Author Archives: Peter Lehner

Peter Lehner is the Executive Director of NRDC and NRDC Action Fund. He is responsible for guiding NRDC’s policy positions, advocacy strategies, communications plans, development and administration, and managing NRDC’s seven offices and for leading the Action Fund’s political activities. Since Peter’s return to NRDC in 2007, NRDC has opened new offices in Beijing and Chicago, started a Center for Market Innovation, and expanded both its policy and communications capacity. Previously, Peter served as chief of the Environmental Protection Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s office for eight years. He supervised all environmental litigation by the state, prosecuting a wide variety of polluters and developing innovative multi-state strategies targeting global warming, acid rain, and smog causing emissions. Peter previously served at NRDC as a senior attorney in charge of the water program. Before that, he created and led the environmental prosecution unit for New York City. Peter holds an AB in philosophy and mathematics from Harvard College and is a graduate of Columbia University Law School, where he continues to teach environmental law. He also has extensive experience in sustainable farming and green business.

We Must Act

Posted by: Peter Lehner - February 12, 2013

“But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.”

President Barack Obama, 2013 State of the Union

It is fitting that climate change featured prominently in the biggest political speech of the year. Our country is still absorbing the blow from 11 extreme weather events in 2012, including Super Storm Sandy, which alone cost more than $80 billion. We need presidential leadership to deal with this grave threat to our communities.

But I am just as interested in hearing what people say about climate change around their dinner tables as I am in hearing what President Obama says from the dais. It’s these everyday conversations that matter, because real action will only occur when ordinary people start demanding it.

The president knows this himself.

Earlier this week the Director of the NRDC Action Fund met with President Obama’s former Campaign Manager Jim Messina and Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement John Carson. Messina told her that soon after the election he was on vacation in Italy when the president called him back to the White House and said: “We are not done yet.”

The President wants to remain in campaign mode because the best way to achieve his goals is to build public momentum. He needs a surge of support outside of Washington if he wants to prevail in Washington. And so he has asked Messina and Carson to launch Organizing for Action, a group that will draw on the Obama campaign’s ground game and data collection to mobilize people on immigration reform, gun control, climate action and job creation.

I take this as an inspiring sign. The president recognizes that the power to make change doesn’t reside only in Washington; it sits within all of us. We can raise our voices, influence our friends, get our lawmakers’ attention, and create our own groundswell.

History shows that legislation rarely leads people. Instead, people lead legislation. Cultural shifts take place, and then the government follows. Grassroots movements in the 1960s, for instance, led to the Civil Rights Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act. The quickest way to spot a corrupt piece of legislation is to read the newspaper and realize there is no public support for it; that means a lobbyist wrote the bill to benefit a client.

But when a member of Congress opens the paper and learns that people in his or her district are writing letters to the editor, attending rallies, and organizing community groups and business sectors in favor of climate action, then they know it’s time to follow the public’s lead.

Representative Dave Reichert (R-WA), for instance, knows the majority of his constituents care about climate change, so when he had the opportunity to vote on a clean energy and climate bill in 2010, he supported it. Some top donors gave him a hard time about that vote, but he told them in no uncertain terms he couldn’t get reelected in his district if opposed climate action.

If we can make more members of Congress feel the same way, we can really get down to work. We can ensure President Obama has the support he needs to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants—our nation’s largest source of global warming pollution. We can create incentives for renewable energy, energy efficient buildings, and clean cars. And we can even pass climate legislation in a few years.

But remember, this will only happen if the words President Obama Tuesday night are matched by public action. Educate your friends. Talk about climate change in our children’s schools, our religious groups, and business associations. Call on these networks to join you at town hall events and rallies. And always keep the pressure on your lawmakers through email, Facebook, Twitter, and local office visits.

It’s time for all of us who care about building a sustainable future to start leading while demanding our leaders do the same.

Voters Chose Leaders Who Will Confront Climate Change

Posted by: Peter Lehner - November 8, 2012

This blog is re-posted from the NRDC Switchboard.

This election was a resounding victory for climate action. Americans were presented with the clearest choice yet on global warming, and they chose the presidential candidate who confronted the climate threat, not the one who turned it into a punch line. Voters made the same choice in Congressional races across the country. They overwhelmingly favored leaders who called for more clean energy and other climate solutions.

Let’s be clear here. The issue of climate change appeared throughout this election. President Obama talked about it on the campaign trail, in his convention speech, and in his victory speech. And every time he discussed clean energy efficiency, he was addressing climate change, because the way we power our economy will decide the fate of our climate.

Energy played a central role in this year’s campaigns. Candidates mentioned it frequently on the stump and it was among the top three topics discussed in ads. President Obama took these opportunities to talk about energy efficiency, renewable power, clean cars, and other low-carbon solutions that will defuse climate change and lead our country forward. Governor Romney simply offered more oil and gas drilling and coal-fired power.

Voters chose the clean energy future over the dirty past.

That makes big polluters the biggest losers of this election. Oil, gas, and coal companies and their allies spent more than $270 million on campaign ads in just the last two months and yet they have almost nothing to show for it. Most of the polluters’ preferred candidates lost up and down the ticket. Karl Rove and his Super PACs spent an additional $300 million pushing a pro-polluter, anti-safeguard agenda, but the majority of his candidates failed to win.

As President Obama said on Tuesday night, “Today is the clearest proof yet that, against the odds, ordinary Americans can overcome powerful interests.” Voters stood up to some of the wealthiest, most polluting industries in the world, and they won. The issue of clean energy has been decided: Americans want more of it and they favor leaders who will deliver it.

This support for clean energy and climate action reaches across the country. Just look at last night’s electoral map. President Obama won every truly swing state (pending Florida), and clean energy supporters won Senate races in Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Florida. Clean energy is not just popular on the coast, but in the Midwest and the Rockies, the North and the South.

Many of these places have already felt the sting of climate change, and residents want to protect their communities from even more intense drought, wildfires, storms, or other extreme weather events.

When climate change begins to make its presence know, people mobilize. The destruction wrought by Hurricane Sandy—a taste of things to come—prompted Mayor Michael Bloomberg to endorse President Obama based on his climate leadership and inspired Governor Chris Christie to praise the president’s response to the crisis. Extreme storms like Sandy don’t distinguish between Republican and Democratic victims. Everyone is in harm’s way and everyone can band together.

Now is the time for America to come together and fight climate change. Poll after poll has shown the strong bipartisan support for clean energy solutions. Last month, Hart Research Associates found that nine out of 10 Americans say developing renewable energy should be a priority for the president and Congress, and that includes 85 percent of Republicans and 89 percent of Independents. And two thirds of Americans want to extend tax incentives for clean energy.

The broad backing of clean energy—in the polls and in Tuesday’s results—gives our elected officials the freedom to lead on climate change. Congress should extend clean energy incentives, but even if gridlock continues, President Obama has the authority to clean up our air right now.

He has already used that authority to cut carbon pollution from cars in half—a move that will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the pump—and propose the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from new power plants. Now he must use that same authority to clean up existing power plants. The American people just gave him permission, and indeed the mandate, to move forward.

The tide is turning. Voters just rejected the most well funded attempt to hand over our government to polluters and their allies. Voters took the country’s future back into their own hands, rather than letting polluters run the country. They—we—put faith in clean energy and climate champions instead. Now it is time for our leaders to act on that resolve.

Obama Agenda for Protecting our Health, Environment is a Winner

Posted by: Peter Lehner - September 6, 2012

President Obama and Former Governor Romney differ on nearly every issue facing Americans today and none more so than energy and the environment. Obama is protecting our health, creating jobs, and reducing oil dependency. Romney believes dirty industries can police themselves and thinks we shouldn’t do anything about climate change.

Some of the biggest polluters in the country have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in support of the GOP’s radical agenda. Romney represents these special interests, while Obama stands up for the public’s interests—clean air, clean water, the health of our families, jobs that cannot be outsourced, and a stable climate. It’s hard to exaggerate how much is at stake.

President Obama has generated historic progress for the environment and he aspires to do more. The policies President Obama has put in place took gumption and creativity and they will make a very real difference in the kind of environment we have now and in the future. Consider his record – facts and reality, not rhetoric:

Raised Fuel Economy Standards for Cars to 54.5 MPG

Obama made history in August by nearly doubling fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, building on the standards he finalized in 2011. Combined, these standards will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the pump over the life the program and could cut our oil imports by as much as one-third by 2030. Oil imports are not just a military or security issue; over the last 20 years, oil imports have accounted for well over half of our trade deficit, sucking money out of Americans’ pockets and sending it abroad. The clean car standards also represent the biggest step America – and probably any country in the world — has taken to reduce carbon pollution and combat climate change.

It took presidential leadership to broker an agreement for strong standards that automakers, labor unions, and environmental leaders could all support. Obama stayed the course and kept the standards high. Already Americans are benefiting from the push toward better performing cars. Detroit automakers are enjoying record sales. More than 150,000 Americans have jobs making parts for and assembling clean cars—hybrids, electric cars, and other advanced vehicles that weren’t even available 10 years ago. And consumers can find nearly 60 fuel-efficient models in showrooms today—up from 27 in 2009. Romney has said that he would undo these important standards that will help clean up the environment and save you money.

Protected Children from Mercury and Other Air Toxins

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that damages developing brains in children and fetuses. A study by the National Academy of Sciences found that mercury exposure was likely to increase the number of children “who struggle to keep up in school and might require remedial classes or special education.” Mercury makes it harder for these children to compete in today’s knowledge economy. Yet the largest sources of the pollution—power plants—have been free to release as much mercury as they wanted. Obama changed that. In December 2012, he set the first-ever national standards to reduce mercury from power plants. The new safeguards will also reduce toxins that contribute to asthma, heart attacks, and cancer, saving up to 17,000 American lives, preventing as many as 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms, and avoiding 11,000 heart attacks every year, according to the EPA. These health benefits are expected to generate up to $140 billion in savings per year by 2016. Not surprisingly, Romney has said he opposes these life-saving standards.

Presided over the Largest Increase in Clean Energy in American History

Obama understands that expanding clean energy resources will reduce America’s dependence on dirty fossil fuels and secure America’s position at the forefront of the global energy market. Thanks in part to his policies; roughly 35 percent of all new power built in the United States in the last four years came from wind. The solar industry is 10 times the size it was just a few years ago and employs more than 100,000 Americans. Total clean energy investment rose 35 percent since 2008 to a record $55.9 billion in 2011, overtaking China for the first time in four years. The clean energy sector has not only generated explosive economic growth; it has also strengthened America’s fight against climate change. Clean energy is the future; dirty energies are the past. The Ryan plan, which Romney supports, would reduce funding for Research & Development for clean energy by 90 percent by 2014, while supporting $2.4 billion in tax breaks for dirty energy companies.

Set the First-Ever Limit on Carbon Pollution from New Plants

Millions of Americans are still recovering from the summer’s record-breaking heat waves, wildfires, and the worst drought in 50 years. Climate change is intensifying these extreme weather events, and while Romney belittles this threat, Obama has confronted it head on. In March, the EPA announced the nation’s first limits on carbon pollution from new power plants. Now our nation can start creating a 21^st century power fleet that uses the latest clean technologies and reduces the danger of climate change. Americans welcomed these groundbreaking standards. People sent more than 3 million comments to the EPA in support of the carbon limits—more than the agency has ever received on any issue ever. Romney, of course, merely makes fun of addressing climate change, even after a season where climate change related weather disasters cost this country at least xxx billion dollars – dollars that we’d have to spend to grow our economy if not for the droughts, floods, and fires.

Sparked Major Gains in Energy Efficiency

Energy efficiency is the fastest, cheapest, and cleanest energy resource America has. It saves consumers and businesses money, reduces global warming pollution, and keeps energy dollars here at home. The Obama administration has created standards to help deliver those benefits to more Americans. With the support of manufacturers and consumer groups, the Department of Energy finalized standards for 19 different products, including refrigerators, clothes washers, and dishwashers. These standards will save more than 28 quads of energy through 2035—equivalent to about a third of annual energy use in the United States—and save consumers nearly $80 billion on energy bills.

Protected Ocean Life with the First National Ocean Policy

America’s ocean riches provide an enormous source of recreation, wonder, and economic activity.

Ocean-related tourism and recreation alone generated more than 1.8 million jobs in 2009, and our oceans contribute more to the nation’s economic output than the entire U.S. farm sector.

Yet the nation never had a comprehensive approach to managing our marine resources until Obama established the National Ocean Policy. This policy is major step forward in ocean, fishery, and coastal protection. It provides a blueprint for restoring and protecting our seas. It also helps determine how to address some of the biggest challenges facing our oceans, from ocean acidification to pollution and threatened water quality. The policy ensures that the more than 140 laws and 20 federal agencies governing activity in our oceans and Great Lakes will work together to sustain our oceans and coasts for generations to come. Although Romney has not weighed in on this issue in recent months, when Governor he initiated the Massachusetts ocean planning initiative, which is now a model for the national marine spatial planning initiatives laid out in the National Ocean Policy.

Created a Blueprint for Protecting Public Lands while Developing Clean Energy

Clean energy is one of America’s most powerful weapons against toxic air pollution and climate change, and some of our nation’s best wind and solar resources can be found on Western landscapes that belong to the American people. Obama has taken a landmark step by creating the nation’s first program for ensuring that solar projects on public lands maximize clean energy potential and preserve ecological treasures at the same time. The program steers development away from sensitive wildlife and wildlands resources and toward more appropriate solar energy zones – balancing clean energy with conservation. This is a win-win approach: it’s better for developers who want to move forward quickly with clean energy projects, and it’s better for the public who wants their special areas protected. Romney’s plans for the public lands include more dirty drilling and giving less say to the American people about how they are managed.

Obama hasn’t achieved all the goals he set for himself in his first presidential campaign and not all of his policies have garnered NRDC Action Fund support.

But, the choice this November is clear: if you want to make our air safer to breath, hold polluters accountable, unleash clean energy innovation, restore our natural resources, build American prosperity, and confront climate change, then Obama should win your vote.

Obama Raises Car Standards to 54.5 MPG, Creating Jobs and Saving Money

Posted by: Peter Lehner - August 28, 2012

President Obama made history today by raising fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. That’s roughly twice the mileage our cars get today.

By calling on America to produce better-performing cars, Obama is ushering in a new era of innovation and growth. He is also delivering sweeping benefits for the American people. These new standards will save consumers $1.7 trillion at the gas pump, cut our oil imports by one-third, and cut carbon pollution from new cars in half.

It’s the kind of significant move that underscores why it matters who the next president will be. It took presidential leadership to broker an agreement for strong standards that automakers, labor unions, and environmental leaders could all support. But where is Mitt Romney on this issue?

As with so many energy and environment issues, he has switched his position to cozy up to the far right. Governor Romney opposes the standards, despite having backed fuel-economy increases in the past. His current position puts him at odds with the vast majority of drivers, auto workers, and even the auto industry.

Consumers welcome the standards because they want cars to go farther on a tank of gas, and they want to keep more money in their pockets. A survey conducted by the Consumer Reports National Research Center found that 80 percent of car owners want to raise fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2025, and more than 90 percent would like carmakers to offer more models of efficient cars and trucks.

Car companies also support the higher standards. Consumer demand for fuel-efficient cars is helping power Detroit’s economic recovery, but standards provide something buying trends cannot: long-term clarity. With the standards in place, automakers can make investments that will pay off in the market. There are now 57 fuel-efficient models available in showrooms today, up from 27 models in 2009. I already see the greater variety when I have to rent a car; instead of one or two efficient models, there are now many choices for saving money on gas.

Building all these new and retooled cars puts people to work. A new study from the BlueGreen Alliance and American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimates 570,000 jobs will be created across the United States by 2030 as automobile efficiency ramps up.

Romney disregards the many benefits of raising fuel economy. His position is far more extreme than President George W. Bush’s. In order to protect national security, Bush set a goal of reducing U.S. gasoline use by 20 percent, and in 2007, he signed a law raising fuel-efficiency standards for the first time in more than three decades.

President Obama has taken bold action on car standards because he knows American engineers have the ingenuity to build even better cars and provide even greater savings for drivers. In 2009, he issued his Administration’s first car standards, raising average fuel economy to 35 mpg standard in 2016. Already we are seeing the results in the showroom: there are now 60 fuel-efficient models available at car dealers today—up from 28 models in 2009.

The new 54.5 mpg standards will spark even more progress. It’s mind boggling that Romney would oppose something that brings more savings at the pump, more technological breakthroughs in Detroit, and more job growth around the country. Yet he has gone so far as saying that he would consider revoking the standards if he wins the White House. Any claim that he would do this in the name of the free market is undermined by his desire to extend billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to the oil and gas industry.

This is a clear illustration of why elections matter. We have a choice in November between someone who is promoting innovation to save us money and create jobs and someone who is sending us back to gas guzzlers and dirty air. The choice is clear.

Romney’s Energy Plan: A Radical Gift to Big Oil

Posted by: Peter Lehner - August 27, 2012

Mitt Romney released an energy plan in New Mexico on Thursday that highlights his continuing drift to towards his Big Fossil backers. It would essentially hand over control of energy policy to Big Oil and coal companies. It puts a new more radical twist on the familiar GOP energy vision of more fossil fuels, less clean energy, fewer public protections.

Perhaps its most radical features are taking control of public lands away from all Americans and weakening the Clean Air Act, both of which break with policies that have been embraced by Republicans as well as Democrats for generations. These are in keeping with the plan’s overall goal – granting the fossil fuel industry control over energy decisions – and thus granting this small group of private companies control over vast amounts of the public’s property and the health of millions of others. This handover of control has nothing to do with “conservative” principles and everything to do with changing the rules so the companies backing Romney can make even more money.

This is disastrous policy, but it’s also foolhardy politically – maybe it’s why polls show that Americans think President Obama is better suited to handle energy policy. The Romney policy rejects even those approaches that have near universal support. For example, nine in ten Americans—including 85 percent of Republicans and 89 percent of independents—say developing renewable energy should be a priority for the President and Congress. A Consumer Reports survey found that 80 percent of car owners want to raise fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2025. A poll by United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection finds that 57 percent of the public supports a recently-finalized Environmental Protection Agency rule controlling mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal-fired power plants as long as companies are given more time to comply.

By failing utterly to address these concerns, Romney’s energy plan reveals how out of step he is with ordinary people.

He remains deeply in tune with oil, gas, and coal companies, however. These corporations are the true beneficiaries of his energy plan, for they would reap the rewards of taxpayer subsidies and free passes on toxic pollution. Romney received about $10 million from oil industry executives in Texas in one week alone. The New York Times reported that Romney’s team wrote the energy plan “in consultation” with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, a billionaire from Oklahoma in the oil and gas business. Conventional energy companies are enormously profitable and don’t need extra help to get ahead, but Romney’s plan would grant them every advantage.

This plan isn’t about energy security: it’s about betting our future on the fossil fuels of the past and keeping our country addicted to oil. It’s shortsighted. It’s reckless. We can do better.

Shooting for Energy Independence without the Best Weapon

Romney’s plan doesn’t even make sense as a way to achieve its own stated goals. Romney claims he will make the U.S. energy independent by 2020. Yet his plan says not a word about energy efficiency – the most cost-effective and environmentally safe way to reduce our dependence. This is a marked contrast to the landmark achievements of President Obama who is raising fuel economy standards for cars and trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Within 20 years, these better-performing cars will save Americans $80 billion a year at the pump and cut America’s oil use by more than we imported from Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 2010. Romney’s energy plan makes no mention of this oil-saving solution, and elsewhere he has said he opposes it.

Romney would rather put all of his eggs in one basket: more domestic oil production. Romney claims President Obama has thwarted oil development, yet domestic oil production is up 24 percent since 2008.

Making It Easier for Polluters to Pollute

In the past, Romney has recognized the wisdom of holding companies accountable for their pollution and their actions. But you won’t find evidence of his past positions in his energy plan, which sees public safeguards as needless impediments to the fossil fuel industry. It takes a certain kind of blindness to see limits on toxic mercury only as a cost to power plant operators.

Pollution limits exist for a reason: to protect Americans from harm. And keeping people healthy is far better for the economy than letting them get sick and then spending tremendous amounts to try to get them better – money that mostly comes from the health care premiums that are putting American companies at a competitive disadvantage with other countries.

Individuals can’t force a power plant to clean up its act, but government standards can. They are the line of defense between our families and the toxins that cause asthma, cancer, and premature death. Here again, the contrast with President Obama could not be more striking. The Obama administration’s new standards to reduce mercury, lead, and other dangerous pollution from power plants will prevent thousands of premature deaths every year and protect children from development delays. Romney wants to eliminate this life-saving standard and many more as well.

Blocking Federal Oversight of Energy Development

Weakening and killing federal safeguards isn’t quite enough for Romney. His plan would further thwart oversight of fossil fuel companies by allowing states to control energy development. States certainly have a role to play, but they can’t do the job alone. We know, because they have tried. Before President Nixon passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, states offered to lower pollution standards if companies would agree to relocate. The result was a race to the bottom that shrouded communities in smog and sickened millions of Americans. Since the Clean Air Act was passed, America’s GDP has risen by 207 percent, confirming that we can have clean air and economic growth at the same time.

Companies support state control only because they think it will be far less stringent – that it will be more protective of their interests than the public’s. In the cases when states actually crack down on companies, they quickly come running to the federal government saying they can’t deal with a patchwork of state laws.

In the case of fracking, states haven’t done much yet to protect the public, so the companies still want state-based regulation. Only half the states where fracking is taking place have even taken the simple step of requiring companies to disclose the chemicals they use in fracking fluid, and in eight of those states, companies can withhold any information they deem confidential. Surely all residents of every state deserve the same protections. Even George Mitchell, the Texas billionaire who pioneered fracking technology, has said fracking requires federal safeguards. But Mitt Romney and the companies financing his campaign don’t care.

Feeding Oil and Gas and Starving Clean Energy

Two days before Romney released his energy plan, he stopped in Texas to raise roughly $10 million from donors, including oil and gas giants. Their investment would pay off handsomely if Romney wins. BP, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil, have brought in more than $60 billion in 2012, yet Romney’s plan would give these companies $2.4 billion in tax breaks every year. The Ryan budget, meanwhile, would cut clean energy investments by 90 percent, down to just $1 billion in 2014. Romney would also kill the Production Tax Credit, an effective wind energy incentive that enjoys broad bipartisan support.

Under the Obama administration, wind power has doubled in the United States and solar power has experienced huge gains. Despite lip service to renewable energy, Romney’s plan would kill off this growth. Just the threat of the production tax cut expiring has been leading to thousands of layoffs.

Tacked on to the end of Romney’s plan is a brief section on innovation. But instead of promoting the cutting-edge of the energy market—advanced vehicles, super-efficient solar panels, and other clean technologies—Romney puts the most mature sectors—oil, gas, and coal—first.

No Mention of Climate Change

And there’s another fundamental gap in Romney’s energy plan. It says nothing about climate change. In a summer of extreme storms, deadly heat waves, destructive wildfires, and the worst drought in more than 20 years, it takes concerted effort to ignore the suffering all around you.

Disregarding this crisis is bad enough, but Romney’s plan would actually exacerbate it. It calls for expanding our reliance on dirty tar sands oil by, among other things, supporting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Turning tar sands into crude oil generates up to three times the global warming pollution of conventional crude. This will translate into even more extreme weather and more costly impacts pounding our communities. America can and must do better to confront the climate challenge.

The one thing that can be said about the Romney energy plan is that it’s clear what its effects would be – less public oversight, more pollution, less energy efficiency, abandonment of clean energy, less innovation. It’s hard to see how the public would benefit from that; it’s easy to see how oil companies would.

« Older Posts

Main menu