We've a plan. Now what?

President Obama took to the bully pulpit today and delivered on his inaugural promise to address climate change.  Whether you believe this was only for legacy building, or simply a cover to environmentalists to allow him to approve the Keystone XL pipeline (an unfortunately likely state of affairs after the President invoked the phrase "significantly exacerbate" in his description of the litmus test he would use for fossil fuel projects), or more promisingly, a return to an issue he identified as a priority in the '08 campaign, but never got to see come to fruition because of the volatility created by the healthcare debate...

This is big.

Except for a brief blunting of the message to accommodate a nod to increased oil and gas production (which in the middle of a speech on climate change really does nothing but confuse those who might support the issue and pacify none of the detractors who will hate the plan anyway), the speech delivered on several key issues.

The President was dead right to invoke economic issues...we are leaving next generation more costs associated with climate than any deficits.  Every fiscal conservative should leap at the opportunity to shift capital away from the insurance industry and into more productive markets that promote sustained jobs and support high quality of life.  We need only look at the EnergyStar program for refrigerators to see how smart regulation that challenges industry, but also includes them in the process, can deliver real energy savings, performance improvement, and better economics.  If we look at CFC reduction, acid rain prevention, leaded gasoline prohibition - every one of these had detractors that said it would kill the economy, but none of them did.  Removing lead from gasoline cleaned up the air, and had the secondary effect of reducing crime rates.  Scrubbing of emissions for sulfur oxides that cause acid rain cost less than projected, and provided health improvements and property savings that more than paid for the cost of implementation (a cost which employed manufacturing and construction workers).

In a continuation of a hallmark of the Obama administration, the President took a inclusive approach to the world's role in solving this problem.  In contrast to previous administrations that drew a line at making progress until developing economies agreed to make cuts, this President committed to leading on the issue, noting that developing countries were already paying more dearly than the US for the damage largely created by the West.  However, he added that the US would expect active participation by developing countries.  To make this happen, one of the most important ideas presented promoted worldwide free trade in clean energy and environmental technology.  By allowing developing countries around the world to have unfettered access to technology, and to incentivize companies with unfettered access to developing markets,  the US can create a "race to the top" that should reward innovative companies that can scale-up deployment.  Add to this an end to investment in coal plant development across the world (as long as there exists a viable alternative - an ambiguous loophole that needs tightening), and we see a straightforward vision for engagement.

The art of the possible was on full display in the speech as well.  Department of Defense is most outspoken against fossil fuels due to security threat, so it came at no surprise that they held a prominent spot.  Mr. Obama highlighted wind production, noting that seventy-five percent of US wind power is generated in GOP districts.  In an era of declining government expenditures and legislative gridlock, ending subsidies to (and hopefully undervalued royalty payments from) extractive energy industries forces these mature industries to compete in the marketplace on their merits.  Although this will not address the unpriced externalities associated with healthcare, severe weather, and crop-yield decline, it will at least get the government out of the business of polluting.  The carbon emissions standards proposed will hit coal the hardest, but this only confirms the decline of an industry that cannot afford to build new plants, retrofit old ones, or build new export terminals because of the market price for natural gas.  Even China, once seen as an emerging market for American coal, has seen significant degradation of air quality and now looks to become the world leader in clean energy.  All in all, everything proposed today requires - at best - a nuanced rebuttal from opponents.  Nuance does not play well in a democracy.

In an ideal world, Congress would have already created either a cap-and-trade system or imposed a carbon tax offset by reduction in income or corporate tax.  Either market solution would provide an equal result to the domestic ideas proposed today.  Add to that a permanent feed-in tariff instead of the production tax credits, and Congress could lead the way.  However, we do not live in that world, and the one we do has dangerous issues to address: declining crop yields, increased volatility from storms resulting in ever-increasing insurance payouts and destruction of cities, threats to military bases around the world.  I said before that democracy does not deal well with nuance, and the message today drove home one of the most un-nuanced ideas to which we as humans can relate: we do NOT have to choose between "the health of our children and the health of our economy".  How many people living in a neighborhood next to a power plant, or a community near a mountaintop mine, agree with the industry assertion that we cannot afford environmental protection?  How many of the nation's poor hear that we cannot afford electricity if we impose pollution limits that would benefit the poor most of all, and then read that electricity and natural gas prices remain near historical lows?  How can we say that improving or maintaining the quality of life for one portion of our population, while degrading the quality of life for another portion, reflects our pledge to be "one nation" in which we have "equality of opportunity" and in which "all are created equal".  

We finally have the opportunity to turn our gaze from the past, and look toward a future where we will not have to worry if our grandchildren will be able to raise a family, or if we will live to see the mass exodus of my fellow citizens from cities like Miami, New Orleans, Norfolk, or Long Island, or if nations teetering on the verge of development will fall into ruin on the back of a collapse of agriculture.  Today's announcement was not perfect, but it is necessary.  I hope that we have passed the point where we still feel the need to argue "if", and only have a conversation about "how".  As for me, I am ready to find out how I can help make this plan happen.