It is amazing that so many people still want to be president after watching what President Obama has been through.
The economy was losing 700,000 jobs a month when he first swore his oath, which is like having a mud pie thrown in your face when you arrive at a party. He inherited two stubborn and unpopular wars. And the Supreme Court was about to open the spigot for right-wing money to come crashing down on liberals everywhere.
But his most baffling political challenge has been the outright rejection of the science on climate change. This blockheaded strain of American political culture has always been a nuisance when it comes to things like teaching evolution in Texas. But really, the nation can survive that.
When it comes to climate, though, it gets dangerous. You can find a few quirky dissenters, but every major scientific organization agrees this is a dire threat. No one is sure how bad it will be. And no, they can’t pinpoint the blame on climate change for any single storm, including Hurricane Sandy.
But they all agree the downside is potentially historic, with floods and famine and the wars that would inevitably follow. Lots of people could get killed. So we are way beyond textbooks in Texas.
The riddle for Obama is this: If your opponents reject the findings of science, how can you win the argument? It’s as if the Enlightenment never happened and we are living by “Game of Thrones” rules. So how is Obama supposed to settle this, with swordplay?
In a way, yes. He has no sword, as far as we know, but Obama is relying more and more on brute force of presidential power to settle the climate debate.
This week, he is expected to announce a new set of rules to limit carbon emissions from existing coal plants, which provide about 40 percent of the nation’s electricity. He needs no approval from Congress to do that, and he needs none of its money.
The source of this power is the Clean Air Act, born back in the day when the Republican Party had a green caucus and bipartisan cooperation was seen as a virtue. It was drafted before anyone knew much about climate change, and it doesn’t specifically empower the government to limit carbon.
What it does is require the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the public health, and to follow the dictates of science when assessing that threat.
Under the most glorious reign of Lisa Jackson, the EPA found that, yes, carbon is a threat, given that it’s the largest contributor to climate change. And with that finding, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, she had an obligation to regulate it.
Jackson invoked this power when she required a near-doubling of automobile efficiency standards. She used it to draft rules on new power plants that basically make it impossible to build new coal plants, at least until scientists can find a way to capture and contain the carbon emissions.
And now, though Jackson is gone, Obama wants to take the next big step: Regulate emissions of existing power plants.
Expect to hear a lot about jack-booted thugs at the EPA killing jobs. The truth is that fighting climate change will drive up the cost of energy for everyone, and will surely kill jobs in the coal industry. No getting around that.
But the economy will adjust. And the timing is good, given the abundance of cheaper and cleaner natural gas. There is no better moment to take this medicine.
As for Obama, this is a welcome sign that he’s facing reality, that his attempts to find common ground with Republicans have mostly failed, and that it is past time for him to flex those presidential muscles.
When the House passed a climate bill in 2009, several Republicans supported it, including Rep. Leonard Lance (R-7th Dist.). It died in the Senate, though, mostly because coal-state Democrats jumped ship.
Now, Lance has changed his mind, Republicans have taken over the Senate, and science is on the run.
So pause to give thanks and praise to the Clean Air Act. Maybe in his second term, Obama feels more free to push the envelope like this. Let’s hope so.