(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



A Doable Biden Environmental Policy [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']

Date: 2022-12-31

The environmental measures covered by the Inflation Reduction Act go a long way but there is much more to be done and can be done immediately by Executive Order of the President.

Firstly, ban the import of lumber and plywood as well as other wood and paper byproducts (such as furniture and cardboard packaging) sourced from forests that aren't certified as sustainably managed by the Forest Stewardship Council or similar organizations. Current forensic science enables easy identification of the forestry sources of paper and cardboard products. This not only would earn the approval of our various environmental organizations it would certainly gain the support from the American Loggers Council as well as large swaths of American furniture manufacturing, both of whom are economically disadvantaged by being environmentally responsible while competing with foreign entities which are in fact environmental criminals. For example, tree cover in the USA has actually increased by 20% over the last 50 years while in Russia an area the size of New Jersey is deforested every year – twice the rate of Brazil – mostly serving the wood, paper and cardboard needs of China.

This would have additional geopolitical ramifications. Wood, cardboard and paper products from their ravaged Siberian forests are a major Russian export. So this step could also be one of the ways the United States punishes Russia for both its election interference in 2016 and its present aggression in the Ukraine. It would also greatly inconvenience and embarrass China because almost all the cardboard and paper packaging it relies on when shipping its products to the United States comes from Russia. In the immediate and medium-term China would have to rush to source these products from Alaska, Canada and the American Northwest.. This would not only have a positive impact on America's balance of trade it would provide political props to a Democratic administration in many red counties. It would also be a nice shot across China's bow about what America's soft power and market dominance can inflict on China if it continues to misbehave. All this without the loudmouth breast-beating of Trump. "The Republicans talk we Democrats do" is a mantra that must be repeated every day for the next several years because the Trump cult must be fatally damaged for the good of the American body-politic in general.

Secondly the president could ban the import of all fish and seafood products from sources not certified for good practices by organizations approved by the Marine Stewardship Council (for fishing) or the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (for farmed fish and seafood). The American fishing industry and aquaculture industry would certainly be natural allies for such a step. Additionally, robustly enforce all current environmental laws that can be reasonably applied to maritime shipping. This includes, but is not limited to, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2020 low-sulfur fuel regulation. This, in effect, forces the maritime industry to cease using bunker fuel, which is 100 times more polluting than marine diesel and 1,000 times more polluting than automobile diesel. This would require ships entering and leaving American ports to use the equivalent of automobile diesel or (preferably) LNG. In addition, refuse access to American ports for ships whose ports of egress do not robustly enforce the IMO's low-sulfur fuel regulation. Refuse access to American ports to cruise ships that dispose of their solid waste in the high seas – which is responsible for up to 25% of ocean waste. Vigorously enforce all environmental laws that can be legitimately applied to water pollution from discharge of ballast and bilge water as well as general waste disposal when at anchor in American ports. If such a policy were universally enforced worldwide it would lower the maritime contribution to global warming from 4% to less than 1%, as well as significantly clean up the oceans.

Assuming Republican objections and appeals to the Supreme Court (even though the above would benefit predominately red counties) the President, as Commander and Chief, could constitutionally justify this policy under a national security rubric by alluding to CIA and Pentagon policy papers citing the security dangers of climate change and environmental devastation (Google them). For example, how droughts and environmental devastation in the Middle East and Africa have served as the background to ISIS (in Syria especially) and other radical Islamist terrorist groups as well as the massive refugee problem in Europe and elsewhere. This argument can further be augmented by citing the two Gulf wars and the blood and treasure spent protecting oil supplies. By stressing the security aspects rather than the "goody-two-shoes" 'save the planet' arguments we would once again be appealing to the mentality of the red counties – putting possible Republican objections on the back foot.

Biden could also assume global environmental leadership by lobbying for environmental considerations to be integrated into WTO and OECD rules as well as other trade agreements.

Longer Term

Retrofit Rural America – to cut rural home energy costs in half and make America's farms energy self-sufficient. Buildings consume 40% of America's energy and produce 36% of its greenhouse gases. Farms produce 20% of America's greenhouse gases. With a combination of passive geothermal energy, improved insulation, waste to energy technologies, in addition to solar and wind power this could be achieved by 2030 (the Biden equivalent of Kennedy's 'man on the moon' project and a legacy of equal importance). Not only would this have an environmental impact equal to eliminating aviation and maritime pollution together, it would result in a significant increase in rural disposable income and improvement in standard of living, while stimulating local economies in primarily red counties (again, putting Republican opposition on the back foot). Ideally it would be financed by government backed retrofit mortgages but it could be partially initiated even before Congressional approval by a presidential executive order instructing all federal agencies to "mine" existing budget items for monies that could be used for this purpose. Additionally, the buying power of the federal (or state) government could be used to pressure banks to begin issuing retrofit mortgages on their own. The presidential bully pulpit could also encourage contributions from major foundation such as Ford, Rockefeller, and Gates etc. to finance this program amongst the desperately rural poor. Vice President Harris should be the face of this program constantly visiting red counties encouraging people to pressure their Republican congressmen to support it. This would be doing her a service and help repair the damage done to her image when she was given that thankless, no-win job regarding the refugee problem at the southern border. It might give her props for 2024 in case Biden at 82 decides to be a one term president.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/12/31/2144636/-A-Doable-Biden-Environmental-Policy

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.