UK DfT Report Finds That While a Majority of the Public Still Thinks Individuals Should Limit Car Use to Benefit Environment, Support for Measures Drops
Tesla Files S-1 Registration Statement for Initial Public Offering

President Obama Sets 28% GHG Emissions Reduction Target for Federal Operations By 2020

President Barack Obama announced that the Federal Government will reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 28% by 2020.

On 5 October 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13514 on Federal Sustainability, setting measurable environmental performance goals for Federal Agencies. Each Federal Agency was required to submit a 2020 GHG pollution reduction target from its estimated 2008 baseline to the White House Council on Environmental Quality and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget by January 4, 2010. The new Federal target is the aggregate of 35 Federal Agency self-reported targets.

As the single largest energy consumer in the US economy, the Federal Government spent more than $24.5 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 alone. Achieving the Federal GHG pollution reduction target will reduce Federal energy use by the equivalent of 646 trillion BTUs, equal to 205 million barrels of oil, and taking 17 million cars off the road for one year. This is also equivalent to a cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020.

Federal Departments and Agencies will achieve greenhouse gas pollution reductions by measuring their current energy and fuel use, becoming more energy efficient and shifting to clean energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal. Examples of agency actions that are underway are available on the White House Council on Environmental Quality website.

As a next step, the Office of Management and Budget will validate and score each agency’s sustainability plan, assuring a long-term return on investment to the American taxpayer. To ensure accountability, annual progress will be measured and reported online to the public.

Copenhagen. Separately, the Obama administration officially announced its desire to associate with the Copenhagen Accord and submitted an emissions reduction target of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020—contingent on passing legislation—to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.



Make all the government cars FFV and run them on M85, that is a good start. Put solar thermal heating and cooling on all government buildings, that will get you where you want to go.


How about buying up renewable electricity credits for 100% of US gov't demand? Sign exclusive contracts, thereby stimulating more construction of renewable. Do some on-site (solar PV), but the majority will be purchase agreements. Yes, domestic US Military too -- and they should pay for it from their defense budget.

Want to be really clever? Have all of it produced within 500 miles of it's end use, which allows for a major push to create and then purchase it from WV and KY as well as VA, PA, and OH. You could even push for an expansion of biomass in NC, SC, and GA to drive up renewable generation there. The idea is to generate jobs on green electricity in places where you want to change some mind share and counter the complaints about carbon taxes.

Account Deleted

The Air Head in Chief dictated some foolish blanket mandate and now the Air Head Followers are all busy trying to out do each other in kissing his backside.

The idea should be to make intelligent progress which will not be accomplished by the stroke of a pen.

The two preceding ideas are just as clever as Obama's original!


Beware! Luddites on the site.
Obama will make a difference with this.


Russ, keep the rhetoric on point, stop with the "air head" stuff.


He means well and if this creates jobs - okay. It could just as well be called an reduction of "energy dependence" program.


Nothing wrong with this program, but Sullenly is right -- rebrand it to satisfy all parties. They don't mention deficit reduction by reducing future rising energy costs, either.


Oh yes, if the Left could learn to use the language of business, these are "investments," not "expenditures."


An expenditure is like a jet fighter,it costs money up front as well as later on and returns nothing. An investment is something that pays itself back and cleans up the environment. I think they understand the difference.

The comments to this entry are closed.