Stop Global Warming

The Daily Climate: (Political) Appointments with Destiny Edition

by Emily Gertz

Published November 07, 2008 @ 10:41AM PST

Fevered guesswork abounds over who's on President-elect Obama's short list to head the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and other positions crucial to the nation's next steps in stopping or slowing global warming.  

[[Got pointers to more rumors, gossip, and innuendo on who's going to be who in the Obama administration?  Post them in the comments.]]

The next EPA administrator likely will be a key figure in U.S. global warming policy, as it's been reported that that the Obama administration will order the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions as a dangerous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act.  This is a move the Bush-Cheney White House has actively opposed and obstructed.

Politico says that Robert Kennedy Jr. -- long involved in enviro-advocacy -- is a strong contender. But his is not one of the "names most mentioned by officials at leading U.S. ecology groups," according to Bloomberg News. That list includes Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (deemed a "wild card choice" by Bloomberg's unnamed source), Mary Nichols of California's Air Resources Board, Kathleen McGinty, former secretary of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, and Ian Bowles of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.

And what the heck, here are  a couple more: Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute, and Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona (also tagged as a possible Attorney General choice).

Mr. Obama is said to be mulling the creation of an "Energy Security Council," a meta-level policy directorate that might handle cross-agency coordination of energy policy. The names of two Clinton administration figures have cropped up as its' potential leaders: John Podesta, lately president of the liberal think tank Center for American Progress (who, conversely, has told his CAP colleagues that he won't be taking a role in the new administration), and now heads the Obama transition team; and Carol Browner, an EPA administrator under Bill Clinton and also on the transition team.

While these and other inside-the-Beltway names being bandied about make policy geeks drool (or choke), they're probably more than a little obscure to most of the electorate. Not so Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governator of California, who's said to be a top contender for "energy czar" in the Obama-Biden White House.

[[Let's assume "energy czar" is a synonym for the cabinet post of Secretary of Energy, since the reporting makes a lot less sense otherwise.]]

The Governator took some partisan pot shots at Sen. Obama during the campaign, while stumping for Sen. John McCain. But his renewable energy policies are very close to the Obama platform; so is his call for an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.  He opposes offshore oil drilling, supports nuclear energy, and has helped make California a leader in taking concrete action on global warming.

Think you could make a difference at the EPA or the Department of Energy?  Go on: Apply for a job in the Obama administration at change.gov.

 

Image: "A late-season storm, Paloma developed as a tropical depression in the Caribbean Sea off the coast of Honduras and Nicaragua on November 5, 2008. By the end of the following day, the storm had become a Category 1 hurricane, with sustained winds of 120 kilometers per hour (75 miles per hour) and stronger gusts. The National Hurricane Center forecast that the storm would probably continue to intensify into a Category 3 storm as it moved northeast towards Cuba. The storm was forecast to reach Cuba on November 9."  Source: NASA Earth Observatory

Comments

  1. Anna V. Hutchinson

    Slate Magazine made what I think to be an excellent point regarding why Gov. Schwarzenegger should not be selected as "energy czar":

    "The supposed reason would be that Schwarzenegger is the rare Republican governor who's doing something serious about global warming. But if there's a shortage of Republican governors addressing climate change, can we really afford to remove one from state government? There's no shortage of Democrats who are at least as committed as Schwarzenegger to reducing greenhouse gases. Pick one of them." -http://slate.com/id/2203909/

    Posted by Anna V. Hutchinson on 11/07/2008 @ 10:59AM PST

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.
  2. Emily Gertz

    Thanks for linking that, Anna. Salon makes a good point. Admitting that I have not read the article yet, my thought here is that Secretary of Energy would be an easy bipartisan gimme for the new administration. If you are a politician or political operative who is genuinely committed to acting on global warming, chances are you support the same sorts of policies no matter which party you affiliate with. That is probably a lot less true for Secretary of Education, say, or Secretary of the Interior.

    Posted by Emily Gertz on 11/07/2008 @ 11:05AM PST

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.
  3. John Jauregui

    This election saw most Global Warming initiatives fail, for good reason. The principle reason is that most consumers, farmers, ranchers and foresters understand two things. First, global warming is good, not bad. Second, carbon in general and carbon dioxide in particular is good, not bad. Higher average temperatures together with higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduce crop failures and improve crop, grazing and forest production. Those two factors are the principal forces greening the planet and feeding all of us today. Liberal and eco-cults want to torpedo that winning combination. Why? Perhaps readers have some ideas here.

    Posted by John Jauregui on 11/07/2008 @ 11:11AM PST

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.
  4. Emily Gertz

    John, I'm not going to answer your points, and here's why.

    First, they are not relevant to the topic of this post.

    Next, I've seen close to these same exact words posted on other blogs. This leads me to suspect that:
    a) You have copious free time (or paid time) to visit environmental blogs and post the same screed over and over;
    b) Rather than being your own independently expressed idea, this is a talking point supplied by an organization that wishes to dissipate people's interest in stopping global warming with pointless debates.
    c) All of the above.

    All in all, chances are very high that you're simply here to troll for a fight. I encourage other readers of this blog to ignore this comment, and will note that generally, I will kill troll posts on this blog.

    Posted by Emily Gertz on 11/07/2008 @ 02:37PM PST

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.
  5. Bill Johnston

    So Emily, let me get this straight, since global warming is a forgone conclusion, not actually supported by irrefutable evidence, then debate is out of the question. Am I correct? Some scientist believe it's even irreversable and we may best just accept it and make the best of it, as John submits.

    Posted by Bill Johnston on 11/08/2008 @ 08:04AM PST

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.
  6. Emily Gertz

    Constructive and open minded discussion of reality is in the question. Trolling for arguments is not. Which of the potential appointments to posts in the Obama administration would you like to discuss?

    Posted by Emily Gertz on 11/08/2008 @ 08:16AM PST

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.
  7. Bill Johnston

    I'm not "trolling for arguments," I'd just like to know which Obama appointment would have the intestinal fortitude to admit there is no real problem & that all the efforts to limit greenhouse gasses, especially CO2, is futile, overly destructive to our way of life & totally useless.

    Posted by Bill Johnston on 11/08/2008 @ 08:50AM PST

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.
  8. Anna V. Hutchinson

    Mmm, trolls...if only they would take the time to learn about the things which they presume to discuss!

    Posted by Anna V. Hutchinson on 11/09/2008 @ 09:24PM PST

    • Report close

      You must be signed in to report content.

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

Check Spelling

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Subscribe to RSS Feed

Emily Gertz Emily Gertz
New York, NY

Emily is a journalist and editor covering the environment and science, and has been working in online news, community and content since 1994.

Related Blog Posts

close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action.
If you already have an account click here.