Close this Advertisement

Indiana Professor: Obama Should Order GHG Cuts

  • Feb 10, 2010
Prof. Rafael Reuveny, Indiana UniversityProf. Rafael Reuveny
Rafael Reuveny, a professor of public and environmental affairs at Indiana University, says President Obama should bypass the gridlocked Congress and issue an executive order to cut greenhouse gases.

The environmental community is voicing concern after President Obama suggested Congress might move an energy bill forward without a carbon-trading system in place.

According to Rafael Reuveny, a professor at the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs in Bloomington, the entire negotiation in Congress is "politics as usual" and meant to stall or defeat vital climate change legislation.

"We are trying to win this fight for our lives through consensus. Such compromise will never materialize ─ not in this country and not internationally," said Reuveny, co-author of Complex Transformations: Democracy and Economic Openness in an Interconnected System (Cambridge University Press, 2009). "No matter how often President Obama pleads for it, bipartisanship has become a joke. So, while the two sides continue this ridiculous game, Rome ─ read: the planet ─ is burning."

Reuveny said it's imperative that President Obama bypass this unproductive haggling. "He must issue an Executive Order to the Environmental Protection Agency to immediately implement a system that will cut greenhouse emissions of the American economy by meeting the goals set by the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House in 2009," he said. "He should also order the EPA to design an all-inclusive command-and-control system of greenhouse emission quotas and monitoring to be backed by severe and immediate penalties on units that would emit more than their allotted amount.

"During his State of the Union address, President Obama made a bold move calling out Supreme Court judges, declaring their decision could enable U.S. and foreign corporations to determine our elections," Reuveny said. "Surely, the president realizes that his opportunity to affect this crisis is coming to an end as energy-consuming corporations gain even more political power. An executive order is the only solution."

Reuveny's research focuses on political conflict and how it interacts with international trade, democracy, migration, and the environment.

Comments

Thu, Feb 25, 2010 Steve Boston

If I was a large business owner in the US and an executive order to cut greenhouse gases was suddenly implemented which affected by my profits, I would move my business out of this country so fast the planet would boil....oh wait it already is. These university professors live a in secluded liberal society and have never worked in the real business community. I live adjacent to Cambridge MA and see these liberal professors all the time. They are so out of touch it's scary and their liberal political opionions they brainwash the students with is even scarier. Those who can't....teach.

Thu, Feb 25, 2010 Arctic Wanderer Anchorage, AK

Interesting ... EPA comes to Congress .. the elected representatives of the people... with the desire to create laws to control greenhouse gas. Congress considers the proposal and ultimately refuses to create a law to support their position. Because EPA doesn't get their way, they enact the laws they couldn't get Congress to pass as "policy". Now this psuedo-political-environemtal "scientist" calls for the president to take the same action as EPA. Last I checked, we stil have a constitution that dictates how laws in this country are supposed to be created, caried out and enforced. Why does this administration and their supporters believe they are exempt? And by the way ... Clear Eyed Realist is right on in his analysis of the human condition. A presidential order, act of Congress, or global treaty will likely have no more impact on climate change than me grabbing onto a moving coal train and digging in my heels to stop it!!

Wed, Feb 24, 2010

I agree 100% with the above commenter’s! Why does a poltical professor suggest this unrealistic approach & why is it published here?

Tue, Feb 23, 2010 Clear Eyed Realist

Feh. Ten thousand years ago, we were beating one another in the head with rocks and wearing skins. Ten thousand years from now? Nothing to be heard or seen but the wind rustling through the leaves.

The earth has, in its life, been irradiated, boiled, frozen, vulcanized, flooded, smacked around by meteors and plagued by countless organisms far more attractive and sensible than humanity. Mankind is nothing more than an unpleasant skin condition that is fleeting in duration to the planet, in its life time. On the cosmological scale of things, mankind does not matter, and to act otherwise - as in, "OMG, we are gonna ruin the planet, ohnoes!" - is just more barbaric stupidity and arrogance.

So be kind to one another. Respect one another. If you dropped it, pick it up. Make your bed. Don't take the last one. Say "please", and "thank you". Enjoy your mayfly existence for what it is.

Fri, Feb 19, 2010 Professional Air Quality Scientist Midwest

Professor Rafael is a typical non-scientific, liberal elitist teaching at the Re-education Center located in the People's Republic of Bloomington (I refuse to call that place a "university" as it would degrade a true university). He is a political "scientist", not an evironmental scientist and his so called expertise is about how public opinion influences society and commerce, hardly qualified to give the President advice on the complex issues of Atmospheric Chemistry. For those who are not aware, the "School of Public and Environmental Affairs" is not an environmental science/engineering program, it turns out greenpeace terrorists -- google it and look through its curriculum, its a joke. I had a SPEA grad apply for an environmental scientist position I was trying to fill -- completely cluless about basic environmental systems, but could spout propaganda about how terrible capitalism was for the earth. Purdue has the only true environmental science and engineering program in Indiana, it turns out problem solvers, not problem causers....

Fri, Feb 19, 2010

An executive order should not be the means for GHG cuts in USA. It would simply be reversed when there is a new president in three more years.

Thu, Feb 18, 2010 Violet

Whether or not global warming is a scam we cannot allow our legislators to force US manufacturers out of business with over-regulation. Importing products from other countries to the US that are manufactured with little or no environmental regulation simply transfers our wealth to them. We should push for other countries to implement environmental regulation that is at least equal to the US and stop importing products that are made in countries without these regulations.US manufacturers already meet the most stringent environmental rules in the world. Keep in mind that cargo ships, transportation, and airplanes generate about 40% of the greenhouse gases. It seems to me that the focus is skewed and needs to be readjusted.

Tue, Feb 16, 2010 Jack Indiana

Professor Rafael is off base. I don't want my life taken over by this far left agenda to take back door control over the whole economy and drive more American jobs overseas while other countries laugh their way to the bank. This doesn't even get into the debate that global warming is a scam.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above