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.

Clinton's Transition Team, Jennifer Granholm and Listening to the Experts

Clinton and Granholm

I was contacted by text with "Bad news...  Clinton appointed Ken Salazar as the head of her transition team.  BETRAYAL." (paraphrased down to the point).

Now there is one thing I have learned watching these races.  Stop and read.

Ken Salazar?  Well, time to go back and re-read the details.  UGH.  Quoted as saying that fracking has no harmful impact on the environment as recently as 2014.  That is ridiculous.  Pants on fire kinda statement.  But, on the other hand, made decisions to regulate fossil fuel extraction in national parks.  Advocate for public lands.  Okay.  Mixed bag.

The second thing I have learned is to stop and think.  What does the Salazar appointment mean?  Well, it isn't a surprise.  Clinton has been clear, she sees gas as a bridge fuel.  Not how I see it. I see it as something that's got to end ASAP. But, whether you view it like I do, or you view it like she does, we have to deal with the reality that we must build the grid, storage and carbon free energy before we can end gas, oil and coal. And to do that, we must see market changes that drive that change.  Imagine for the moment that we banned gas today. Today. No more gas. What would happen? Coal would make a comeback. Coal is dead because of gas. (In part, as orchestrated by Beyond Coal, a joint venture of Sierra Club and Michael Bloomberg). And it is easy to convert a gas power station back to a coal power station.

Is she planning on supporting the construction of that grid, storage and carbon free energy? Yes. Her end horizon for gas is different than mine. But either way, the initial steps are the same.  Her plans are not enough. But, then, neither was Sanders’, and the climate movement didn't even look at O'Malley. Her plans DO include many of the first steps an executive can make in the face of an obstructionist Congress, however.

But here is the other thing to consider.  One of Hillary Clinton's strengths is that she pulls together lots of different people.  Gets all the vested interests to the table to talk and figure out how to move forward.  Bill McKibben's recent piece makes it clear that current industry must be brought to the table. (By force or by invitation, whichever works.  He relates how it was current industry that was coerced to mobilize to fight WWII, and then permitted to take credit for their work.)

So, I asked myself, who else is at this table?  This Vox piece tells us the big names.  And this piece from Politico talks about the huge list of climate and energy policy experts advising Clinton.  Wow.  A lot of people involved here besides Salazar.  Context is everything.

Here is one of the five top people on the transition team:  Jennifer Granholm.  Former governor of Michigan.  A quick google gave me this excellent 2013 Ted Talk, in which Granholm explains why she advocates challenge grants to the states to bypass congressional gridlock and motivate all states to work for clean energy solutions.

Where have I seen challenge grants to get states to act on climate before?  Oh, right...Hillary Clinton's Clean Energy Challenge:

"Hillary Clinton will launch a Clean Energy Challenge that forms a new partnership with states, cities, and rural communities that are ready to lead on clean energy. She will outline this Challenge in detail in the coming weeks, and it will include:

1. Climate Action Competition: Competitive grants and other market-based incentives to empower states to exceed federal carbon pollution standards and accelerate clean energy deployment.
2. Solar X-Prize: Awards for communities that successfully cut the red tape that slows rooftop solar installation times and increases costs for businesses and consumers."

 Fortunately, the Clean Energy Challenge is but one of a host of climate solutions plans that Hillary Clinton is advocating.  It might be reasonable to infer that they all find their genesis in people like Granholm.  Hillary Clinton LISTENS to the experts.  All of them.  Yes, Ken Salazar is there.  And so is Jennifer Granholm, along with a virtual army of other folks.  All at the table.  And in her Climate Map/War Room. (“'Hillary’s been talking about creating a climate war room in the White House,' Podesta said, then correcting himself that he meant to say climate map room. 'To be able to see where effects are taking place, to keep it real time, to use the technologies that are available, to try to imagine what is happening in the natural world and what the impact of that is going to be on the economy and the society.'”)

Our job?  We need to be sure we are at the table too, by voting on the basis of climate solutions, by speaking out on climate solutions and by supporting those with climate solutions.  Because it is clear, Clinton is listening.

Six Degrees of Separation

Meg Whitman, Republican Powerbroker with her husband

Damage after Superstorm Sandy

Coffee

This morning I woke to two seemingly disparate pieces of news.  But in the way of "six degrees of separation," I found them seemingly intertwined by the time I sat down with my coffee.

On the one hand, Meg Whitman, Republican powerhouse, billionaire and fundraiser comes out saying that she not only won't vote for Trump, she will vote for Clinton.  And not only will she vote for Clinton, she will donate to her. And not only will she donate to her, she will fundraise for her.  And not only that, Clinton made no policy concessions or promises to her when they spoke a month ago.  They just had a nice "chat."  You can see the story here.

On the other hand, Zillow comes out with a study based on their database of house values and NOAA's projections of sea level rise from climate change, allowing them to project losses of $882 billlion dollars to the housing market from sea level rise alone.  The real estate market is starting to take notice of climate change.  Finally.  It won't be long before homeowners are considering it in purchases.  And then the reality of climate change will sink in all the more firmly for Americans. Another thing pushing them to sit up and take notice sooner rather than later.  (Of course, this is later to anyone that has been paying attention.  But for those that have not, this is sooner.)  You can see this story here.

It looks to me like the climate message is reaching corporations like Zillow.

Zillow...that rang a bell.  That bell?  Hillary Clinton.  She mentioned Zillow and Trulia in her policy plans, some time ago.

• Benchmarking and transparency: While energy makes up a significant share of the operating costs of any building, prospective buyers and tenants have little ability to compare the energy costs of different properties. Cities and states across the country, from Atlanta to Austin, have created programs where commercial and multifamily residential buildings report on their energy use and benchmark it to other buildings of a similar class. This not only helps new buyers and tenants assess affordability but highlights the potential for efficiency improvements for existing owners.  Clinton would expand these successful local policies into a consistent national program.

• Energy efficient mortgages: Residential efficiency improvements, whether in new or existing homes, can significantly reduce a household’s monthly energy bills, yet federal mortgage agencies do not take this into account in determining the value and affordability of home loans they underwrite. Clinton would fix this shortcoming, and work with companies like Zillow and Trulia to make expected energy cost information easily available to prospective buyers.  (emphasis mine).  The Institute for Market Transformation estimates this measure alone would generate 83,000 jobs and save American households $1.3 billion a year on their energy bills by ensuring efficiency investments are accurately valued in the residential property market.  You can read the full text here. 

 Suddenly, my thoughts clicked.  Clinton is already in talks with Zillow and Trulia.  She is talking climate with them.  Already.

And then my thoughts turned to the left.  The frustration with incrementalism.  And no carbon price from Clinton.  I thought about my own belief that Clinton can leverage existing power systems, including corporations and military, to act on climate.  The news from yesterday that the federal government must now account for climate in every decision made.

Climate change is caused incrementally.  One carbon atom at a time.  It is sewn into every single part of our economy.  A price on carbon is the single most powerful policy tool we have to hit carbon at every point in our economy.  But we don't yet have a Congress that will hand one to Obama to sign.  Hillary may just get one, if we deliver.

But she won't put a carbon price in her platform.  Long ago, I said it was because she wasn't going to fly that red flag in front of the Republican bull she knew she would face.  But I was wrong.  It turns out she isn't facing down a Republican bull.  She is going to ride it into the ring.  And those Republicans, like Meg Whitman, will be able to do that because Hillary has judged the line of political viability almost perfectly.

What does this mean for us?  It means we MUST be informed on the various forms of carbon pricing.  It means we must get a progressive bloc into the Senate.  It means we must empower Sanders and Warren to lead that bloc and let them maneuver around the Schumers and the Whitmans.  It means that we must demonstrate that the political will is indeed there to deliver that carbon tax to her desk.  Not the cap and trade that Democratic and Republican establishment are more likely to favor.

But it also means that whether we succeed or fail at that, Hillary Clinton is harnessing the power brokers of today to implement climate action in every nook and cranny of our economy.  Even real estate.

The Big Blue Tent; There is a General in the House

Yesterday was a big day. Hillary's speech accepting the nomination is a huge moment in history.  But I want to turn my thoughts to another speech yesterday.

I think one of the most essential moments was General Allen's speech.

We just saw the military, the bastion of authority, in all its military trappings, in full drill commands INCLUDE transgender people and gays in what it is protecting. That is HUGE.

The LGTBQ community has just been told they haven't just been allowed to participate in the American Dream by getting to marry.  They are THE America that dreams, along with Muslims and women and blacks and hispanics and anyone else that can fit under that big blue tent.  Not only that, they can fully expect the power of their country to be behind them.  As the adult daughter of lesbians, growing up in a closeted family, with admonitions not to let friends know and worries about what the neighbors thought, I could never have imagined this day.  It is earth shattering.  And wonderful.

The implications of such a speech go much further, though.  You know what else is under that big blue tent?  Climate action.  And the implications for the military being part of the big blue tent for climate change? Wow.

That big blue Democratic tent's Party Platform resolves: "We believe the United States must lead in forging a robust global solution to the climate crisis. We are committed to a national mobilization, and to leading a global effort to mobilize nations to address this threat on a scale not seen since World War II. In the first 100 days of the next administration, the President will convene a summit of the world’s best engineers, climate scientists, policy experts, activists, and indigenous communities to chart a course to solve the climate crisis."  Looks like some of those engineers, climate scientists, policy experts, at least, are likely to be military personnel.  Military personnel in high places.

Everyone on the planet is in different levels of climate denial. Even climate activists. But the one group that always seems the closest to hard reality is the military. Those that speak for climate adaptation and mitigation within the military are about as pragmatic and hard nosed as you get. To be honest, I don't want climate solutions left in the hands of someone like Jill Stein who hasn't a clue just how tough this job is going to be, or how energy policy works, or energy markets, or the challenge of dispatchable energy versus baseload, the nuances of a national grid, or of storage and transmission.  The thought of the ultra pragmatic military, that runs like, well, the military, joining other experts in addressing climate change?  Yes, please.

If carbon emissions was not the single most important issue out there, or if we had more time, I would never want to put my support behind what feels so much like blind patriotism.  The sound of delegates chanting "USA" in response to a general vowing to make our enemies afraid is TERRIFYING.  It is somewhat comforting that he pointed out that Hillary Clinton knows how to use other tools besides military might, and it is gratifying to hear the LGTBQ community embraced as brothers and sisters, but we can make no mistake.  The US military is scary, by design.

But I made a decision. I am a climate voter. We have no choice.  We must use the power systems we have in place today to effect change.  We don't have time to create a new economic system first, or get money out of elections, or end corporate charters.  We must cut emissions now.  Now.  Yesterday, now.

As I watched Hillary take the stage, after listening to Chelsea, and I thought about how she has worked for children and women and minorities, I could relate to her, mom to mom.  And, maybe, just maybe, Hillary is exactly the mother we need in this fight. Mothers don't give a sh*t about ideology or shy away from frightening paths when their kids are suffering. They just do what's got to be done. And I am not sure, but I would like to hope, that is exactly what we have forming here. Or that at least we have the potential for its formation here.

Part of me, the part that wants to follow Obama's path of hope, the one that wants to resist cynicism, wants to say, yes, we are seeing what a woman leader can do to bring together the people that are needed to get sh*t done. No bluster, no hot air. Just sheer insistence that it get done.

If we can do that with climate, the mother in me is with her 100%.

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

President Obama's Case for Democracy

Authoritarianism

Or democracy.

Someone has to.

We have to understand who Trump's base is.

They are not stupid. They are not conservatives that have been duped.

They are authoritarians. Their world view is that might makes right. Literally. Please, stop and read that again. Their world view is that might makes right. If someone is stronger, if someone can demonstrate they can win, they are the best leader. This is the philosophical basis of what they believe.

It means when Trump asks Putin to hack Hillary Clinton, he is not trying to lose.

He's not making mistakes.

His call for Russia to hack Clinton is adept.

His supporters are not conservatives. They are authoritarians.

They see this statement as highlighting Hillary Clinton's vulnerability to Putin. And the world. This highlights, to them, HER weakness.

When Trump attacks McCain for being unworthy, it's because he didn't escape. When he gets rich by scam and bankruptcy, he is not showing weakness. He is showing strength to his base. Every time we are disgusted and wonder when they will get it, we are misunderstanding that they DO get it.

Trump is dangerous. We are on a giant playground. And the bullies are looking to their ring leader. And we have to do the hardest thing of all. We have to speak up to say that's wrong, together.

Conservatives. Moderates. Liberals. Progressives.

We must speak up to defend the weaker. Because weakness is not wrongness and being the strongest bully is NOT okay.

And when Obama cries over the deaths of children, he is right. When children die from gun wounds, they are not wrong because their bodies are not stronger than bullets. When people suffer and die because fossil fuel companies act with impunity, they do not simply deserve it.  When the people of Flint are stricken with lead poisoning, the Governor is not right simply because he could get away with it.  

Weakness is not wrongness.  Tears are a sign of compassion.  Compromise is GOOD.  

And when we cannot find perfection in a single candidate, when we get into the messy imperfect world of the politics of democracy and compromises, and we don't get our way on every single thing, we are not wrong.

We are right.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Why Booing Elizabeth Warren Matters

Elizabeth Warren

As I have said before, I am soooo relieved that Elizabeth Warren was not the VP pick.

Don't get me wrong.  Elizabeth Warren is fantastic.  She is the perfect combination of brilliant and compassionate and forceful.

In fact, that is exactly why I am glad she isn't the VP pick.

Chuck Schumer

We are going to get a majority of the Senate this Fall.  At least that is the plan.  When we do, Senator Chuck Schumer, from my own great state of New York, will likely be Senate Majority Leader.

If you want to talk about establishment Democratic Party, this is your man. You want to talk about support for fracking?  Here you go.  You want to talk ties to Wall Street?  Chuck Schumer is your guy.  

But with Warren and Sanders in the Senate, with the force of the Bernie movement behind them, they can lead a progressive bloc of senators to champion the causes most dear to the left.

Bernie Sanders has rallied a power base that has now pushed the Democratic platform to include a WWII-scale mobilization against climate change, calling for a price on carbon.  Will it be the cap and trade once supported by the party establisment, including Chuck Schumer?  Or will it be a carbon tax that is simple, straight forward and not prone to loop holes that benefit corporations?

Warren.  Here is a woman that has focused primarily on attacking unfair economic practices.  Up until this year, very little, other than a supportive nod, came from her on climate.  But now, the climate movement has managed to be heard more loudly, within the country and party, but, too, by the left, by Warren.  Yes.  We have a woman focused on economic justice beginning to truly incorporate climate justice into her paradigm.  Man, oh, man, do I want her in the Senate leading that progressive bloc.

But will she lead the progressive bloc?  Well, her power, and Sanders' power, depend on demonstrating that they have the power to lead the left.  Warren is known as a fundraiser extraordinaire.  That gives her great clout.  And Sanders?  Well he just ran a successful campaign, if you hadn't heard.

But what if they cannot demonstrate that they lead that left bloc?

It is NOW that the left must rally behind their leaders.  The left has entrusted them with power, for very good reason.  If they withdraw it now, all their efforts will be lost.  And the party establishment, in the form of Chuck Schumer, can look away.

Bernie Sanders

I was very glad to see Bernie Sanders manage the speech last night at the Democratic Convention.  It was a tough job to hold that power in the face of those ready to ditch it.

But he knows, and Warren knows that once you gain power in a party, you don't then tear the party apart and end with none.

Thank goodness 90% of Bernie supporters know this.  The 10%? It is up to us to make clear, we are not with them.

Power shifts and climate action

The left is pissed. Done accepting half efforts. We are spiraling ever faster to huge economic collapse and climate destruction. We have been sold a bill of goods over and over and the left just doesn’t want to take it anymore. Corporations keep calling the shots and lining their pockets by controlling who gets elected and the decisions they make. Hillary can’t be trusted. If she is building a grid, it is to line the pockets of a corporation. If she is putting up solar, it is to line the pockets of a corporation. These are not enough. Hillary needs to stop taking corporate dollars today. Sanders and Warren are selling out too. These are the calls from the left. But here is the thing. If we have any hope of weakening or ending corporatism, it will not be with Trump at our helm.

There is great precedent for an upwelling of democratic revolt being harnessed for grabbing power for totalitarian rule. (Arab Spring being a very recent example). Sanders did a very good job of forcing a shift without allowing himself to be used to destroy the vast coalitions we have for holding the Democratic Party together. If he had failed at that, we would have a fractured polity...the kind that cannot hold together to keep out someone like Trump. There are precedents for multiparty countries leaving power to a plurality that is far to the right. (Thinking the Nazi Party).

I think it is a very hopeful sign that Sanders was able to become so popular and use that to push the party platform, push Clinton left and increase the power of progressives within the party.

I am so relieved that Warren was not the VP pick, though.

She is becoming the most powerful Democrat in Washington, perhaps after Clinton, perhaps not. But most likely, her power within the Party has, or soon will, eclipse Schumer. He may end up Senate Majority Leader. But she will lead a powerful progressive voting block. She will not be impotent, tied to the VP's desk.

You know what worries me, always has? The progressives, like Warren, have never put climate at the top of the list. That's true of Sanders too. But, during this election, they have begun to really shift to bring that issue into their repertoire. Why? Well, you and me and every climate voter. And Senator Whitehouse. And the Pope. And COP21. And, yes, Obama. (And, of course, millions of others). You know, those half measures that the left doesn’t want to stand for anymore... The climate movement has worked hard for those measures, and they, in turn, have pressured the rest of the powerbrokers to respond and address climate.

Hillary Clinton is likely reading the politics exactly right to navigate all of the different political powers and pressures for getting climate action. And some of that has been in what the left dismisses as symbolic and temporary.

The progressives are finally putting climate further to the top. The moderates are working with, and I think glad to have the progressives building political will for the shift to the left. (I believe they are Democrats because they support a lot of the same ideals progressives do. And they are moderates because they are utterly pragmatic in achieving those ideals. They are very likely thrilled to have an upwelling of voices for progressive action. I know Obama asked again and again for people to demand climate action from him so he could deliver). The left is frustrated at exactly the moment that it may have actually achieved what was nearly impossible. They have pushed the progressive agenda further than it’s been in many decades. And they have done it without fracturing the Party. Not only that, the climate movement has pushed itself to greater prominence among the Progressives. We are on the verge of instituting the Clean Power Plan (all we need is to fill that Supreme Court seat). We are on the verge of upping the standards for transport and housing. We can have the grid that can make 100% carbon free energy a reality. And if we do this right, we can have a Congress that will deliver a carbon tax to President Clinton’s desk in the Oval Office.

How can a candidate say they are serious about climate while supporting fracking?

Clinton, and now Kaine along with her, listen to climate scientists and understand climate change is dire, or so they say. Kaine has said it on the Senate floor, Clinton has said it there and, as Secretary of State, made it a constant part of her agenda.

But how, how could two people SAY they understand climate is dire, but still support fracking? Yes, they say we need to regulate it heavily, but no amount of regulation can truly stop fugitive emissions, seismic activity and despoiled water.

That is a fair question.

The answer is complicated, and certainly open to interpretation.

Here is my answer.

Everyone, other than the Koch brothers, loves solar and wind. Great stuff. Even the obstructionist Republican Congress renewed subsidies for solar in December. It is a winner politically. With good reason. My own Congressman, Chris Gibson, has described it as “democratizing energy.” Add the near zero carbon emissions, and we are talking about a solution that has broad appeal.

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, (2) store the energy for later use, (3) move the energy from one place to another-transmission or (4) have another energy source that can be turned on and off to complement the solar and wind.

(1) Intermittent electricity usage is NOT an option, politically or economically. Anyone suggesting this will never get into power long enough to implement such a policy. Nor would any of us really want this if we stop to consider things like refrigeration and hospital needs. We can shift usage around throughout the day to better coordinate with production and it is easy to imagine an app for that. However, we certainly cannot shift all usage to coincide with production. (2) Storage is building. Tesla came out with its powerwall, electric vehicles may be able to be used for storage to then use later for our homes, water can be pumped upstream. Lots of different storage possibilities. None of which are yet fully developed and ready to complement hundreds of thousands of solar panels or wind turbines. We are getting there, but we are not there yet. (3) Transmission would be fantastic. Moving solar produced electricity from Arizona to Wisconsin would solve a lot of the challenges. However, our current grid is AC, which is inefficient and the electricity just would not get across country efficiently enough. A DC grid could be built, and that would work well. We don’t have that now.

(4) Another energy source that can be turned on and off easily is called dispatchable energy. The primary source of dispatchable energy we have available now is gas.

Because choices (1), (2) and (3) are currently limited, we have been relying on number (4). Gas. At the moment, and until we have fully ramped up (1), (2) and (3), we will rely on gas if we want to build renewables. Now let’s be clear. Gas sucks. Fugitive methane emissions, seismic activity and destruction of our fresh water sources is not a good thing.

What are our options? Well, we could (1) continue to complement renewables with gas until we have a grid and storage and shifting usage fully in place, (2) ditch renewables and build nuclear, or (3) continue to sort of do both.

If I were queen, I would build renewables with complementary storage/transmission/usage shifting as quickly as possible. I would end all gas, coal and oil for electricity production. But because we don’t have enough renewables or the necessary complementary storage/transmission/usage shifting in place to end all fossil fuels immediately, I would also build nuclear. Nuclear is baseload, which means it can go 24-7 without needed complementary gas or storage/transmission/usage shifting. It, too, has near zero carbon emissions.

But I am not queen. And most people on the left don’t like nuclear. And people on the right don’t like the cost of nuclear.

The next president isn’t going to be queen either. She will be president. Now, what has she proposed, given the realities we are facing, both physical and political?

She is proposing to build up (1) usage shifting, (2) storage and (3) transmission as much as possible. She is proposing building out solar and wind. But she knows that without building up nuclear, while ending coal, we are left with a real possibility that we can’t get the complementary grid, storage and usage shifting in place as quickly as we need. And the only way to ensure the lights and heat and refrigerators and hospital equipment stays on then…is gas.

I don’t like it. But when the political reality is that you cannot say the word “nuclear” aloud, and the voters do not appreciate the value of “national grid,” “innovative energy storage” and “smart grid,” you cannot ignore gas if you are going to build up solar and wind.

Thankfully, Hillary has not just accepted gas’ inevitability as a complement to renewables. Her policies push for heavily regulating fracking. That will drive up the cost of gas… and, perhaps, hopefully, make nuclear a little more likely to stay competitive, giving us more time to build up that grid, that storage and the usage shifting that will make solar and wind possible. Many climate activists are approaching Clinton-Kaine as “well, they aren’t Trump.” But the truth is that Hillary Clinton has been listening very very carefully to those with expertise. And she is crafting policies to move us as quickly as possible off of fossil fuels, while also recognizing that there are political limitations. Not the least of which is failure of even climate activists to fully appreciate the challenges of our transition. I am grateful that Hillary has plans for a national grid. I am grateful that she has plans for building out renewables. I am grateful that she has resisted calling for closure of nuclear plants. I am grateful that she is calling for heavy regulation of fracking. I am grateful she is navigating this in a way that will keep the lights on for us all, and most especially those who are most at risk of being left behind. And I am grateful she is listening to those who understand the complexities of energy policy and those who understand climate science. I wouldn’t do it the same as she is doing...but then, I am not as skilled as she is at navigating the world of politics and policy.

Climate Policy and the Democratic Party Platform

[This Note was published in edited form as a guest blog on Greg Laden’s blog at http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2... ] It is time, now, for climate activists to get vocal.

As it becomes more clear that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee, there is increasing talk about the importance of unifying the party. Negotiations are on the horizon…for VP and for policy platforms.

Now, we must be sure climate, and carbon cutting policy, is part of those negotiations.

Consider, for a moment, as Bernie Sanders begins to make demands in exchange for his support, what he will insist upon. What two or three or four policy platforms will he insist be incorporated into the Democratic Party platform?

His campaign’s latest email:

“What remains in front of us is a very narrow path to the nomination. In the weeks to come we will be competing in a series of states that are very favorable to us – including California. Just like after March 15 – when we won 8 of the next 9 contests – we are building tremendous momentum going into the convention. That is the reality of where we are right now, and why we are going to fight for every delegate and every vote. It is why I am going to continue to speak to voters in every state about the very important issues facing our country. Our country cannot afford to stop fighting for a $15 minimum wage, to overturn Citizens United, or to get universal health care for every man, woman, and child in America.” (Emphasis mine).

Notice what is missing?

The single most important issue of our day. The single biggest threat to national security.

Climate change.

It comes down to us to insist that meaningful carbon cuts are at the top of the platform.

Hillary Clinton critics are right. Hillary has wrongly called gas a bridge fuel. She absolutely needs to be pushed to make it her goal, and that of the Democratic Party, to END gas and all other fossil fuels. She has good solid plans to regulate fracking. Those policies will drive up the cost of gas and therefore send price signals that, in the absence of a price on carbon, will drive us toward other sources of energy. But it is essential that we have the stated goal of ending gas. That will set the stage for the essential conversations about how we will replace that gas without turning off the lights and heat. Efficiency, lifestyle changes, renewables, and, yes, nuclear.

Bernie Sanders has made it plain that he will allow nuclear licenses to lapse. If nuclear plants close now, they are likely to be replaced with gas. He has said that he isn’t closing the plants now, just allowing for them to close by attrition. This isn’t quite the reality of allowing licenses to lapse. The reality is that nuclear plants are already closing now, before their licenses lapse, because electricity is so cheap that regular maintenance ends up economically unfeasible. Part of that calculation is lifetime return. If you know you won't be relicensed in 2025, it is all the more reason not to do 2017's maintenance and instead close down. And once a nuclear plant is mothballed, it's done. You can't just refurbish and turn it back on, like you can with gas and coal. Unfortunately, there is little political will to take on the nuclear issue within the party at this point. Maybe that means that we can simply accept Hillary’s approach to leave nuclear alone. Perhaps her political calculation on nuclear was simply on target.

Perhaps the one thing all climate activists can agree to demand in these negotiations is a carbon tax. Hillary Clinton has had, for many months, a vague, buried reference to carbon markets in her policy platform.* People have made little mention of it, simply saying she doesn't support carbon taxes. Why not highlight that she seems to support carbon pricing, insist that she become more vocal about it, and push her to explain why she is supporting cap and trade over taxes? As that conversation unfolds, she will be forced to address the distinctions, and, at the same time, the electorate will become more knowledgeable about carbon pricing. At the end of the day, the party platform may end up with a clear carbon price plan.

Whatever climate policies end up in the Democratic Party Platform, it is clear that climate activists must put aside the horse race between Clinton and Sanders and remember that neither of them go far enough. Neither is prepared to get to zero emissions by 2050. Neither sees climate as the single most important issue to address.

It is time for climate voters and climate activists to demand that the Democratic Party serve up more than fiery rhetoric from Sanders and more than visionless bridge fuels from Clinton.

It is time to demand the best from each of them and ensure they don’t simply offer up their worst on climate.

How a Climate Voter Can Choose Hillary

[NOTE: this is a repost and collection of various thoughts I've had over the past weeks that I want to collect in one spot. It is not an invitation for Hillary slamming or Bernie slamming. It is simply an explanation of how I came to my decision. I believe that support of Bernie is fully rational and I will happily and proudly support either of them in the general election.]

Many of my climate activist allies think all serious climate activists support Bernie. (I do challenge that idea given a recent Quinnipiac poll that found 11% of dems rank climate as their number one issue and 66% of those support Bernie and 30% support Hillary).

But given the basic presumption that Bernie is better on climate, why do I think Hillary may actually be the better candidate on climate?

(1) Soul versus Trenches I agree that Bernie and Bernie's supporters are looking to redefine the soul of the party.

And I agree that that is worthy. And important.

But I disagree that it is all that is important.

Climate action must be NOW. Not in five years, not in ten. And it must occur in our current political system, not the one we may be able to create in 4 or 8 years.

And so, experience and skill and detail matter within our current political system.

Bernie has a clear vision that Hillary lacks. A vision beyond the horizon. But Hillary has a command of the horizon that has few equals. Beyond the horizon lies the soul of the party. But the climate relies before our horizon.

I think Hillary has the kind of natural executive skill that Obama has, but with a whole lot more experience than he had to start. Obama has managed to accomplish way more than a lesser skilled executive could accomplish. And the results may be the difference between 4C and 2.5C.

I see the weaknesses in Hillary as the other side of the coin of her strengths. She is ready for the trenches. She is prepared for the long slog. And that means she may not look beyond the horizon. Of course, it also means she is ready for the slog. I will give you a quick example. In her climate plan, buried deep, is a vague discussion of creating carbon markets to coordinate internationally with Canada and Mexico. Few recognize that she is talking about carbon pricing because she has buried it deep in her climate policy. That wasn't an accident. And it's not that she doesn't really want to price carbon. It's that she doesn't want to wave a red flag for the GOP bull that she is preparing for because she knows that bull and she knows how to fight it.

Less soul. More trenches. [Edited on April 14 to add the following: I think Hillary is beginning to incorporate climate into a broader vision, perhaps one that sees further to the horizon. Her new plan ties climate into the issues she has most consistently addressed. From her most recent plans: “[s]imply put, this is environmental racism. And the impacts of climate change, from more severe storms to longer heat waves to rising sea levels, will disproportionately affect low-income and minority communities, which suffer the worst losses during extreme weather and have the fewest resources to prepare. “ She goes on to explain how she intends to ensure that climate mitigation and adaptation and resilience all address climate’s disproportionate impact on minorities. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...

(2) Fracking, Nuclear and Keeping the Working and Poor Classes' Lights and Heat On.

Bernie wants to ban fracking. Sounds great. Fracking is destroying our water, leaking methane, causing seismic activity and earthquakes and produces carbon dioxide when burned. He does acknowledge that in the absence of legislative action, he will have to regulate fracking heavily. That is precisely Hillary's policy stance--heavily regulate fracking.

What's more is that Bernie wants to shutter nuclear plants. That is understandable. Nuclear's history is fraught with poor oversight and weak public support. However, every time we shutter a nuclear plant, it seems we replace it with gas. Moreover, once we shutter a nuclear plant, it cannot be simply refurbished and reopened. So if there's uncertainty about getting to 100% renewables , closing nuclear is a gamble even in the long term. It makes much more sense to first replace gas, coal and oil with renewables and then close down nuclear as it too can be replaced by renewables. (This is actually a simplification, since there are also issues of distributed energy versus centralized energy, but the gist of it remains--shuttering nuclear today results in more gas).

So let's say Bernie CAN ban both fracking and nuclear as he intends. If the renewables aren't up and running yet, then that simply means lights out. Heat off. For whom? The poor and working classes. The wealthy will happily make do with the solar and wind that we've gotten up and running.

Bernie will NEVER do that--it would devastate the people he cares most about. So...until we can get renewables 100% up and running, he faces a choice--gas, coal (once you shutter gas, it can easily be returned to coal), oil or lights out. He will be left with the same policy that Hillary is working toward.

(3) Entrenchment and Being Owned by the Establishment.

Hillary is completely tied to the Democratic establishment. She has ties.

That is true. But not all bad. The establishment includes Civil Rights activists from decades ago. Mothers of dead black children from today. Groups dedicated to women's reproductive freedom. Large environmental groups. Unions. I don't agree with everything the "establishment" stands for. I don't want Wall Street calling shots. But I don't want to forgo leveraging WalMart's consumer power to buy solar either. Or Unilever's interest in driving climate action. We have nearly 319 million people in this country and 7.2 billion people on the planet. It will take a lot to move everyone in the right direction. And THAT is precisely what we must do. Leveraging power to do that is not a bad thing.

(4) Political Will and the Revolution Bernie is inspiring and engaging. And it is about time we hear voices from the left. Every one of us--including private citizens and politicians--need to move left. But that is the POLITY that must move left and be engaged. Whether Bernie is POTUS or Hillary is, we will need to show up on Election Day and every day after that. Demanding more. More of Bernie (whose goal does not go as far as that of O'Malley, btw). More of Hillary. More of our legislators. More of ourselves.

[Here, btw, is her vague buried reference to clean energy markets:

"Clean Power Markets: Build on the momentum created by the Clean Power Plan, which sets the first national limits on carbon pollution from the energy sector, and regional emissions trading schemes in Canada, Mexico, and the United States to drive low carbon power generation across the continent, modernize our interconnected electrical grid, and ensure that national carbon policies take advantage of integrated markets." https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/09/23/hillary-clinton-vision-for-modernizing-energy-infrastructure/ ]