Letter from a Fish Shack
Dear Mr. President, I’m writing you from a fish shack, deep in a Louisiana marsh, where I sit on a dock that juts out over the water, a mile or so away from even the nearest marina. Some say that the worst of the Gulf spill has passed, that it is time to turn the national spotlight elsewhere, but that is not how the men who fish from these camps feel. You would like it here, Mr. President. While it isn’t quite the place apart from the world that it was a few months ago, you would find some quiet, away from the clamor of judging reporters and reports, far from the din and hectoring of life in the spotlight. No microphones, and no Fox News. But lots of egrets and herons and one hungry alligator cruising for dinner a hundred yards up the canal. I like to think that you would spend your time in this dilapidated fish camp that somehow survived Katrina (though its roof did not), by soaking in the quiet and reflecting on your presidency so far. And I like to think you would be quite proud of what you have accomplished, which, despite the carpers, is quite a lot, possibly more than any Democratic president in my lifetime. But I also like to think that you might re-consider a few of your choices, particularly those that involve the clean-up going on only a few miles from this shack, out on the dark and necrotic fringe of the great but dying marsh. I do not blame you for the oil spill, Mr. President, no more than I blame your predecessor for a hurricane. But my hosts at this camp, Anthony, a precocious sixteen-year-old who has captained boats since he was eight and who, like the young Mark Twain, dreams of being a Mississippi river boat captain, and his uncle, do blame you. To be honest, they would probably still blame you if you threw on a scuba outfit and swam down to the cap to plug all the leaks and then used your custom homemade oil vacuum to suck up the rest of the spill. And, frankly, Anthony and his uncle are not your problem, at least from an electoral point of view, since they wouldn’t vote for you under any circumstances. Nor am I your problem, since I, a Northeasterner from the other end of the political spectrum, will likely vote for you no matter what. But what should concern you, Mr. President, and concern you quite a bit, I think, is not the divide between me and my hosts here, but just how much we agree. What we agree about, as Anthony’s uncle and I sip our beers and stare out as the light dies on the marsh, is that the clean-up of the spill has been deeply mishandled, in ways not yet understood by you and the rest of the country. What should concern you is a deep and building anger, not just toward BP, but toward your ceding of power to BP, an anger that I might have found exaggerated in the media before heading down here three weeks ago, but that I now believe to be understated. You’ll be happy to hear that our first area of agreement has nothing to do with you, Mr. President, but with our mutual dislike of Peyton Manning, me as a Patriots’ fan and Anthony as a deep admirer of Drew Brees and the Saints, who bested Manning, a former hometown hero, in the Super Bowl. But our second overlapping opinion should concern you more. It has to do with that much-bandied-about word "freedom," and the lack of it, the sense that most people down here have that, on top of the deep depression that comes with loss of livelihood, there is also now a crippling sense of servitude. Servitude toward one’s country, toward the mission of cleaning up these beautiful and abundant waters, would be one thing, Anthony’s uncle and I agree. But the serf-like sense that one has to serve the very master who spoiled those waters in the first place is another entirely. We also agree on this: one of the small, sad sights down here these days is watching the captains of the so-called "Vessels of Opportunity" hired to help clean up the spill, who have likely not worn life jackets since they were toddlers, all buckled up as they putter out to sea each morning. It seems a badge of shame, of not being in control, which of course they aren’t, beholden as they are, not to their own government, but to a multinational corporation. It’s my understanding, from talking to people down here, that each and every one of these captains is required to sign an agreement that — as temporary BP employees paid for their part in the clean-up effort — they will not criticize the company and, of course, will not press further claims against it. At first, choosing to work on those vessels seemed like the commonsense choice — after all, their normal livelihood of catching fish was not an option, with the fishing grounds closed due to oil. But just recently, at an EPA meeting, Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser told the audience he was concerned that every penny earned on one of those vessels would be counted against future compensation, while the damage to boats would go uncompensated, which means those who chose not to work for BP may do better in the long haul. The long haul is not a popular topic down here. Already there is talk of full compensation packages for two years, as if the damage to the Gulf’s reputation, if not its ecosystem, won’t last for decades. You are a reasonable man, Mr. President — too reasonable according to some. But I am not asking you to stomp your feet and wave your fist and claim to be in charge. What I am asking instead is for you to examine this situation logically and then take charge, real charge. You will say that the template for this disaster was built during the Exxon Valdez disaster two decades ago, and you are right, but this is a new disaster with new circumstances that requires a new template. Let BP pay for its mess, as they should, but they should not be in charge of every detail. They should not be out on scientific survey boats, noting when the scientists forget to put on their plastic gloves so that this fact might be used as evidence in some future lawsuit. They should not be running the show at Fort Pickens, a national seashore in the Florida panhandle where the fort was built to protect us from foreign invasion, and did so successfully until three months ago, and where the rangers, who know and love that land, have been beaten down to docility by the corporation now in control of their national park. They should not be bringing in outsiders to clean up waters that the locals have known since they were kids; they should be listening rather than ordering, taking advantage of this crucial knowledge of tides and winds. And they should not have the power to influence the bird surveyor that I spoke to the other day, who couldn’t give me any real numbers on bird deaths he had witnessed, because, as he sheepishly admitted, BP is on his organization’s board of trustees. I am a houseguest tonight, out here on the marsh, and let me use this experience to suggest an analogy with BP’s behavior. It would be as if in the middle of the night I decided to defecate in Anthony’s bathtub and then, loudly and boorishly, ordered him to clean it up in the morning. Worse still it would be as if, tomorrow morning, I were to slip him a fifty, and get him to sign something that said I could sue him if he ever mentioned what I’d done. In short, it both doesn’t make sense and is morally abhorrent, Mr. President. So don’t accept it. Gather your top scientists, environmentalists, policy makers, and make use of the people who know these waters. Demand BP’s money-of course they should pay for their own mess-but take charge of your own shores, showing that you are beholden, not to their corporation, but to your people. Because for all the differences that my hosts and I have, we all agree on one thing. It would make a world of difference if, tomorrow morning at dawn, when the Vessels of Opportunity putter past this dock on their daily commute to lay boom and spot oil, they were flying their country’s colors and not the corporate flag of green and yellow. Sincerely, David Gessner Read more of Gessner’s Gulf reporting in his online journal .
Read the rest of the post here:
Letter from a Fish Shack
Climate Changers: White House Aide Phil Schiliro
Part of a series profiling key players in environmental politics. Read more>> Who he is: Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs What does that title mean? When senators or representatives want to relay a message to the president, they call Phil. When the president wants to relay a message to Congress, he calls Phil. Essentially, Schiliro’s a go-between, but a really, really important one. Green cred: Schiliro attended Hofstra University and Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon. As a congressional and executive branch staffer for his entire working life, he has handled many different issues, green or otherwise. He spent more than two decades working for Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat with a strong environmental record. Because his job is to push his boss’ agenda, not his own, Schiliro is rarely able to express his personal opinions publicly. Still, looking closely, we can find some environmental rumblings. In 1974, while he was a senior in high school on Long Island, Schiliro rallied students from his environmental studies class to stop a local company from polluting a stream behind his parents’ house. Two decades later, when he ran unsuccessfully for a congressional seat in Long Island, he drew attention to links between breast cancer and pollution. In the coming months, he will help Obama usher a climate change bill through Congress. How he gets things done: Schiliro’s role can range from good-humored encouragement to persistent lobbying, depending on the occasion and whom he’s working with. When Waxman, his longtime boss, was set to chair a hearing on an earlier version of the climate bill, Schiliro emailed him with the message: "Words for the day: patience and good humor." On another occasion, when Obama was searching for a Republican to support the health care reform bill, Schiliro staked out an elevator in the Capitol Building at midnight, waiting to buttonhole Republican Olympia Snowe as she returned from a late-night Senate vote. Schiliro usually finds a way to get what his bosses need out of people — although the climate bill could be one of his toughest challenges yet. What’s it like to grab a sandwich with him? Phil makes you feel like the only person in his universe for that 45 minutes. While many high-level government staffers enjoy talking about themselves — their importance, their knowledge, their annoyances — Phil turns the tables and asks about you. Soon you’re 20 minutes into a conversation about your own deepest hopes and dreams. How’d he do that? You suddenly remember all the questions you wanted to ask him. Then he makes a joke, deflects the attention away from himself, and launches you into another 20 minutes about your hopes and dreams. (Full disclosure: the writer did indeed share a sandwich with Schiliro while reporting for a different publication.) He’ll often use the same approach with lawmakers. Once he knows what they hope to achieve, he finds ways to accomplish those goals while also advancing the administration’s agenda. Why he’s effective: People in Washington call him quiet and even-keeled, but also tough and persuasive, with a tendency toward self-deprecating wit. "A born diplomat," says Waxman. On Capitol Hill, he is seen as the good-cop counterpart to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s bad cop. Schiliro often serves as the voice of the White House at closed-door meetings on Capitol Hill, explaining the president’s intentions, gathering supporters, and answering questions. Where to find him: Schiliro is the unidentified aide in the background of most photos taken of important people in Washington. OK, maybe not most photos, but a helluva lot of them. Just this May, as Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was ushered around Capitol Hill, for example, Schiliro was there .
Continue here: Climate Changers: White House Aide Phil Schiliro
Q&A: Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy
This is a special online preview of a story appearing in the Spring 2010 issue of OnEarth . Subscribe here to receive our magazine. When he established the senior White House position of assistant to the president for energy and climate change, Barack Obama created one of the most important and politically challenging jobs in his administration. He chose someone with long experience in climate issues and Washington politics: Carol Browner, the highly effective administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 1993 to 2001. Browner’s mandate is to create jobs, enhance energy security, and combat climate change. That means integrating the work of a variety of federal agencies; forging cooperation among federal, state, and local governments; building partnerships with the private sector; and being constantly aware of how changing political dynamics in the nation’s capital affect — and are affected by — the responsibility of the United States to be a global leader on climate change. In a conversation with James Gerstenzang, Browner made it clear that comprehensive energy legislation, with bipartisan support, remains one of the administration’s top priorities. How are you going to get 60 votes for a climate bill in the Senate, given that you have not only opposition from the Republicans but disagreements within your own party? It’s more nuanced than that, because we’ve got John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman leading a bipartisan effort to craft legislation that won’t result in the same sort of squabbles that perhaps have existed previously. If the price of getting 60 votes is to risk weakening the legislation, wouldn’t it be more effective to simply act administratively? Well, because of a 2007 Supreme Court decision, the EPA has authority [to regulate CO2 as a pollutant] under the existing Clean Air Act. The science proves that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. The next steps in the process are the proposed rules, the first-ever greenhouse gas standards for cars. And what the president has said repeatedly is that we’re going to follow the science, we’re going to follow the law. But in the meantime, we want comprehensive energy legislation, because we need all the pieces of the puzzle. The administration’s pitch for climate legislation seems to be based on the economic arguments. When we look at what’s going to stimulate private-sector capital investments in the new energy future, it’s comprehensive energy reform. That’s where we are going to give the business community the predictability that allows them to make those investments. History is a perfect guide. Every time we have a debate, for example, about the Clean Air Act and acid rain, some industry says it absolutely cannot be done. We set a standard, or Congress sets it, or the EPA sets it, and guess what happens? American innovation and ingenuity find a cheaper, faster way to solve the problem. There are lots of people in the business community who will tell you that’s exactly what is going to happen if we put a cap on carbon and set a renewable electricity standard. Then you will see the capital investment. And with that will come the jobs. Any estimates on numbers? Our latest figures show that by the end of 2009 the outlays and tax credits for clean energy saved or created 52,000 clean energy jobs. Rather than retrofitting a coal-fired power plant from the 1950s or 1960s people are going to be making the component parts of a clean energy future, whether it be the batteries for the new generation of vehicles, or the bio-fuels, or the wind turbines, or the solar cells. Those manufacturing facilities have to be profitable here in the United States, and the way to make them profitable, to guarantee them a market, is to set the standards. Germany has a huge percentage of the world’s manufacturing jobs. Why did that happen? Because they had a clean energy policy, and so businesses were prepared to make the investments that created those jobs. And what happens in Congress will also shape the attitude of business. Yes, the second step would be comprehensive energy legislation, so there’s absolute clarity in the business community as to what’s going to be expected of them. I meet with business people every week, and lots of companies say they are sitting on making investments right now because they don’t know what the rules are going to be. We have a lot of folks who believe we are in danger of missing out on the global opportunities for clean energy technology. How much political capital is the president willing to spend on this, with everything else on his plate? You know, you don’t get the job to do the easy work. You get the job to do the hard work. When people said we couldn’t do it in the House, the president went to work and we passed in the House. There were people who said he shouldn’t go to [the U.N. climate conference in] Copenhagen. But he went and he made it a hugely important step forward on the global commitment to climate change. Now we need to do the rest of it and get a binding international treaty. The president has said repeatedly that this is one of his priorities, that it’s absolutely essential in terms of moving our country forward in this global market for clean energy. What’s your overall assessment of Copenhagen, as you look in the rearview mirror? We are very pleased with what we were able to achieve. It was, I think, a direct result of the president’s personal engagement. To me, he really ended up being the person putting the deal together by working with the various groupings of interested countries: China, India, Brazil, South Africa, the coalition of African nations, Europeans. And I think we got things that we haven’t gotten before, for example, commitments on transparency that are hugely encouraging. Jonathan Pershing, the lead U.S. negotiator in Copenhagen, has raised the idea of focusing more on bilateral agreements and less on the U.N. process. Might that not isolate the United States from its natural allies, such as the small island nations, which are at immediate risk from sea-level rise, or the European Union? We need to do both. The U.N. process is important because it gives every country an equal voice. But it’s not our process. At the same time, we worked with China on some important bilateral commitments and similarly with India. The magnitude of the problem and the need for global action is such that we want to take advantage of all appropriate forums, using every tool available to achieve real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In the past, China has tended to take a wait-and-see approach, to see what we would do first. Well, we have taken tremendous actions over the last year. If you look at our domestic agenda, it starts with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. A study was just published that shows we may have the best year ever in terms of investments in renewable energy. We recently announced $2.3 billion in tax credits for the manufacture of renewable components. So we’re not just putting up the facilities, building the solar farms, the wind farms, the geothermal plants. We’re also investing in the manufacturing. If you look back at what the administration has done on global warming, what one thing would you change? I think we’ve been very successful in using our executive authority, whether it’s on appliance standards or the work going on around fuels. You have two ways to create change from a broader perspective: one is through the legislative process and the other is through executive authority, and I think we have moved very successfully on both fronts. So no regrets? Well, you always want to do more. If you do six efficiency standards, you want to do twelve. But we have to do these in ways that are defensible. Also, we inherited eight years of inaction. In the first year of an administration, a lot of what you do is framed and set by what the prior administration did. Going into your second year, what’s the one thing you see as essential? Getting Congress to pass comprehensive energy legislation.
More:
Q&A: Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy