Advanced Search

Please click here to take a brief survey

President Obama’s Big Climate Challenge
Bill McKibben, 10 Nov 08
US Senator Barack Obama campaigning in New Ham...

Image credit: Wikipedia

As he assumes the presidency, Barack Obama must make climate-change legislation and investment in green energy top priorities. And he must be ready to take bold — and politically unpopular — action to address global warming.

And so our eight-year interlude from reality draws to a close, and the job of cleaning up begins. The trouble is, we’re not just cleaning up after a failed presidency. We’re cleaning up after a two-century binge.

Barack Obama has won an historic victory, and with it the right to take office under the most difficult circumstances since Franklin D. Roosevelt. Maybe more difficult, because while both FDR and Obama had financial meltdowns to deal with, Obama also faces the meltdown meltdown — the rapid disintegration of the planet's climate system that threatens to challenge the very foundations of our civilization.

Do you think that sounds melodramatic? Let me give it to you from the abstract of a scientific paper written earlier this year by one of the people who now works for Mr. Obama, NASA scientist James Hansen: "If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleo-climate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 [in the atmosphere] will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm [parts per million] to at most 350 ppm." In other words, if we keep increasing carbon any longer, the earth itself will make our efforts moot.

Hansen's calculation is a scientifically grounded way of saying: Everything must change at once. To meet his target, before enough feedback loops kick in to irrevocably warm the planet, Hansen says fossil-fuel combustion, particularly coal, must cease around the planet by about 2030, and that it must happen sooner in the industrialized nations. As the climate observer, and tireless blogger, Joe Romm observed when Hansen's paper was published, it means that "we need to go straight to the government-led WWII-style effort for the whole planet that is sustained for decades." (Well, back to FDR, what do you know.).

Anyway, here are some of the pieces of what Obama must push for:

* Massive government investment in green energy. For this to have any hope of being politically viable, it will need to be seen as the single huge stimulus effort that might lift us out of our financial swamp. (That's almost certainly true, by the way — name another emergent technology capable of re-floating the economy for the long run). We have at least some of the technologies we'd need — wind, the newly promising desert solar arrays, and the ever-useful insulation (the installation of which would at least create a lot of jobs — you're not going to send your house to China for a layer of fiberglass). You might also push for nuclear, but it takes a long time and it's probably too expensive to make a rational list. Still, no holds barred.

* A stiff cap on carbon, which will help drive the process. Again, to have any chance of passing politically, it will need to come with the feature proposed in recent years by Peter Barnes, and that Obama has semi-endorsed: a "cap and share" approach that would return the revenue raised directly to consumers. That is, Exxon would pay for the permit to pour carbon into the atmosphere, a cost that would rise steadily as the cap was lowered. But instead of the money going into government coffers, every American would get a check each year for their share of the proceeds. They'd be made whole against the rising cost of energy, while the shock that the price signal would send would be preserved. Current versions of cap-and-trade are too weak and too riddled with loopholes — getting a clean, tough bill through Congress needs to be a preoccupation of President Obama.

* Once the president has done all that tough stuff at home, he'll need to do it all over again, globally. The world is meeting in Copenhagen in December of 2009 to come up with a successor to the Kyoto treaty, the modest first international effort that George W. Bush walked away from weeks after taking office. If Hansen and others are even close to right, this will represent the last legitimate shot the world has at putting itself on a new carbon regime in time to make any difference.

It will be incredibly difficult, mostly because we begin from such unequal places. China has lots of coal and it would like to burn it, because it's the cheapest way to pull rural Chinese out of dire poverty (something the country's leaders would quite like to do because otherwise they won't be the country's leaders much longer). If we want them to use, say, windmills instead, we're going to need to “share some wealth,” north to south, to make it happen. The Chinese opened the bidding last week, with a suggestion that one percent of the U.S. annual GDP would be a good amount to send their way. That's going to be quite a political ask — it means that Americans would be working roughly one hour every two weeks just to help the global South build up their clean alternatives. What we're talking about is a carbon version of the Marshall Plan, and it would mean Obama needs to be not just FDR but Truman and Ike as well.

What it all boils down to is: The bills are coming due. And not just, or even mainly, the bills from a failed Bush presidency, but the bills from 200 years of burning fossil fuel. Twenty years ago when we started worrying about global warming, we thought we'd have a generation to pay those bills off. But we were wrong — the planet was more finely balanced than we'd realized. The melting Arctic is the call from the repo man.

Any hope of succeeding will require Obama to grasp, deep in his guts, the fact that climate, energy, food, and the economy are now hopelessly intertwined, and that trying to solve any one of these problems without taking on the others simply makes all of them worse. More, he needs to understand, again viscerally, the single stark fact of our time: No matter how many votes, no matter how much lobbying, no matter how much pressure you apply, you can't amend the laws of physics and chemistry. They aren't like the laws that politicians are used to dealing with. They will be obeyed, like it or not. 350 is now the most important number on the planet, the red line that defines reality reality.

It doesn't define political reality, however. The political reality goes like this: George W. Bush was so terrible on this issue that the bar has been set incredibly low — Obama will get all the political points he needs with fairly minimal effort. Doing what actually needs to be done will be politically…unpopular isn't even the word. It might well wreck his political future, because it would involve — directly or indirectly — raising the cost of continuing to live as we do right now.

My guess, from the outside, is that all Obama's instincts are centrist. Certainly in energy policy he's offered nothing all that bold or interesting, though his sophistication and engagement have grown during the campaign, which is a good sign.

A better sign is simply that, by every testimony, he's one of the smartest men ever to assume high political office in this country. Not just smarter than Bush. Really smart. Smart enough, if he sits down to really understand the scale of the problem he faces, that he might decide to take the gambles that the situation requires. He said, not long ago, "under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" — which is a sign of someone who is aware there may be a reality to come to grips with.

First signs to watch for: Does he go to Poland next month for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, and in so doing electrify the international talks over carbon? Are people like green-jobs advocate Van Jones on the short list of those he's listening to on energy policy? Can he see clear to making this — after dealing with the short-term financial emergency — his first legislative priority, even before health care?

Obama, and the rest of us, have a lot more to fear than fear itself. We've got carbon, and right now that's the most frightening stuff on earth.

Please visit Worldchanging's Inaugurate Change campaign to add your name to this letter that will urge Obama's administration to deliver a vital message about climate change in his very first speech as President.

Bill McKibben is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College, an author and a founder of This piece originally appeared on Yale Environment 360, a publication of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.

Bookmark and Share


Dear Bill Mc and the Worldchanging staff,

This thread is a wonderfully timely and perspicacious idea. Thanks for all you are doing to protect biodiversity from mass extinction, to preserve Earth's body from wanton dissipation, to halt relentless degradation of the environment and, with a bit of luck and a great deal of work, to save the family of humanity from reckless endangerment as well as to spare the human species from an even worse threat.

Make no mistake, the World Changing is making a positive difference. Blogging is changing the world. Even though the 'talking heads' in the mainstream media, the ones who are owned by economic powerbrokers and their bought-and-paid-for politicians, wish all of us would go away, we need to keep going.

After all, a new day is dawning.

Sincerely yours,


Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001

Posted by: Steven Earl Salmony on 11 Nov 08

With a suitable cap and trade system – entrepreneurs like myself can get to work.

We need the carbon leverage™ to bring large polluters to the negotiation table. When the economics don’t pencil out, why invest in alternative energy projects? We need carbon leverage™.

We have 20,000 sq. ft. of manufacturing space in New York State with equipment on site waiting for investment capital to launch two pilot projects to reduce carbon in coal firing operations. You’d think we have the money – nada.

Before – we give away billion of dollars to Vin Jones for training, let’s create the markets for those workers to find jobs.

The renewable energy industry is being stolen from entrepreneurs by the same big corporation that have been high-jacking our other energy assets.

We spend weeks in Pennsylivian talking with land owners about Uncle T Boone Pickens and his crew of Land Man. How come - one land owners gets $50.00 per acre for a 10 year lease and his neighbor $2,500. T Boone and his pals have sent well dressed thugs in to the Penn Hills to secure land. Those land owner need Change!

The local townships will get next to zero new employment and zero training, plus zero help with energy pricing. They will get new sprawl to feed out state workers that will create some low paying jobs. How did T Boone Pickens, control the debate and become everybody’s Uncle or Granddaddy at the same time.

It’s truly unbelievable to attend the largest biofuels seminars in New York State for the past 4 years and see speakers from the largest universities and corporation all have complete opposite opinions, all working in different directions, two exceptions – Dr. Cross at Morrisville College, entrepreneur and visionary and Cornell’s Larry Walker, bright cookie. New York State needs Change!

Add a name to Obama’s team on biofuels research, Larry Walker at Cornell University.

Tax the polluters – give the incentives to the Entrepreneurs, create jobs rebuild American.

Posted by: Brewse on 11 Nov 08

Reality regarding both the global and domestic energy situation is starting to set in. A recently released national poll of U.S. opinion leaders by RT Strategies indicates very strong support for coal. The findings include:

· 72% support the use of coal to generate electricity while only 22% oppose
· 69% say coal is a fuel of the future
· 82% believe we need to rely more on American coal for our energy needs
· 80% say American coal can help lead us to energy independence
· By a three-to-one margin over the next priority, the number-one energy initiative for the next president is reducing dependence on foreign oil

Coal's favorability represents a significant increase over the past year and the highest level of support since polling began almost 10 years ago.

Coal is already America's greatest energy resource and supplies half of our electricity. But we need to do more to use clean coal to deliver energy security and environmental solutions. Coal can also be converted to liquid fuels and natural gas using established technologies.

Clean coal means new, efficient coal-fueled power plants with hundreds of millions of dollars of environmental technologies, like the Prairie State Energy Campus in Southern Illinois which has a 15% lower CO2 footprint than existing plants. And clean coal can also turn the vision of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) into reality as we solve the technology and regulatory hurdles to let America capture and store CO2.

President -elect Obama's “New Energy for America” plan explicitly states that his administration will “develop and deploy clean coal technology ... as we power our economy with domestically produced and secure energy”. That fits right in with the growing public recognition that clean coal can power our future.

Posted by: Jude C on 12 Nov 08

We can all contribute to cleaning up the environment if we would move from gas combustion engines to electric vehicles.

This is great, Electric Vehicle advocates need to check this out.

First legitimate electric car coming to the market.
Safe, reliable and affordable.


Video-You Tube:

BeGreen Advocate

Posted by: BeGreen on 14 Nov 08



MESSAGE (optional):

Search Worldchanging

Worldchanging Newsletter Get good news for a change —
Click here to sign up!


Website Design by Eben Design | Logo Design by Egg Hosting | Hosted by Amazon AWS | Problems with the site? Send email to tech /at/
Architecture for Humanity - all rights reserved except where otherwise indicated.

Find_us_on_facebook_badge.gif twitter-logo.jpg