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.

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.

The Regulatory Hydra

Regulation of oil, gas and coal is like trying to cut the head off a hydra.   You do it, because the head is dangerous, but two more heads pop up in its place. The ongoing saga of fighting for reasonable regulation of gas is exemplified by the news out today that scientists are challenging EPA conclusions on fracked water.

At some point, the focus must be on the demand for these fuels. A growing number of experts identify a carbon tax is THE gold standard means for addressing that.  Other carbon pricing mechanisms can work too. We don't have one of those. Congress isn't really keen on passing one.  Yet.  (Citizens Climate Lobby and other groups have seen great progress on the Hill and Sanders' campaign just raised awareness and political will for a carbon tax immeasurably).

Carbon pricing is not the only way to send market signals, however. We have seen the impending demise of coal simply because we allowed gas to be utterly cheap. That happened by allowing frackers to pollute and create wanton destruction.

Lack of regulation keeps market prices low. Imposing regulation drives up market cost. The more we regulate gas, the higher its cost will be.

Yes. Back to the dreaded hydra. Because, at the end of the day, it comes to us to demand that private actors don't hurt each other. We have a police force because we recognize that. Private actors don't just use theft, trespass, rape and murder to hurt each other. They use things like fracking too, so long as it's profitable.

However, we'd better be careful. As we regulate gas, if we don't want to return to coal, we'd best be sure there is a cheaper alternative to them both.

Renewables are looking to be that. Some reports show that by 2020, renewables will be the cheapest means of energy production.  However, without transmission or storage, renewables will remain dependent on gas.

So, we must make transmission and storage and solar and wind work together more cheaply than gas. Quickly.

How?  Subsidize the corporations making renewables or give tax breaks to the people buying them.

Congress, last December extended the tax credits for solar and wind purchases. There are growing numbers of state programs supporting renewables as well. This is important to getting us to the 2020 mark when renewables will be cheaper even without these subsidies.

But transmission?  We need a national grid. (Hillary's got a plan for that, as part of her infrastructure plan.  And she is continuing to make it a key part of her campaign even when she is talking about the broad scope of her campaign.)

The market signals also impact another source of energy:  nuclear. At the moment, nuclear, like renewables with transmission and storage, can't compete with poorly regulated gas unless subsidized. This is not just true of newly built plants. This is true of maintaining current plants. Yes. Running already existing nuclear plants is more expensive than fracked gas. That's why they are closing.

If we want carbon free energy, we will subsidize it while also regulating carbon filled energy. It's really that simple.

Well, it could be simpler. We could ditch all that and enact a revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend.

Thanks to CCL Canada for the Image