Join
Search

Dear Mr. President: UCS Letter Outlines Concrete Steps Obama Can Take to Address Climate Change

Bookmark and Share

Union of Concerned Scientists Board Chair Jim McCarthy and I sent a letter to President Obama to applaud his commitment to address the threat of climate change in his second term and to propose a number of concrete ways he can do so.

Echoing the President’s own understanding of the robustness of the body of climate science, we said that “continued high emissions will lock in increasingly dangerous and irreversible changes in climate for future generations.”

We stressed that we now have a renewed window for action, emphasizing that “public understanding of the urgent need to adopt measures that reduce the risk of disruptive future climate has shifted significantly in the past few years, creating a more favorable environment within which to win support for far reaching climate policies.”

The full text of the letter highlights what our UCS team believes are the highest priority measures the President can take in the next year or two.

(In our letter, we primarily focused on climate change, clean energy, and science leadership – not because other areas that UCS works on, like reducing the threat of nuclear weapons or moving toward sustainable agricultural practices, aren’t important, but because we thought it important to prioritize our “asks.”)

Wanted: Scientists and engineers in the cabinet, White House

One of those asks was that he build on his first term success of appointing highly capable scientists and engineers to key cabinet and other senior posts.

What some dubbed the “dream green team” was more accurately a dream science team, with Nobel laureate Stephen Chu, a physicist, as Secretary of Energy; Jane Lubchenco, with degrees in biology, zoology, and ecology, as Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; John Holdren, with degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics, as the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; and Lisa Jackson, a chemical engineer, as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Chu, Lubchenco, and Jackson have departed or shortly will depart the Administration, and the President appeared to be heeding our call when he named his new nominees for Secretary of Energy and the EPA, Ernie Moniz and Gina McCarthy, last Monday. (No successor to Lubchenco has been named yet.)

Of course being a scientist doesn’t guarantee a strong leader and manager of these large federal operations. The ideal combination is scientific expertise (or, at minimum, understanding how to access and rely upon it), leadership and management skills, policy knowledge and savvy, and commitment to public service.

A seasoned, versatile physicist

Like Secretary Chu, Dr. Moniz is a seasoned and well regarded physicist – at one point chairing the Department of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and at another serving as director of the Bates Linear Accelerator Center.

And also like his predecessor, he has immersed himself over his career in understanding energy technology and policy, leading, for example, a series of studies on the future of nuclear power, coal, nuclear fuel cycles, natural gas, and solar energy in a low-carbon world.

Dr. Moniz has considerable experience managing federal government agencies, having served as Under Secretary of the Department of Energy from 1997-2001 and as Associate Director for Science of the Office of Science and Technology Policy from 1995-97.

He is also knowledgeable about nuclear weapons issues – a high priority at DOE — and is equipped to make the case that the President can achieve his goal of increasing US security by further reducing the size of our nuclear arsenal. In his former DOE role, he led a comprehensive review of the nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship program.

The nominee has attracted some concern from some in the environmental community because of his support for nuclear energy and natural gas, even as his views appear to be consistent with the President’s call for an “all of the above” energy strategy. It will be important for him to work with the science and environmental communities and industry to address the climate change and safety issues associated with those energy sources.

A science-based decider

Ms. McCarthy, with the benefit of a Master of Science in Environmental Health Engineering from Tufts University and tours of duty as a top environmental protection official for Republican governors in Massachusetts and Connecticut and her current role as Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, has consistently, in my observation, grounded her decisions in the best available science.

In fact, as I told the Washington Post last week, “What she’s tough about is the science-based standard. She’s very pragmatic about how you get there.”

She was instrumental, in President Obama’s first term, in fashioning the strong greenhouse gas emission standards that will nearly double the fuel economy of the American vehicle fleet by 2025 – standards that were widely endorsed by auto manufacturing companies, in part because of their attention to practical considerations. Similarly, the air toxics rule that she stewarded had strong science-based reduction targets and also flexibility for industry to help them achieve them.

These two nominees are in the spirit of the President’s first-term science appointments, and are a compelling signal that he intends to advance national action on climate change over the next four years. Our letter of February 21 has useful guidance for his new team on ways to make significant progress.

Posted in: Energy, Global Warming Tags: , , , ,

About the author: Kevin Knobloch has more than 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He is knowledgeable about a number of environmental and national security issues, including climate change, nuclear weapons, natural resource economics, clean energy, and efficient vehicle policy and legislative strategy. He holds a master’s degree in public administration, with a focus on economics. Subscribe to Kevin's posts

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Comments are closed. Comments are automatically closed after two weeks.

5 Responses

  1. Richard Solomon says:

    Thanks for letting UCS’s members know of the letter you sent to the President a few weeks ago. It offers a clear and comprehensive perspective of the broad array of issues that he must try to face in his second term of office.

    Thanks, too, for your summary of the qualifications which the President’s two recent nomination for the Department of Energy and the EPA possess. It is reassuring to know that they have many talents and much experience which they can apply to their work in the coming months.

    I have two suggestions. First, that UCS come out with a stronger statement in opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline. The report recently published by the State Department which gives clearance to this pipeline is clearly flawed, if not biased in favor of the oil and pipeline companies invested in this project. This is not surprising given that the contracting company which did the report is also on the payroll of oil companies, etc. This fact, however, has not been noted in articles by the general media, such as the NY Times.

    Second, that UCS also send out a petition opposing the pipeline for its members to sign and send in to the President and their Senators and Representative in Congress. Members could benefit from help in determining how to try to head off this potential disaster.

    Thank you for your continuing good work on an array of issues.

    • Scott says:

      Well said Richard! Why hasn’t UCS responded on the State Department’s report? Tar Sands are a carbon bomb, do Americans really want to light that fuse? UCS’s silence on the KXL, The Cherry Point Coal Port in Washington State, Mountain Top Removal in Appalacia and Ocean Acidification is disappointing. Even continued use of the very benign phrase, “Climate Change”, is nothing more then a red-herring. The issues are Anthropogenic Global Warming, Ocean Acidification and the Anthropocene Extinction do to the collapse of the Holocene Biosphere, will we hear from UCS on any of humanity’s most pressing problems? We can only hope!

    • Kevin Knobloch says:

      Richard,

      Thank you for your comment. UCS is working on multiple fronts to avoid even more severe climate change. When it comes to the problems of America’s oil use, the best solution is to use a lot less. Our Half the Oil plan lays out a clear path that would allow us to cut our projected oil consumption in half in 20 years. As part of that we’ve helped deliver the biggest cut to oil use and global warming emissions the US has by pushing forward strong vehicle fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas standards. We’re also pushing to boost fuel economy in commercial trucks, to cut the carbon content of transportation fuels, and accelerate the market for electric cars and low-carbon biofuels. In addition, we’re fighting attempts to weaken state renewable electricity and energy efficiency standards and pushing to strengthen the standards around the country. We’re pushing for rules that limit carbon emissions from new and existing power plants. We’re also working with local stakeholders to show local and federally elected officials that their constituents need them to do everything they can to both address climate change and help communities adapt to it.

      We are making progress on using less oil, but we need to do even more, with the support of our members and partners across the country, to focus the national conversation on solutions to use less oil even as we fight against increased exploitation of tarsands and other dirty fuels.

      If it takes a community to raise a child, it certainly takes a community to protect our children’s future. And we’re working alongside many esteemed groups in this endeavor. 350.org, the Sierra Club and others are doing an excellent job leading the keystone battle, so much so that our chair signed on to a recent letter signed by leading scientists opposing the pipeline (http://www.350.org/scientists-call-president-reject-keystone-xl-pipeline). Our president and Board Chair also recently sent a letter to President Obama calling for the rejection of the Keystone Pipeline as part of a comprehensive strategy to cut oil use and fight climate change (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/UCS-Letter-to-President-Obama_February-21-2013.pdf).

      At the end of the day, we have to play to our strengths and be as effective as we can be with the resource we have. We will continue to support community efforts to stop KXL where we can. We will simultaneously and vigorously continue working on the fronts we’re fighting.

  2. Scott says:

    Our current CO2 problem

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=MLO&program=ccgg&type=ts

    Review of the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Plan (2013)

    http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Review-Federal-Ocean-Acidification/17018#.UT4IiHHGDfs.facebook

    The only thing I see is more greenwashing. So applaud all you want UCS, I however, will not!

  3. Scott says:

    Other then executive orders for reports and the above mentioned appointments, what did President Obama do in his first term that is currently reducing our carbon footprint? What is the president doing to protect our biosphere?