Of Sputnik and Climate Change - Science in the State of the Union in an Election Year

"Sixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn’t deny Sputnik was up there."

So said President Obama in his final State of the Union address this week to a joint session of Congress. In referring to Sputnik, the unmanned Soviet satellite launched in 1958, Obama is of course referring to the current day Republican denial of climate science. It's an appropriate analogy. Obama adds:

"We didn’t argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. We built a space program almost overnight, and 12 years later, we were walking on the Moon."

And herein lies the critical point that will infuse the current campaign calculus in this presidential election year.  The science is the science, and the science unequivocally and undeniably demonstrates that human activity - primarily the burning of fossil fuels and consequent carbon emissions - is warming our climate system. The question is no longer whether it is happening, but how do we slow it down so the disruptions to the global health, environment, economy, national defense, and human suffering will be reduced.

It is no secret that all of the Republican candidates for president have repeatedly and aggressively denied the science so as to avoid taking responsibility for policy action. In contrast, all the Democratic candidates for president acknowledge the science. The issue isn't the veracity of the science - it is incontrovertible - the issue is whether the next president and Congress will honestly take on, or dishonestly shirk, their responsibility to act on behalf of the American people. President Obama goes on in the State of the Union:

"Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You will be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it."

The only group remaining who denies the science is the Republican party. Fed by lobbyist and billionaire money, Republican candidates from Cruz to Rubio to Trump to everyone else join their fossil fuel-supported Republican congressmen and Senators to abnegate their responsibilities to their constituents.

Unlike ever before, climate change will play an important role in the 2016 presidential elections. The Democratic nominee will undoubtedly raise the issue often. The Republican nominee will then find themselves in the position of either 1) denying reality, or 2) making a 180 degree reversal of what they have campaigned on. How one continues to show abject irresponsibility in denying science and/or blatantly lies and expects to remain a viable candidate is a question that remains to be answered.

Reminder = The science is unequivocal. Humans are warming the climate system and doing so has significant impacts on every facet of human life. The world's scientists note this, as do the nearly 200 countries of the world who have committed to taking action to deal with it. Responsible corporations, individuals, religious groups, the military, and the majority of every person or entity on the planet acknowledges the science and the need for action. Everyone except the Republican party, a point the President made clear during his speech.

President Obama spoke directly or alluded to other scientific issues as well - cancer, drug addiction, progress on AIDS and malaria, sustainable energy. Rarely has so much science made its way into the State of the Union address. This emphasizes an important contrast between the political parties in the United States. One chooses responsibility and action, the other lies about it. The American people have a choice this election. Do we choose responsibility, progress, and innovation? Or do we choose denial, dishonesty, and holding back Americans while the world moves forward?

It's our choice.

Full remarks of President Obama in the State of the Union as delivered.

The Beginning of the End for Climate Denial

Climate denial is dead. Okay, that may be somewhat wishful thinking, but it's clear that the organized denial of climate science has peaked and will continue to fall away. Historians at some point in the future looking to identify when this threshold for change was reached might very well point to this past week.

The Science

To begin with, the science of climate is unequivocal. That means, undeniable. For more than 100 years scientists from all over the world and from every type of scientific organization imaginable, and working in countries with every type of government and economic structure extant, have produced more than 100,000 peer-reviewed scientific research papers published in journals. To this add in dozens, and even hundreds, of review reports that summarize the state-of-the-science. All of these empirical data and studies point unequivocally, undeniably, clearly to the conclusion that human activity is warming the climate system. And that warming has significant consequences to human health, economics, and national security, in addition to the obvious problems of changing climate, sea level rise, and human migration.

Exxon

Which gets us to one of the many reasons why climate denial is dead. Even the fossil fuel companies admit that fossil fuel combustion is causing the climate to warm. A report was released this past week documenting through internal Exxon records that Exxon, the biggest and mightiest of the fossil fuel companies, knew their operations were causing the climate to warm, and they knew this as far back as the 1970s. Exxon's own scientists, working on projects started by Exxon itself, were able to determine that fossil fuel burning was causing man-made climate change. Exxon management then ignored their own scientists' warnings, shut down the research project, and instead directed millions of dollars over the next several decades to denying their own scientists' research.

I'll have more on that later, but obviously this impacts the credibility of fossil fuel funded denial of the science. Everyone already knew that Exxon was deceiving the public, of course, but this report documents how Exxon's own records show how they did it (see "tobacco lobbyists deny smoking causes cancer technique").

World Leaders Move Forward

This week also brought a huge public outpouring of political support for action to address man-made climate change. President Obama has for some time now been making executive decisions to reduce carbon emissions, largely because Republicans in Congress have refused to even acknowledge the science. Pope Francis, religious leader for the world's 1.2 billion Catholics, was also in Washington, D.C., where he gave speeches at the White House and to a joint session of Congress in which he espoused a moral obligation to deal with climate change. Other world religious leaders (Judaism, Islam, and others) have also issued statements supporting the moral obligation to deal with the impacts of climate change.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is also coming to D.C.; Xi has been openly working with Obama on preparations for the upcoming international climate talks in Paris in which most of the world's nations are expected to agree on significant carbon reduction actions. Even Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State and current Democratic candidate for president, said she is against the Keystone XL pipeline, a major potential source of carbon emissions. The other major Democratic candidate for president, Bernie Sanders, also noted he is in agreement with the Pope's (and Presidents Obama's and Xi's) climate message.

Meanwhile, Republican reaction has been to attack the Pope and tell foreign governments they don't support action. (See, "fossil fuel campaign contributions to members of Congress")

But even here there is some movement. In the recent debate there was one question (yes, only one) about climate change, and only three candidates answered it. While they still didn't openly acknowledge the science, their denial employed a subtly different tactic - they claimed that the U.S. working alone won't have much effect. It's still denial but it's a shift that allows them to rationalize action when they find their denial is no longer credible. Which, of course, was a long time ago. To this we can add a rare proactive move by a small group of Republicans who are either 1) not running for reelection, or 2) are in moderate districts where being honest won't automatically get them thrown out of Congress by Republican voters. It's a small effort that won't go anywhere, but again it provides a mechanism by which Republicans can rationalize their eventual shift in strategy.

On to Paris

All of this bodes well for the upcoming climate talks in Paris. World leaders, including Obama and Xi, have been working for several years toward a meaningful agreement that will result in carbon reduction plans worldwide. This is a difficult issue. The U.S. and Europe have historically contributed the greatest to the climate change problem, while China's rapid growth in recent decades has resulted in it passing the U.S. as the worst emitter annually. At the same time there is a need for less developed countries to manage their future growth such that they don't simply repeat the mistakes we made, while acknowledging that they shouldn't have to pay for how we messed up the world. To this we can add in regional differences in impact and capacity. Complex diplomatic negotiations were, and continue to be, necessary to ensure as equitable a path forward for all nations as is possible.

Enter the Zombies

All of these factors, and many more, signal the death of climate denial. But being dead doesn't mean denial will go away complete. When it looked like public sentiment was leading to the abolition of slavery, slaveholders fought to expand slavery, thus starting the Civil War. When President Obama's election threatened the established white supremacy notion of many Americans, it led to a resurgence of racial hatred. So too with climate denial. As we move toward the inevitable action to deal with man-made climate change, denial lobbyists and their ideological followers will once again rise up like zombies to attack climate scientists who document the science and world leaders who try to act on that scientific knowledge.

The year 2014 was the hottest year in the instrumental record. The current decade is hotter than the previous, which was hotter than the previous, which in turn was hotter than the decade before that. 2015 is already well on its way to smashing the hottest year record set just last year, and with a strong El Nino possibly hanging around into next year, 2016 could surpass 2015 to set a third record year in a row. As climate change becomes more obvious to the general public, as the deceit of climate deniers becomes even more clear and more buffoonishly dishonest, and as responsible world leaders continue to move toward actions that will reduce carbon emissions while improving economic growth and national security, the death of climate denial is inevitable.

So watch out for climate denial zombies, but know that the rest of us are moving forward and taking responsibility for our children's and grandchildren's futures.

President Obama Went to Alaska; Here's Why That is Important to Climate Change Communication

It's been a big week in climate change, in more ways than one. This is especially true for President Obama. First he went to New Orleans, and then he spent several days in Alaska. That's a big deal for climate communication.

The New Orleans visit was on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Ostensibly the focus of the trip was to show the federal government hasn't forgotten about those who are still struggling to recover. Despite Republican Governor Bobby Jindal's request that Obama not mention climate change, he did. And it was appropriate to do given that much of New Orleans still lies below sea level...and sea level is rising. Which means the next Katrina could be even worse.

But it's the Alaska visit that is most critical. Using a variety of modern media methods to reach out to the populace - Twitter, a "survival" television show appearance, Instagram, and video blogs, the President highlighted the importance of places like Alaska in climate change effects, and why solutions are needed.

He even talked about gigatons!

Science writer Chris Mooney wrote a nice column in the Washington Post about why Obama explaining gigatons is such a big deal. I recommend you read Mooney's fine article here. Most people probably still won't get the whole "science speak" stuff, but they might be able to visualize the idea of blocks of ice the size of the National Mall from the Capitol Building all the way to the Lincoln Memorial and four times as tall as the Washington Monument - then multiply that volume 75 times.

Now picture all that melting every year just from Alaskan glaciers. Add in melting ice from glaciers all over the world, plus Greenland and other northern land masses, plus Antarctica, plus, well, you get the idea. 

If not, watch the video.

Here's the bottom line. Human activity is making our global climate warmer. That warming is significant. This year, 2015, is on track to be the hottest year on record, passing the last hottest year, which was 2014. And with a strengthening El Nino system in the Pacific, 2016 might even pass 2015. Action is necessary to reduce (and preferably reverse) emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the system. These are the facts. 

Our decision point is not whether it is happening. It's happening. Our decision point is what do we do about it. The President has taken several steps and is leading the world into making substantive goals for CO2 reduction. Over the last year Obama has brought China, the other major emitter, into an agreement to deal with man-made climate change. Other agreements and goal-setting have been accomplished with other major contributors in the lead up to the big meeting in Paris at the end of this year.

This activity, and his trip to Alaska to highlight the need for action, is in stark contrast to the Republican-led Congress and the Republican candidates for president, all of whom are denying the science and choosing inaction.

By raising the visibility of man-made climate change, the President is speaking directly with to the public. An informed public can then ask their Governors, Senators, and Representatives what they are doing to deal with the unequivocal science. Denial isn't sufficient; the science doesn't go away because they ignore it. The effects seen already, and those sure to come, are real and impact the very constituents who send the most climate deniers to Congress. Yes, the people of Texas, Louisiana, and the midwest - all denier states - receive the most federal disaster aid yet deny the science on which the need for that aid is based. The constituents of Oklahoma, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, and all the rest deserve to be represented by their elected officials, not pawns in a game in which those officials sacrifice the present and future for donations to their campaigns.

A more complete visualization of a gigaton and the ramifications of man-made climate change can be found on this expansion of Mooney's piece in the Washington Post.

For more on the President's Alaskan trip, check out this blog by Obama's chief science adviser, John Holdren.

For a good primer on man-made climate change, check out this series of helpful pages by the NASA climate research team.

One last point to make regarding President Obama's trip. Fossil fuel lobbyists, their front groups, and their network of media in collusion are unsurprisingly negative in their attacks on the President. Environmental groups and like-minded individuals are generally supportive, but even they have criticized the President for apparent contradictions (or hypocrisy) in going to Alaska to talk about climate change (plus all his other actions) while also signing off on oil leases in the Arctic for Shell Oil. I'll go into this in more detail in following weeks, but for now watch Obama's video, in particular about halfway through where he addresses his rationale regarding the leases.

To recap, President Obama has been doing two things in recent weeks and months that all of us should appreciate in terms of communicating climate science. One is that he is taking direct action where he can with his limited Executive Branch powers. This is absolutely necessary given Congresses inability and unwillingness to pass anything of substance. The second is that Obama is talking directly to the public about both the science and the need for action.

And that is a very good thing for all of us.

Does Ridiculing Climate Deniers Work?

To follow up on my last article, in which I acknowledged the rather obvious fact that Republicans are behind the curve on global warming, the question that begs to be answered is, how does one deal with climate denial? More specifically for this post, does ridiculing climate deniers work? The answer is: sometimes yes, sometimes no.

A year after he proposed action on climate change, and in support of the new EPA rules that will impact coal-fired power plants, President Obama has mocked climate deniers in Congress. On several occasions he has chastised Republicans for using the line "I am not a scientist," usually followed with some sort of denial of the science and/or excuse for inaction. In the Huffington Post article just linked, Obama was quoted:

“Today’s Congress, though, is full of folks who stubbornly and automatically reject the scientific evidence about climate change,” he said. “They’ll tell you it’s a hoax, or a fad.”

I'll pause here to remind readers that virtually every climate scientist, every National Academy, every major scientific organization, millions of empirical data points from more than 100,000 published scientific research papers, and the basic physics of the atmosphere known for over a century all unequivocally demonstrate that we are warming our planet. This has reached the point of being scientific fact.

For years a handful of Congressmen, almost exclusively Republicans but sometimes including Democrats from states whose economies are dependent on fossil fuel facilities, have claimed climate change somehow isn't real. To discredit all the world's science, these congressmen will rattle off talking points created by fossil fuel lobbying organizations. Which is why you suddenly hear them mouthing almost verbatim the lines being used by others in separate interviews.

One such "I got the memo moment" is the use of the aforementioned "I am not a scientist" line. It's clear that with the recent IPCC, NAS/Royal Society, AAAS, the National Climate Assessment, and many other scientific reports reinforcing the fact that human activity is changing our climate, the lobbyists have handed down new instructions. Since outright denial would look bad (not that that stops everyone), the new mantra suddenly became "I am not a scientist." But we all know the meaning, right? Obama sums it up nicely:

“Let me translate," he said. "What that means is, ‘I accept that manmade climate change is real, but if I admit it, I’ll be run out of town by a radical fringe that thinks climate science is a liberal plot.'"

Bingo!

So will ridiculing climate deniers get them to stop denying the science? In some cases, perhaps yes.

For example, if the ridicule exposes the pandering to fossil fuel interests at the expense of constituents living in the state of the denier, it might sway public opinion enough to influence a policy change. One obvious exemplar is Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has declared "global warming is a hoax" for so many years he is beyond feeling embarrassed by its lack of veracity. On the other hand, Oklahoma is prone to severe drought, a condition that is likely to get more frequent and more severe the longer Senator Inhofe and others choose to delay action. Rather than explain this to his constituents and work toward policies that will enable a shift for working Oklahomans from the dying fossil fuel industry to the growing renewable energy industry, Inhofe has chosen to sacrifice his constituents future for continued short-term campaign contributions from his present corporate contributors. If Oklahomans understood that they are being held back from future economic growth, perhaps they would change Inhofe's behavior or replace him with someone more attuned to their interests instead of his own campaign interests.

The same could be said for other key politicians. If it is clear that the unequivocal science is being denied for expediency or self-interest while ultimately that denial is counter to the interests of people living in the state, people will eventually force a change in behavior.

On the other hand, sometimes ridicule is not an effective mechanism. Several studies have shown that providing more data actually causes people to hunker down in a defensive posture, i.e., become even more sure of their absolutely false view. This is common for ideological followers who have tied their self-worth to an ideological position. Having done so, anything that shows that position is false now is interpreted as a direct attack on the person rather than the position or the facts.

Which gets us back to "I am not a scientist." The catchphrase that suddenly emitted from the mouths of several politicians could actually be seen as a positive step forward, should it continue and not revert back to the even more laughable "hoax" bumper sticker. By admitting that they aren't scientists, politicians are tacitly acknowledging that they trust scientists and will rely on the science. They obviously haven't reached the point where they are acknowledging the unequivocal science already out there, but it does suggest that eventually they may do just that. The more ridiculous the denial becomes in the face of reality, the more likely this "I am not a scientist" will morph into "scientists say so...here is the action that I propose to deal with it."

Then we can get down to discussing honest differences in opinion about how best to take action.

Bottom line? While scientists must continue to produce the science and present the science and correct misinformation about the science, there may actually be some advantages to the use of ridicule by politicians and the advocacy community. It should not be overdone as that would diminish credibility. But using the above exemplar of Senator Inhofe as a starting point, perhaps opposing politicians (in both parties), along with local community advocates, can focus on both the ridiculousness of his climate denial position and the disservice he is doing to his constituents across Oklahoma. The same could be done at the local and state level across the country to encourage constituents to demand action dealing with the science rather than wait for the consequences of inaction caused by denial that borders, and often surpasses, the ridiculous.

EPA and Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan is a Good First Step, But Only a First Step

This week the Obama administration, via the US EPA, released its long-awaited climate rules under the name "Clean Power Plan." The rules are mandated by Congress and the authority confirmed by the US Supreme Court. In short, EPA is required to take action by law.

As with all major rules issued by EPA, the Clean Power Plan is a proposed rule and will be open for public comment for some time. All comments received will be assessed and addressed by EPA prior to issuance of a final rule. Given the substantial impacts on our climate system and the already aggressive attacks on the rule by partisans and lobbyists, it will be a long time before this rule is made final.

The EPA has done a rather good job of communicating the science. We know that they spent many years talking with states, community leaders, businesses, and other stakeholders garnering information on needs, options, and concerns. In the weeks prior to the release of the proposed rule, the administration helped get the word out about what the rules were, and were not. That helped the public understand better when the rules, and the inevitable misrepresentations of the rules by lobbyists, were finally released. EPA even put out a short video to put the rules in context:



The overall goal of the Clean Power Plan is to reduce the amount of carbon pollution emitted into the atmosphere. Carbon pollution is the major cause of global warming, and action to reduce carbon in the oceans and air is absolutely necessary. And it's necessary now. The Clean Power Plan seeks to reduce carbon pollution by 30% by the year 2030, with substantial reductions occurring by 2020.

Rather than simply dictate how this will be done, the Clean Power Plan allows each state to determine how best to achieve the goals, and the specific goals are different depending on the circumstances of each state. The rules will lead to a reduction in reliance on carbon-dirty energy resources like coal, oil and natural gas (especially the former) and an increase in more sustainable renewable energy resources like solar, wind, and hydroelectric.  How this happens is up to each state. They may:

• make improvements in efficiently directly at the power plants
• increase energy from renewable sources
• generate more clean energy
• expand programs promoting energy efficiency and conservation 

None of this will make coal go away, nor will we suddenly clean up the atmosphere and stop global warming. But it's a good start. By 2030 our reliance on fossil fuels will have lessened, though we should still expect about a third of our electric power to still come from coal at that time, with another third from natural gas. Renewable sources of energy should gain market share to reach approximately the same 30+% by 2030. Unless we can do better, which we most likely will do.

As a proposed rule, all of this will no doubt be sharply debated for months to come. It's critical that debate be based in fact, something the lobbyists and partisans have already shown an unwillingness to do. Still, the fact that man's activities are warming our planet, and the resulting impact on the quality of our lives, is absolutely certain, means we have to start taking action now. The EPA and Obama administration, under authority given to them by the laws passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, have taken the first step. It's up to the rest of us to continue taking additional steps forward.

More information on the proposed rule and the Clean Power Plan can be found on the EPA website.

For those interested in the legalese, the full 645-page rule can be downloaded as a PDF here.

The Scientist: Obama Seeks Science Stimulus

Quick pick from The Scientist:  "On Monday (February 13), President Obama released his budget request for the 2013 fiscal year, totaling $3.8 trillion. In the science sector, he requested a 1 percent increase in research spending across the board."

President Obama in his annual budget proposal is attempting to increase funding for the sciences.  Unfortunately, the Republican party in the House is attempting to eliminate much of the funding for the sciences.

See all the details in The Scientist.

Obama Nominates Jim Jones to Officially Head EPA Toxics Office

The White House has announced that President Obama will nominate long-time EPA leader Jim Jones to be the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP).  Jones has been acting chief of the office since the departure of Steve Owens last October.  Jones' nomination must be confirmed by the Senate, a prospect that led some to believe Obama would not officially nominate anyone during this contentious election year.  Another nominee, Ken Kopocis to be Assistant Administrator of the Office of Water, has been held up by Republicans critical of ongoing rulemaking from that office.

Jones has previously served as Deputy Assistant Administrator in the Office of Air and Radiation as well as Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. He previously also was Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs and "held a series of management positions in the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs" in a career that goes back to 1991 at EPA.

The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention is charged with overseeing EPA's regulation of industrial chemicals and pesticides. EPA and many of the Office's programs have been mired in a seemingly constant battle to maintain funding for "protection of human health and the environment" as Congress tries to limit EPA's ability to do so.  Several initiatives and rulemakings have also been hung up under review at the Office of Management and Budget.

The White House announcement of this and other key administration posts can be read here.

President Obama "Stands With" the EPA

President Barack Obama made his first visit to the USEPA to thank them for their service.  The visit comes during a time when two of EPA's most visible leaders - Steve Owens and Paul Anastas - have recently stepped down to return to private and academic careers.  According to his remarks:

The main reason I’m here is simple:  I just want to say thank you.  I want to say thank you to each and every one of you, because the EPA touches on the lives of every single American every single day.  You help make sure that the air we breathe, the water we drink, the foods we eat are safe.  You protect the environment not just for our children but their children.  And you keep us moving towards energy independence. 

Over the last 3 years the EPA has faced considerable political attack on its ability to carry out its functions, with Congress voting to cut its budget severely and blocking needed regulatory efforts to constrain greenhouse gas emissions to fight man-made climate change.  Obama countered the artificial argument offered by some in Congress that human health and the environment must be sacrificed for economic reasons, saying:

Safeguarding our environment is also about strengthening our economy.  I do not buy the notion that we have to make a choice between having clean air and clean water and growing this economy in a robust way.  I think that is a false debate. 

Finally, the President indicated he would stand up for the EPA so that they can do their jobs.  He noted:

So all of you, and all of those who served before you, have made a difference.  Our environment is safer because of you.  Our country is stronger because of you.  Our future is brighter because of you.  And I want you to know that you’ve got a President who is grateful for your work and will stand with you every inch of the way as you carry out your mission to make sure that we’ve got a cleaner world. 

The White House press release is available here.

The full text can be read here.

A video of the President's speech can be seen below.

EPA Issues Final Plan to Review Regulations in an Effort to Remove Regulatory Burdens on Industry

The USEPA this week issued its final regulatory review plan in accordance with an Executive Order signed by President Obama earlier this year.  The goal of the review is to modify or eliminate regulations that are overly burdensome or costly.  EPA wants to develop a "21st century approach to environmental protection."

Under the plan, EPA will review a total of 35 separate regulations. About half (16) fit into the category of "early actions" and will be reviewed during 2011, with the rest scheduled for longer term actions in subsequent years.  For the early action list EPA "intends to propose or finalize an action to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal a regulation or related program."  The 16 regulatory topics to be reviewed in 2011 include:

• Gasoline and diesel regulations
• Equipment leak detection and repair
• Regulatory certainty for farmers
• Modern science and technology methods in chemical regulation
• Electronic online reporting of health and safety data under TSCA, FIFRA, FFDCA
• National Priorities List rules
• Quick changes to some TSCA reporting requirements
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
• National primary drinking water regulations
• Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) and integrated planning for wet weather infrastructure
• Vehicle regulations, e.g., GHG and fuel economy standards and emissions standards
• Multiple air pollutants, e.g., coordinating emission reduction regulations
• NSPS reviews and revisions under the Clean Air Act
• Clean Air Act Title V Permit program simplification
• Innovative technology, i.e., seeking to encourage innovation
• Costs of regulations, i.e., seeking to improve cost estimates

EPA notes that the actions it has taken just in the last few months have resulted in streamlined regulations and savings of up to $360 million per year.  Overall the EPA expects this regulatory review to result in $1.5 billion in savings over the next five years.  EPA further noted that it expects to conduct regulatory reviews on a "predictable, transparent, five-year cycle," including public requests for nominations of additional regulations for review.


The full EPA final regulatory review plan can be downloaded from the White House web site.

Obama State of the Union Expected to Call for Clean Energy Development

Tonight in the US President Obama gives his annual State-of-the-Union address (SOTU, for short).  Among many other topics (the SOTU tends to be a laundry list of generally unattainable desires), Obama is expected to note ongoing efforts to reframe the energy debate toward cleaner, greener technologies.  Given the continuing lagging jobs picture (job growth always lags economic recovery), he is expected to focus the discussion on how clean energy will help grow jobs.

While this has been a key plank in his platform from the beginning, it takes on new emphasis now that last year's cap-and-trade bills reached a precipice and promptly leaped off.  With the change in the make-up of Congress and promises to try to block EPA's greenhouse gas regulations, Obama will need to show how a shift to CO2-reduction technologies is good both for the environment and for job creation.  Specifically he will try to demonstrate that moving away from a fossil fuel-dependent energy system will result in increased competitiveness on the global marketplace.  This last point is critical as countries like China are investing in the development of wind and solar energy, both in terms of technology advancement and as a source of job creation.  China may be working hard to corner the fossil fuel markets now, but it is working even harder to position itself for the new world energy leadership it desires.  Obama will try to show that the short-sighted disagreements between members of Congress is actually holding back American ingenuity and giving a boost to our international competitors like China.

Also, in a nod to the new instant information era, the President will address questions posed to him by the American populace via YouTube or Twitter.  Questions must be received by midnight tonight and Obama will answer the top-rated ones on Thursday at 2:30 pm EST.  Questions should be submitted at: YouTube.com/askobama, or by using the hashtag #askobama on Twitter.

Let the Hearings Begin! Congress to Grill Obama Advisers on Regulatory Review Executive Order

President Obama issued an Executive Order (EO) on January 18th requiring all federal agencies to review existing regulations for the possibility of modifying or repealing them.  The idea is to determine "whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives." The EO applies to all agencies, but is being looked at especially with respect to the USEPA by Republican committee chairs in the House.

For example, Fred Upton, chair of the House Energy and Commerce Commitee has called for Cass Sunstein to testify at a hearing to be held on Wednesday (January 26). Sunstein is Obama's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, part of the White House's Office of Management and Budget.  While the focus of the hearing is supposed to be on the EO, it is likely that committee members will use the stage to also voice their opposition to EPA's recent rules under the Clean Air Act.

Based on public pronouncements by the incoming Republican majority in the House, we can expect to see hearings this year focused on reducing EPA's ability to publish rules and issue regulations.  Regulations addressing greenhouse gas emissions are particularly targeted in light of the previous Congress' inability to pass any climate change legislation and the unlikelihood of such legislation even being introduced in the current Congress.

Obama Sends Energy Secretary Chu to Monitor BP's Oil Spill Response

In continuing his "all-hands-on-deck" response to BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which is quickly reaching the spill record long held by ExxonMobil with it's Exxon Valdez accident, President Obama is sending Energy Secretary Chu to the Gulf coast.

Along with Chu will be a team of "top administration officials and government scientists" who will swarm on BP's command facility in Houston. The move follows another meeting of Obama's cabinet and senior staff to get an update on the efforts to stem the flow of oil from 5,000 feet down off the coast of Louisiana.

The hope is that somehow they can figure out how to "contain the spread, mitigate the environmental impact and provide assistance to affected states, including individuals, businesses, and communities."

But Chu isn't the only top official to be involved. EPA Administrator Jackson has made several visits to the Gulf region to oversee efforts to mitigate the environmental and human health impact of the spill. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has been there and yesterday dispatched Director of the Bureau of Land Management Robert Abbey to the Gulf Coast to support ongoing response efforts. Other federal level resources responding include the Navy, the Coast Guard, NOAA, the Fish & Wildlife Service, the US Geological Survey, and even the Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service.

In addition, "to deal more generally with the harms created by oil spills, the President has requested that legislation be sent to Congress to toughen and update the law surrounding caps on damages."

More information and daily updates on the response can be found on the official Deepwater Horizon response site.

US and China Announce Clean Energy Cooperation to Combat Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Today in Beijing, US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao announced a package of measures "to strengthen cooperation between the United States and China on clean energy."

According to President Obama,

I want to reaffirm the fact that the American people are interested in stronger relations with the people of China, and that the more that we can encourage people-to-people exchanges that are consistent with the discussions that we're having at the government level, the more that China and the United States will be able to work cooperatively on a whole range of issues -- both economic issues, security issues, and global issues that are in the interest not just of our two nations but the entire world.

The two Presidents announced a series of major areas of cooperation:

The U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center will facilitate joint research and development of clean energy technologies by teams of scientists and engineers from the United States and China, as well as serve as a clearinghouse to help researchers in each country.

The U.S.-China Electric Vehicles Initiative will include joint standards development, demonstration projects in more than a dozen cities, technical roadmapping and public education projects, all aimed at eventual deployment of electric vehicles to reduce oil dependence.

The U.S. China Energy Efficiency Action Plan will allow the two countries to work together to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, industrial facilities, and consumer appliances, culminating with an annual U.S.-China Energy Efficiency Forum, rotating between the two countries.

The U.S. China Renewable Energy Partnership will facilitate development of roadmaps for wide-spread renewable energy deployment. A new Advanced Grid Working Group made up of American and Chinese developers and strategists will help plan for grid modernization in both countries, and a new U.S.-China Renewable Energy Forum will be held annually, rotating between the two countries.

A 21st Century Coal Initiative, for which the two Presidents pledged to promote cooperation on cleaner uses of coal, will include large-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects.

A Shale Gas Initiative, will allow the U.S. and China to use experience gained in the United States to assess China’s shale gas potential, promote environmentally-sustainable development of shale gas resources, conduct joint technical studies to accelerate development of shale gas resources in China, and promote shale gas investment in China through the U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum, study tours, and workshops.

The U.S. China Energy Cooperation Program will leverage private sector resources for project development work in China across a broad array of clean energy projects, to the benefit of both nations.

More available on the White House blog.

President Obama Likely to Go to Copenhagen for Climate Change Meeting

Will he or won't he? That's the question that people worldwide have been asking regarding whether US President Barack Obama will go to the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) scheduled for December 7-18, 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. All indications are that the answer is Yes, He Will.

In an interview Monday with Reuters news agency, Obama said

"if I am confident that all of the countries involved are bargaining in good faith and we are on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over edge then certainly that's something that I will do."

My bet is that he will. In fact, barring some major incident that keeps him at home, I think he will make a point of going to show that world that the US is serious in its desire to take a leadership role in developing solutions to climate change. It is important that he demonstrate that the noise coming from the Republican minority will not stop the US from setting caps on greenhouse gas emissions, even if climate change legislation doesn't make it through the Senate before the meeting in Copenhagen.

Progress has been slow, both in the US and the international community. The previously hoped for major breakthrough agreement is now a distant memory, but there is optimism that COP15 will result in a "framework" agreement. According to President Obama in his Reuters interview,

"I think the question is can we create a set of principles, building blocks, that allow for ongoing and continuing progress on the issue and that's something I'm confident we can achieve."

He also continues talks with China, who with the US make up the two largest emitters in the world, and remains confident that they can agree on a framework that will then be the basis for additional efforts.

So we will see. But my bet is on Obama being in Copenhagen in the chill of winter.

SURPRISE!! - US Government Asks for Public Input on Scientific Integrity

In a surprise move, the US government published in the Thursday, April 23rd Federal Register a "request for public comment" on a scientific integrity memo. This relates to the memorandum issued by President Obama on March 9, 2009, in which he required "the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)to craft recommendations for Presidential action to ensure scientific integrity in the executive branch." I discussed the memo in a previous post.

The Federal Register notice "solicits public input to inform the drafting of those recommendations." The notice asks "a series of questions to help guide the public in responding to this request."

As defined in the current Federal Register notice, the six principles of the President's March 3rd memorandum, and on which public comments are solicited are:

(a) The selection and retention of candidates for science and
technology positions in the executive branch should be based on the
candidate's knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity;

(b) Each agency should have appropriate rules and procedures to
ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the agency;

(c) When scientific or technological information is considered in policy decisions, the information should be subject to well-established scientific processes, including peer review where appropriate, and each agency should appropriately and accurately reflect that information in complying with and applying relevant statutory standards.

(d) Except for information that is properly restricted from disclosure under procedures established in accordance with statute, regulation, Executive Order, or Presidential Memorandum, each agency should make available to the public the scientific or technological findings or conclusions considered or relied on in policy decisions;

(e) Each agency should have in place procedures to identify and
address instances in which the scientific process or the integrity of
scientific and technological information may be compromised; and

(f) Each agency should adopt such additional procedures, including any appropriate whistleblower protections, as are necessary to ensure the integrity of scientific and technological information and processes on which the agency relies in its decision-making or otherwise uses or prepares.

There is a 21 day period for public comment from April 23, 2009 to May 13, 2009.

The fact that this request for public comment relates to a presidential memorandum - which generally are edicts from the President without any public input - is a sign of a greater openness not just in providing the final results but also the underlying research and the process that went into developing the final outcome. It instills a greater degree of public confidence in the scientific process. It also gives all viewpoints - dissenting opinions as well as proponents - a chance to be heard. Which is likely to increase the chances of strong science-based policy decisions being made with less ideological manipulation.

Holdren and Lubchenco Are Confirmed - And So is Obama's Commitment to Climate Change

On Thursday the Senate unanimously confirmed Jane Lubchenco to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and John Holdren to head the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Lubchenco is a marine scientist whose experience and credibility goes back decades. Holdren is a Harvard University physicist and professor of environmental policy. These confirmations round out Obama’s science team.

And what a team. By selecting such a group of well-renowned scientists and administrators for his key positions - including Steven Chu as Energy Secretary, Lisa Jackson as EPA Administrator, Nancy Sutley as head of the Council of Environmental Quality, and former EPA Administrator Carol Browner in the newly created position of Climate and Energy Policy Advisor in the White House - Obama has signaled that he puts a high value on science. It also signals that he will pursue active policies to address climate change.

Lubchenco and Holdren, along with the others, could play significant roles in shaping the Obama administration’s approach to climate science and policy. Lubchenco has "built an international reputation for her scientific work on marine conservation and climate change and for her ongoing efforts to help scientists participate in public policy debates and communicate their work to the general public."

Holdren has a long history of working on climate and energy policy, clean technology and nuclear proliferation. Over a year ago he gave the prestigious John H. Chafee Memorial Lecture on Science and the Environment at the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE). Called "Meeting the Climate-Change Challenge," Holdren stated:

"We are experiencing dangerous anthropogenic interference by any reasonable definition today. The question now is whether we can avoid catastrophic human interference in the climate system."

He listed three possible policy options..."They are mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. Basically, if we do less mitigation and adaptation, we’re going to do a lot more suffering."

Holdren's full lecture at NCSE can be read here. It's worth the read.

Meanwhile, it's clear that the current administration will place more emphasis on science than his predecessor, with a specific interest in addressing climate change.

Science Policy Takes Center Stage at the White House - Embryonic Stem Cells and More

Today, American President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order that lifted the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. The ban was put in place by past-president George W. Bush shortly after taking office in 2001. In lifting the ban, Obama said "we will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield."

But perhaps even more importantly, Obama took this occasion to issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy "to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making."

In sharp contrast to what many feel was a former president adverse to science, President Obama insisted that supporting science was a critical function of government. The memorandum, he said, would

"ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That is how we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals – to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives."

He made clear that his decision was not made based on his belief in science alone: "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering." Further, he said that "a false choice has often been presented between science and faith, and that corrupting, shielding, or shying away from the facts science lays bare benefits nobody."

The emphasis on science is very welcome to most scientists who feel that their ability to pursue meaning research has been unduly restricted in recent years.

White House Favors National Fuel Standard

The saga continues. During the Bush administration California passed a law that would require a 30% reduction in emissions by 2016. The idea was to encourage burning of less fuel or burning it more efficiently, whouch would improve gasoline mileage and reduce emissions. The law would also speed the entry of electric vehicles into the marketplace. The overall goal is reduce CO2 emissions that contribute to global warming and climate change.

But the California law requires a waiver from federal law to proceed. EPA during the Bush administration refused to grant that waiver and the newly installed Obama administration instructed EPA to rereview the waiver application. Many thought this would mean that the waiver would be granted and California could proceed.

As always, however, the issue is more complicated than the oversimplified picture ideologues in various camps would have you believe. In fact, if California proceeds it is likely to be followed by about a dozen other states. But many states would not follow suit. This would result in a patchwork of emissions standards that makes it very difficult for manufacturers to adjust their practices. It is especially difficult for the auto industry, which as we all know is undergoing some trying times.

Meanwhile, there is a less stringent federal regulation in the works that would stimulate the vehicle design changes needed to satisfy a congressionally ordered fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2010. That amounts to about a 40% improvement over current industry performance. Both President Obama and auto industry representatives indicated this past week that a single national standard for fuel efficiency would present a more manageable system. The goal would be to address both California's desire for more stringent standards and the need for consistent standards across the distribution area. Otherwise there is the potential of having to produce cars meeting different standards depending on where they are shipped (or driven post consumer purchase as individuals relocate around the country).

Congress, EPA, the President, and industry are all contributing to the debate. After the Congressional hearing last week it was still unclear which direction legislation would go, though the single standard seems a more efficient way to address the issue.

Chemical Control, Bobby Rush, and Hearings Start on Thursday

Just a few days ago I reported that it was likely that the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection was planning to hold hearings soon on reform of the current chemical control law in the United States. Well, seems that "soon" is now Thursday, as in this Thursday, February 26th in the Rayburn House Office Building.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has been in place virtually unchanged since 1976, and there have been increasing calls to make changes to the law over the last few years. The current Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, of which this Subcommittee is a part, is Henry Waxman, who introduced the House version of the Kid Safe Chemical Act (KSCA) back in 2005 and cosponsored the 2008 version introduced by Representative Hilda Solis.

The subcommittee in charge of running hearings on TSCA reform is chaired by Representative Bobby Rush, of the 1st Congressional District in Illinois. Some may remember Rush from his rather controversial speech at the news conference in which now-impeached Governor Blagojevich announced he had appointed the now-embattled Roland Burris to fill now-President Barack Obama's Senate seat.

It is expected that this will be the first of several hearings that take place in both the House and the Senate prior to the reintroduction of the Kid Safe Chemical Act. While the KSCA seems likely to be introduced, there is also pressure to come up with a more workable reform of TSCA, perhaps one that incorporates the current and proposed enhancements to the EPA ChAMP program.

Jasanoff's "Essential Parallel Between Science and Democracy"

I came across a very interesting article in Seed Magazine call "The Essential Parallel Between Science and Democracy" by Sheila Jasanoff. Jasanoff is Professor of Science and Technology Studies at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, and a very well respected researcher on the role of science and technology in the law, politics, and public policy of modern democracies.

Making note of US President Obama's nod to science, Jasanoff queries: "So the question for thoughtful Americans, interested in the future of science and technology and reflecting on President Barack Obama's historic inaugural address, is not, What is science's rightful place?, but rather, What do the president and his administration see as science's rightful place? And, as critical consumers of both science and democracy, is it a vision that we, the people, can comfortably embrace?"

Jasanoff notes that Obama routinely indicates in his speeches that "science and technology will feature in his administration as both instruments and objects of public policy." And many prominent scientists and engineers have been named to key posts, including Nobel Laureate Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy. But she also observes that we must also understand the link between science and democracy. "The very virtues that make democracy work are also those that make science work: a commitment to reason and transparency, an openness to critical scrutiny, a skepticism toward claims that too neatly support reigning values, a willingness to listen to countervailing opinions, a readiness to admit uncertainty and ignorance, and a respect for evidence gathered according to the sanctioned best practices of the moment," says Jasanoff.

This short blog can't do the article justice and I highly recommend people read the entire article here.

And while you're there, check out Seed's The Right Place Project to see how you can contribute to linking science and democracy.