December 16, 2008
Obama Confirms Green Team
President-elect Barack Obama has confirmed his green team. Steven Chu, a Nobel-winning physicist has been named the Energy Secretary. Carol Browner, the former EPA chief has been tapped to be the climate “Czar.” Lisa Jackson, former New Jersey environmental regulator will now run the EPA.
At a press conference in Chicago, Obama said the future of innovation and technology is going to be what drives the American economy into the future, “And the energy economy is going to be part of what creates the millions of jobs we need.”
However, CNET reported that Obama’s energy and environmental team faces growing challenges in implementing broad changes. For one, the global economic downturn has slowed the green movement, and Europeans, typically leaders in the green movement, have voiced doubt about its ability to create millions of jobs.
Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense Fund had faith in the administration and applauded the appointment saying, “This new position reflects a deep commitment to leadership on climate change, and Carol Browner brings the perfect combination of experience and drive to the job. She understands that solving climate change will help rebuild our economy.”
But some of Browner’s adversaries are concerned that her return will veer the new administration too far left.
The Baltimore Sun reported that critics are not too pleased about another nomination –Lisa Jackson. The online newspaper cited Politico, which reported that critics say Jackson has been “too close to industry, withheld information from the public – and fallen well short of the pledge she made when taking office in February 2006 to fix the state’s beleaguered toxic waste program.”
Advertisers
Stay competitive through sustainability.
Find out how at the SAP Sustainability Resource Center. >>
Unclear about the EPA's new GHG Rule?
Learn how it could affect your business. >>
EPA mandatory emissions reporting starts Jan 1st
CSA Standards can help your organization get ready for compliance. Find out how. >>
Survey Results: Product Environmental Compliance Best Practices
How to achieve compliance at a significantly lower cost. Download the full report. >>
Join the Discussion
Recent Daily News [ see all ]
- 11/20/2009
- 11/19/2009
- 11/18/2009
- Ontario May Follow California’s Lead on TV Energy Efficiency
- EPA Is One Step Closer to New Ship Emissions Standards
- European Paper Industry Cuts CO2 Emissions by 42% since 1990
- CDP Launches Water Disclosure Project
- Whirlpool Cuts Water Use by Nearly 22% from 2004 to 2008
- National Grid Again Rejects High Costs of Offshore Wind
- California City’s Green Building Ordinance Applies to Commercial Buildings
- Agilent To Save $3.5M Over 10 Years With Solar
- S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
- Texas, China Wind Partners May Build U.S. Factory to Appease Critical Lawmaker
- Volvo, Mack Engines First to Meet 2010 EPA Emissions Standards
- Around the Web – Nike, Google, Nissan, Bush’s Green Library, WWF
- Fossil Fuel Emissions Rose 29% since 2000
- SEC Charges Four in ‘Green’ Investment Ponzi Scheme
- No Sunny Skies for Two Solar Projects in Texas, California
- Canada Delays GHG Emissions Regs, Russia Ups Emissions Cuts
- News Corp. Taps Hara for Energy Efficiency, Environmental Management
- Rising Sea Levels Would Hit U.S. East Coast Hardest
- Building an Energy-Efficient Data Center Using Virtualization Technology
- Trade Group on EPA Chemical Regs: ‘If Everything is a Priority, Then Nothing is a Priority’
- A/V Equipment Gets New Energy Star Requirements
- By Scaling Back Catalogs, JC Penney to Save 30% on Paper
- Around the Web – Starbucks, EcoFactor, UPS, Brownfields, Eco-Labels
- Subaru Touts Energy & Environmental Initiatives
- U.S., China Partner on Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency
- Green Buildings Do Double Duty: Reduce Energy Use, Lower Financial Risk
- UK to Ease Rules for On-Site Renewable Energy Installations
- Intel Eyes Wind, Electric Cars
- Nike Tops Annual Climate Action Scores
- Iranian Tanker Firm to Cut Fuel Use 28%
- Corporate Jetsetters Can be Carbon Offsetters
- USPS Energy Use Down 9% From 2005 to 2008
- From Solar Applications to Christmas, LEDs Light the Night
- EPA May Regulate Sulfur Dioxide Emissions on Hourly Basis
- MITEI: Sustainable Energy & Terawatt-Scale Photovoltaics
- Around the Web – Health Care & Energy, Shell, NBC
Charts [ see all ]
Popular Topics
Energy Efficiency
Data Center
Emissions
Facilities
Electricity
Sustainability
Water
Supply Chain
Efficiency
Green Marketing
Strategy & Leadership
Research
Fleets & Transportation
Carbon Finance
Conventional Energy
Clean Energy
Waste & Recycling
Paper & Packaging
Policy & Law
Utilities
Construction
Comments and Discussions
Trade Association on Trade Group on EPA Chemical Regs: ‘If Everything is a Priority, Then Nothing is a Priority’
"Seriously… that..."
Gary Markowitz on Supermarkets Tackle Emissions Reductions, Fuel Efficiency
"Supermarkets waste over 10 percent of their energy through improper..."
peter in ireland on Ontario May Follow California’s Lead on TV Energy Efficiency
"Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot! 1...."
Environmental Leader on S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
"The survey respondents (the PDF report mentions 4,000 respondents in 38..."
Jake on UPS Trying New Hydraulic Hybrid Trucks
"A point of clarification: the Reuters press release referenced herein reports that 20 UPS will purchase..."
Custom Organic Shirts on S. America Takes Most Urgent View of Copenhagen Talks
"90% of North Americans believe it is urgent to get a global climate..."
peter dublin on California City’s Green Building Ordinance Applies to Commercial Buildings
"Why energy efficiebnt regulation on buildings –..."




Reader Comments
First off – I believe Global Warming is a very serious “Very Real- Man Induced” problem.
However, I do not believe the US is to blame. All we did was develop technologies that the rest of the world would have, if they could have. We were, and are, simply more technologically advanced[ [and the world is very jealous of this, and therefore all the criticism, not to mention that we are the worlds only Superpower, and the world is also jealous of that. Kyoto is as much an attempt to undermine our economy as an attempt to solve Global Warming. Much of the world is just using it as an Economic Tool against us – and many people in the US see this for exactly what it is, Hypocrisy,….. and much of the world knows we know. Probably the main reason even Clinton and Gore would not truly support Kyoto]].
Having a degree in Natural Resources I think the evidence (about global warming) is very Clear and Convincing ‘today’. However, I was not really sure until about 1995, even though I started seeing strong evidence around about 1985. At that point a noticeable warm up started (at least where I was living, & others said they noticed it also, in my area & elsewhere). In my opinion the evidence gradually got stronger till 95, when I thought the evidence was strong enough (and has only gotten stronger, today it is downright scary – the Arctic Ice Cap Meltdown – not funny). So, I really don’t think you can blame us till then (95), and many still don’t (or don’t want to) see it, & not just in the US. However, since 95 the US has made many moves (on many fronts) to combat the problem, and many other countries are dragging their feet, or have been given a free pass (the main Kyoto problem). One of the biggest examples here is China…..but there are others.
The world says it is our Industry that caused the problem (they don’t talk about Britain, and other Industrialized nations as much), but it is also probably mostly ‘Our Technology’ that is going to solve it……………….[I could also throw in many examples of other countries stealing our technology on the international market (weak international patent protections, and many anti-US countries want it that way), the vast majority of SE Asian Industries are built on Appropriated US Technology……. Etc., Etc…………………….…
Our Technology and Industry also saved the world in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War (not to mention other situations). If we had not spent all those years developing various Industries, and Aircraft, & Jeeps, & Tanks, & Ships the afore-mentioned wars would have been lost [[prior to Pearl Harbor the only modern Fighter Plane in SE Asia, other than a Japanese model, was the P-40 Curtis Hawk (Flying Tigers), not a great plane but it kept China from falling]]. We had to use Trains & Trucks to move parts from factory to factory. It took factories to build trains & trucks also, and they had to burn fuel (all this putting carbon in the atmosphere, etc). All those planes, & jeeps, & tanks, & ships etc also burned fuel etc., etc., etc. Not to mention when ours, or the other side’s material got destroyed & released carbon.
Our Industry saved the world on several occasions (also, we have established MANY Democracies around the world,….. how many has Russia or China established !!!). So when people talk about this situation as if we are the only beneficiaries, of such Industrialization, they should look at history again, more objectively. If not for us, much of the world could today be under Japanese Imperialism, or Nazism, or USSR domination………’Comprende’.
The rest of the world has ‘As Much a Responsibility’ to solve this problem as we do,
So, THEY SHOULD STOP BALKING, and cut the EXCUSES.
Da Truth | December 16th, 2008