The Real Energy Voters Are Us

What Clinton was proposing on climate--a strong grid and storage and development of the infrastructure necessary to eliminating gas--is exactly what we need.

Nothing confirms that better than the news out this week that that is precisely what the fossil fuel lackeys are looking at attacking first.

The incoming administration has sent a questionnaire to the Department of Energy, seeking the names of individuals working on specific programs that include the valuation of the social cost of carbon and lending for research and statistics.

One target is particularly telling:  “The document also signals which of the department’s agencies could face the toughest scrutiny under the new administration. Among them: the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy [ARPA-E], a 7-year-old unit that has been a critical instrument for the Obama administration to advance clean-energy technologies.”  

ARPA-E funds projects that are not ready for private investment, but have high potential, in energy storage (battery technology) and transmission (grid technology), among other technologies necessary for solar and wind and other clean energy.

Why would the incoming administration target this program?

Because Obama had it right.  Clinton had it right.  Transmission and storage are essential to transitioning to renewables.  I repeat…Without investment in transmission and storage, we cannot rely predominantly on renewables.

I explored this in full in the past, but here I will quickly summarize.   Wind and solar are intermittent. The sun isn’t always shining everywhere and at all times that electricity is needed, nor is the wind always blowing. There are several potential solutions to this problem. (1) Use electricity only intermittently (not viable or even desired), (2) store the energy for later use (batteries, pumped hydro or other), (3) move the energy from one place to another-transmission (a national grid could move energy from where it is produced to where it is needed) or (4) have another energy source that is “dispatchable,” that is, it can be turned on and off to complement the solar and wind (gas or oil).

Without transmission and storage, any use of solar and wind means continuing dependence on gas or oil.

The work of ARPA-E under Obama, that would have continued under Clinton, is ESSENTIAL to shifting to renewables to any significant extent.

Trump’s team doesn’t necessarily need to focus its attack on solar and wind directly.

They can work on state policies to make solar and wind more difficult. And they can block the grid and storage development that would make solar and wind change from boutique energy to a significant source of energy. That's easy, politically. People have no clue how state utility policies work and no clue why the grid and storage are so important.

And that brings us to the million dollar question.  (Or is it the million parts per million question?)

Where do we go from here?

I proffer this:  double down on science, policy and reason.

We must get educated on why a grid and storage matter and we must educate people on why a grid and storage matter.  We must get educated on what works in climate messaging and educate others on good climate messaging that teach the value of clean energy infrastructure.  We must be open to compromises that work in the right general direction and help others see the value in that.

And this is where Clinton really had it right, once again.  She had the right message; it just wasn't heard.

The oil industry giant American Petroleum Institute has been running an ad campaign about "energy voters" for years. We need to take that away from them.

Climate voters should absolutely be characterized as energy voters. We want carbon free energy.

But our movement is always being hijacked by the "none of the above" crowd. Sorry, no. We are not going back to caves. But we don't have to. That's what Clinton's climate message was about--we can be a clean energy superpower.

That is a powerful message.

But the left hasn't been listening, dismissing it as uncommitted greenwashing focused only on demand and not supply. And the right has been captured by being "energy voters." That single-handedly characterizes us as wanting to take away their energy (we don't), and sends the message that fossil fuels are necessary to living with lights and heat and transport.

That is a message that will kill us.  Fortunately, it also isn’t true.

Clean energy means energy independence.  My Republican Congressman once said “imagine if every time a homeowner replaced their roof, they’d get solar; it would democratize energy”).   It means electric vehicles with awesome torque.  It means less pollution.  It means price stability.  It means a livable planet.  With a grid and storage, it means consistent, reliable energy not subject to the whims of OPEC or other markets.  It means predictability.  It means jobs on our home soil.  It means strength internationally.

And all of that relies on the work of groups like ARPA-E on transmission and storage.

That is the landscape of a clean energy superpower.  And it is more clear than ever before, we need people to see that is the landscape of real climate action.  The fossil fuel lackeys are making it plain that they know it is.  And it scares them.

And that is where the battle lines are now drawn.

We are the voters that want democratic access to energy.  We are the voters that want to drive without dependence on foreign oil or the oil of corrupt politicians.  We are the voters that want to run the meter backwards.  We are the energy voters.

It is time for us to make that our battle cry.

Climate To The Left of Me? Climate To The Right.

Hillary Clinton

Climate change is not caused by capitalism. Climate change is not caused by political corruption. Climate change is not caused by plutocracy.  

Climate change is caused by rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Anyone and everyone that remotely claims to understand or "believe in" climate change, needs to accept that we must cut emissions.

And, anyone that claims to understand climate change must also accept that we are out of time.  We must get to zero emissions by 2050 just to have a moderate chance of staying under 2C, by even the most optimistic projections.  That means building the infrastructure we need to get to zero today.  In our current system.  

We don't have time to remake our political system first. We don't have time to end political corruption first. We don't have time to solve class, LGBT, gender or racial injustice first.

No.  We don't have time.

If we care about the poor, if we care about women, children, the LGBT community, or minorities, if we care about our government, if we care about our children, if we care about animals and plants, if we care about anything that we have in our lives, we must place the utmost emphasis on cutting emissions.  Every single thing we know or love is jeopardized by climate change. 

We are out of time. And we MUST end carbon emissions. NOW.

As climate solutions go, I prefer the revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend. But a cap and trade can work. A carbon tax swap can work. A revenue raising carbon tax can work. Subsidies for renewables and ancillary infrastructure can work. Nuclear can work. Local, state and federal regulations can work. Private corporate investment can work. Public-private partnerships can work.  Religious edicts can work.  

I will take any and all of the above.

And anyone that claims to understand climate change will too. 

Michael Brune

Michael Brune and the Sierra Club, along with other environmental groups that opposed a carbon tax in Washington, have just demonstrated that they don't understand that.  (Brune cited that the carbon tax wasn't strong enough for various constituents in Washington with whom the left is allied, despite the fact that it includes a payment up to $1500/year for the poor).

People unwilling to vote for Hillary Clinton, who has strong plans for renewables and efficiency, the grid, storage, and load-shifting necessary to renewables, as well as for incentives for states to cut emissions, have demonstrated that they don't understand that.

Yes, we need plans to keep it in the ground.  A price on carbon is accepted as one of the best ways to do that.  And, yes, Hillary Clinton has been generally mum on a price on carbon because she does not see it as politically viable. 

(This is the statement from her campaign back in July:  "'Sec. Clinton would welcome working with Congress to address this issue but she also believes it is too important to wait for climate deniers to listen to science,' Trevor Houser, a Clinton campaign energy policy adviser said... 'That's why she is focused on a plan she can implement from Day 1.'")

Apparently, like most of us, she assumed it wasn't politically viable because of science denial in the GOP. 

One could guess that the left also might block a carbon price if it failed to raise revenue and spend money on renewables.  But no one would have guessed that it wouldn't just be the left, it would be the environmental left blocking a carbon tax. That is shocking. 

Think about that for a moment.  

The leaders in our country on climate...the people who are supposed to know most clearly that we are in dire straits...the people who should know that we must put cutting carbon above all else in order to protect all that we love...they don't get it.  

If the left doesn't get it?  That leaves the center and the right.  And you know what?  I predict that the center and the right will take ownership of cutting carbon before the left ever figures out how to stop squabbling. And the left will be stunned when they've lost on this issue. 

Carlos Curbelo

Bob Inglis

People like Bob Inglis  (former Representative and founder of the Republican carbon tax advocacy group RepublicEn) and Carlos Curbelo (Republican representative and co-founder of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus) are waiting in the wings for that day.  

And you know who else may be predicting the same thing?  Hillary Clinton, who thinks that same none-of-the-above-energy crowd should "get a life." 

(Her leaked comments:  “They come to my rallies and they yell at me and, you know, all the rest of it. They say, ‘Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?’ No. I won’t promise that. Get a life.

Clinton continued: “I’m having conversations in these town halls and these meetings I’m having with a lot of people who break into my meetings, they hold up posters, they scream at me, and all the rest of that: ‘Stop extracting fossil fuels, stop extracting on public lands, come out against nuclear, coal’ you name it.") 

No coal, no oil, no gas, no nuclear...that is not reasonable if you want to lead 320M people who have homes to heat unless you build renewables and infrastructure to support renewables first.  People wonder why she doesn't support a carbon tax. Well, hell, the environmentalists on the left can't even seem to get it together to do that. 

So what is she doing?  She is looking to address climate while speaking the right's language--becoming the clean energy superpower of the world. And not only that, she is doing it with the support and advice of people with a whole lot of experience dealing with climate and energy (Al Gore, John Podesta, Jennifer Granholm, just to name a few).

"Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time. It threatens our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures. We can tackle it by making America the world’s clean energy superpower and creating millions of good-paying jobs, taking bold steps to slash carbon pollution at home and around the world, and ensuring no Americans are left out or left behind as we rapidly build a clean energy economy."  https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/

Well, someone's got to speak about climate in language the right understands.  The left sure isn't. 

And it looks like that someone is Hillary Clinton.

And you know what?  I am with her.

Hillary Clinton Is Talking Climate-Do We Hear Her?

There continues to be a sense that while Hillary Clinton does have comprehensive plans for clean energy, she isn’t talking about climate change enough.  A good friend of mine expressed concern that she doesn’t really prioritize it.  He said “I feel invisible.”  Perhaps this reflected a sense that she isn’t really listening and doesn’t really hear how bad it is, how important it is.

The political process and the wrangling can make us all feel invisible.  And, certainly, Hillary Clinton has a lot on her plate.  Climate sometimes seems to get lost.  Without a doubt, moderators are not raising it.  Demoralizing, really.

However, while busy addressing Trump, she is still managing to raise climate.  Her use of climate as a wedge issue in the first presidential debate was fantastic.  Of course, she was busy in that debate making sure Trump was on the defensive in many areas.  Seeing climate as one was very gratifying.
 
But she is also raising climate in ads like the one above and in stump speeches. NPR has analyzed and annotated Clinton’s stump speeches, based on a typical one.  This is the speech she regularly gives, with subtle changes for each occasion.

I have excerpted here the portions relevant to climate change:

“We're going to make the biggest investment in new jobs since World War II.

Infrastructure jobs like those here at the port. Our roads, our bridges, our tunnels, our ports, our airports, they need work and there are millions of jobs to be done. And in addition to what you can see, what about our water systems, our sewer systems? We need a new modern electric grid to be able to take in clean, renewable energy that can then move us toward that future we seek.

I have a plan to install a half a billion solar panels by the end of my first term. And enough clean energy to power every home in America by the end of my second term. And I want young people especially to be part of this, to be in science, technology, engineering, manufacturing, creating this future that will determine the quality of your lives and the competitiveness of our economy.

...

Another threat to our country is climate change. 2015 was the hottest year on record, and the science is clear. It's real. It's wreaking havoc on communities across America. Last week's hurricane was another reminder of the devastation that extreme weather can cause, and I send my thoughts and prayers to everyone affected by Hermine. But this is not the last one that's going to hit Florida, given what's happening in the climate. Nobody knows that better than folks right here in Tampa and in the broader region. Sea levels have been rising here about an inch per decade since the 1950s. At the rate we are going, by 2030, which is not that far away, $70 billion of coastal property in this state will be flooding at high tide. And whenever our infrastructure is threatened, so too is our homeland security. The next president will have to work with communities like Tampa's to prepare for future storms.

When I'm in the Oval Office, I'm going to work with local leaders to make smart investments in infrastructure to help protect regions from flooding and other effects of climate change. I'm going to continue to continue to work on the international and national level to try to turn the clock back, to stabilize and reduce emissions even more, to try to gain more time. But we're going to have to begin working immediately on mitigation and resilience and prevention as well.

And what about Donald Trump? Well, he doesn't even believe in climate change. He says it's a hoax invented by the Chinese. And he says, 'You can't get hurt with extreme weather.' Now, this is the same guy who at one of his golf courses in some coastal place has demanded that a seawall be built to protect his golf course from rising tides. So it's all fine if it affects Donald, but if it affects the rest of humanity, he could care less. If it affects people to lose their homes or their businesses that took a lifetime to build, it doesn't matter to him. When it comes to protecting our country against natural disasters and the threat of climate change, once again Donald Trump is totally unfit and unqualified to be our president.”

Hillary Clinton has a goal of cutting emissions 80% by 2050.  The same goal of 80% by 2050 that Bernie Sanders had.  Certainly, her plans do not go far enough.  But 80% by 2050 is a strong goal.

Hillary Clinton has policy plans to develop clean energy, to build a new grid to support that clean energy, to ensure that there is climate justice in building resilience to withstand climate impacts and in accessing the opportunities for jobs building a green economy, to support coal communities as they transition to carbon free economics, to increase building efficiency, to electrify our automobile fleet… (Also see David Roberts' great summary of Hillary Clinton's climate policies here.)

Hillary Clinton has created a transition team that includes co-chair Jennifer Granholm, who has long advocated for clean energy challenge grants and is an aggressive advocate for building a green economy.  The team also includes Neera Tanden, the president of Center for American Progress (CAP).  The same CAP that created and sponsors Think Progress and Climate Progress, with its own Joe Romm.  These women answer to John Podesta, founder of CAP and head of Clinton's campaign. (As David Roberts explains, he was a driver for aggressive climate action in the Obama second term.)

And she is talking about climate change, even amidst a busy campaign understandably focusing on the threat that is Donald Trump.

Perhaps we are not invisible; perhaps she is hearing the climate scientists and energy policy experts and climate journalists and activists.

Perhaps it is that we are not hearing her.

I suspect that this might be related to "the gap" described by Ezra Klein:

"Given where both candidates began, there is no doubt that Bernie Sanders proved the more effective talker. His speeches attracted larger audiences, his debate performances led to big gains in the polls, his sound bites went more viral on Facebook.

Yet Clinton proved the more effective listener — and, particularly, the more effective coalition builder. On the eve of the California primary, 208 members of Congress had endorsed Clinton, and only eight had endorsed Sanders. 'This was a lot of relationships,' says Verveer.  'She’s been in public life for 30 years. Over those 30 years, she has met a lot of those people, stayed in touch with them, treated them decently, campaigned for them. You can’t do this overnight.'

One way of reading the Democratic primary is that it pitted an unusually pure male leadership style against an unusually pure female leadership style. Sanders is a great talker and a poor relationship builder. Clinton is a great relationship builder and a poor talker. In this case — the first time at the presidential level — the female leadership style won."

We in the climate movement are angry at the greed and mendacity of the fossil fuel interests.  We are scared and worried for our children's futures.  Quite simply, we want to hear outrage from Clinton.  And we don't.  This leaves many feeling unheard.  Feeling "invisible."

But, perhaps we are very much heard.  Perhaps she is listening.  Perhaps she is developing the right relationships for action.  Perhaps we just don't have an ear trained to hear her.

Climate Change Denial is for Losers.

The debate last week between Trump and Clinton was jam packed.  A great deal of the punditry since has rightly focused on how skillfully Clinton managed to expose Trump as an undisciplined bully while still conveying her own strengths and capacity to be commander-in-chief.

Less explored is the role of climate change in those 90 minutes.

No questions were asked on climate change.  Climate change could have gone without notice, yet again.  The widespread climate impacts we are already experiencing, the news rolling in that we have less time than we thought to end fossil fuel use, the benchmark 400ppm passed (likely with finality), the plummeting prices of renewables, the pipelines being blocked, the state struggles with nuclear and energy policy in general, the need for transmission and storage, for EVs, for clean energy…  The world is grappling with climate change and, yet, not one single question.

That would be the end of the story.  Except, it is not.

Within her first statement, just 3 minutes and 22 seconds after Lester Holt began this event, Hillary Clinton was raising clean energy.  Once again, she was demonstrating that clean energy is central to her platform.  Wise messaging consistent with the experts:  focus on solutions, not doom.  She has been consistent in that.

However, Hillary Clinton clearly had another specific goal last Monday that had little to do with climate policy.  She was going to put Donald on the defensive.  She was going to force him to become indignant, to get angry, to deny undeniable bad behavior.  She did it all night.

But what did she think was the best way to start?  What would be the best way to put Donald on the defensive?  Tax returns?  Rape charges?  Among the very first attacks was this:

“CLINTON:  …They've looked at my plans and they've said, OK, if we can do this, and I intend to get it done, we will have 10 million more new jobs, because we will be making investments where we can grow the economy. Take clean energy. Some country is going to be the clean- energy superpower of the 21st century. Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it's real.

TRUMP: I did not. I did not. I do not say that. [Yes, he does.]

CLINTON: I think science is real.

TRUMP: I do not say that.

CLINTON: And I think it's important that we grip this and deal with it, both at home and abroad. And here's what we can do. We can deploy a half a billion more solar panels. We can have enough clean energy to power every home. We can build a new modern electric grid. That's a lot of jobs; that's a lot of new economic activity.”

Hillary Clinton just recognized and signaled that climate change is a wedge issue.  No matter how anyone may feel about her, we all recognize that Hillary Clinton is a skilled politician that responds to political will.  And she, here, both recognized and signaled that climate denial is indefensible.  It is so unacceptable that Donald Trump must deny his hand is in the cookie jar, though the crumbs are all over his face.  Climate denial is so bad that it is safe to use as bait for pushing Donald to feel insecure.  Donald wants to present as a winner.  And here, it became clear, climate denial is for losers.

Even Donald recognized that.

World War II Scale Mobilization

Climate change is here and it is urgent.  Urgent as in really really really dire.  As I discussed in a previous post, IPCC projections show a 50% chance of staying under 1.5C warming if we get to zero emissions by 2035 and a 66% chance of staying under 2C warming if we get to zero emissions by 2050.

Bill McKibben wrote an excellent piece last month laying out what we need to do to get to zero emissions...a World War II Scale Mobilization to fight climate change.  He did a great job explaining that winning a war is about building weaponry and infrastructure as much as it is about fighting.  He discussed how much needs to be built to fight climate change.  (While I do not completely agree with his reliance on Jacobsen's work to such a degree, his point is well made and whether we rely 100% on renewables or to some lesser extent, we have a lot to get done in a short amount of time).

Then he turned to a discussion of what a World War II Scale Mobilization looks like.  This was excellent.  We must all take a long hard look at what that really means.  Easy to say the phrase and give an air of meaning business, but getting down to brass tacks means figuring out precisely what that entails.

"Turning out more solar panels and wind turbines may not sound like warfare, but it’s exactly what won World War II: not just massive invasions and pitched tank battles and ferocious aerial bombardments, but the wholesale industrial retooling that was needed to build weapons and supply troops on a previously unprecedented scale. Defeating the Nazis required more than brave soldiers. It required building big factories, and building them really, really fast...

According to the conventional view of World War II, American business made all this happen simply because it rolled up its sleeves and went to war. As is so often the case, however, the conventional view is mostly wrong. Yes, there are endless newsreels from the era of patriotic businessmen unrolling blueprints and switching on assembly lines—but that’s largely because those businessmen paid for the films. Their PR departments also put out their own radio serials with titles like “Victory Is Their Business,” and “War of Enterprise,” and published endless newspaper ads boasting of their own patriotism. In reality, many of America’s captains of industry didn’t want much to do with the war until they were dragooned into it."

McKibben goes on to explain that "dragooned into it" meant government agencies directing industry action:

 “'It was public capital that built most of the stuff, not Wall Street,' says Wilson. 'And at the top level of logistics and supply-chain management, the military was the boss. They placed the contracts, they moved the stuff around.' The feds acted aggressively—they would cancel contracts as war needs changed, tossing factories full of people abruptly out of work. If firms refused to take direction, FDR ordered many of them seized. Though companies made money, there was little in the way of profiteering—bad memories from World War I, Wilson says, led to 'robust profit controls,' which were mostly accepted by America’s industrial tycoons. In many cases, federal authorities purposely set up competition between public operations and private factories: The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard built submarines, but so did Electric Boat of Groton, Connecticut. 'They were both quite impressive and productive,' Wilson says."

Let's tease that apart.  "Public capital built most of the stuff... [C]ompanies made money."  Why exactly did "America's industrial tycoons...accept 'robust profit controls'"?  Well, the answer might be in what those industrial tycoons got in return.  Andre Tartare, with Bloomberg:

"To win WWII, the U.S. economy had to be re-tooled to churn out airplanes and tanks alongside (or, in lieu) of washing machines and cars, while at the same time developing new technologies, such as the atomic bomb. Government spending — often in the form of cost-plus contracts to the risk-averse private companies operating the factories and mines — peaked at nearly 43 percent of U.S. gross domestic product in 1943 and 1944." 

A simple definition of cost-plus contract:  "A cost-plus-fixed-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for payment to the contractor of a negotiated fee that is fixed at the inception of the contract... This contract type permits contracting for efforts that might otherwise present too great a risk to contractors.."  That's right.  The corporation takes none of the risk in research and development.  Guaranteed profit.  No risk.  Government takes the risk.

Military and defense contractors.  Gun manufacturers.  Airplane and auto manufacturers. Profiteering?  Maybe not in the sense of making exorbitant profit margins. But they weren't treated too shabbily.  No risk R&D and guaranteed profit is nice.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't think it was a bad move.  We needed to fight a war.  And win a war.  And if IBM and Boeing and others profited by it unfairly, well, such is life.  We had a war to fight and win.

And we need to fight a war now.  We have loads of solar panels and wind turbines to churn out.  We have nuclear R&D to accomplish.  We have a HVDC grid to build.  We have smart grid technology to develop.  We have gardens to grow.  We have replacement for concrete to discover.  We have planes, trains and automobiles to build that move without fossil fuels.  We have energy storage R&D to do. We have to figure out how to accomplish widespread negative emissions.  We have sea level rise to address.  We have extreme weather to defend against.  We have a war to fight.  And we will need to do whatever it takes to win that war.

And here is my point:  it WILL involve decisions that people on the left do not necessarily like.  I don't like the idea of cost-plus contracts to GM or Boeing or Microsoft or, worse, Exxon Mobil.  But what if they mean we can win the war?

If we are going to talk about WWII scale mobilization, we had better be ready to be exceedingly pragmatic. When we talk about WWII scale mobilization, we are talking about TOUGH choices.  Not just for someone like Mitch McConnell or Jim Inhofe.  Not just for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  Tough choices for us all.

I propose that those choices be faced with the guiding principle that cutting emissions and preserving a livable world must take higher priority than retribution, ideology or righteousness.  Bill McKibben is absolutely right.  We CAN get to zero emissions by 2035 or 2050.  But no one should think it will come lightly or easily.

Scientific Consensus, the IPCC and Just How Bad It Really Is

Here is a great graphic showing possible pathways we can take. It shows how soon we start emissions cuts will determine the rate at which we must get to zero emissions and how much ultimate warming we will see.

This graphic demonstrates the projections made within consensus science, including the IPCC projections.  These IPCC projections are terrifying, but show a 50% chance of staying under 1.5C warming if we get to zero emissions by 2035 and a 66% chance of staying under 2C warming if we get to zero emissions by 2050.

Cutting edge, newer projections, are generally more dire than this.  Here are some examples of news stories that paint an even more dire picture: http://theconversation.com/we-have-almost-certainly-blown-the-1-5-degree-global-warming-target-63720 and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/aug/15/climate-urgency-weve-locked-in-more-global-warming-than-people-realize?CMP=share_btn_fb

IPCC projections are unusual in science, as a self-conscious attempt to sum up the consensus. Normally, in science, consensus simply emerges from the literature over long periods of time.  Given we don't have long periods of time, the IPCC attempts to move that forward more quickly. 

Faced with these contradictions, the media and the polity generally assume the more recent studies are the better or more accepted science.  However, in science, it usually works in reverse.  The newest studies have yet to be vetted and require more time for attempts to confirm or rebut their conclusions.  In the case of climate change, we don't have that kind of time.  Moreover, new data is available on a daily basis, adding weight to the newer studies.  On top of that, the IPCC often is suspected of slanting toward the more conservative, more palatable, less scary conclusions as a matter of policy.

So, what is a climate concerned citizen to do?

It is still very important to stay grounded in scientific process. Newer, cutting edge projections do not have the benefit of as much vetting by the scientific community. One of the reasons science is so trustworthy is that vetting process. So while we should keep an eye on the newer projections, we cannot dismiss what scientists have supported en masse already.

This is my take.  The scientists MUST continue to pursue the scientific process.  That means, leaning heavily on the consensus and looking to the cutting edge with skepticism.  But looking to challenge and confirm or rebut it.

The activists, the politicians, the polity, on the other hand, has this:  the reality is that whatever the scientists express differences on, they ALL agree on that we must cut carbon today by ending infrastructure that supports a carbon economy and we must do it as quickly as we can muster.

So a climate concerned citizen must must must continue to work on the certainty that we must cut carbon and leave the uncertainties to the scientists.

This is challenging because politicians want to know how much time we have.  This is challenging because the uncertainties leave those without science literacy think scientists don't know what they are doing and climate activists are not reading the right studies.  This is challenging because none of us want to face the reality that things are really really dire.  This is challenging because good messaging may seem out of touch with the reality, particularly when the reality is uncertain.  This is challenging because the initial steps we can take are dwarfed by the enormity of what we must accomplish.

This is challenging.

But, then, no one said this was easy.

I, for one, will write another letter to the editor, hang dry another load of laundry, replace another incandescent bulb, plan my next year's teaching and plan for my EV purchase this Winter.

Resiliency in Facing Climate Change

People's Climate March September 21, 2014

If you google "define resiliency," Google gives you this:

Resilience (noun) or Resiliency (noun) Able to recover quickly from misfortune; able to return to original form after being bent, compressed, or stretched out of shape. A human ability to recover quickly from disruptive change, or misfortune without being overwhelmed or acting in dysfunctional or harmful ways (emphasis mine).  http://resiliencycenter.com/resiliency-definitions/

This morning, on Facebook, I wrote this:

Anyone paying attention to climate change carries fear of the horrible suffering we have already locked in. A sense of hopelessness that often falls away as doomerism.
Believing it is "too late" is really a belief that all that is left to save is unworthy of bothering to save. And we know that just isn't true. There is a lot left to save.
The real terror is not that it is too late. It is that we will be facing terrible suffering if we look to what is left to save.
Doing the hard work of decarbonizing our economy seems to fail to grasp the enormity of the suffering and pain of drought, hunger, migration and loss.
But when you are given horrible news, after you cry, you have to pick yourself up and do what has to be done, even the mundane.

Well, that is all fine and good.  But HOW?

So I looked to the American Psychological Association's words of wisdom packaged for internet use on resiliency.  And what they have to share is quite useful.  I guess it turns out they know something about human psychology.

They have ten tips to building resilience.

(1)  Make connections. Good relationships with close family members, friends or others are important. Accepting help and support from those who care about you and will listen to you strengthens resilience. Some people find that being active in civic groups, faith-based organizations, or other local groups provides social support and can help with reclaiming hope. Assisting others in their time of need also can benefit the helper.  

Um, yeah.  I joined Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) and I find it hugely helpful to work with others for a meaningful solution, the revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend.  I know that my own actions are amplified by the actions of 25,000 others.  And vice versa.  Actually, hugely helpful is an understatement.  Highly empowering.  I have learned a lot from the group.  But CCL isn't for everyone.  There are many other organizations out there working for climate solutions.  If working with a group sounds appealing, find one that is comfortable for you.

(2) Avoid seeing crises as insurmountable problems. You can't change the fact that highly stressful events happen, but you can change how you interpret and respond to these events. Try looking beyond the present to how future circumstances may be a little better. Note any subtle ways in which you might already feel somewhat better as you deal with difficult situations.

In climate, this is a major stumbling block.  For me, I hold onto the reality that the scientists just are not 100% sure of anything.  There remains great uncertainty about how bad the positive feedbacks will be, how resilient ecosystems will be, whether we can develop means of removing carbon dioxide within the next few decades.  We can see those uncertainties as death sentences or as avenues for working things to our benefit.

(3)  Accept that change is a part of living. Certain goals may no longer be attainable as a result of adverse situations. Accepting circumstances that cannot be changed can help you focus on circumstances that you can alter.

This is HUGE.  We cannot avoid warming the planet.  We already have, about 1C.  And we are seeing fires and droughts and floods and extreme storms, refugee crises, rising sea levels, increases in vector borne diseases.  And we have locked in much worse, that we cannot change.  But there is a difference between seeing the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet in 50 years versus 300 years.  Our ability to adapt and mitigate suffering is vastly different in 4C warming versus 2C warming, whether we are looking at sea level rise, crop yields, storm damage, diseases, or any of the impacts of climate change.

(4) Move toward your goals. Develop some realistic goals. Do something regularly — even if it seems like a small accomplishment — that enables you to move toward your goals. Instead of focusing on tasks that seem unachievable, ask yourself, "What's one thing I know I can accomplish today that helps me move in the direction I want to go?"

Some days, this is as small as recycling your shampoo bottle.  Other days, it is teaching someone else the value of recycling their shampoo bottle.  And some days, it is seeing your Republican Congressman sponsor a resolution to act on climate.  And on really great days, you see hundreds of thousands march in New York City, or see the Pope release his encyclical, or hear that nearly 200 nations actually agreed on something or that carbon pricing is in the Democratic platform or that your presidential candidate wants to build a national grid to enable renewable power to flourish. (Side note:  one thing every US citizen over 18 can accomplish on November 8 is to vote for that candidate, and climate active candidates down ballot).

(5) Take decisive actions. Act on adverse situations as much as you can. Take decisive actions, rather than detaching completely from problems and stresses and wishing they would just go away.

'Nough said.

(6)  Look for opportunities for self-discovery. People often learn something about themselves and may find that they have grown in some respect as a result of their struggle with loss. Many people who have experienced tragedies and hardship have reported better relationships, greater sense of strength even while feeling vulnerable, increased sense of self-worth, a more developed spirituality and heightened appreciation for life.   (7) Nurture a positive view of yourself. Developing confidence in your ability to solve problems and trusting your instincts helps build resilience.

Climate activism offers benefits like connecting with others who share your concerns.  You can learn new skills, like writing letters to the editor, making difficult phone calls, or presenting to a local town board.  For me, personally, I am learning to find my own voice through climate action.  As it turns out, I won the lottery of climate action perks. I fell in love with a fellow climate activist.  :)

(7)  Keep things in perspective. Even when facing very painful events, try to consider the stressful situation in a broader context and keep a long-term perspective. Avoid blowing the event out of proportion.

Well, I don't think we are in danger of committing this one.  Climate is a really big deal, and it is almost impossible to overstate its impact.  My daughter may have achieved this one a few years ago.  She asked me if creatures like cockroaches and bacteria would survive climate change.  And I said, that, yes, I thought so.  Her response may be resiliency incarnate:  "Well, good, then if we fail, we get to start over."

(8) Maintain a hopeful outlook. An optimistic outlook enables you to expect that good things will happen in your life. Try visualizing what you want, rather than worrying about what you fear.

Those uncertainties?  See the path to success.  It is like playing miniature golf.  You have to see where you want the ball to go if you have a hope of getting it there.  On the days we can't do this, take a walk.  There is no reason to make seeing failure a habit.

(9) Take care of yourself. Pay attention to your own needs and feelings. Engage in activities that you enjoy and find relaxing. Exercise regularly. Taking care of yourself helps to keep your mind and body primed to deal with situations that require resilience.

Know what keeps you feeling strong.  The climate movement sure could use more parties, more shared dinners, more music festivals, more time celebrating successes, no matter how small.

(10) Additional ways of strengthening resilience may be helpful. For example, some people write about their deepest thoughts and feelings related to trauma or other stressful events in their life. Meditation and spiritual practices help some people build connections and restore hope.

The key is to identify ways that are likely to work well for you as part of your own personal strategy for fostering resilience.

It is clear that the past 50 years of warnings on climate have not led to resilient behavior.  We have shut down, denied, ignored or succumbed to the doom of the horror.  The antithesis of "facing disruption without being overwhelmed or acting in dysfunctional ways."

Practicing resiliency within the context of climate action may be an essential way to move beyond that.

The Clinton Climate Message From this Week

There is a lot to digest from this convention, not the least of which is the vision of a general, authority incarnate, being inclusive of gays, entering big tent politics, to a roaring Democratic Party.  What that might mean for climate action is astounding.  But I will save that for a future post.  

In this one, I will focus on the carefully crafted climate message we heard this week, the one that Hillary believes will resonate with voters. The one that demonstrates strong gains in political will by the climate movement.

What is that message?

(1). Throwing out science denial.  Hillary said  "I believe in science.  I believe climate change is real" and the audience returned a fabulous resounding roar of approval.  

Now listen, no one is truly out of denial. The country is moving through the stages of climate denial at varying rates. 

But the anger at the GOP's outright refusal to deal with it now resonates strongly.  And it's about time. 

(2).  Turn the challenge of climate change into opportunity.  The ad below came out this week. It touches on voter anger with denial momentarily (and highly effectively with great sound effects). But more, it makes it clear, she is going to focus on solutions, not doom. In fact, nearly every time climate was raised this week, the narrative was turning climate challenges into opportunities. 

This is consistent with the research.  There is strong evidence that people will more likely accept the problem of climate change once they feel they can accept the solutions. (There's little that is logical about the human psyche, but there you have it). 

We don't need people to feel doomed. We need them to vote for climate solutions. We need them to see how climate solutions will help them continue to get food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. And, indeed, that's the whole point of averting climate catastrophe in the first place. 

(3). Incorporate solutions into other initiatives. In her speech last night, she said, in the first 100 days she would put jobs at the top of the list.  Included in that list was clean energy jobs. 

She has said she intends to create a climate strategy room in her first 100 days. She has said day 1 was the day she would start to address climate. But in a national speech, she puts that within a jobs program narrative. That's something we at Citizens Climate Lobby do, too, offering our carbon fee as a job creation plan. It's effective with people that don't like to talk climate. 

But she isn't going to refer to climate every day. She is instead going to sew it into the other initiatives she must act on.  And that is okay. Because we need climate considered in every other initiative we take. 

But, once again, it means that it comes to us to raise the big C word every day.   These moves are important. But they will not be enough. They show excellent use of the executive power to drive us toward solutions. But they don't teach our neighbors how dire things are. 

And that will come to us. Not to be angry at her for being responsive to the political will and using experts to craft solutions and messages. But to teach our neighbors that she needs our support in climate action and that we need legislators that will hand her even stronger solutions that she can sign into law. And, yes, to move her and us and everyone else a little further out of denial. 

Here is the climate ad that she put out this week.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_ZwguLJVxsM