Obama Environmental Team Emerging

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 18:00


Obama's environmental team is emerging. And, for once, there is a lot that I like. For starters, Steven Chu is going to be Secretary of Energy, a possibility who I had earlier gushed over  This also means that the Wall Street Journal was seriously scooped by the Associated Press. Ha-ha.

Further, Lisa Jackson will be EPA chief. Seven days ago, I wrote the following about Jackson:

Lisa Jackson seems to be the frontrunner for the EPA. I think this is a very solid pick, both because she currently heads up an auction-based effort to reduce greenhouse gases, and because she is currently slated to be New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine's Chief of Staff.  Auctioning is the way to go, and I implicitly trust Corzine. Absent any outcry of environmental activists, she seems like a very good person to head the EPA.

Now, I have heard less positive things about Carol Browner, the prospective new energy czar. Also, the news of Raul Grijalva being taken off the short list for Secretary of the Interior, and a Blue Dog moving to the top of the list, concurrent with Grijala's endorsement by over 100 environmental groups, is less encouraging. Still, a couple of exciting cabinet picks is more than I had found so far in all other areas combined.

Perhaps things are looking up on the environment. That would certainly be a nice change of pace.

Chris Bowers :: Obama Environmental Team Emerging

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Obama Environmental Team Emerging | 29 comments
RFKJr (0.00 / 0)
Disappointed he wasn't picked for EPA:
http://voices.washingtonpost.c...

Though I really would have liked him in his Dad's job as AG.

Naah. (4.00 / 9)
I prefer people who believe in scientific evidence.
[ Parent ]
Yep (4.00 / 1)
The NIMBY can take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned.
[ Parent ]
Interior (4.00 / 5)
Picking Thompson for Interior trumps all the other environment picks, in a bad way.  If that happens, I can take no solace from Jackson or Chu being chosen.  Interior is the big enchilada on the environment front, and Thompson would arguably be the worst selection in the entire cabinet.
Interior (4.00 / 1)
I agree about Thompson, from what I've read, but I disagree with

Interior is the big enchilada on the environment front

That has been true in the past, but in the age of global warming I think Energy is more important.  Interior is mostly about protecting the regulations in place (more or less) but Energy is where all the new action will occur as we work to totally redesign our energy system and carbon emissions.

[ Parent ]
I'm with Deeg on this one (0.00 / 0)
See my longer comment below.  

It's a serious mistake to zoom in too narrowly on "global warming" and miss the big picture as far as the unfolding ecological crisis that we have to confront.  

Interior is, if not the big enchilada, at least a pretty damn big burrito.  

[ Parent ]
yep... (4.00 / 2)

It depends on where you live.  If you are on the East cast, like Obama and plenty of bloggers, Interior is far, far away.  But for those of us out here, Interior is HUGE.  That and Agriculture (but it's already a foregone conclusion that we won't get someone good in Ag).

Thompson's only qualification is that he is a hunter.  He doesn't even have leadership on anything environment-related, and has done pretty much nothing except, uh, vote.  He voted against roadless areas in Tongass, for Bush's "Healthy Forests Initiative", and so on.

[ Parent ]
Cool - literally (4.00 / 2)
Steven Chu won the Nobel Prize for experiments where lasers are used to trap atoms and cool them down to millionths of a degree above absolute zero. Awesome!

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_pr...


Kick ass (4.00 / 4)
Chu = first appointment to clear my "kick ass" threshold. The helios project is ultra-hot. LITERALLY!

In all seriousness though, one hopes that this kind of attitude can gain traction:

Applause broke out when he described how companies, after claiming efficiency gains and lowered costs were impossible, "miraculously" achieved them once they "had to assign the jobs from the lobbyists to the engineers."

Heck yeah.

Me | My Work | Future Majority

Thoughts on the Real Problem, and Obama's current/forthcoming green picks (4.00 / 3)
Hi all,

I'd like to share a conversation unfolding in the Quick Hits comment thread - please do weigh in, because this couldn't be more important.  

I first posted a gut response to the four picks:

This is great news, BUT I'm still VERY worried about Interior, and about Agriculture.  It makes a HUGE difference to have good appointments in these four spots, but those other two are so important -

and frankly, they govern the two areas of "sustainability" that are so frequently and disastrously ignored (if not "shafted") by the mainstream - concern for biodiversity, and concern for food.  These are issues that appeal to our underlying values, and have the potential to change culture on a deeper level, not just through policy and techno-fixes.  

The mainstream environmental movement has latched on to an "all global warming, all the time" political strategy that completely fails to address the underlying social, economic and cultural factors driving the climate (and larger ecological) crisis.  
by: Syrith @

HousesofProgress responded:

I wonder what you mean?

The mainstream environmental movement has latched on to an "all global warming, all the time" political strategy that completely fails to address the underlying social, economic and cultural factors driving the climate (and larger ecological) crisis.  

What is underlying that is not being addressed? and what is larger than the climate crisis? For example althouigh I want Tobacco all but banned and marketeers sanctioned, it only kills a few million people, as does lead, but Climate change may wipe out half of all species, and as to humans we have no idea at all. Great storms have already killed in the tens of thousands, and the permafrost holding a methane bank in Russia the size of China hasn't even melted yet. The Pentagon is warning that with climate change Europe, which not only feeds itself but exports, may not be able to grow even a tenth of its own food.

I cant imagine what... the larger crisis is.

by: HousesofProgress

This is my full response- I welcome your thoughts:

The climate crisis is bad.  Real bad - like, "this recession won't mean nothin' when you see it" bad.  

But it's important to understand that climate change is a SYMPTOM of a more fundamental set of social, economic and cultural problems - climate change is the mechanism by which we are burning our future, not a cause in itself.  

These  root causes include human population overshoot, a culture of consumption and disposal, the physical realities of peak oil and nonrenewable resource depletion, and the holocaust of biodiversity loss that is unfolding all over the world.  These things impoverish us permanently, and yes, they really are even bigger threats to our civilzation and quality of life than climate change.  

This reality has not sunk in for the political establishment - not for Obama certainly, nor for the Carol Browners and Lisa Jacksons of the world.  Someone below said they "trust the Sierra Club," and unfortunately, it hasn't sunk in for the Carl Popes either.  The mainstream environmental movement hasn't developed the flexibility or open-mindedness to really tackle these problems, restricting themselves to legal and policy fixes and single-issue lobbying.  

These are fundamental issues with which progressives here at Open Left should concern themselves, because of how much is at stake!

Ultimately, I do think there's plenty to be excited about - Cho in particular seems strong to me (I know little about Sutley and can't speak to her record).  But Browner and Jackson are "just OK" in my book.  

And the looming prospect of truly abysmal picks for Department of the Interior (which would handle climate adaptation - keeping the West habitable and saving endangered species as the crisis worsens) and Department of Agriculture (which should be transitioning our greenhouse-gas-and-toxin-spewing food systems into a new local, organic-friendly model) have my guts in a knot.

Picking folks with environmental credibility in THESE positions would show real commitment - not just in the EPA/Energy-type spots where the mainstream is paying attention and expecting at least the usual competent-technocratic-moderate-Democratic governance.  

(disclosure: I work as the 'sustainability coordinator' for a large US university, and worry about these things for a living)

So who do you recommend for Ag? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Sec of Ag (0.00 / 0)
Jill Richardson at La Vida Locavore knows more about this than I, and discusses her picks for Secretary of Agriculturehere.

Food Democracy Now has more.

Here's why to care about the USDA in terms of "Obama's Environmental Team."  

[ Parent ]
Easy (4.00 / 1)
Jim Hightower.

But that would be in another universe, with a liberal president.

[ Parent ]
Cause versus Symptom (4.00 / 1)
But it's important to understand that climate change is a SYMPTOM of a more fundamental set of social, economic and cultural problems - climate change is the mechanism by which we are burning our future, not a cause in itself.  

Mostly true, but it these things are circular.  It isn't a simple case of cause and effect, but multiple things interacting with each other.  Yes, if our attitudes changed the rest would follow, but that isn't going to just happen.  Part of the reason for our attitude is the civilization we've build for ourselves.

Imagine we build a world where fossil fuels aren't needed, where you can walk to most places you need to go and take easy transportation for places further away.  Someone who grows up in that world will have a very different attitude towards how resources should be used.

If it takes global warming to force us to build that world, then fine.  You don't have to change attitudes first -- at least not completely.

Like any cycle, we can intervene at many points along the path.

All this isn't to argue that Ag and Interior isn't important -- they are both very important for all the reasons you give.  But I do very much believe that Energy and global warming are the most important right here and now.

[ Parent ]
reasonable (0.00 / 0)
That's fine - and I certainly agree that this is a complex system with multiple causal relationships among a whole range of things.

The future I'm afraid of isn't the one you describe here.  It's the one in which we use a whole host of technofixes to keep 12 billion people around on Earth for a few more generations, "solve global warming," give up entirely on salvaging biodiversity, and come out on the other side having learned nothing at all.  There's a real danger that that will happen.  

[ Parent ]
Optimist (0.00 / 0)
I'm an optimist, but it is you pessimists who get all the work done, so keep it up.  
[ Parent ]
There is a set called "problems caused by environmental carelessness" (0.00 / 0)
and the largest subset within it, by far, is the set called "climate change."  Climate change also happens to be by far the most immediate challenge -- as in, we get it right within five years, or whole generations of humans and most of the earth's biota are fucked.  So the subset that is climate change gets 100% of my focus right now, even though half of the problems actually are various other threats to biodiversity than climate change, and all of the problems including climate change are a consequence of an attitude describable as "environmental carelessness."  I get the bare outlines at least of why you want to focus on the larger sense of the problem, and you're right about the relation between the two, but the time sensitivity of climate change means I effectively care about nothing else right now.  I'm willing to work on farm and forest policy six years from now; carbon dioxide simply cannot wait.

[ Parent ]
Fair enough (0.00 / 0)
I think I feel comfortable with folks who make the case for focusing 100% of action on climate change, as you just did - it's folks who focus 100% of their thinking on it, as well, that seem to be missing something.
[ Parent ]
Question for Chris (4.00 / 2)
it looks like Grijalva is out, but I don't know if that means Thompson is in.  I've heard rumors that a compromise candidate, John Barry, former Deputy Secretary at Interior and the National Zoo Director, might be the guy.  Any truth to this?  My feeling is since Chu and Browner leaked but Thompson didn't is that their still scrambling to find the right guy...
According to the AP (4.00 / 1)
Of the three posts, the interior secretary job appears to be most in flux.

Officials close to the transition said support for John Berry, the director of the National Zoo and a former assistant secretary at the department, was growing. Gay and lesbian advocacy groups backing Berry, who is gay, were expected to meet with the transition team in Washington on Wednesday.

But these officials also said Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva and California Rep. Mike Thompson were still in the running to lead the agency, depending on how other positions shake out.

http://www.google.com/hostedne...

John Berry would be great if we don't get Grijalva. I'd be interested to know what "depending on how other positions shake out" means. Is it a diversity factor? If Becerra accepts USTR and adds another Hispanic to the administration, is Grijalva dumped from Interior? If openly gay Maxwell goes to Labor, is openly gay Berry dropped from Interior? I just hope Thompson does not get the spot.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

[ Parent ]
Berry is fine (4.00 / 1)
As much as I'd love Grijalva, my main hope is that Thompson is not the guy.  What i wonder is - what were the issues that knocked Grijalva out of the running?  Presumably the fact that he's a progressive was his fatal failing.
[ Parent ]
Not saying it's a good reason, but... (0.00 / 0)
I don't know whether it had anything to do with it, but Grijalva has been alleged by wing nuts in the past to have ties to militant "Brown Power" groups who basically see the SW United States as an illegal occupation of Mexico.  But, I'm actually not sure that's what torpedo-ed him.  Nor do I think its the fact that he's a progressive, either: I think the Obama camp has become somewhat sensitive to the criticism from the left, which is why i suspect they'll pick Barry over Thompson.

I think Grijalva has actually been torpedoed for more amorphous, inside baseball ones than obvious ideological concerns.  It's also possible that they would prefer a technocrat like Barry to a House Member.  If that's their reasoning, I'm inclined to agree.

Also, ENOUGH with the identity politics...!  If Becerra takes USTR, that's at least two Latinos in the Cabinet, with John Salazar potentially at Ag.  It would be nice to have a GLBT Member, but only if they're best for the job.  The Democratic Party, as the proposed Cabinet reflects, is diverse enough at its highest echelons that we don't need to do this kind of crude balancing.  

[ Parent ]
he ain't out yet! (0.00 / 0)

Remember, a lot of this stuff is TOTAL rumor.  In fact, some of the articles even cite blog posts that I have written (elsewhere) as evidence!  

Grijalva may still get it.  I think it has to do with diversity AND geography AND politics.

[ Parent ]
i think... (4.00 / 1)

another reason why I think they are waiting on Interior.

they are hoping this current slate of minor gods will somehow alleviate the netroots.  (which is why they also met with Gore.)  if they get the sense that it does, they can go with Thompson and other centrist types for Interior.  If the netroots demands more, then maybe Grijalva.

SO... let's raise a stink.  go to change.gov and tell them NO to Mike Thompson!

[ Parent ]
making deals (0.00 / 0)
is necessary, but takes judgment.

Story about slow warning to kids and parents at a terribly contaminated daycare center is not encouraging.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

I also like a zookeeper on principle... (0.00 / 0)
Particularly if Berry sings "I'm Going To the Zoo" to Jim Inhofe @ his confirmation hearing :)
Browner a non-starter (0.00 / 0)
Browner was completely useless at EPA from my point of view.  The Clinton administration accomplished absolutely zero on theenvironment, including losing 8 important years in the fight against Greenhouse gases, and Browner was inept and ineffective, at best.

What exactly is she supposed to accomplish as an 'energy czar', anyway?  I'm sure she'll be as effective as drug czars past.

I continue to be unimpressed and underwhelmed with Obama's cabinet, not even meeting my incredibly low expectations.

agreed... (0.00 / 0)

NW Forest plan was terrible, and totally unworkable.

The only good things came in the final year with Roadless Rule, national monuments, and the like.

Obama is really dropping the ball.

[ Parent ]
Disagree completely (0.00 / 0)
Browner did a good (but not great) job at EPA during the Clinton years. and managed to repair much of the damage done to the Agency from the Raeagan-Bush period. She is very well liked in the agency for her progressive stances.
[ Parent ]
Obama Environmental Team Emerging | 29 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox