Obama Positioned to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions

[JP]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/08/AR2008110801856_pf.html
Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.

"The kind of regulations they are looking at" are those imposed by Bush for "overtly political" reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget. The list of executive orders targeted by Obama's team could well get longer in the coming days, as Bush's appointees rush to enact a number of last-minute policies in an effort to extend his legacy.

[pdhenry]

Some examples from TFA:

lift the limit on Congressional funding of embryonic stem cell research
lift a gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive US aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion
reverse the Bush administration's decision to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from autombiles
creation of a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change

[Snowman]

Just so we're clear, could they push one item to the TOP of the list, above "overtly political"? "No Child Left Behind" must, must, must go. Then, once they leave a child behind, they can use it for stem cell research if they insist.

And I love this one "creation of a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change "

They will create a NATIONAL council to coordinate policymaking for GLOBAL climate change. Ah hell, this is pure genius... I can hear the giant backfire sound now.

[DH]

Just so we're clear, could they push one item to the TOP of the list, above "overtly political"? "No Child Left Behind" must, must, must go. Then, once they leave a child behind, they can use it for stem cell research if they insist.

And I love this one "creation of a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change "

They will create a NATIONAL council to coordinate policymaking for GLOBAL climate change. Ah hell, this is pure genius... I can hear the giant backfire sound now.

I haven't checked with Pgogborn yet, but I am fairly solid that No Child Left Behind can't be reversed by an executive order - being that is was an act of Congress signed into law by the President.

And would you prefer some other country or intenational body coordinate our national policy on global climate change? Here is a concept - we establish a NATIONAL policy and then we work with other willing countries to address the issue, we make changes, they make changes, etc as we work on the problem to the best of our ability with countries that are also willing to do the same thing while simultaneously trying to get as much of a global consensus as possible. Of course, this is all pending approval of Pgogborn......

[pgogborn]

And would you prefer some other country or intenational body coordinate our national policy on global climate change? Here is a concept - we establish a NATIONAL policy and then we work with other willing countries to address the issue, we make changes, they make changes, etc as we work on the problem to the best of our ability with countries that are also willing to do the same thing while simultaneously trying to get as much of a global consensus as possible. Of course, this is all pending approval of Pgogborn......
"We work on the problem to the best of our ability with countries that are also willing to do the same thing while simultaneously trying to get as much of a global consensus as possible"?

I thought the 'global consensus' was called the Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (aka the Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, about 16 years ago.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png/400px-Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png
Participation in the Kyoto Protocol, where dark green indicates
countries that have signed and ratified the treaty, yellow is
signed, but not yet ratified, grey is not yet decided and red is
no intention of ratifying.

(acknowledgements Wikipedia)

[Francis]

How about immediately cutting all federal funding for abstinence education programs?

Seriously, telling horny teenagers not to have sex is like trying to sell snow shovels in hell. :cool:

[Otto]

I thought the 'global consensus' was called the Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (aka the Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, about 16 years ago.
Then you thought wrong. The Kyoto protocol is crap and most people in the US do not agree with it. Even those on the far left admit that it has many problems.

[pgogborn]

I thought the 'global consensus' was called the Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (aka the Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, about 16 years ago.
Then you thought wrong. The Kyoto protocol is crap and most people in the US do not agree with it. Even those on the far left admit that it has many problems.I said absolutely nothing about weather or not the Kyoto protocol is excellent or crap.

And most people in the U.S. not agreeing with it was sort of my point (as the key under the map said "red is no intention of ratifying").

(or to put it another way, if Snowman's point is - that the "creation of a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change" is just a feel good meaningless creation that may be good for a small newspaper headline but has sweet fanny adams to do with the rest of the planet, change or reversing Bush's actions - I agree with him)

[DH]

And would you prefer some other country or intenational body coordinate our national policy on global climate change? Here is a concept - we establish a NATIONAL policy and then we work with other willing countries to address the issue, we make changes, they make changes, etc as we work on the problem to the best of our ability with countries that are also willing to do the same thing while simultaneously trying to get as much of a global consensus as possible. Of course, this is all pending approval of Pgogborn......
"We work on the problem to the best of our ability with countries that are also willing to do the same thing while simultaneously trying to get as much of a global consensus as possible"?

I thought the 'global consensus' was called the Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (aka the Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, about 16 years ago.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png/400px-Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png
Participation in the Kyoto Protocol, where dark green indicates
countries that have signed and ratified the treaty, yellow is
signed, but not yet ratified, grey is not yet decided and red is
no intention of ratifying.

(acknowledgements Wikipedia)

Cool. We will just sign on to Kyoto and the problem is solved. Because clearly nothing has chnged in the past 16 years......:2funny:

[DH]

I said absolutely nothing about weather or not the Kyoto protocol is excellent or crap.


I don't usually point out grammatical errors but I thought this one was kind of funny given the topic at hand......;)

[pgogborn]

I said absolutely nothing about weather or not the Kyoto protocol is excellent or crap.


I don't usually point out grammatical errors but I thought this one was kind of funny given the topic at hand......;)I am such crap at grammar I still think you have kept to your policy of not pointing out grammatical errors - in my grammar crapness I would have called that a spelling error.

[DH]

I said absolutely nothing about weather or not the Kyoto protocol is excellent or crap.


I don't usually point out grammatical errors but I thought this one was kind of funny given the topic at hand......;)I am such crap at grammar I still think you have kept to your policy of not pointing out grammatical errors - in my grammar crapness I would have called that a spelling error.

And you would be wrong. Misuse of a homophone is a grammar error.

[grondramb]

Some examples from TFA:

lift the limit on Congressional funding of embryonic stem cell research
lift a gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive US aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion
reverse the Bush administration's decision to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from autombiles
creation of a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change



1,2,3 are fine - 4 depends on what they do - we cannot to do anything that would harm the economy before we know what portion of global warming is human caused and what the other big causes are.

[Jobeth66]

I love 1, 2 & 3. I also love the idea of getting rid of the requirement that schools teach "abstinence only".

If we can get rid of faith-based initiatives, I'll be even happier. (I know Obama supports those, though, so I doubt that'll happen.)

[AJRitz]

I love 1, 2 & 3. I also love the idea of getting rid of the requirement that schools teach "abstinence only".

If we can get rid of faith-based initiatives, I'll be even happier. (I know Obama supports those, though, so I doubt that'll happen.)
Hopefully, Obama will have a different approach to the whole topic of faith-based initiatives than the current administration. I know for a fact that millions of dollars were bled off from Department of Labor enforcement programs and moved into "Secretarial Initiatives" - chief among them, faith-based initiatives.

[pgogborn]

I don't usually point out grammatical errors but I thought this one was kind of funny given the topic at hand......;)I am such crap at grammar I still think you have kept to your policy of not pointing out grammatical errors - in my grammar crapness I would have called that a spelling error.

And you would be wrong. Misuse of a homophone is a grammar error.Hey - I have already admitted my grammar is crap - what more do you want - predictive text error? metrological humor for the peanut gallery error? (or should that be humour?).

[pgogborn]

Cool. We will just sign on to Kyoto and the problem is solved. Because clearly nothing has chnged in the past 16 years......:2funny:Well for sure in the vanishingly remote possibility of Obama working with the global community and ratifying the Kyoto treaty anytime soon nothing will change - any more than it will change if he sets up a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change.

But I have a small cheer for the countries that have not only signed the Kyoto treaty but are also meeting their target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

(a small legal cheer that is the same as for any country that fulfills an international treaty 'obligation', not a Green cheer)

[evizzle]

Is Obama in favor of building Nuclear power plants? If so, that seems like something that should be done very soon...

[pdhenry]

We'll have oil from ANWR before a new-start nuc plant is online. There's no such thing as building a nuclear power plant "very soon."

[Snowman]

I don't usually point out grammatical errors but I thought this one was kind of funny given the topic at hand......;)I am such crap at grammar I still think you have kept to your policy of not pointing out grammatical errors - in my grammar crapness I would have called that a spelling error.

And you would be wrong. Misuse of a homophone is a grammar error.

I'm getting tired of you folks calling all of us homophones. We're not PHONING homosexuality, we're just trying to deny the ability for gays to marry.

:)

[grondramb]

And you would be wrong. Misuse of a homophone is a grammar error.

And in states, a crime.

[Otto]

And most people in the U.S. not agreeing with it was sort of my point (as the key under the map said "red is no intention of ratifying").

Then, to be blunt, I missed your point. You said that it was a "global consensus" while providing the evidence that it is clearly not a "consensus" of any sort.

I guess I'm just not sure where you were going with that, given that your post was self-contradictory.

(or to put it another way, if Snowman's point is - that the "creation of a National Energy Council to coordinate all policymaking related to global climate change" is just a feel good meaningless creation that may be good for a small newspaper headline but has sweet fanny adams to do with the rest of the planet, change or reversing Bush's actions - I agree with him)

I disagree. Given that the Kyoto protocol is crap and NOT a global consensus, then a real look at the issues without the bullshit which happened in Kyoto makes a lot of sense to me.

[leahn]

The very first energy initiative should be to deregulate the nuclear reactor market.

Did ya'll see the headline yesterday, about the nuclear sub acccident? 20 people dead?

Turns out the (chemical) sprinklers went off in the sub.

More people die each year from trains carrying coal, than have ever died from Nuclear Power.

-John

[jgerry]

More people die each year from trains carrying coal, than have ever died from Nuclear Power.
I find that hard to believe, albeit mostly due to a single data point -- Chernobyl. Dozens killed initially, and many thousands have died and will die due to slow radiation poisoning.

That being said -- I do think we need to get to building some nu-cu-ler plants soon. I don't think we have much choice.

[InigoMontoya]

We'll have oil from ANWR before a new-start nuc plant is online. There's no such thing as building a nuclear power plant "very soon."

Only because we lack the political will. Next generation reactors (pebble bed and similar) could be up and running pretty damned quick if we actually (as a nation) *wanted* them to be.

[pseudonym]

The very first energy initiative should be to deregulate the nuclear reactor market.

Did ya'll see the headline yesterday, about the nuclear sub acccident? 20 people dead?

Turns out the (chemical) sprinklers went off in the sub.

More people die each year from trains carrying coal, than have ever died from Nuclear Power.


That's kind of a useless statistic, since we use about a zillion times more coal than nuclear power. And, as jgerry pointed out, I assume you meant to add "in America".

That said, I'm all in favor of bankrupting the coal industry unless much cleaner technology can be developed. Part of the path to achieving that includes nuclear power.

[pgogborn]

And most people in the U.S. not agreeing with it was sort of my point (as the key under the map said "red is no intention of ratifying").Then, to be blunt, I missed your point. You said that it was a "global consensus" while providing the evidence that it is clearly not a "consensus" of any sort.
More specifically I said it was a 'global consensus'. The single quotes was my attempt to indicate I was using someone else's terminology while trying to keep some distance from it.

Previously somebody posted "We work on the problem to the best of our ability with countries that are also willing to do the same thing while simultaneously trying to get as much of a global consensus as possible".

I wanted to reply to the substantial point without diverting into what constitutes a consensus, if it can be merely "something you can get as much of as possible".

You are probably posting wearing a science hat.

I was posting wearing an international politics hat. Obama studied international politics at college, he must know that he will not be able to 'influence people and win friends', "get as much of a global consensus as possible" unless he takes a position which I tend to doubt that you would support, a position which I doubt he will take.

According to the dead tree newspaper I was reading this morning Al Gore has just said one of Obama's first acts as US president should be to demand a move to 100% renewable energy within 10 years. "We can do that. The declaration from President Kennedy that we would land a man on the moon and bring him back safely was thought by many to be impossible". Technologically possible perhaps, but I hope none of the people who voted for Obama thinks it is going to happen.

[trainman]

More people die each year from trains carrying coal, than have ever died from Nuclear Power.


That's kind of a useless statistic, since we use about a zillion times more coal than nuclear power. And, as jgerry pointed out, I assume you meant to add "in America".

Also, I suspect pretty much anyone who died as a result of a train carrying coal would also have died if the train had been carrying hazardous chemicals, or random cargo containers, or passengers. (Actually, not always passengers, since passenger trains are much shorter and lighter than a typical freight train.)

[keirgrey]

More people die each year from trains carrying coal, than have ever died from Nuclear Power.


That's kind of a useless statistic, since we use about a zillion times more coal than nuclear power. And, as jgerry pointed out, I assume you meant to add "in America".

Also, I suspect pretty much anyone who died as a result of a train carrying coal would also have died if the train had been carrying hazardous chemicals, or random cargo containers, or passengers. (Actually, not always passengers, since passenger trains are much shorter and lighter than a typical freight train.)Proof that inertia is a motherfucker. ;)

[heySkippy]

Isn't coal naturally radioactive or something? I seem to recall people talking about radioactivity and coal fired power plants.

[JETarpon]

We'll have oil from ANWR before a new-start nuc plant is online. There's no such thing as building a nuclear power plant "very soon."

This looks promising:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/09/miniature-nuclear-reactors-los-alamos

[busyba]

I don't usually point out grammatical errors but I thought this one was kind of funny given the topic at hand......;)I am such crap at grammar I still think you have kept to your policy of not pointing out grammatical errors - in my grammar crapness I would have called that a spelling error.

And you would be wrong. Misuse of a homophone is a grammar error.

You're just a homophonephobe.

[smak]

I heard that the liberal blogosphere is sending 500 cases of this stuff to the White House. Delivery 1/21/09

http://www.bettymills.com/store/images/product/CPAP0983.JPG

[pdhenry]

Isn't coal naturally radioactive or something? I seem to recall people talking about radioactivity and coal fired power plants.Radioactive carbon-14 makes up a very small fraction of coal. You burn coal, you're emitting radioactivity in the form of CO2 that contains some C-14.. You burn a shitload of coal, you're emitting more radioactive contamination than any nuclear plant.