What Scares Fossil Fuel Lackeys More Than Anything?

March 15, 2017 Gallup Poll of American Adults

What scares fossil fuel interests more than anything? What is the one thing that will leave carbon underground while still ensuring that people can continue to drive, to stay warm in winter and cool in summer, to enjoy modern life and rely on the advances that have given us so much?

Clean energy technology. Solar and wind electricity generation.* But not just solar and wind.

What is even scarier to the fossil fuel interests is the essential ingredients to turn solar and wind from “alternative” boutique energy sources to sources that can drive our economy in all seasons and at all times of the day and night:  efficiency, storage, long distance transmission and electrification of transport and heating/cooling.

It is hard for the fossil fuel lackeys to attack solar and wind directly because people consistently support solar and wind. A Gallup poll last week found that 71% of Americans think we should emphasize alternative energy. We have even seen alliance between the Tea Party and climate activists because of shared support for solar energy that translates not just into carbon free energy, but also the independence, decentralization and freedom inherent in individual ownership of electricity generation.

Of course, they do try to attack solar and wind directly, with distorted images of flocks of birds dropping from the sky from wind while discounting the costs to birds of 2C warming. NIMBYism is stoked by fossil fuel money when it is transmission lines carrying hydroelectric energy or putting wind turbines in view, but not when it is gas processing plants or pipelines carrying oil. Whole campaigns suggest that if you don’t support oil and gas, you don’t support energy.

This is a difficult argument for them to make, of course, when considering the beauty of solar and wind farms, the power of individual ownership of rooftop solar, the absence of dirty gas and oil pipelines and processing plants, and, most recently, the money savings from the quickly plummeting costs of renewable energy. Indeed, the Gallup poll shows they are losing that argument.

So how can fossil fuels best resist our march toward becoming a clean energy superpower? Attack where people don’t see you attacking.

While Trump’s budget proposal threatens all kinds of actions that will gut our current attempts to address climate, many of these threaten agencies and programs that are relatively unknown and therefore will likely go largely unopposed—agencies and programs that support transmission, storage, efficiency and electrification of transport and home heating and cooling.

Here is a list of just a few programs and agencies that will not simply be impacted but, if Trump gets his way, will be ELIMINATED:  Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program (ATVM), Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP), State Energy Program (SEP), Energy Star Program, the State Department’s USAID Clean Technology Fund.

ARPA-E:  This Department of Energy (DOE) agency 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. It has leveraged $1.8B in private funds since 2009.

ATVM:  This DOE program loans money to support the development of fuel efficient vehicles.

ATVM At Work

Notably, they’ve loaned money to Tesla and Nissan, and thereby directly supported electric vehicle development. It’s loans have allowed for over $50 billion in total project investment.

WAP:  This DOE program helps states provide weatherization services to low-income families, saving them money and reducing heating and cooling energy consumption and costs.  Over 7M families have been served.

SEP:  This DOE program helps states develop energy plans (in order to comply with federal law) by developing efficiency and clean energy technology. Here is just one example:  SEP helped Illinois install geothermal heating and cooling systems in schools.  The program has increased the energy efficiency of more than 19,000 buildings through the installation of energy upgrades and supported the installation of more than 40,000 renewable energy systems.

Energy STAR:  This is the most publicly known in the group. It is a voluntary labeling program that empowers citizens to incorporate efficiency concerns in our purchasing decisions and allows corporations to profit from efficiency. Despite being voluntary, it has been adopted by companies, states, individuals and others widely.

USAID Clean Energy Fund:  “USAID helps countries create policy environments that attract sustained private investment in clean energy.” Their focus?  Here is one small heading from their website:  “REPLACING FOSSIL FUELS AS BASE LOAD POWER:  Clean energy pioneers like Hawaii have proven that renewables can replace fossil fuels as base load power, but the transition requires changes in how utilities do business."

Why would the incoming administration target these programs?

Renewables will remain a constricted energy source until they consistently supply energy day and night through all seasons. Efficiency, transmission, storage and electrification are essential for large scale transition to renewables. I repeat…Without investment in these, 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.

Becoming a clean energy superpower requires solar and wind installation AND the work of groups like ARPA-E and ATVM. We must recognize their importance. The fossil fuel lackeys recognize it and they are attacking.

Seventy-one percent of Americans believe our energy solutions must emphasize “alternative energy.” The problem is that they will remain merely “alternative” if we do not emphasize the technology and innovation necessary to support them.

Climate activism does not simply mean demanding we keep it in the ground. It does not simply mean recognizing the beauty of solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal heating and EVs.

Climate activism also means educating each other on the crucial work of policy experts, scientists and engineers in ensuring we have the efficiency, grid and storage on which renewables depend. It means demanding policies that ensure this work continues.  It means recognizing that these technologies offer us opportunities no less engaging and essential than solar and wind themselves.

* I leave aside the discussion of nuclear energy for the purposes of this piece. I see nuclear as an essential piece of the puzzle. However, there can be no doubt, with or without nuclear, renewables are also an essential part of the puzzle. Their intermittency, whether we move forward with nuclear or not, poses challenges that we must address. That we can address. That offer us opportunities no less exciting than those of solar and wind.  Moreover, nuclear is not under threat by fossil fuel interests nearly to the extent that renewables is.  The reality is that nuclear is so heavily regulated, rightly or wrongly, from the left, that new nuclear is crushed under the weight of its own cost.  I therefore leave that discussion for other pieces.

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.

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.