The Union of Concerned Scientists says the explicit written policies Obama promised last year are crucial to ensure scientific integrity in government. (Photo courtesy of Planar Energy Devices, Inc.)
President Barack Obama promised to protect scientific research from politics. He wanted guidelines in four months. It’s been a year now and still there are no guidelines. Shawn Allee reports:
Transcript
President Barack Obama promised to protect scientific research from politics.
He wanted guidelines in four months.
But Shawn Allee reports, it’s been a year now and still there are no guidelines.
Francesca Grifo tracks the issue of scientific integrity for the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group.
She says the issue can be a matter of life and death.
Grifo has lots of examples.
“Basic things like the way the Clean Air Act is implemented, the way we look at drugs before we put them out for the public, all of these big, government processes that we don’t pay a lot of attention to, if we don’t have them be transparent, we end up with inappropriate influence on those decisions.”
Grifo says Obama has improved the situation at some agencies, but he should finish explicit, written policies on things like protecting scientists who become whistle-blowers.
That way the next president has high standards, too.
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy did not return calls for comment.
If all goes according to plan, the nuclear reactors will go up in six to seven years and cost around 14 billion dollars.
(Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
The Obama Administration
announced that it will back
the cost of constructing two
new nuclear reactors. Mark
Brush reports, if they’re
constructed, they’ll be the
first reactors built in the
country in nearly three decades:
Transcript
The Obama Administration
announced that it will back
the cost of constructing two
new nuclear reactors. Mark
Brush reports, if they’re
constructed, they’ll be the
first reactors built in the
country in nearly three decades:
The Southern Company plans to build the reactors in Georgia. They say, if all goes well, they’ll go up in six to seven years and cost around 14 billion dollars.
Investors have seen nuclear energy as a risky bet. But now that the President says the government will guarantee the loans, Wall Street might be enticed back to nuclear energy.
And then there’s the question of safety. President Obama’s Energy Secretary is Steven Chu. He says these new generation reactors are safe.
“We expect that the newer generation reactors will be ideally completely passively safe. Which means that, uh, you don’t actually need to control the reactor. If you lose control of it, it will not melt down.”
Some environmentalists say nuclear energy is not worth the costs – and there’s still no permanent place to store nuclear waste that’s radioactive for thousands of years.
Some say this is similar to the kind of gag orders issued during the Bush Administration.
(Photo by Pete Souza, courtesy of the White House)
The Obama Open Government
Directive is supposed to open
government to the people.
Lester Graham reports everything
is not as open as you might hope:
Transcript
The Obama Open Government
Directive is supposed to open
government to the people.
Lester Graham reports everything
is not as open as you might hope:
Some agencies have posted new websites that encourage the public to talk with the government.
At the same time, officials in the government were telling their people not to talk to the public or the media and threatening disciplinary action toward some employees who posted on the web things they knew about government proposals.
Recent memos from Forest Service officials order their law enforcment employees not to talk to any national media or any local reporter covering a national issue without approval from the Washington press office.
Jeff Ruch is the executive director of the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
“So, it’s hard to maintain on one hand you’re being transparent and on the other hand the people who know what’s going on aren’t allowed to speak.”
Ruch says this is similar to the kind of gag orders issued during the Bush Administration.
ill McKibben is an author
and the founder of 350.org, a grassroots
effort to increase awareness of the threats
of climate change.
(Photo by Nancie Battaglia, courtesy of Bill McKibben)
Bill McKibben has been writing about
climate change for 20 years. More
recently, he founded the grassroots
organization 350.org. It urges
governments to do something about
climate change. Lester Graham talked
to McKibben and asked him how his
group deals with the debate in Congress –
especially when it’s less about scientific
facts and more about your brand of politics:
Transcript
Bill McKibben has been writing about
climate change for 20 years. More
recently, he founded the grassroots
organization 350.org. It urges
governments to do something about
climate change. Lester Graham talked
to McKibben and asked him how his
group deals with the debate in Congress –
especially when it’s less about scientific
facts and more about your brand of politics:
Bill McKibben: Well, it’s hard to deal with it because, of course, we don’t a kind of separate physics and chemistry for Republicans and Democrats. You know, the laws of nature tend to operate the same way no matter whether you spend your life marinating in Rush Limbaugh or not, you know. So it’s difficult because we have to deal with those physical facts. The only good news is that the only place where this is a political issue in those ways is the United States. The rest of the world, everybody’s on-board, understanding that we need to go to work. We’ve still got serious problems in this country. It’s one of the reasons that we desperately need the President to finally make some serious noise about climate change, and say straightforwardly and out-front what the dangers are and do what he can to drive home the peril that we’re in.
Lester Graham: The Center for Public Integrity reports that there are more lobbyists in Washington than ever before, working on supporting or blocking or somehow reshaping climate change legislation. How does a grassroots effort, such as 350.org, compete with the big moneyed lobbyists at work?
McKibben: Well, we can’t compete with them in terms of money. There are, I think, 2800 lobbyists that industry has hired to go to – which gives you some idea of what a bad job being a Congressman is. Each Congressman has 7 people devoted to making sure that they toe the line on fossil fuel. We can’t compete! Exxon Mobile, last year, made more money than any company in the history of money, okay? So, in that currency, we’re sunk. The only currency we’ve got is bodies and commitment. And that’s why we’re finally trying to organize a real movement around climate change. It’s not enough to depend on the fact that the science is on your side, and that any rational system or person would be doing everything they can to try to deal with this biggest problem we’ve ever faced. Our system, in that sense, isn’t rational. It’s dependent on power and pressure. And we have to accept that, and we have to accept the challenge of building those kinds of movements.
Graham: What do you think of the legislation on greenhouse reductions, greenhouse gas reductions as it’s shaping up in Washington?
McKibben: It’s in grave danger, if it hasn’t already, of turning into a sort of piñata filled with goodies for each special interest. Each Senator now is saying, ‘yes, but in my state we need a lot of money or whatever to do this, or, ‘we have to exempt this industry,’ or whatever. These guys don’t get the degree of danger that we’re in. They’re still using it as just one more political game to play. It’s why Obama’s gotta step up to the plate. He can’t let happen what happened with healthcare – just Congress take all of this on its own, let it drift, come out with some mediocre thing, and call it a victory.
Graham: What would you like to hear President Obama say that would compel people to say, ‘oh my gosh, we’ve got to do something about this!’?
McKibben: I’d like him to do what leaders around the world now – partly at the behest of 350.org – have been doing over the last few weeks. Saying, ‘here, in my country, are the grave dangers that we face.’ That’s the kind of leadership that we’re not seeing out of Obama, unfortunately.
A lot of compromises and some arm-twisting are persuading moderate Democrats to support limiting global warming emissions.
(Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
Work on the climate change bill
in the Senate is progressing
despite the controversy surrounding
the bill. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Work on the climate change bill
in the Senate is progressing
despite the controversy surrounding
the bill. Lester Graham reports:
A Republican boycott and bitter wrangling between Democrats and Republicans over provisions in the climate bill in the Senate and, still, supporters say it’s going okay.
A lot of compromises and some arm-twisting are persuading moderate Democrats to support limiting global warming emissions.
Even the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, is now saying Congress will approve legislation this session.
Josh Dorner is with a group backing a climate bill, called Clean Energy Works. Dorner says getting moderate Democrats like Baucus on board moves a climate bill closer to reality.
“That coupled with the bi-partisan agreement amongst other senators, Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman to move forward, I think shows that we’re closer to a bi-partisan agreement on getting a bill done now than we ever have been before.”
“Bi-partisan” meaning only a couple of Republicans joining a lot more Democrats in support of the bill.
The Senate held their first hearing on the climate change bill.
(Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
The Senate has started debate on
the climate bill. The Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works heard
from cabinet members and others,
but Lester Graham reports it’s not
clear their testimony will matter:
Transcript
The Senate has started debate on
the climate bill. The Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works heard
from cabinet members and others,
but Lester Graham reports it’s not
clear their testimony will matter:
It was the Senate’s the first hearing on the bill, but most of the Senators have already made up their minds.
For Republican Senator James Inhofe, the climate bill is a jobs killer and costs too much.
“We’re talking about somewhere between three and four-hundred billion dollars a year. That’s something the American people can’t tolerate and I don’t believe they will.”
That 300 to 400 billion is revenue from a cap-and-trade plan that would invest in renewable energy such as wind and solar and go to taxpayers to help with higher costs of fossil fuel.
One of the authors of the Senate climate bill, Democrat John Kerry, took issue with Senator Inhofe’s characterization of the bill.
“We need to move forward to deal with climate change and in doing so, Senator Inhofe, we will actually improve every sector of our energy economy.”
And Senator Kerry says that will mean energy independence and millions of new jobs.
The Senate climate bill makes a lot of compromises to win votes. But, it’s not clear they’ll actually sway any of the senators.
Pundits say President Obama is putting all his political chips in the fight for health care.
And, if he loses, he'll have almost nothing left to spend on climate change.
(Photo by Bill Branson, courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)
The health care debate is sucking
up most of the energy in Washington.
So it makes sense that the world is
concerned the US might show up at
global climate talks in December empty
handed. Conrad Wilson explains how
the heath care debate is threatening
the chances of a global climate treaty:
Transcript
The health care debate is sucking
up most of the energy in Washington.
So it makes sense that the world is
concerned the US might show up at
global climate talks in December empty
handed. Conrad Wilson explains how
the heath care debate is threatening
the chances of a global climate treaty:
European countries, along with China and other big global polluters, are wrestling with
how to deal with global warming. But as the world gears up for the climate change
conference in Copenhagen, Washington is focusing on health care.
The timing of Washington’s health care debate has many countries scratching their heads.
And it has environmentalists and climate folks nervous. All agree health care is
important; but globally, they say, it’s out of step.
And when you ask Americans what the President is working on, few mention climate
change.
Person 1: “Probably health care and fixing the economy.”
Person 2: “On the economy. And fixing the economy. Actually, no, I’ll change that.
Actually, what I think he’s focusing on is the health care issue.”
Person 3: “This week, Afghanistan. Last week, health care. The week before, the
economy.”
Person 4: “He’s focusing on health care primarily, which is very important. But he also
needs to maintain his focus on the economy.”
What’s not being talked about is climate change and the global talks coming up in
Copenhagen.
Dan Esty is a professor of Environmental Law & Policy at Yale University. He also has
experience as a climate negotiator. Esty predicts the health care debate will continue
through the end of the year.
“I think it’s going to be very difficult, given the political effort that’s going to be required
to achieve success on health care, to imagine that climate change can be taken on during
the same time period.”
Esty says there’s only so much President Obama and members of Congress can take on at
once. Climate change and health care are two major issues that can’t be resolved
overnight.
As time wears on, the talks are shaping up for an outcome that looks more like the failed
Kyoto climate agreement from a decate ago. After Kyoto, Congress refused to join the
rest of th eworld in capping carbon emissions. Esty fears that could happen again.
“The health care debate, at the present moment, is occupying all the political oxygen in
Washington and that means there’s really nothing left with which to drive forward the
response to climate change. And, as a result, our negotiator will go to Copenhagen
without any real game plan in place for how the United States is going to step up and be a
constructive part of the response of the build up of green house gases in the atmosphere.”
A lot of people say the US needs to pass a climate change law before going to
Copenhagen. But others say maybe not. They argue it’s not a bad idea for the US to go
into global climate talks without a law because it could allow negotiators to be more
flexible.
Regardless of how it’s done, cutting greenhouse gases is now more pressing than ever
before. With Washington paralyzed by the health care debate, the timing is just bad for
climate change.
“If there were ever a time. You can say that about health care and about climate policy.”
That’s energy analyst Randy Udall. He says President Obama has a lot of his plate and
should be ready to compromise.
“Obama’s not going to get nearly as much as many of us had hoped for in terms of health
care reform. And he’s not going to get nearly as much as many of us had hoped for in
terms of energy policy. He will get something. But it not going to be a half a loaf, it’ll be
a quarter of a loaf.”
Pundits say President Obama is putting all his political chips in the fight for health care.
And, if he loses, he’ll have almost nothing left to spend on climate change.
President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on February 24
(Photo by Pete Souza, courtesy of the White House)
President Barack Obama outlines his budget tonight before a joint-session of Congress. Lester Graham reports many people will be watching for more investment in what’s be called the “green recovery”:
Transcript
President Barack Obama outlines his budget tonight before a joint-session of Congress. Lester Graham reports many people will be watching for more investment in what’s be called the “green recovery”:
The stimulus package includes money for making government buildings and some homes more energy efficient… and pursuing alternative energy such as wind and solar power.
Robert Heilmayr is a research analyst with World Resources Institute. He says so far the Obama administration has recognized there are long term payoffs in green investments.
“The key next step that I think is missing and I’ll really be paying attention to as Obama addresses Congress is whether he recognizes the stimulus is only the first step, that comprehensive energy and climate policy is necessary and should be a priority moving forward as a follow-up to the stimulus is a big question.”
Heilmayr says the long-term savings in energy conservation will help businesses and everyone else by keeping fuel prices lower in the short-term and give us a step up when the world markets start taking greenhouse gas emissions seriously.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on February 24 (Photo by Pete Souza, courtesy of the White House)
Health care and education are always
top priorities in a Presidential budget.
But last night President Barack Obama
told Congress in his budget address,
“It begins with energy.” Lester Graham
reports:
Transcript
Health care and education are always top priorities in a Presidential budget. But last night President Barack Obama told Congress in his budget address, “It begins with energy.” Lester Graham reports:
The President reminded us the recent stimulus package included doubling the supply of renewable energy in the next three years, investments in basic research – including energy, a better power grid and making buildings and homes more energy efficient.
“But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy.”
And to do that the President called on Congress to pass legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution. A carbon cap and trade program would make fossil fuels more expensive… and encourage solar, wind and other renewable energy.
Climate change legislation opponents say a carbon cap-and-trade program would be a jobs killer. By tying it to creating new green jobs, President Obama hopes to challenge that argument.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Those at the inauguration are hopeful for change with the Obama administration
(Photo courtesy of the Obama transition team)
People from across the nation and around the world are gathering in the U.S. capital for the inaguration of President Barack Obama. Among them are people who are hopeful an Obama presidency will be better for the environment. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
People from across the nation and around the world are gathering in the U.S. capital for the inaguration of President Barack Obama. Among them are people who are hopeful an Obama presidency will be better for the environment. Lester Graham reports:
The inauguration of Barack Obama finds people who’ve traveled to Washington DC hopeful.
On the mall, between the capitol building and the Lincoln Memorial, people we interviewed mentioned they’re hopeful for the economy, they’re hopeful for peace.
Jeff Dickson of Finland, Minnesota was an environmental scientist for 25 years. He’s hopeful for the environment.
“I finally found a president who I think is capable of taking this country into a period of environmental responsibility instead of degradation.”
And many people are hoping President Obama finds a way to pursue environmentally friendly alternative energy and conservation in a way that will get us out of the recession and into, what many are calling, the green economy.
The Union of Concerned Scientists says the explicit written policies Obama promised last year are crucial to ensure scientific integrity in government. (Photo courtesy of Planar Energy Devices, Inc.)
