Mr. Obama: Would You Solve the Fuel Economy Dispute with a Presidential Order?

Dear Mr. Obama,

Congratulations on your victory in Iowa. As the new front-runner for both the Democratic nomination and the Oval Office, it would be fitting for you to set the pace on climate action. Sure, we've seen your climate and energy campaign platform, and it's pretty good. Problem is, it reads just like the climate and energy platform of every candidate from your party, so it's time for more.

Turns out, there's a big fat climate and energy issue that the next president can resolve with the stroke of a pen the first day in office. Any interest in seizing the high ground, elevating climate action to front-burner status, and delivering on the change you represent?

The big fat climate and energy issue is auto fuel economy standards. I know you think the energy bill of 2007 took care of that issue already. Here's what you said about it:

Mirroring a bipartisan proposal I have introduced the past two years, the Energy Bill ends a 20-year stalemate over CAFE standards and raises the fuel economy of cars and trucks to an average of 35 mpg by 2020.

But that's a worrisome remark. Have you forgotten that your climate and energy platform promises to go much farther on auto fuel economy? Your campaign position is 55 mpg by 2025. The Energy Bill provision falls far short of what you advocate, but your statement did not say so. Not a scintilla of disappointment in your self-congratulatory comment.

It is true that the new standard is a breakthrough -- for Congress -- but it does not go far enough if you use science as your guide. To get to total emissions reductions of 80% by 2050, we need a greater contribution from the transport sector, as you know. So how come it is not you who is showing leadership on this issue, but Governor Schwarznegger?

The energy bill has unfortunately provided cover for the EPA to temporarily stop Governor Schwarznegger, California and 16 other states from imposing more stringent tailpipe standards. In response, California and most of the 16 states are suing the EPA. Even though the states are widely expected to prevail, it could take years for the case to be resolved through the courts.

And that's precisely the opportunity that stands before you. Since the EPA, an executive branch agency, takes orders from the President, the next occupant of the White House can resolve all this with the stroke of a pen. If that occupant is you, it can even be your first order: grant California the waiver it seeks under the Clean Air Act.

Will you make a commitment to do so?

There are many reasons you should, if you are for real.

1. California's tailpipe standards would raise auto fuel economy in the state to 44 mpg by 2020. That's a lot closer to the 55 mpg by 2025 which you advocate. Sixteen other states will follow suit, in effect raising auto fuel economy standards to where they need to be - beyond what Congress is able to achieve.
2. The states' standard would provide a big climate benefit -- it would reduce 75% more emissions from autos by 2016 than the federal standard alone.
3. Granting the California waiver would restore the rule of the law -- in this case the Clean Air Act -- which the current administration flouts to serve its own ideological ends, to the great detriment of our democracy.
4. You can demonstrate to Iowa's voters that the change they voted for is on its way.
5. You can show the nation and the rest of the world that the United States is ready to rejoin the community of nations and lead the way toward solutions on global warming. Never again should the US be roundly jeered by diplomats from all the assembled nations of the earth, as it was in Bali.

Of course, you can play it safe. But then Senator Clinton might seize this issue and....ah well, I'll leave it to your strategists to sort out the political pros and cons.

But this much is undeniable: here's a golden opportunity for you to help solve climate and do what you say you want to do.

By the way, this is only step one -- the low hanging fruit.

We'll be back to you on coal.

With all best wishes,

David Sassoon

www.solveclimate.com

UPDATE: Since posting this piece earlier today, we've learned that you issued a statement after EPA rejected California's waiver.

This week's decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to prevent California and 17 other states from implementing higher fuel economy standards is yet another example of how this Administration has put corporate interests ahead of the public interest. If the courts do not overturn this decision, I will after I am elected president.

My apologies for the oversight. Still, the fundamental question on auto fuel economy still remains. How do you plan to get us to your stated goal of 55mpg by 2025?

• ‹ previous
• up
• next ›