Skip to main content

Obama's Cabinet Picks: Energy Secretary

Obama's Cabinet Energy SecretaryThe Hillary to State speculation drew most of the attention this weekend, but there was some Energy news. The AP is reporting that New Jersey Environmental Protection Commissioner Lisa Jackson has been named to the Obama-Biden transition team on Energy.
Jackson joins Robert Sussman, a former deputy Environmental Protection Agency administrator, and 11 others. They will conduct a department review to provide Obama and key advisers with information they need to make policy, budgetary and personnel decisions prior to the inauguration.
Per the Obama transition site, Jackson has been named a Team Lead for the EPA Review. Other Team Leads include Cecilia V. Estolano, CEO of the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles, and Robert Sussman, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Some did play the cabinet parlor game this weekend: in the pages of Newsweek, Slate.com's Jacob Weisberg lobbies for Al Gore to become Energy Secretary.
The genius principle should also be applied to the lesser agencies, where many of the names being trotted out have a dreary, box-checking quality to them. Obama says transitioning to renewable fuel sources is his second-highest priority after saving the economy. So why not talk the brilliant, socially awkward Al Gore into taking the job of energy secretary? Following the anonymous Samuel W. Bodman might seem like a demotion for the former vice president and Nobel Prize winner, but it would give Gore a chance to accomplish his life's mission by addressing climate change—and make up for his neglect of the issue when he was vice president.
Overseas, Kostis Geropoulos from New Europe, asks, "Why not make him [Arnold Schwarzenegger] Secretary of Energy?"

Click here for more NNN coverage on who will be in the Obama Cabinet.

Comments

d. Kosloff said…
If Al Gore is "brilliant", how does one characterize the 60% of the US population that is brighter than Gore?
djysrv said…
More speculation and raw random data on who will be the next Secretary of Energy here . . .

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2008/11/energy-secretary-guessing-game.html
Hday said…
Al Gore is a tremendous BOOB. Just look at his "house" and then compare it, to say, GW Bush! Bush in Crawford has an ideal Green home. Gore? an energy sucking collosal mansion! Putting Gore in as Sec. of Energy is like putting Charles Manson on as Sec. of Interior! Bad move.
Anonymous said…
Recommendation to Barack Obama:

The best choice for the Secretary of Energy is an odd one. You want someone who is committed to environmental protection, sustainability, and energy reduction. You need someone who knows how to interact easily with the political world and the business world. You need someone who understands energy use of business, transporation, and residential. And you need someone who knows how to lead a large / diverse organization. The best pick would honestly be Lee Scott, recently retired CEO of Wal-Mart. Look at his record on sustainability, ask yourself who knows how to work with businesses to get them to take action, ask yourself who has relations with guys like T. Boone and Al Gore, and finally ask yourself who was able to work well with local, state, and national governments on natural disasters from forest fires to hurricanes.

I am not sure the Obama administration will have the ability / courage to choose him due to the fear from the unions and negative view of Wal-Mart. But, then ask yourself who has the most energy efficient new stores (Wal-Mart), ask yourself who has the most energy efficient trucking fleet (Wal-Mart) and who has a large fleet of leased Hybrid's (Wal-Mart).

If you truly want the US to be in a better place on energy in four years, pick the person able to truly drive the results. Pick Lee.

Popular posts from this blog

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…