Because Barack says so: the case for state incentives

(Source)

My social media algorithms are likely to blame, but I have to look very long and hard to find comments denouncing Obama's time as US President. Whilst his military legacy is questionable, his climate record appears infallible at the surface.

It's a darn shame that this article in Science was published on the day of the deadline for my blog. "The irreversible momentum of clean energy" is the first time Science has published a sitting president, and I can't imagine this will happen for another four years at least. Obama argues for the role of state incentives providing the nudge that the private sector needs towards the direction a zero-emissions future. What was I saying?

"Beyond market forces, state-level policy will continue to drive clean-energy momentum." 

- Barack Obama, Science, 2017.

He recounts the examples of Google and Walmart, and their pledge to be 100% renewably powered as case studies of the profitability of renewable investment, and credited US public policy with initiating this change. He also boasts of the new standards put in place to improve fuel economy standards in new vehicles, appliances and new building codes which will reduce emissions as well as save money for consumers. Beyond this, he also banned drilling of Arctic resources.

So his efforts within US borders clearly deserve recognition, but his label as the first 'climate president' is problematic.

To begin with, his claim that energy sector carbon emissions fell by 9.5% from 2008 to 2015, while the U.S. economy grew by 10% in the same timeframe is complicated. Part of this was due to the development of fracking under his administration, meaning the relatively cleaner burning of natural gas dominated emissions as opposed to coal. Furthermore, an investigation into the official export credit agency of the US government found that whilst Obama stabilised US emissions, he invested $34 billion in coal, oil and gas projects elsewhere in the world, including Mexico, Ukraine and Australia. Overall, 70 fossil fuel projects have been given loans or guarantees under Obama. This means that his administration has given overseas funding for fossil fuel development more than any other presidency. Comparatively, George W. Bush gave three times less.

It's fair to say that Obama attempting to pass a bill through Congress was akin to banging his head against a brick wall, and you wonder whether this caused him to remain silent on the issue of climate change for the remainder of his first term, after the resounding defeat of his cap-and-trade bill in 2010. As much as I appreciate his efforts in being a vocal role model for efforts towards climate change, I can't say that his decision-making, domestic or global, has always had climate at its core.

So why publish this article? Is this a lament to the likely unravelling of progress that he made? And why in Science? Interesting how this was the means for his final published word as president. It's a real statement on the legacy he wants to be remembered for. There is passing reference to the Trump administration, with contemplation of what would happen if the US was to walk away from the Paris Agreement. His argument attempts to play to Trump's interests by emphasising the economic and global political benefits as opposed to the scientific basis, drawing upon being in the position of wielding significant power to hold other powerful nations to account (e.g. China and Mexico). Futile, likely, and one can only hope that Donald ever picks up a Science magazine. As for convincing the general public, I have searched the depths of Twitter... and can find no criticisms of his publication, only praise. By publishing in Science, is he only preaching to the choir?

And who else is chuckling at the thought of Trump reading Science magazine?