US Ecological Schizophrenia

President Obama tries to reconcile the demand for an environmentally clean America with the country’s energy self-sufficiency.

The problem is that supporting clean energy and becoming independent from the imported fuels are goals that are mutually exclusive in many ways. And plausible solutions prove to be too costly for the economy.

American environmentalists conducted the first test of President Barack Obama’s intentions toward the environment. A few days ago, Forward on Climate activists gathered more than 40,000 people from western Canada in the U.S. to protest plans to build the Keystone XL pipeline.

Given the simultaneous crowds in Los Angeles and San Francisco, it has been the largest-ever demonstration concerning environmental and climate change issues. The president, however, did not see the protesters, as he was playing golf in Florida with Jim Crane and Milton Carroll — two important figures in the Texas oil and gas industry. It was a slap in the face to environmentalists, but everything indicates it was an unintentional one.

Decrees Concerning Climate

In the second part of Obama’s first term, he rarely talked about climate change, and the phrase “global warming” was utterly avoided. The topic came back this year, after a series of weather anomalies that swept over America. Besides, these days everybody talks about climate change. Even World Bank President Jim Yong Kim and the head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, call for joint action. If we do not do that, future generations will be “roasted, toasted, fried and grilled,” Lagarde recently warned at the World Economic Forum.

Bearing in mind that he will no longer have to seek re-election, Obama calls to deal with the matter right away. “We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most serious drought in decades and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence,” the president said in the recent State of the Union address. “Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science — and act before it’s too late.” He also threatened that if Congress is reluctant to take action, he will implement regulations without Capitol Hill.

A few days ater, Clark Stevens, a spokesman for the White House, talked about the president’s commitment to environmental affairs. He criticized Congress for not taking action in these areas during Obama’s first term.

Some new initiatives on climate policy have recently appeared in Congress, but actually they have little chance to be realized. Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, intend to propose a bill to tax carbon emissions.

It is hard to imagine, however, this project going through the House of Representatives, where many Republicans considered part of Obama’s message on climate change and his threat of issuing decrees as a challenge. “I think that was a provocative statement,” responded Rep. Scott Rigell, a Republican from Virginia. He added that he was still not convinced that the government could do anything at all to counteract climate change. Criticism could be harsh even among Democrats. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia pointed out that setting a policy framework on climate change should be addressed by Congress, not the executive. The problem is that, with the current divisions on Capitol Hill, reaching a consensus on this issue seems to be virtually impossible.

As recently as in 2009, during the negotiations on climate change in Copenhagen, Obama committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent, so that the level of emissions in 2020 would fall to that of 2005. Many experts believe that this goal is achievable even without any action taken by Congress because of the prerogatives granted to the president by the repeatedly updated Clean Air Act. This, however, would require the White House to make difficult and costly decisions that could undermine already rickety economic growth. “We are close to the point where we have done what we can with regulation without exposing the economy to a lot of extra cost” warns David Victor, climatologist at the University of California at San Diego.

The Ecological Obama

However, as is his prerogative, Obama may take a number of decisions that can satisfy environmentalists. He can, for instance, order an increase in energy efficiency standards for household appliances sold in U.S. stores. He has already implemented similar regulations in passenger cars. The president may also issue new, more stringent regulations on emissions from coal-fired power plants. In America, plants of this kind are the ones that produce the greatest greenhouse effects.

Economists warn, however, that the latter scenario could completely kill the old coal plants, which already struggle to stand the competition with plants that use cheaper shale gas. As a result, Americans would pay higher electricity bills. Other possible measures that could be taken by the president include regulating methane leakage into the atmosphere from gas extraction and transportation sites.

The White House policy on ecological issues is a bit schizophrenic. Many of Obama’s agenda elements do not fully coincide with the “green” image of the president. This applies in particular to the vision of America achieving energy independence.

On the one hand, the White House promoted the production of fuels from renewable sources. On the other, Obama has never tried to limit vigorous growth in shale gas production, which, according to environmentalists, causes significant environmental damage.

He did not give up his plans to increase the number of permits for mining fossil fuels, especially oil and gas, but Republicans still insist that he does too little in this case, and criticize him for blocking the drilling of the coastal areas administered or owned by the government.

Who Lobbies Obama?

It’s no wonder that tension simmered among environmentalists when the president showed up at the golf course with two men from the oil industry during an uproar in Washington. Golf does not mean doing policy, but it is clear that people in the oil industry have access to the president, says Tyson Slocum, the director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program, an organization that promotes clean energy. And just like other environmentalists, he mentions the fact that Obama is in favor of further expansion of the oil industry and supports increasing production by easing regulations and authorizing the extraction of raw materials from the seabed.

“Obama’s got a choice to make: He can either side with Big Oil, or he can join the more than 40,000 Americans who came to Washington last weekend — along with the millions more clean energy supporters across the country,” said Jamie Henn, a spokesman for environmental group 350.org, not concealing his outrage.

“Young people may not be so good at golf, but we vote in record numbers, and we’re overwhelmingly on the side of climate action,” he added.

A Test of Intentions

For environmentalists, the Keystone XL pipeline will show the president’s real intentions on climate change. Now, the ball is in Obama’s court, activists shout out. If the president does not go into specifics, young people, the same ones who have been supporting him, will turn away from him, warn political scientists. A youthful environmental movement seems to be growing in strength, and the demonstration of thousands in the cold February day was the best proof of it.