulnerable to price spikes caused by sudden foreign oil supply disruptions. The oil industry, however, would squander this newfound energy security and price stabilization by lifting the 1975 ban on crude oil exports. This step would enrich oil companies by enabling them to sell their oil at the higher world price but would increase oil imports, reducing our energy security. Removal of the Alaskan oil export ban in 1996 raised West Coast gasoline prices. President Obama should publicly oppose demands to allow the export of domestically produced oil.
5. Establish a carbon pollution reduction plan to guide the management and conservation of America’s public lands
Public lands and waters—including national parks and forests, rangeland and coastal areas—produce huge amounts of the fossil fuels responsible for climate change. But this fossil-fuel production is outpacing public lands’ ability to naturally store carbon pollution. A recent Center for American Progress analysis determined that these places are the source of 4.5 times more carbon pollution than they currently absorb.
To reduce this contribution to carbon pollution, the administration should develop a carbon reduction plan for public lands that would both decrease the carbon pollution generated by fossil fuels taken from public lands and increase the lands’ ability to naturally absorb it. The strategy could include establishing a clean resources standard for public lands, reducing methane and other emissions during fracking and other forms of resource extraction, and raising the minimum coal lease bid to account for some of the costs of carbon pollution. Moreover, protection and restoration of public lands would help them naturally absorb more carbon pollution.
If President Obama were to pursue these measures, we would achieve additional pollution reductions beyond those that will result from the complete implementation of the Climate Action Plan. These steps would also increase energy security, help maintain more stable gasoline prices and protect fragile places such as the Arctic Ocean from fossil-fuel pollution. Together, they would leave our health, climate, economy and environment far better off than when President Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
By Kenny Stancil
An expert panel of top international and environmental lawyers have begun working this month on a legal definition of "ecocide" with the goal of making mass ecological damage an enforceable international crime on par with war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
- Are the Amazon Fires a Crime Against Humanity? - EcoWatch ›
- 'Her Work Will Live On': Climate Movement Mourns Loss of Ecocide ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
After ongoing pressure from environmental groups and Indigenous communities, Bank of America has said it will not finance any oil and gas exploration in the Arctic, making it the last major U.S. financial institution to do so.
- Bank of America Sponsors Polluted Air and Chicago Marathon ... ›
- Youth Activists Hit the Streets to Protest Bank of America - EcoWatch ›
- Environmental and Economic Justice Communities Target Bank of ... ›
By Astrid Caldas
As we reach the official end of hurricane season, 2020 will be one for the record books. Looking back at these long, surprising, sometimes downright crazy past six months (seven if you count when the first named storms actually started forming), there are many noteworthy statistics and patterns that drive home the significance of this hurricane season, and the ways climate change may have contributed to it.
A summary infographic showing hurricane season probability and numbers of named storms predicted from NOAA's 2020 Atlantic Hurricane Season Outlook. NOAA
The updated 2020 Atlantic hurricane season probability and numbers of named storms. NOAA
- Tropical Storm Theta Is Record-Breaking 29th Storm of 2020 ... ›
- Hurricane Delta Breaks Record for Earliest 25th Named Storm ... ›
By Dana Drugmand
An unprecedented climate lawsuit brought by six Portuguese youths is to be fast-tracked at Europe's highest court, it was announced today.
The European Court of Human Rights said the case, which accuses 33 European nations of violating the applicants' right to life by disregarding the climate emergency, would be granted priority status due to the "importance and urgency of the issues raised."
‘Protect Our Future’<p>Cláudia Agostinho (21), Catarina Mota (20), Martim Agostinho (17), Sofia Oliveira (15), André Oliveira (12) and Mariana Agostinho (8) are <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/09/03/youth-climate-lawsuit-portugal-33-european-countries" target="_blank">bringing the case</a> with nonprofit law firm Global Legal Action Network (<span style="background-color: initial;">GLAN</span>), arguing that none of the countries have sufficiently ambitious targets to cut their emissions.</p><p>Portugal recently sweltered through its <a href="https://www.ipma.pt/pt/media/noticias/news.detail.jsp?f=/pt/media/noticias/textos/resumo-clima-julho-20.html" target="_blank">hottest July in 90 years</a> and has seen a rise in devastating heatwaves and wildfires over recent years due to rising temperatures. Four of the applicants live in Leiria, one of the regions worst-hit by the forest fires that killed more than 120 people in 2017. </p><p>Responding to the development, André Oliveira, 12, said: "It gives me lots of hope to know that the judges in the European Court of Human Rights recognise the urgency of our case." </p><p>"But what I'd like the most would be for European governments to immediately do what the scientists say is necessary to protect our future. Until they do this, we will keep on fighting with more determination than ever."</p>
‘Highly Significant'<p>The decision represents a "highly significant" step, <a href="https://www.glanlaw.org/about-us" target="_blank">GLAN</a> Director Dr. Gearóid Ó Cuinn said in a <a href="https://youth4climatejustice.org/" target="_blank">press release</a>.</p><p>"This is an appropriate response from the Court given the scale and imminence of the threat these young people face from the climate emergency," he added. </p><p>By suing the 33 countries all together, the youths aim to compel these national governments to act more aggressively on climate through a single court order, which would potentially be more effective than pursuing separate lawsuits or lobbying policymakers in each country.</p><p>If successful, the defendant countries would be legally bound not only to ramp up emissions cuts, but also to tackle overseas contributions to climate change including those of their multinational enterprises.</p>
‘Major Hurdle’<p>The <a href="https://youth4climatejustice.org/the-case/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">countries targeted</a> include all of the European Union member states as well as Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and the United Kingdom, none of which are currently aligned with <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement">Paris agreement</a> target to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) and pursue a limit of 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F).<a href="https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> </a></p><p><a href="https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Climate Action Tracker rates</a> most of Europe as "insufficient" in terms of its emissions reduction policies based on the Paris target, while Ukraine, Turkey and Russia are assessed as "critically insufficient" – meaning they are on track for a warming of 4 degrees C or higher.</p><p>The European Union has pledged to slash its emissions by <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eu-climate-action/2030_ctp_en" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">at least 55 percent by 2030</a>. But the Portuguese youth plaintiffs are calling for cuts of at least 65 percent by 2030, a level that <a href="http://www.caneurope.org/energy/climate-energy-targets" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">European climate campaigners say</a> is necessary to meet the 1.5 degrees warming limit.</p><p> The 33 countries must each respond to the youths' complaint by the end of February, before lawyers representing the plaintiffs will respond to the points of defense. </p><p>"Nothing less than a 65 percent reduction by 2030 will be enough for the EU member states to comply with their obligations to the youth-applicants and indeed countless others," Gerry Liston, legal officer with GLAN, said in a press release.</p><p>"These brave young people have cleared a major hurdle in their pursuit of a judgment which compels European governments to accelerate their climate mitigation efforts."</p><p><span></span><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/11/29/court-advances-landmark-youth-climate-lawsuit-against-33-european-nations" target="_blank">DeSmog</a>. </em></p>
Will concern over the climate crisis stop people from having children?
- 'BirthStrike' Movement Encourages People to Stop Having Children ... ›
- Should You Have Kids Despite Climate Change? - EcoWatch ›