President Barack Obama’s second inaugural address took him into bold new territory with respect to his commitment to countering climate change. He was, for the first time, unequivocal in calling for action: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. ...The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it.”
Obama reiterated these strong words at his State of the Union Address, again promising swift action, with or without Congress: “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will,” he said in the speech. “I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”
These strong statements would give most listeners reason to think that now, nearly four months later, something big and bold surely would have happened. Not so.
Instead, the second Obama administration has maintained the same course as that of the president’s first term, a course that has primarily been one of rhetoric, not action. In fact, there is reason to be concerned about negative progress on the climate front.
In April, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it will delay — indefinitely — new rules limiting carbon emissions from new power plants, and has taken a hiatus from crafting rules to address carbon emissions from the nation’s fleet of existing power plants — including many geriatric facilities that are known polluters. Obama is increasingly signaling his support for the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that would bring oil from Canadian tar sand reserves to market in the United States. Accessing the oil trapped within those reserves is, according to experts, a carbon-intensive process that would require fossil fuels for its success.
While the Keystone XL pipeline debate is in some ways symbolic, that symbolism is a crucial indicator of the direction the Obama administration intends to steer its climate program. By delaying critical regulations that could meaningfully address carbon emissions in known problem areas now, the administration has gone beyond a symbolic action. It is not putting its money where Obama’s mouth was so boldly sounding off this winter.
There are, of course, no magic-bullet solutions to climate change and any meaningful approach must be multi-faceted, focused on efficiency and conservation, and include a suite of technologies, incentives, regulations and goals. Obama has failed to clearly articulate what his menu for addressing the climate change he spoke about with such alarm in two key addresses. It should not be surprising, then, that he has failed to enact meaningful policy. It is nonetheless disappointing and, as the world’s atmosphere has since passed the critical carbon dioxide milestone of 400 parts per million, speaking sternly about the urgency of action rings hollow without adequate follow-through.
