U.S. President Obama: Sounding Good on Energy and the Environment

Here’s a headline from the syndicated news show “Democracy Now” along with a few comments:

The Obama administration is preparing to unveil what it calls a major initiative on tackling climate change. The White House says President Obama will soon announce the first limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing power plants. At his speech Wednesday in Berlin, President Obama pledged action on global warming.

President Obama: “The effort to slow climate change requires bold action. And on this, Germany and Europe have led. In the United States, we have recently doubled our renewable energy from clean sources like wind and solar power. We’re doubling fuel efficiency on our cars. Our dangerous carbon emissions have come down. But we know we have to do more. And we will do more.”

At a public event in Washington, the White House coordinator for energy and climate change, Heather Zichal, said Obama will impose the new emissions limits through Environmental Protection Agency authority under the Clean Air Act. The move would not require congressional approval, meaning Obama could bypass expected Republican-led opposition. Describing Obama’s approach to global warming, Zichal said: “He is serious about making it a second-term priority. He knows this is a legacy issue.”

Here are a few thoughts:

This sounds good, though it’s incompatible with Obama’s all-of-the-above, key-all-powerful-interests-happy approach.

I agree that a progressive energy policy would be a wonderful legacy, though it’s not at all clear that Obama is in the process of leading the U.S. in this direction.  For one, note that we don’t have an energy policy at all, and (I believe) we’re moments away from approving the Keystone XL Pipeline with its catastrophic ecological repercussions.

Speaking of legacy, it’s not clear to me that Obama is motivated by the concept of legacy; in fact, it’s not clear to me what his true motivations really are.  In particular, I don’t see how it’s possible that a man with such intelligence and apparent capacity for kindness and decency has been such a disaster for human rights, in the form of: Guantanamo Bay, unwarranted surveillance, robo-prosecution of whistleblowers, the National Defense Authorization Act, etc.

Having said all this, how quickly we forget that Obama received only 50.5% of the popular vote in 2012.  Had he lost (according to his opponents’ campaign promises at least), it’s very possible that we wouldn’t have an Environmental Protection Agency to be talking about here.