In a two-hour interview conducted just weeks before his return to Obama’s inner circle as White House Counsel, Podesta told me that the president had been willing to take risks and expend political capital on the climate issue. “But fifty years from now, is that going to seem like enough?” Podesta asked. “I think the answer to that is going to be no.”
Podesta blamed Obama’s spotty climate record in part on the president’s top aides during his first term (aides who Podesta, as Obama’s transition director in 2008, helped select). The aides’ attitudes about climate change, Podesta recalled, were dismissive at best: “Yeah, fine, fine, fine, but it’s ninth on our list of eight really important problems.”
I agree with Podesta’s assessment that fifty years from now people will look back and judge that Obama and everyone else didn’t do enough to curtail GHG emissions and prevent a great deal of additional global warming. That isn’t a slight on Obama’s character – or anyone else’s – it’s a statement on how I view action on the topic.
Isn’t it interesting that Podesta helped select the same aides who refused to push climate higher on the problem list? Podesta is a smart guy – he knew what peoples’ pet issues were and what weren’t on their list of priorities. So in the same interview that Podesta says Obama’s climate actions won’t seem like enough in fifty years, Podesta lays some blame at the feet of first-term aides who didn’t prioritize climate for the lack of Obama’s action. Perhaps a little self-assessment didn’t make the article due to editing, but it would be nice to see people take responsibility for how we’ve gotten here. That includes Democrats and climate activists right along with Republicans and skeptics.
The next quote really rankles me:
The Obama Administration’s newly proposed regulations on power plants illustrate how the president continues to fall short of what science demands in the face of rapidly accelerating climate change. From a scientific perspective, there is much less to these regulations than either industry opponents or environmental advocates are claiming.
The science he is faced with […] demand actions that seem preposterous to the political and economic status quo.
This language implicitly assumes that what certain people want should take precedence over others. The author, like many others, think they would like those certain people to be scientists instead of conservative theologians or accountants or any other person. Science doesn’t demand anything in this or any other instance. We use physical science to assess what the physical effects of GHGs have been and will be on the climate system. That’s where physical science ends. If you want to do anything about that information, you bring in social science – political science, sociology, environmental science, philosophy, etc. Those fields have much to say about what to do and why a particular course of action might be desirable – see normative theory.
Too many people confuse the two. Or more accurately in the climate change realm, they argue using physical science as a proxy in normative debates. This is a large source of the polarization of science today. Instead of using proxies, people should debate the core issues. If the core issue is the political left versus right, the debate should be on value systems and specific values. Instead, people drag climate science into the normative debate and among the results is the refusal to accept climate science as valid by skeptics. This has more to do with perception of legitimate authority than the actual science.
Back to the science:
Podesta, however, acknowledged that Obama’s climate policy (as it stood last November) would not hit the 2°C target. “Maybe it gets you on a trajectory to three degrees,” he said, “but it doesn’t get you to two degrees.”
I wrote much the same thing. The science is quite clear on this. Whether you think the policy is bad or good or whether hitting or not hitting the 2°C target is a bad or good thing are separate discussions. Personally, I think not hitting the 2°C target is a bad thing. But I know that’s a normative judgment about a scientific result. I therefore support more effective policy actions such as a carbon tax.
Again, this rule is merely proposed at this time. EPA originally said it would propose the rule in 2011-2012, then put it on indefinite hold so Obama could run for re-election. It will now face legal challenges. It will not go into effect for at least two years, and quite possibly four to six years after all the legal challenges. In that time frame, we will have at least one new president, who will put their choice for EPA administrator in place, who will be responsible for directing the agency on the rule’s implementation. The rule will be effective until 2030 and will face two additional presidential election results. Do climate activists think Republicans will leave the rule alone through 2030? How do we square that with the knowledge the rule is far from sufficient to limit warming to <2°C? What are the next policy steps with these real world boundaries?