obama!

     During his campaign, Obama promised quite a few things dealing with the environment.  The Chicago Tribune lists several goals of his.  The following are simply the goals outlined in these articles: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-obama-green-box-19-nov19,0,6070882.story and http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2008/2008-11-05-091.html.  Obama's first was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, and he even provided a market-based solution to ease the pain: he detailed letting polluters exchange emission credits so that those who could not (or would not) reduce their emissions could pay to keep their practices.  His second goal was generally "air pollution"-themed, and described more stringent standards regarding soot and smog.  It also foretold getting rid of Bush's rule that allowed power companies to upgrade coal-fired power plants without pollution controls, and outlined new limits of toxic mercury emissions from power plants.  His third goal simply was to double federal funding for clean-energy projects.  The fourth was that by 2025, 25% of our country's electricity be powered by wind, solar, and other carbon-free sources.  By 2030, Obama hopes that all new buildings are carbon-neutral, meaning that no zero carbon emissions come from these new buildings (unless, of course, one has "carbon credits" out the wazoo).  The fifth goal was to simply use more money to clean up pollution in the Great Lakes area and to restore the fisheries there.  Environmental News Service lists Obama's environmental goals: to make clean energy a priority, reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and curb climate change.  
      As far as accomplishing these goals goes, it is only 2010, so accomplishment cannot be expected.  But progress can.  In march of this year, many environmentalists felt "betrayed" by Obama regarding his offshore drilling plan.  The danger of oil spills and carbon emission from such drilling is great, as not even one month later, the largest oil spill in the history of the U.S. occurred.  But many environmentalists have not hit him too hard regarding the oil spill.  The president of the Sierra Club, Carl Pope, speaks favorably of Obama, "President Obama is the best environmental president we’ve had since Teddy Roosevelt...He obviously did not take the crisis in the Minerals Management Service adequately seriously, that’s clear. But his agencies have done a phenomenally good job" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38451.html).  Environmentalists even put full-page ads in The Washington Post, thanking Obama this past June for holding off on his Alaska Drilling Project.  (I think anybody in his shoes would have done the same).  But Jonathan Alter, of Newsweek, disagrees in his article "Better Listen to Bill Clinton on Green Jobs" (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/26/alter-obama-clinton-and-clean-energy.html).  "in late 2009, Clinton began lobbying privately for an energy-efficiency loan-guarantee program. "  Essentially, Obama hasn't really moved this plan into action, though $90 billion of his Recovery Plan was dedicated to clean energy.  So it seems, from all that I've gathered, that Obama is, like most politicians, making hefty promises, genuinely believing in them, but finding that the execution of such promises is the most difficult part.  Obviously, a terrible accident occurred while he was in power, but I don't think this was all bad for his image.  The brunt of the blame has been placed on BP, and, as the full-page "Thank you" ads from environmentalists show, many pity his situation rather than blame him for it.  
      As we discussed in class, the executive branch has virtually no power when it comes to environmental policy.  The legislative branch is the powerful one.  One thing the president can do, though,  is appoint heads of agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency.  This is obviously significant because the EPA has a lot of power when it comes to environmental policy and regulation.  This also means that if the previous head of the EPA is ideologically different than the president, he can switch in a new head who will more likely side with himself.  Then any environmental policies (or lack thereof) that are not well-received generally are blamed on the EPA head, not the president.  I think that the power to appoint officers should be exercised.  Though it does seem a little corrupt (the act of putting in power one of your friends or someone more on your side politically), this is the game of politics, so it's really all strategy.  And even for those politicians who truly do want to solve the country's problems, putting in an officer who sides with them ideologically is the logical, smart, and most beneficial action. Considering that both sides (or all sides, however you view it) aim to get their ideas into action, I would say that no inconsistencies exist between my conservatism and the power of the executive to appoint officers.  
     The environmental advocates that are dissatisfied with Obama have reason to be, as he promised many things, such as a decrease in offshore drilling, followed by a terrible oil spill.  But many of Obama's goals are very long-term, and only two years into his term, it is difficult to see both what Obama has done in the way of accomplishing these goals, and what he should have accomplished by now.  I feel that Obama has not done as poorly as many environmentalists say... within his first hundred days as president he took countless steps in the green direction, including appointing a "green team" of advisors, creating the Omnibus Public Land Management Act (which protects 2 million acres of wilderness land), and cancelling several mountaintop mining permits which had been allotted by the Bush administration.  Regardless of whether or not Obama is following his own prescription, he is improving the United States' environment from years past.