DOMESTIC
pointed to these levels of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere as evidence that action
needs to be taken immediately, regardless of the uncertain economic consequences. However, these same statistics
could be cited by opponents as evidence
that if climate change is a real and legitimate phenomenon, then we have already gone too far, and the United States
should be more concerned with expanding the economy than reaping environmental benefits that won’t be palpable
for centuries to come. Ultimately, this
criticism could doom President Obama’s
plan to political obscurity, especially if
he is succeeded by a Republican in 2016.
Consider also the herculean amount of
infrastructure it would take to meet the
Climate Action Plan’s goal of reducing
U.S. emissions to seventeen percent below
2005 levels by 2020. Vanderbilt Earth and
Environmental Sciences Professor Jonathan Gilligan specializes in climate science. According to his algorithm based on
historical U.S. de-carbonization trends and
statistics provided by the Energy Information Agency: “Achieving a seventeen percent reduction below 2005 by 2020 while
sustaining our economic growth would
require building 147 new nuclear power
plants, or 33,000 solar-thermal generation facilities, or installing 134,000 new
wind turbines or some combination of all
three between now and 2020. That would
20
VANDERBILT POLITICAL REVIEW
mean building roughly twenty one nuclear
power plants per year, 4,700 solar-thermal
plants per year, or installing almost 20,000
wind turbines per year from 2014-2020.”
Given the astronomic proportions of
these requirements, the second and third
objectives of the plan, “Prepare the United
States for the Impact of Climate Change,”
and “Lead International Efforts to Combat Global Climate Change and Prepare
for its Impacts,” might well be the most
substantial elements of the 2013 proposal.
Preparing the United States for the consequences of a warming planet includes
directing agencies to support local development of storm and flood-resistant communities, especially in the regions affected
by Hurricane Sandy. More importantly,
farmers throughout the nation will benefit
substantially from the plan’s strategy to
spread science-based knowledge about sustainable agriculture practices. Given that
nine of the ten hottest years on record have
occurred since the late 1990’s, better technology will be crucial to sustaining U.S.
agriculture as droughts and floods intensify.
So how will the plan be received
abroad? While the United States is the
greatest per-capita contributor of greenhouse gases, China emits the most total
carbon dioxide—a whopping twenty three
percent of the world’s emissions. One of
the great strengths of Obama’s most recent
plan is its pledge to lead international ef-
forts. These efforts have already proven
effective in the form of five new initiatives signed with China in July that compel
the U.S.-China Climate Change Working
Group to work more closely on meeting
energy efficiency standards and developing
clean energy. Likewise, the plan’s initiatives with other major emitters such as Brazil and India will be of crucial importance.
As is the case with any new policy,
the real test will be how effectively the
Obama administration can ignite change
worldwid K?[??? ?\? ?] H[?]Y??]\??&H?Z[ \?H ? ?]Y?H H?[?? ??????[? NNM??[Xx?&\? [???\??\?\? [??[?H ?X?H\??Y??K[? ?[ ?][?^[\H ?]?[?[???][??\?\?? B????X?K??]?\?Y? HX???^H??\?\?\? [?\? H?]?[?\??H ?[?\? ??? H??\?[? ?Y?\? H[???[??[Y[??H ? ?]Y?H ???X?][?\??YH ]??[??\??\? H??\??H??[? \?Y\?]?\?[\???X?H ?\??\?? HY??X?]?[?\??? H ?\?Y[?8?&\??]? [??? H [YB??[ [ ???[ ?\?Y[??[Xx?&\??[X]HX?[?[?X? X[ H[XY?H B?X???^H\??[Y\??\??\ X?X?[????\??Y[?[???[Y ???]\??Z[K \??Z[ \?H??[Y?[?H\?Y?X?K???[?H[?]Y?]\??&HY?\? ?[?\? ? \??H??[[?[Y[? ??\? ?H[?H ?\?Z[?X?H?] \?K ?Y? ??H???[???X?????H H YX\? ?? ?[Z[ ?\?Y[??[XH\?[?[??\??Y[?[\?????\??[^HX???