Bloggers from all horizons and interests are offering their perspective(s) on President Obama’s first 100 days in office. He has been … himself … challenging and challenged. I went from hopeful to worried, from reassured to disappointed, but ultimately, in 100 days, Obama has positioned the environment the place and role it deserves. Take it from what it’s worth, there is a long road ahead of us, but those first 100 days have been critical in giving this country a new direction that put the environment at the center of the decisions the administration is making in terms of policies and directions. What I have been most impressed with, is his wit at bringing around the same table people with opposite interests or divergent opinions.

I should start with what got me excited and reassured, but then I’ll be accused of obamania again. My biggest disappointment came with the nomination of Tom Vilsack as the Secretary of Agriculture, someone who has been a strong supporter of genetically engineered crop and who, as Iowa state governor gave this very profitable industry a blank check to grow GECs or GMOs wherever they wanted without any proper supervision. He has strong ties with this industry, Nidera, Cargill, and Monsanto of course. But you might point out that Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has endorsed his nomination as well, he cannot be that bad. Well the Sierra Club did endorse Clorox’ Green Works band, which according to an EDF officer sounded like an oxymoron. Perhaps the swine flu outbreak, the waves of bankruptcies hitting farmers in India and South Africa will act as a wake up call and push Mr. Obama to reform the USDA, EPA and FDA and change the US policies with regards to the WTO and IMF. We need to help this administration recognize the importance of healthy food that can only be achieved through healthy and sustainable farming.

My worries came from what I perceive as a too cautious approach to the corrective actions necessary to change the course of climate change. But on the other hand, shaking the automotive industry and conditioning the bailout to gas efficient and/ or clean vehicles is in line with the role I hoped he would be playing. On one hand I feel completely incompetent to assess the 100 days old administration’s actions in regards to climate change, on the other hand I feel we do have enough information to draft a policy and we do have the advantage of starting after other countries have started implementing climate change policies and weight their challenges. But my worries go a bit further than debating on whether or not this approach is a bit too cautious. I am very worried that this administration, like the previous ones, will fail to realize and recognize that armed conflicts will continue to erupt as long as people lack access to food and water, and that globalization is not the best solution to help developing countries become sustainable. The Somali pirates, the increasing suicide rates amongst farmers worldwide, the droughts that keep plaguing Asia and Africa. Isn’t it time to question the utopist free market that seems to benefit agricultural, mining and petrochemical global corporations and enforce people’s rights to use their own resources?

Excited I was when speaking of climate change, Obama said: “No single issue is as fundamental to our future as energy. The days of Washington dragging its heels are over. My administration will not deny facts. We will be guided by them.” Ordering the EPA to reconsider California Waiver on GHG emissions followed and forcing car manufacturers to reinvent themselves using fuel efficiency as their focal theme gave us reasons to be hopeful. The $90 billion portion in the stimulus package to push clean energy development and adoption is going to give the emerging green/ clean tech industry a real boost as manufacturers, installers and other green professionals were also hit by the financial crisis.

Reassured, and I needed to be after seeing a wave of Clintonistas entering the new administration that is supposed to symbolize “change”. I understand unity and experience are two fundamental factors in selecting appointees. However, I was hoping for more fresh views, people who have actually been very active in drafting, promoting and developing policies, programs, and technologies that address and fix issues such as GHG emissions, water pollution, social instability and human health. When my friend Greg Nelson – someone with green business and community experience and a strong will to tackle the above – packed and joined the transition team, I felt that at the very least we had a strong advocate inside the administration. Dr. M. Hamburg and Dr. J Sharfstein (the man behind restricting the use of cold medicine for children under 4) joined the FDA, Lisa Jackson, a consensus builder, the EPA. If the nomination of Prof. Cass Sunstein to direct the White House office that oversees regulation by agencies might have made some environmental and labor advocates feel uncomfortable, but then came the appointment of Prof. Lisa Heinzerling as the EPA’s chief climate change advisor, the former is a strong advocate of the use of cost-benefit analysis as an important decision-making tool, while his counterpart from Georgetown is a relentless critic of that very same approach. My succinct review of nominees will not be complete without my acknowledging the arrival of VAN JONES!!!!!! Here again a man with experience and wit at crafting green jobs strategies and tactics.

What do we have to make of all this? Be ready to challenge and be challenged! The many environmental, health and labor advocates along with industry professionals that have been invited to the White House to express their views and discuss challenges ahead are also another positive trend that I hope will continue.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS