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.

How a Climate Voter Can Vote FOR Hillary Clinton

The Woman I Am Voting FOR

I will vote for Hillary.

That wasn't always the case.  Back in July 2015, I was excited.  About O'Malley.  He had a June 2015 opinion piece timed to coincide with the Pope's Encyclical on climate change.  He had a goal of 100% emissions cuts by 2050.  ZERO emissions by 2050.  THAT was exciting to a climate voter like me.  But, something funny happened.  No one listened to him.  Climate activists I knew weren't interested.  They liked Bernie's focus on attacking fossil fuel money in Congress better.

Bernie and Hillary had the same 80% cuts by 2050 goal that fell short in my mind.  But it became apparent that Martin wasn't going to make the cut, so I turned my thinking to Bernie and Hillary.

[I want to interject in my story here to make a point.  Some in the climate movement are, in my thinking, confused.  Climate change is driven by global warming.  Global warming is caused by increased carbon emissions.  We have a host of other problems to deal with.  However, climate scientists have made it plain.  WE ARE OUT OF TIME ON CLIMATE.  WE MUST CUT CARBON EMISSIONS ABOVE ALL ELSE.  The analogy that might work here is a heart attack.  If you have a heart attack, you have to get surgery asap.  You can't stop to buy healthy food on the way to the ER.  Or get that gym membership you kept meaning to get.  Or even take a moment to put that on your to do list.  You have to go to the hospital.  That is where we are.  WE ARE OUT OF TIME ON CLIMATE.  WE MUST CUT CARBON EMISSIONS NOW.  THE REST WILL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE ARE OUT OF THE ER.]

I could have stomped my feet in disgust.  I could have said "the climate movement is filled with activists that only pretend to care about climate when they really just want to fight capitalism," perhaps.  I could have spent the past 11 months railing against the impurity of the Bernie and Hillary supporters.  BUT THAT ISN'T HOW YOU GET STUFF DONE.

Nope.  I took a good look at Bernie and Hillary.  After a long time (and quite a few intense conversations), I decided I would vote for Hillary, on the basis of four points:

(1)  Bernie articulated a clear vision of ending fossil fuels that Hillary did not. However, it seemed to me that was vision without specifics.  Hillary's website was filled with specifics.  Specifics on building renewables, as well as the infrastructure necessary to address the intermittency of renewables without using gas (the grid, for example).  Specifics on building and auto efficiency.  Specifics on retrofitting dams to generate power.  Specifics on real estate marketing and lending being used to encourage renewables.  Specifics about coordinating carbon pricing with other countries.

(2)  Bernie specifically wanted to let nuclear plants' licenses lapse; Hillary was mute on nuclear, but had connections with people like Carole Browner who support nuclear.  In reality, as we shutter nuclear plants, we often replace them with gas.  Until we have the renewables, grid, storage and load shifting in place, we will continue to move to gas every time we do.  Nuclear is carbon free.  Gas is not.

(3)  Hillary wrongly supports the idea that gas is a bridge fuel.  Her plan is to fix gas infrastructure to reduce methane leakage (which is the primary source of the most problematic GHG emissions in gas) and build better infrastructure.  WE SHOULD NOT BE BUILDING ANY MORE GAS INFRASTRUCTURE.  She is following the science of 5-10 years ago on this and is wrong.  However, a ban on fracking is not possible at this point.  Until we have the means to address the intermittency of solar and wind (grid, storage, and load shifting), gas, because it is easily turned on and off (dispatchable), will remain essential to keeping the lights on.  My conclusion was that Bernie would never ban fracking because it would turn off the lights--and that would be on the poorest first, of course.  I decided that Clinton's plan to heavily regulate fracking would at least send a market signal by driving its cost up and would reduce methane emission leakage.  I feared Bernie would take too long to get to those, trying to ban first. 

(4)  As Robert Reich put it,  “I’ve known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she’s the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.  But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change.”  Well, I just don't think we have time to change the system first.  Heart attack.  ER.  It seemed pretty apparent, Hillary was the doctor for me. 

The quest to assess Clinton's climate policies also led me to find a woman that has been consistent with her basic values, that listens to experts, that cares about people, that works as hard as anyone, that has experience, and that knows how to develop and maintain working relationships.  That was a bonus.  As a climate voter, that cannot be my first priority.  But as a woman, as a mother, as a teacher, as a best friend, as a partner, as a human being, I have been pleased to watch Hillary weather the debates and garner the respect of even the reluctant.  I have enjoyed the stories of people that know her.  And I have marveled at her grit and determination and unending energy.

I still have reservations about whether she fully grasps how urgent and dire climate change is, but I am confident that she takes it seriously enough to implement the policy changes she has put out. And those will get us started. Particularly heartening to me was the day she framed it not as climate change action, but climate justice. That speaks to her core values going back to college, likely, before she'd ever heard of a greenhouse gas.

Unfortunately, she absolutely 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.  Is she planning on building 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.

What does this mean?  It means that we embrace what she has to offer, we do our best to protest to bring the demise of gas quickly, making it as costly as possible, while supporting carbon free energy and infrastructure.

And above all else?  Get as many climate hawks into Congress and into state positions as possible.  Legislate the most progressive party platform in decades.  Hand her a carbon tax to sign.  I have no doubt, she will not veto.

In the end, it simply seemed that a Clinton administration would result in greater cuts than a Sanders administration.  On that, reasonable people could differ, and I have great respect for those that vehemently supported Bernie.  But on this, reasonable people cannot differ:  there is a huge chasm between Hillary and Donald.  There is no reason to even list his policies.  There are none except to gut anything related to climate action.  Hillary?  Wants to make the US a clean energy superpower.  Donald?  Drill, baby, drill.

It is an insult to all that we care about that a candidate like Hillary must run against someone so unworthy.  I would love to have a general election that pitted Hillary against Bob Inglis or Greg Mankiw or Al Gore.  We could really dig into debating solutions.

But that isn't the country we live in.  We live in a country where the choice is simply this:  do we want to even try at all to prevent the worst?  Thankfully, if we answer yes, we actually get a whole lot more in the package.  A clean energy superpower?  Yes, please.

When I vote on Tuesday, I will vote for renewables, for a grid, for efficiency.

On Tuesday, this climate voter will vote FOR Hillary.

Bill McKibben is more like Hillary Clinton than you realize.

Bill McKibben

"I periodically remind myself of what President Franklin D. Roosevelt told labor leaders who urged him to enact progressive legislation after his 1932 election: 'I agree with you. I want to do it; now, make me do it.'” --Henry Weinstein

A POTUS represents about 320M people.  They cannot stray too far afield of what they perceive are the goals and interests of those 320M people.  In fact, it is their OBLIGATION not to stray too far.

All leaders must look to their constituencies to define the boundaries of what they can and should accomplish.  Sometimes this is frustrating.  In climate change, we want them to end oil, coal and gas, now...as in yesterday now.  But in asking them to do that, we must recognize the limits are not what they stand for.  The limits are in what we stand for.

This is true even among those that we hold as most principled.  Bill McKibben is a fierce climate activist.  His dedication to cutting carbon emissions cannot be in doubt.  Savvy, capable, driven, principled and fully committed.  However, like any leader, he is answerable to his constituency.  (He doesn't have the same constituency as a POTUS, of course.  His is made up of climate activists.)  He is answerable to that constituency, even to the point of having a different public stance from his private one:

"After McKibben gave his rousing speech to an enthusiastic audience, I was able to grab him for a moment in back of the little makeshift stage. I asked him about nuclear power. He admitted that nuclear was going to be necessary if we were ever to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. “Why don’t you come out favorably in public for nuclear power, then?” I asked. He surveyed the hillside, almost half the people crusading against Vermont Yankee. “If I came out in favor of nuclear,” he said, “it would split this movement in half.”

So there you have it. McKibben, like many other environmentalists, knows in his heart that there isn’t much chance of reducing carbon output without nuclear. But he does not want to be caught saying so in public."   http://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2015/11/12/how_about_suing_bill_mckibben_for_racketeering_108880.html

Here is our reality.  We must move almost 320M Americans to stop using fossil fuels.  We must move 7.4B human beings across the globe.

We don't all agree on things.  We don't all share the same values.  This is not easy.  This is HARD.

And our leaders can only lead us where we will follow.  That is not their failure or success.  It is ours.

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

Hillary Clinton

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

Climate change is caused by rising greenhouse gas emissions.

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

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

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

No.  We don't have time.

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

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

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

I will take any and all of the above.

And anyone that claims to understand climate change will too. 

Michael Brune

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think about that for a moment.  

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

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

Carlos Curbelo

Bob Inglis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it looks like that someone is Hillary Clinton.

And you know what?  I am with her.

Hillary Clinton Is Talking Climate-Do We Hear Her?

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

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

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

I have excerpted here the portions relevant to climate change:

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps it is that we are not hearing her.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Change Denial is for Losers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLINTON: I think science is real.

TRUMP: I do not say that.

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

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

Even Donald recognized that.

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.

How long do we have until we must act on climate change?

Spoiler alert...the answer is both "no time left at all" and "however long it takes."

I am going to try to untangle the numbers that climate scientists and journalists throw around a bit, the very numbers that confused the heck out of me when I started to look seriously at climate change, and confuse many folks still.

First, let's start with all this 1C, 1.5C and 2C warming.  What exactly does that all mean? That means, if you average together all the temperatures around the surface of the globe before 1880, and you compare them to the average global temperatures between 2006 and today, they are warmer today.  Depending on which years you choose (2000-2010, 2005-2015, 2006-2016), our current warming is about 1C or 1.8F.  (This should not be confused with the more terrifying numbers of the warming we have seen when we average only January through July of 2016.  Those amount to 1.38C warming.  This is, we hope, a particularly high number because El Nino is taking extra stored heat out of the ocean and bringing it to the surface right now.  Keep in mind that even in that context, 1.38C is extremely high and should alarm everyone.)

In Paris, in December, almost 200 nations agreed that we need to limit warming to under 2C and as close to 1.5C as possible.  Why?  Well, the scientists are pretty clear that beyond 1.5C warming means utter disruption and severe devastation.  Island nations disappear, coral reef ecosystems cease to be (and the food that they provide for millions of people), extreme weather intensifies, water supplies disappear for many people, food crop yields drop.  We begin to see impacts that will themselves certainly bring greater warming (called a positive feedback).

IPCC's projections of damage at varying levels of warming

That warming is the result of the greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere up until about 40 years ago.  Keep in mind that greenhouse gases do not make heat.  They trap it like a blanket.  When you are cold in the winter, and you put a blanket on, it takes a while for the heat you are producing to build up, trapped by the blanket, to make you feel warm.  The same is true with global warming, except the heat source is the sun.  We are on a delay and will continue to warm even if we stop burning fossil fuels today.  Stop completely.  We will still warm for another 40 years.  We have "locked in" at least 1.5C warming (2.7F).

That makes it sound like we need to stop burning fossil fuels today.  Like, why am I typing this out on a computer if it is this urgent, today?  Even James Hansen, who arguably understands the urgency as well as anyone on the planet, is using fossil fuels.  Why do people who get the urgency keep saying, we have to cut emissions to zero by 2050?  Why not by tomorrow?

What gives?

Well, here is where the sociopolitical realities meet the physical realities.  The latter is immutable.  The former?  Only stubbornly slowly mutable.

No one is going to turn off the energy.  This isn't some demonstration of humanity's evil side.  Our technologies are things we rightly think should be accessible to the poor, who do not yet have it.  We don't see energy as an evil luxury of wealthy nations that the poorest are noble to go without.  Just consider hospitals and refrigeration alone.  These are not evil things.  And no politician is willing to tell a populace that they must go without them.  I would say, understandably.  Just the simplest example:  we travel to our jobs, where we earn money to care for our children, those same children we are endangering with warming.

The very values that would make us cut emissions are often the very values that drive us to continue to use fossil fuels.  

Here is the beautiful thing:  we could continue to use energy without causing warming.  Everyone should, at this point, agree that is what we need to do.  Continue to refrigerate, heat, cool, drive, but without carbon emissions.

We have the technology to decarbonize our energy systems.  The tools we have available for electricity are solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear.  Transport, home heating and cooling, and much of our industry can convert to electricity.  Agriculture can be done in a way that minimizes fertilizers and reduces meat consumption.  Almost all industry can be carbon free.  (There are some exceptions, and R&D into things like cement, a source of high carbon emissions, are essential).

We have the technology and means to cut almost to zero emissions now without halting all modern civilization.

Turning off technology is not an answer anyone can or will choose.  But decarbonization is.

BUT here is the thorny part.  We can't just turn off gas, oil and coal tonight and wake tomorrow and turn on solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and nuclear.  We can't just park our internal combustion engine cars tonight and drive off in EVs tomorrow.

It takes time and money to build the infrastructure.  That's right.  This is basically a question of time and money.

People say we must ban fracking.  I am all for ending fracking.  But to do that, we have to have something to replace it.  Solar and wind are excellent.  But they require sufficient storage and transmission.  (If those are not sufficient, then, when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, we use gas, which can be turned on and off easily, called "dispatchable.")  Thankfully, Clinton has plans to build up our electrical grid and our energy storage, which will, in fact, permit us to end gas use as a necessary complement to renewables.  But that takes time.

People say we must ban coal.  Coal produces more emissions than any other fossil fuel.  So it is rightly the first to go.  Because we don't have the infrastructure for transmission and storage to complement renewables built yet, when coal plants are shut down, they are often converted into gas plants.  The option?  No energy for the very families we are trying to protect from the ravages of climate change.  So gas comes online as we end coal.  Because gas has lower emissions, we have seen it as a step forward, albeit one rife with problems, not the least of which is fugitive methane.  (Keep in mind, this has been primarily driven by market, simply because gas is so cheap, coal couldn't compete).

People say we must ban nuclear.  This makes no sense to me.  Nuclear energy produces nearly zero carbon emissions.  Keeping our current plants running gives us one less source of energy likely to end up replaced by gas.

People say we must build solar and wind.  Absolutely.  ABSOLUTELY.  But these are intermittent.  Alone, they leave people in the dark if the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining.  So as we push for renewables, we must also push for a national grid that can move the energy from where the sun shines or wind blows to where it does not, and we must also push for storage like batteries and pumped hydro to keep from when the sun and wind are productive to when they are not.

And we must push for the infrastructure necessary for transport.  Charging stations for electric vehicles, for example.

This all takes time and money.

So here is the bottom line.  We are not going to avoid 1.5C.  We won't.  We likely won't avoid 2C.  (Heck, discussion of staying under 2C was all but given up a few years ago, before Paris gave us newfound hope).  When the nations met in Paris in December, they each pledged to make changes that will allow us to avoid the 4C we are headed toward, and come in around 3C.  They agreed they would work to pledge more each five years, to "ratchet up" efforts.  Our ultimate warming is a moving target.

And THAT is what we need to take away.  Our ultimate warming is a moving target.  Our job is to get it to move as low as possible by building the infrastructure we need today.

We are now, finally, talking about building the very infrastructure we need to begin decarbonizing. (Hillary Clinton's plans incorporate many of these measures). We must continue to push for that infrastructure:  grid, storage, solar, wind, nuclear, EVs, efficiency, and, yes, lifestyle changes.  But we cannot stop to call our desire to raise our children with modern technology evil.  We must continue to value our children's welfare by working as quickly as we can toward cutting emissions.  At this moment, that simply means taking the first steps, and knowing we will be urging more after those first steps are taken.  And accept that we are chasing a moving target.

Infrastructure changes like those that Clinton is proposing will help move that target in the right direction.  And legislative actions like a price on carbon, brought by a progressive voting bloc in Congress, will help speed its movement in that right direction.

Your vote this November may be the single most important action you can take on climate change.  Not because we have no time left, but because we have this time left.

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

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.