The debt ceiling debacle of the last few weeks has overshadowed several key energy/climate policy moves by the Obama administration. Taken together, they illustrate Obama's incremental approach to fossil fuels: maddening to those who believe stronger action is required, vulnerable to political pressure yet wholly independent of Congress.
Below the fold, good news and bad news for climate hawks.
On the one hand, the Interior Department granted permits to Shell to drill off Alaska's coast. If Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar is to be believed, President Obama himself wants to explore Arctic offshore oil: Salazar says "the president's feeling toward Arctic offshore drilling is 'Let's take a look at what's up there and see what it is we can develop.'" On this, Obama is far to the right of not only environmental groups but also the mainstream Los Angeles Times, which warns that oil and the Arctic don't mix.
On the other hand, the Environmental Protection Agency released the first-ever fuel efficiency standards for heavy-duty trucks. Heavy duty trucks are disproportionate polluters; they make up 4% of traffic but use 20% of oil and emit 20% of the transport sector's greenhouse gases.
And although Business Insider laments the fact that dozens of coal factories will be forced to shut down in response to EPA regulations, climate hawks cheer the same news. In a little-noticed order, the EPA has ordered the Navajo coal plant, one of the country's dirtiest and worst, to clean up within five years.
Back to the one hand, the EPA is asking for yet another delay on ozone standards. Affected industries have been frantically lobbying the White House, and I hear through the rumor mill (nothing linkable) that the delay is caused by rewriting of the rules to ensure maximum flexibility for businesses who exaggerate costs of meeting Clean Air Act standards.
And back to the other hand, the Obama administration has taken on a large role in developing advanced battery technology, so much that Michael Grunwald at Time magazine tells environmentalists to stop whining about what Obama hasn't said, and look at what he's done:
I can see why the White House’s failure to mention the climate crisis would be annoying to people who spend their days trying to raise awareness about it. But would you rather have a President who talks about climate change, or a President who does something about it?
The good news for political people: Obama seems to have realized, in this policy area if not others, that he doesn't need Congress. His energy policy is likely to be 100% Congress-free, and that can only improve it.
The bad news for policy people: Obama probably isn't doing enough. Rules on trucks are good, but I haven't seen any science claiming that nibbling around the edges of what the EPA can do will be sufficient to halt our rising levels of carbon dioxide. He's pushing renewables as a solution to carbon demand. However, any steps the Obama administration has taken to reduce carbon supply (and I'm not sure there are any beyond EPA regulations) have been offset by steps taken to increase carbon supply, such as the massive expansion of coal leases in Wyoming's Powder River Basin.
And the upcoming decision on the Keystone XL pipeline hangs over Obama's head like a sword of Damocles. Will he be remembered as the James Buchanan of climate change or the man who who was President when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal?