Let’s Get It Started! Obama Plans Reverse of Bush Science Policies

submit to reddit

None too soon, the experts have begun weighing in on what President-Elect Obama should do regarding climate and energy policy. Even better, Obama’s transition team has put together a list of around 200 Bush policies to be kicked to the curb ASAP. They include gems like reversing the limit on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and ditching a rule that stops U.S. aid-receiving family planning groups from informing women about the availability of abortion.

The biggest slashes, so far anyway, have been saved for Bush’s environmental policies. As the Washington Post reports, Obama has announced his intention to “quickly reverse the Bush administration’s decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.” There’s also the undoing of the executive order that opens public lands to oil drilling, as well as social/economic moves like closing Guantanamo and tossing a life preserver to GM (though whether that’s a good idea remains to be seen).

Related:
RB: Obama & McCain Answer DISCOVER’s Questions on the Environment
RB: What Must the Next President Do to Save Science? DISCOVER’s Science Policy Project 2008

November 10th, 2008 Tags: , ,
by Melissa Lafsky in Biotech, Climate Change, Energy, Stem Cells | 36 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

36 Responses to “Let’s Get It Started! Obama Plans Reverse of Bush Science Policies”

  1. 1.   Jon Deane Says:

    Could we get a link to that list that isn’t to the Washington Post? I don’t have an account with them, so I can’t access it.

  2. 2.   Rasselas Says:

    I would like to make just one point. If President Obama uses the executive powers to reverse executive powers then he is (re-)asserting the authority of Congress-less Executive Powers. What’s to stop some future President from using the same tactics and reversing all of Obama’s Executive Power decisions? When we pull congress out of the decision making process, we have only one unit of representation… and that one unit was only elected by (ie, accurately represents) around 52% of the populace, or 2/3 of the electoral if you will. It would be “distasteful” to use all the Executive Powers and then use an Executive Power (or such) to limit Executive Powers (of future Presidents). If he instead acted through a Democratic majority congress and did what he could through them first… (well, then as a last resort he could use Executive Powers) he would have more of an authoritative ability to once and for all end frivolous uses of Executive Powers). It seems to me that it was use of Executive Power that got us into this mess… we felt unrepresented when Pres Bush was using them, even though he won by a majority of the vote… roughly the same popularity vote as Obama. By re-asserting the validity of legislation without representation won’t we only INCREASE the powers of Presidents (and further decreasing our right for broader representation)?

  3. 3.   Tim Hurst Says:

    Jon-

    I don’t think they’ve gone public with that list other than a few of the more high-profile items mentioned here and elsewhere. Here’s a reprint of that Washington Post story appearing somewhere else::

    http://www.enterprisenewspapers.com/article/20081109/NEWS02/711099855/0/ETPZONELT

  4. 4.   Rasselas Says:

    I would like to make another point. We have the opportunity to quickly change our end-point (ie, destination)… but using colloquialisms… do the end-points justify the means? Hopefully these quaint sayings accurately embody (if not too tritely) the situation [note, all of them not applying equally]:

    Do the ends justify the means?
    Does might make right?
    Does two wrongs make a right?
    Shall we fight fire with fire? Does that usually work? Analogously,
    Shall we stop violence with violence? Does that usually work? Does it ever work?
    “It was x that got us into this mess, and x will get us out of it” — Does that work?

    I would think that there are exceptions too all these rules, and that each of us comes to different conclusions about the priority/validity of each of them… that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a majority of opinion/fact(?) though. But while there are exceptions to rules… should we always be changing our minds (and thus not giving credence to a generality?). Would it not serves us favor the generality, and look cautiously when the exception appears best? Furthermore, if such is our choice (to not give a bias, or credence, to the majority/generality/guiding-force), then how does it serve us to act like we are people of firm/unwavering principles? Isn’t that rather hypocritical? Or as another adage states, “Should we eat our cake, and yet have it too?”

  5. 5.   Endicott Says:

    cool pics

  6. 6.   Atienza Says:

    Cool Pics

  7. 7.   Freeney Says:

    Thank you share :)

  8. 8.   Graeff Says:

    cool pics

  9. 9.   Keisling Says:

    cool pics

  10. 10.   Chilton Says:

    Thanks for the information an excellent post.

  11. 11.   beginner_guitar_lessons Says:

    Great Post.

  12. 12.   Ruddick Says:

    Great post! I’m searching for this information for long time and i have found it here. I’m a lucky man and honestly It’ really important to me. Thanks for kindly sharing it with us.

    Very well done indeed.

  13. 13.   Carlino Says:

    Great post! I’m searching for this information for long time and i have found it here. I’m a lucky man and honestly It’ really important to me. Thanks for kindly sharing it with us.

    Very well done indeed.

  14. 14.   Torelli Says:

    cool pics

  15. 15.   Dirickson Says:

    Watch Free Movies Instantly!!! Just Choose and play!

    -Jeff nemerofsky, Jeffrey A Nemerofsky, Us Advocate Law Group, Jeffrey Allen Nemerofsky
    http://www.jeffreyanemerofsky.com

  16. 16.   Zappone Says:

    Showing some love to this topic “new to this wordpress”. I defiantly agree with it also. If you really think about it than it all makes alot of sense

  17. 17.   Lamport Says:

    Showing some love to this topic “new to this wordpress”. I defiantly agree with it also. If you really think about it than it all makes alot of sense

  18. 18.   Vogt Says:

    Showing some love to this topic “new to this wordpress”. I defiantly agree with it also. If you really think about it than it all makes alot of sense

  19. 19.   Behan Says:

    cool pics

  20. 20.   Kilcoyne Says:

    cool pics

  21. 21.   Hawker Says:

    cool pics

  22. 22.   Dokken Says:

    hey come check out my facebook page add me as a friend.

  23. 23.   Downham Says:
  24. 24.   Thuringer Says:

    fantastic post dude thanks

  25. 25.   Jarzombek Says:

    cool pics

  26. 26.   Amrhein Says:

    Hello ,
    Thank you very much this beatiful information.

    Best regards,

    -plc-

  27. 27.   Rentschler Says:

    Cool, will have to think about that for a bit..

  28. 28.   Passmore Says:

    Bookmarked.

  29. 29.   Miko Says:

    cool pics

  30. 30.   Marrison Says:

    cool pics

  31. 31.   Blier Says:
  32. 32.   Cuff Says:
  33. 33.   Delacruz Says:

    Nice post! Waiting for more news. http://www.revistapresei.net

  34. 34.   Agan Says:
  35. 35.   Celis Says:

    Cooler heads prevail though, and thats why your guild is still around. Finally the reaction of the server including the lack of people to jump on the Jeff Nemerofsky with their perceived slights, leaves me to believe that all in all our interactions with our server mates have been fairly strong. While it may have been in poor taste, I used the free publicity to highlight my guilds recruitment needs. I expressed Jeff Nemerofsky regret at his dissatisfaction, without taking accountability for that dissatisfaction. http://www.jeffanemerofsky.com/

  36. 36.   Cancilla Says:

Leave a Reply