Under the Bush administration, greenhouse-gas emission legislation was considered excessive regulation that could prove harmful to U.S. businesses. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under Bush, denied a request under the Clean Air Act to establish tail-pipe emission standards – claiming that such regulations were not within their authority. In Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court scolded the Bush EPA for providing what seemed a “laundry list of reasons not to regulate” greenhouse emissions rather than basing their arguments on science. However, following his first 100 days in office as the President of the United States, Barack Obama’s policies have proven to be in stark contrast to those of George W. Bush. Within his first week in office, Obama announced the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, reversed aid restriction policies for organizations that provide abortions, limited lobbyist influence within the administration, and held an interview with al-Arabiya where Obama offered a hand of friendship to Muslims and demonstrated his desire to work diplomatically with the Middle East. Now fourteen weeks in, Obama’s sharp departure from his predecessor continues – including the appearance of a notable shift in the United States’ stance on climate change.

Marking Obama’s first 100 days in office, the following is a summary of United States climate change policy under the direction of the Obama administration:

Days 1-25 (Jan 20-Feb 13): In an effort to reverse former President Bush’s policy on climate change and take the United States in a new, greener, direction, Obama follows up on the request under the Clean Air Act. Only one week into office, Obama asks the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its ruling and review whether states should be allowed to set more stringent emission standards than is currently federally mandated. Additionally, Obama directs American automakers to develop more fuel efficient cars and trucks for models with release dates starting in 2011.

Days 26-50 (Feb 14-Mar 10): Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act totaling nearly $800 billion. Included within this massive bill are substantial investments in clean and renewable energy, infrastructure, and scientific research including $7.22 billion for programs administered by the EPA. The administration’s states that their rationale for the funding was not only to help in the economic recovery in the United States but also to increase the number of green jobs, promote technological innovation, reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil and ensure a healthier environment. In addition, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visits China and invites China to join the U.S. in curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

Days 51-75 (Mar 11-April 4): On March 23rd, Obama announces to the White House that $129 billion of his $3 trillion budget proposal for the year is allocated for environmental plans – such as renewable energy, solar power and hybrid cars – and is off limits to bartering by Congress. This pledge by Obama comes as the EPA makes another large announcement: following years of resistance under the Bush administration, the EPA tells the White House that global warming is, in fact, a danger to public health. On March 31st, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, along with the Environment Sub-Committee, announce the draft of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009″. This draft is potentially a landmark step toward ushering in a clean energy economy through carbon emission tracking and regulation by the United States. A few days later, Obama attends the G20 Summit in London where he holds a bilateral meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Obama and Singh touch on the issue of “energy and how important it is for the United States to lead by example in reducing our carbon footprint so that we can help to forge agreements with countries like China and India…for our efforts to control climate change.”

Days 76-100 (April 5-29): On April 17th, the EPA makes their announcement official: scientific studies show that CO2 and other greenhouse gases “endanger” the health and well-being of humans. The formal recognition by the EPA marks an important step under the Clean Air Act toward the establishment of national emission standards for large emitters. A week later, in recognition of Earth Day on April 22nd, Obama signs a proclamation which affirms the importance of protecting the environment and addressing global warming. In addition, amidst Earth Day celebrations, the House Energy and Commerce Committee spend the week holding hearings on the draft of legislation of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009“. These hearings include testimonies by over 60 witnesses including Energy Secretary Steven Chu, former Vice President and Nobel laureate Al Gore, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and representatives from manufacturing, energy, and environmental groups. Negotiations continue and the bill will likely go before the House of Representatives by Memorial Day on May 25th.

It has only been 100 days into President Barack Obama’s administration and, so far, the United States has made great strides toward greening America’s image. The next 100 days may prove more difficult, however, as details of the “American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009″ are worked out between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Furthermore, announcements and gestures are more easily accomplished than finding funding or implementing projects, particularly when unexpected bailouts or emergencies such as Swine Flu arise. Therefore, it is important to look beyond the first 100 days of a presidency to determine the true direction of a policy. While the success of the new policies are yet to be determined, if there is anything certain from observing the first 100 days of Obama’s term in office it is that Barack Obama is definitely not anything like George W. Bush.

Rendering of US city under water – by TERRA-Dreams (SoftPIX_Techie)

According to a recent Gallup Poll, an increasing number of Americans believe that the threat of global warming is exaggerated. In the 2009 poll, Gallup surveyed 1012 adults by fixed and mobile phone. The results found that forty-one percent of Americans doubted the severity of global warming as reported by the mainstream media. In addition, the environmental poll found a record-breaking 16 percent of Americans reported that they believed the effects of global warming will never occur.

Gallup Analyst Lydia Saad comments that, “Americans generally believe global warming is real (but) most Americans do not view the issue in the same dire terms as the many prominent leaders advancing global warming as an issue.”

Americans ranked global warming last out of eight environmental issues to be concerned about in the poll. Of highest concern to Americans surveyed was the pollution of drinking water – pulling in 84 percent of the votes. While Americans tend to believe that global warming is real, only 34% surveyed felt that they worry “a great deal” about the issue.

The annual environmental poll shows this drop in public concern across several measures. Global warming not only ranks last among the percentage of Americans concerned either a “great deal” or a “fair amount”, global warming is the only issue to have seen a significant decrease in public concern over the past year.

What could have caused such an increase in global warming doubters?

Global warming has received a great deal of attention this past decade due to debates regarding the Kyoto Protocol and former Vice President Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. However, in this past year, the global warming message may have lost some of its ground with Americans. Given the economic downturn, it is possible that some of the public concern for global warming has turned toward pressing economic issues. Additionally, other factors may also be contributing to the dampening of the global warming message.

The recent elections in the United States could have had some effect on issue. The number of Republicans to believe that global warming media coverage is exaggerated has continuously increased since 1997. However, the 2009 environmental poll also reveals an increase in independent voters agreeing with the Republicans doubters.

Heightened politicization of issues leading up to the elections – including the concern over global warming – may have altered American beliefs on the subject. Additionally, an abundant number of debates over drilling in Alaska, renewable energy and the necessity for climate change legislation may have increased public fatigue over topics related to global warming. Therefore, next year’s survey will be of further importance to determine whether the increased number of global warming doubters in America is a reaction to unique circumstances or a trend that will continue into the future.

EPA building with Washington Monument in the background

On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first ever comprehensive system for reporting greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. In a press release issued yesterday, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson states that with the new reporting measures proposed “we will have comprehensive and accurate data about the production of greenhouse gases. This is a critical step toward helping us better protect our health and environment – all without placing an onerous burden on our nation’s small businesses.”

Much of the reporting requirements used in the development of the proposal are already underway in several states, regions and through various reporting programs. The EPA’s proposal applies reporting requirements to fossil fuel and industrial chemical suppliers, certain manufacturers, and large direct greenhouse gas emitters whose emissions are equal to or greater than 25,000 metric tons per year. Most small businesses fall below this threshold and would not be required to report their emissions under the proposed rule.

This means that, if the proposed rule is enacted, 13,000 facilities across the United States will be required to report their greenhouse gas emissions. Industries affected include manufacturers of oil, cement, chemicals, iron and steel, automobiles, and many others. The proposed rule covers about 85-90 percent of greenhouse gas emissions originating in the United States.

The initial cost to the private sector to comply with reporting requirements is estimated at $160 million in its first year, with subsequent years dropping to $127 million annually. If on schedule, the proposed reporting is set to begin in 2011 after the monitoring of 2010 emissions. Vehicle and engine manufacturers will begin reporting for model year 2011.

The proposed rule comes under the heading of the Clean Air Act and is in accordance with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 signed into law in December 2007. The proposal was originally expected to come out last September. While this measure is a first of its kind for the United States, greenhouse gas emissions reporting is already underway in other countries. In Australia, for example, the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 was passed in September 2007 requiring mandatory reporting of corporate greenhouse gas emissions as well as energy production and consumption.

While delayed in its release, the timing of this announcement by the EPA might be significant in that it underscores the environmental consciousness of the new administration. Despite its expected debut during Bush’s term in office, the Obama administration has managed to finally kick emissions regulation into gear and put the United States on track for a greener future.

Low water levels at Folsom Lake, California. Image by planetlight.

On Friday, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced a state of emergency due to severe drought conditions hitting the state of California. The drought is causing a huge strain on already bleak economic conditions for the state. The below-average rainfall and dry winters over the past three years could cost an estimated 95,000 jobs and $3 billion for California. The main source of irrigation water for the state will likely go dry this year for most farmers. Consequently, Schwarzenegger is calling for an immediate reduction in water usage by businesses and individuals with a possible mandated reduction within the month.

The drought has largely affected the Central Valley, a fertile region responsible for the production of over half of U.S. grown vegetables, fruit and nuts. The Central Valley region is at the heartland of California agriculture with state production valued at more than $36 billion a year. The conditions have forced local communities in California to draw on their reserves, creating an even further risk for catastrophe.

The state has already taken a hard hit during these tough economic times including severe budget short falls and unemployment reaching well above the national average at 9%. This drought has lasted three years already and conditions are unlikely to get better any time soon.

It is uncertain at this time how the economic and environmental crises in California will affect Schwarzenegger’s environmental initiatives. However, a tightening of any government spending without federal relief seems highly probable.

Following President Obama’s request to the EPA to reconsider whether states should be allowed to set stricter tailpipe emissions than set by the U.S. government, the New York Times speculated that Obama’s action signaled a move toward broadening the role of states. The Times argued that the new administration is supportive of “progressive federalism”, a movement made by state governors and attorneys general to enact, among other things, tougher laws on consumer protection and environmental initiatives than provided within the federal framework. If we are headed toward a new movement in progressive federalism, will we then see an influx of state-led environmental initiatives? And, if not, what role will the state’s initiatives play in Obama’s agenda?

The possibility for an influx in state-led initiatives exists and the presidential honeymoon period seems an ideal time for governors and attorneys general to put forth their own agendas for change. However, the current economic crisis will likely curtail any such state aspirations. Many U.S. states are running significant deficits including a state of crisis in California. Therefore, enacting environmental initiatives by states will likely prove extremely difficult if not backed by federal funding. 

Furthermore, this move by Obama does more to counteract bad Bush policies than signify a new direction for the EPA and state rights. The article by the New York Times failed to mention that the rejection of California’s request to set tougher emission standards by Bush’s EPA was the first of its kind in 40 years. Prior to this, the EPA allowed states to exceed requirements set forth by the federal government. This action by the Obama administration, then, was not only an attempt to strengthen tailpipe emission standards; it also serves President Obama’s interest in reversing dangerous precedents set forth by the Bush administration.

In addition to counteracting Bush policies, revisiting California’s request to the EPA falls in line with Obama’s Energy and Environment agenda. Darren Hutchinson, Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law, argues that Obama’s support for state-led environmental reform only occurred because states were seeking to tighten – not loosen – tailpipe emission standards. In this instance, according to Hutchinson, Obama “is using states to promote more progressive ideas than the national politics would tolerate.”  

If Hutchinson is correct, which I suspect that he is, then we will likely only see support by the Obama administration for state-led initiatives that are in line with his agenda such as greening the United States image. Efforts by states to retaliate against Obama’s climate change initiatives will likely be met with much less support by the Obama administration. For all of these reasons, a strong push toward progressive federalism seems unlikely at this point in time. Rather, we will likely see a mix of both state and federal initiatives, provided that the states’ initiatives fit in to Obama’s vision for the United States.

Only one week into office and U.S. President Barack Obama is charging full speed ahead on fulfilling his campaign promise to bring change to Washington. In an effort to reverse former President Bush’s policy on climate change and take the United States in a new greener direction, Obama asked the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday to review whether states should be allowed to set more stringent emission standards than those that are currently federally mandated. Additionally, Obama directed American automakers to develop more fuel efficient cars and trucks for models with release dates starting in 2011.

More than a dozen states have adopted the more stringent standards set by California which requires a 30 percent cut in emissions and a federal waiver could lead to more states signing on. While environmentalists are understandably thrilled at the direction of the new administration, Obama’s announcement has led to resistance by both automakers and Republicans. The two leading arguments put forth by the opposition are that a reversal in Bush’s order will be costly to automakers in an already struggling economy and state-led emissions requirements creates the possibility of a patchwork of different standards for different states. Alternatively, the automakers want uniform mileage and emission standards set nationwide along with assistance and incentives for car buyers to alleviate the added cost. While environmentalists may be applauding Obama’s announcement, the argument made by the automakers does deserve consideration.

When the Bush administration showed reluctance to legislate any significant curb in tail-pipe emissions and increase fuel efficiency requirements, the effort of states to step in and tackle the issue of greenhouse emissions themselves appeared a win for environmentalists. Furthermore, future U.S. presidents might not be as green-minded as President Obama. In such instances, state-led emission standards can provide the greatest opportunity for environmentalists to bring change to the auto industry by allowing states to set their own bar for the auto companies to meet.

However, should Maryland suddenly decide to set even more stringent standards than California, what does this mean for the automakers? The answer is additional costs and confusion for the auto industry. This will inevitably lead the car companies to try to meet the most stringent standards to avoid a patchwork of different regulations. While this may be a positive result for environmentalists, it also means huge costs anytime a state decides to tighten its requirements beyond the then-set industry standard.

The Obama administration is in a great position to bring change to the U.S. auto industry including the opportunity to institute a nation-wide tightening of emissions beginning with the model put forth by California. This could reduce confusion over state-by-state regulations and lessen the price tag for adjustment.

While I applaud President Obama’s push toward reducing emissions, considering a nationwide approach may prove to be a more effective, less confusing and less costly way to reduce auto emissions nationwide.