I vote yes. Here's why.
(A) Climate change is at least as complex and pressing an issue as a handful of cases of Ebola - and we had an Ebola Czar, remember?
(B) Of the federal departments represented in the cabinet:
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.
here's the subset that might reasonably be expected to have some involvement in researching, preparing for, mitigating the effects of, communicating about, and dealing with the catastrophic downstream consequences of climate change:
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.
Notice anything?
Yes – that list is the same.
Head below the sienna squiggle for a position description!
In short, it seems that the time is now for a dedicated resource - a single point of contact - a czar.
A czar would work with involved federal departments and a host of associated entities, including the National Science and Technology Council, the National Science Board, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Congress, NASA, NOAA, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology to set policy and implement action.
If appointed, a Climate Czar would:
* First, just BE THERE. Naming a Climate Czar would be a bold, progressive statement by this administration that tackling climate change is job one and the US recognizes it as such.
* Compile all the input from agencies and NGOs.
* Work directly with President Obama to set the US climate change agenda.
* Draft a coherent plan - triage the priorities for action.
* Ensure that decisions are tracked and carried out quickly.
* Manage the coordination.
Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg View had this to say about Ron Klain when he became the Ebola Czar:
Czars are often brought in when the structure of the federal government is seen as a poor match for specific challenges that arise. Ebola is the responsibility of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, yet there's the foreign policy element, which means the State Department. And the Transportation Security Administration. And the Federal Aviation Administration. And probably a dozen other agencies. Federalism means the states (and their untold agencies) are involved as well. Getting everyone to work together is the president's job, and since occupants of the Oval Office are overloaded with these things, the sensible practice has been to appoint a single outside person to manage that coordination.
That makes sense to me. After all, climate change is at least as complex an issue as a handful of Ebola cases, is it not?
In short, without a Climate Czar I’m not sure how we can launch a concerted, coordinated, effective national campaign to slash emissions, develop new technologies, shore up infrastructure, plan for and implement disaster relief and relocation of populations displaced by sea level rise and other environmental changes, work on resource challenges, ensure a consistent and safe food supply, ration water (and other commodities, if needed), etc.
Do you have better ideas? Or will you join me in calling on President Obama to put a Climate Czar in place?