The Paradox of President Obama's All of the Above Energy Strategy

Staying within prescribed climate change limits will be difficult under Obama’s all-of-the-above strategy.
Although Obama may be the greenest President in American history he is
not doing enough to stave off the worst impacts of climate change. In
his State of the Union address, he did talk about the veracity of
climate change and the need to further reduce America’s greenhouse gas
emissions, however his ongoing support for fossil fuel extraction is dangerous and imperils hopes that we can tackle the issue of climate change before we reach irreversible tipping points.

The President made many laudable points during his address including
his desire to increase protections for air, water, land and American
communities. He quite correctly explained that, “we have to act with
more urgency because a changing climate is already harming western
communities struggling with drought and coastal cities dealing with
floods.”

The
President touted the growth of solar power saying: “[W]e’re becoming a
global leader in solar too. Every four minutes another American home or
business goes solar, every panel pounded into place by a worker whose
job can’t be outsourced.”

The President has repeatedly stated his desire to put an end to tax
breaks for the fossil fuel industry and use that money for fuels of the
future (ie renewables). A point which he reiterated in his State of the
Union address.

The President also touted his efficiency efforts including efficiency
standards for new cars. He went on to suggest that he will be imposing
new fuel efficiency standards for medium and heavy weight trucks.
However, their is an irreconcilable paradox between efficiency and the
expansion of fossil fuel.

The President indicated that he wants to “cut red tape” to help
businesses build factories that use natural gas. As he explained, “If
[natural gas is] extracted safely, it’s the bridge fuel that can power
our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate
change.”

While natural gas could be made far less destructive if we could
eradicate (or substantially reduce) methane leaks associated with
extraction, it is easier said than done.

The President made the point that the U.S. has reduced its carbon
pollution more than any other nation on Earth over the last 8 years. He
further indicated that he wants to set new standards for power plants
which would tighten restrictions on CO2 emissions.

All of the above – Obama can’t have it both ways

While efforts to reduce GHGs are beyond reproach, his overall
strategy conceals an irreconcilable contradiction. Reducing GHGs is at
odds with increasing domestic dirty energy exploitation. The simple fact
is he cannot have it both ways.

Despite pleas from the leading U.S. environmental organizations to stop fossil fuel extraction,
President Obama’s State of the Union address indicates that he intends
to move forward with his “all of the above” energy strategy.

The reliance on natural gas and oil may undermine efforts to stay
within prescribed scientific limits. The first limit concerns
temperature increases, the second involves greenhouse gas emissions. If
we are to keep warming below the internationally agreed upon upper
threshold limit of 2°C, we will need to stop pumping greenhouse gas
emissions into the atmosphere. It is widely known that the primary
contributors of GHGs are fossil fuels.

This is the conclusion reached by numerous studies including the most
recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which
was published late in September 2013. According to the IPCC report, we
cannot add more than another 140 gigatons of carbon globally (500
GtCO2).

If we continue to exploit and burn fossil fuels at the current rate,
we will considerably exceed these limits. If we burn only 20 percent of
estimated available carbon reserves we will have already reached the
upper allowable limit of carbon emissions. If the remaining reserves are
exploited there will be no way to stop runaway climate change.

We cannot afford to move forward with planned coal projects or the
tar sands, nor can we afford President Obama’s “all of the above” energy
strategy.

In fairness, President Obama acknowledges the veracity of climate
change but he is constrained by the Republicans in congress and the
general ignorance of many Americans. We cannot appreciate efforts to
engage climate concerns without factoring political considerations.
Obama may be advancing domestic fossil fuels for political reasons, not
the least of which is the impending midterms. If he loses control of the
Senate, his efforts to manage climate change will suffer a serious
blow.

A Ceres report titled, “Inaction on Climate Change: The Cost to Taxpayers.”
sees political factors as a major part of inaction. “[T]he reason for
our collective shortsightedness is that the issue of climate change, and
what to do about it, has become politicized in the U.S,” the report
said.

Despite his considerable efforts (not the least of which is his
climate action plan), the President can be faulted for failing to lead
efforts to educate Americans. To create the political support we need to
see, Americans need to be apprized of the implications of failing to
act. Obama’s State of the Union address focused on education and this
could be expanded to include efforts to explain the rationale for action
and expose the ignorance of climate denying Republicans who control the
House.

More than any other single factor, people respond to economic
considerations. The focus on the economy and jobs in the President’s
State of the Union speech is a reflection of this understanding. He
needs to do a better job informing Americans about the price associated
with climate change.

The President can do far more to help Americans apprehend the scope
of the costs of failing to stay within the prescribed limits. Failing to
heed these limits will result in a massive price tag that will cripple
the U.S. (and global) economy and ultimately, irrevocably change life on
Earth.

The costs of climate change

Evidence for these costs are not just part of some apocalyptic
future, they are with us here and now. According to the the Ceres
report, Federal and state disaster relief payouts are estimated to have
cost every person in the U.S. more than $300. According to the report,
the costs of climate change to taxpayers going forward will get worse
and ultimately be “debilitating.” A cogent argument can be made for
acting now, as one dollar spent on prevention saves four dollars in
damages. From this perspective mitigation efforts are a far better
investment than adaptation.

“Continuing to ignore these escalating risks may be more
comfortable than confronting the challenges of climate change, but
inaction is the far riskier and more expensive path,” the Ceres report
concluded.

“[T]he debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our
children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to
leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I
want us to be able to say yes, we did,” the President said.

However, “booming” oil and natural gas production is inconsistent
with efforts to combat climate change. Reducing emissions while boosting
domestic oil and gas production is a contradictory policy position. At a
time when we most need the President to lead, we really got nothing new
in this state of the Union speech.
The U.S. cannot simultaneously be a leading producer of fossil fuels
and at the forefront of efforts to combat climate change. Selling the
facts to the American public will not be easy, but it is necessary.

“The the shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight,
and it will require some tough choices along the way,” the President
said. The question is whether he is prepared to make those tough
choices.

Source: Global Warming is Real