Stimulate Green Energy

"[W]hen we eat from the industrial-food system, we are eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases," writes Michael Pollen in the lead article of the New York Times' food issue. Rising food prices, he argues, cannot be addressed until we address core features of our food production. Among them are the basic energy and environmental issues surrounding industrial argriculture.

At the same time, we are in the midst of a very tumultuous economic situation. The immediate crisis -- the credit crisis, the swinging stock market -- may abate, but there is looming recessionary concern and little hope for immediate housing price stabilization.

Agriculture and economic growth are but two of the fundemental issues connected with our energy system. The web of issues -- and thus our nation -- could benefit tremendously from a major federal green-energy initiative. Government supported green infrastructure projects would immediately create jobs and a more inviting environment for business investment in new energy projects or technology as a bridge to a longer-lasting and more penetrating green energy economy. Development of more environment-friendly food production techniques is a component of the green energy economy and should also be supported in such initiatives.

Such a stimulus could address large pieces of many of the country's most pressing problems: greenhouse gas emissions, national security concerns based on forgein oil dependence, trade (in domestic technology), food security (by promoting long-term energy stability and affordability), and economic security.

If we are in for a bumpy economic ride, as it seems we are, government actions aimed at addressing it can also aim toward sending us in the right direction hereafter. My suggestion is to start with energy. It demands the sort of infrastructure investment that can produce short-term economic activity. In the current economic environment, that investment is only likely from governement, and the backing must be strong to have a significant impact.

Large-scale government initiatives in green energy techonolgies will encourage the kind of investment that can pay long-term national dividends. And they have a necessary role in sustaining a livable planet in the face of climate change.

Strobe Lights The Way

Last night I attended the 2008 International Relations Council annual awards banquet in Kansas City. Strobe Talbot received the award for international statesmanship. He then went on to deliver a speech that began with Socrates' concept of world citizenship and ended with global climate change. Talbot's main message was that international institutions undergird world peace, and that successfully meeting the greatest current challenge to international peace - global climate change - will require an international legal regime that accomplishes at least some rudimentary level of world government.

Drawing from his new book, The Great Experiment: The Story of Ancient Empires, Modern States, and the Quest for a Global Nation, Talbot traced the history of international treaties and institutions as responses to, and prophylactics against, armed conflicts among countries, empires, and cultures. Beginning with Socrates' claim to have been "a citizen of the world", the President of the Brookings Institute went on to offer a magisterial overview of how international law tends to encourage good international relations, encouraging peace and prosperity. Talbot identified global climate change as the single greatest threat to humanity's future, and suggested that treaties and other international institutions will need to bind nations together if the world is to avoid the worst consequences of greenhouse gas emissions.

One world government is an infamous bogeyman of American politics. Many in the United States believe in, and fear, the fabled "Black Helicopters". Strobe Talbot made a strong case for the proposition that the real fear humanity should have is that countries will continue to confront global climate change independently - an approach apparently favored by Talbot's cousin, George Bush II - rather than as a single coordinated polity forged by international legal institutions.

A free hiking guide

Yes, this is an advertisement for a one-year subscription to Backpacker magazine. But it comes with a nice, free offer: a 48-page .pdf file providing nice information on some of the country's best hiking opportunities.

Happy trails to BioLaw's readers.

Candidates on the ESA: Obama

There are several recent comparisons of the candidates on environmental issues. For example, Michael Gerrard authored a recent ABA Natural Resources & Environment piece on the presidential candidates' stance on environmental issues. The online environmental news magazine Grist has a comparison of their farm & food policies. However, biodiversity & the ESA have received only passing attention, at best. So where do the candidates stand? I highlighted McCain's record last week. Now for Obama.

Compared with McCain, of course, Obama is a newcomer to the federal scene. Even though he served as a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, few Obama stances relevant to biodiversity conservation or the ESA have been reported. While the League of Conservation Voters gives him a lifetime voting record of 96 out of 100, his response to the LCV question "Do you support maintaining the strong protections of the Endangered Species Act, and do you think the Act is fundamentally sound?" was a simple "yes."

On the major ESA issue that has arisen this general campaign season, Obama's campaign opposes the proposed changes to ESA consultation regulations that could lower the bar for how federal agencies consider whether their actions affect listed species. However, Obama was not among the democratic Senators who authored a letter to Interior Secretary Kempthorne when the proposal was announced. On the other major ESA issue of the year -- the polar bear listing -- Obama did not elaborate his position (as Gov. Palin did ), but appears generally supportive. In response to a question regarding preservation of "wildlife" in the face of climate change, Obama responded: "I support maintaining the strong protections of the Endangered Species Act and think the Act is fundamentally sound."

Most recently, Obama advanced a clean-up plan for the Great Lakes (which, of course, border Illinois and possible swing states) that includes efforts to address invasive species, such as Asian carp.

The Obama website offers virtually no insight into his views on the ESA. Not suprisingly, it focuses heavily on energy issues.

Sierra Club supports Obama on ESA grounds, arguing that he is a better choice for biodiversity than McCain and that Obama will reduce political impediments to ESA listings.

On the whole, Obama's record and comments suggest that he generally supports biodiversity protection. Although it is not a prominent issue in his campaign, Obama would likely support making biodiversity law more effective if he wins next month.