Where Are We?

 This is a new world for a blogger like me.  I have been reading and following national policy on climate and explaining its importance.  Tuesday plunged that approach into question.  What follows here are the first flailing attempts at making sense of where we are.  Like all of you, I find myself in a new world with a great many questions to answer.

On November 5, just six short days ago, I wrote this:

“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.”

I failed.  I should have listed his policies.  In gruesome detail.  But who wanted to imagine such a horrible world?  I don’t think I could face imagining it.  Maybe my own form of climate denial.  How horrible.  Denial of reality is horrible.  Even now, with President Elect Trump working on his cabinet, I can barely bring myself to list the harms a Trump administration will bring.

Here is just a little smattering of what is in store, starting with gutting or eliminating the EPA (interestingly, the latter may bring challenges for him, because it will be harmful to some businesses that have competitive edge in a regulated world), NOAA and NASA.  Who will collect and store all the data that we need to make informed decisions?  Albany Times Union wrote a wonderful editorial urging people to “drill down” for the facts on climate.  But the question is, if people couldn't drill for the facts with an EPA and NASA and NOAA publishing them, how will they drill for facts without funded science institutions?  In the context of the world we will face, ditching the Clean Power Plan doesn’t seem like such a big deal, really.  Its goals were weak and it was unlikely to get through the courts much before it was made obsolete by market advances in renewables anyway.  But the Supreme Court?  The existing legislation that protects our water and air will be gutted if not outright repealed.  The Halliburton loophole will look like child’s play.  Pipelines and compressor stations served up everywhere.  CAFE standards pushing for increasing mileage standards on cars, the regulations on airplanes…likely gone.  A small, painful reminder of what we have just lost?  We likely won't see those EV charging corridors that were just announced, unless Obama is very very fast.

Fossil fuels have such a great future now, that their value on the stock market immediately went up after the election.  Renewables took a dive.  Depressing.  I should have drawn a picture of it.  It was way more appealing to consider the shiny clean energy superpower.  (I will save for another blog post why that was a serious miscalculation and what we should learn from that).

With all that horror now in store for us, it is clear that the very narrow hopes we had for avoiding 2C are all but crushed.  Or so it seems.  Folks like David Roberts and Joe Romm, who know energy policy and politics quite well certainly think it looks that way.  Hard to argue with them.

And I won’t.

But I will point out all the reasons that I take heart.

Personally, I am reassured by the idea that nearly 200 nations committed to COP21 and it was ratified faster than just about any other international law, ever. There is international momentum on climate. Trump's promise to withdraw from the Paris agreement may be reason for India and China to stop trying.  On the other hand, it may actually be motivating to India and China and others to double down. They now know they CANNOT COUNT ON OUR HELP OR LEADERSHIP.  They know it falls to them.  And to deal out consequences to us. The international political climate on climate change is different now. And our refusal to respect the globe's future may be treated as actions of a rogue nation. And rightly so.  (It is cold comfort to our own children. No one wants to be in a rogue nation.)

China, in particular, will be pricing carbon nationally as of January.  Perhaps they will implement a border adjustment, which will levy a tariff from any country without one.  Perhaps they will join together with other nations to pressure us.  Certainly, they will be the clean energy superpower and clean up in the market.

So, the Republicans may be in charge of both the legislature and the White House, but they aren’t in charge of the rest of the world.

Moreover, international action may be supported by some states.  California and the RGGI states will likely have envoys to the UN COP work. And then there are the mayors, along with Michael Bloomberg, who is the UN's special envoy on cities.

So international work may continue or even be intensified.

But we contribute about 15% of the world's emissions. That may drop if Trump's economic polices manage to plunge us into economic contraction. That remains to be seen. Economic downturns aside, every effort we make to reduce emissions here in the US is necessary.

How?

It may be through local, state or regional political action. It may be through corporate action. It may be through charity work. It may be individual action.

There are today many attorneys general that have formed a coalition to investigate Exxon.  They may find that they have more work to do.  The Governors may be a line of action, too.

Now is the time to support initiatives for community gardens, municipal actions to encourage cycling or composting. Community solar. State initiatives to bring solar companies or increase sales of EVs. It's time to install your own solar, if you haven't. As always, the argument for these is not just cutting emissions. Now, more than ever, the future uncertainty in markets and in geopolitical stability is a case for predictable energy prices that go with solar panels, for example. Energy independence now takes on a whole new meaning. These economic arguments are true for individual action and action at all levels of government and industry.

Gas is killing coal. That will continue. In the meantime, markets are supporting renewables and this appears irreversible.  They will continue to be adopted, though not as quickly as we need to avoid 2C.  (Unfortunately, the grid and storage are problems that really required federal action. This is now a stumbling block indefinitely.)

There is a lot left that we can do. But the terrain has shifted hugely.

People have asked me about my thoughts on carbon taxes in a Trump world. I am going to watch. Carefully.  But suffice it to say, I am doing a lot of thinking. My gut is yelling to ignore the federal level. And as much as I love carbon taxes, I am not convinced that NY would ever pass one, preferring regulatory structures over taxes. Cuomo has started us on a path to 40% cuts by 2030 and 80% cuts by 2050. Bolstering that is probably the most bang for our political buck.

And I have one last thing to say on where I think we stand.

To all those that didn't want "incrementalism," now you know what that really looks like.

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.

My Latest Opinion Piece

Today, my latest op-ed piece was published in the Albany Times Union.  :)

http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-opinion/article/Carbon-tax-would-help-New-York-10520181.php?cmpid=fb-desktop

The 19th District’s Congressional race has turned its attention to energy and carbon emissions. John Faso opposes energy taxes; Zephyr Teachout supports fees and dividends. What are they talking about?

Energy drives our cars, heats our homes, fuels our factories and runs our farms. Lights, refrigeration, technology, hospitals, schools, homes… Affordable energy is crucial to our economy, to our jobs and to our lives. We must support policies that make energy affordable for all New Yorkers. Tax energy? Taxing energy or placing a fee on energy would make it less affordable and be bad for business and bad for families. John Faso is right, we cannot use energy taxes to make energy unaffordable (called by any name, fee or tax).

However, we must be clear. Taxing energy is NOT the same as taxing carbon. Clean energy, carbon free energy, includes solar, wind and nuclear. These forms of energy, with the right infrastructure, can drive our cars, and fuel our homes, factories, farms, schools, and hospitals. Taxing carbon will not drive up these energy costs.

But why would we want to tax carbon in the first place? Burning carbon-based energy releases greenhouse gases that drive climate change. We have seen the consequences of that first-hand with Sandy, Irene and Lee, with worse impacts assured if we continue to burn fossil fuels. A carbon fee or tax will raise the costs of carbon-based energy, making clean energy more competitive and speed our transition away from fossil fuels, helping us to preserve a stable climate and a livable world.

It is true that the cost of fossil fuels would rise. However, that does not make energy less affordable for families, even those that still rely on fossil fuels. Why? Because the carbon tax can be made revenue neutral, meaning all the collected funds are returned to all citizens equally in the form of a monthly dividend.

In the 19th district, it is projected that the overwhelming majority (91%) of those living below the poverty line would receive back more in the dividend than they pay in the fee. The wealthiest, who have larger consumption, would pay more in the fee than they receive back, but their losses would amount to only a tiny fraction of their income (an average of 0.19%). We would see similar outcomes across New York State. In this, Zephyr Teachout is right. Revenue neutral carbon fees, or taxes, ensure that all citizens have the funds to cover increases in costs, keeping even carbon energy affordable as we transition.

Thankfully, New York is already leading the nation by supporting our nuclear plants, installing renewables, building infrastructure for electric cars, and developing clean energy and clean energy infrastructure. If a national carbon tax were enacted, New York would be prepared for the transition. More importantly, the rest of the nation would have incentive to join us. We would see more money invested nationally in the very renewables we are already building and developing here, accelerating the drop in their cost, benefiting us all. Moreover, we would see fewer carbon emissions and have a better chance for a stable climate.

By any name, a revenue neutral carbon tax or fee will ensure that New York is not alone in creating a carbon-free economy. And, it will ensure that we keep the lights on and our lives fueled. Most importantly, it will push the rest of the country to catch up to the efforts we are already making as New Yorkers to be good stewards of the climate.

Claire Cohen Cortright of Glen Spey is a chapter leader of the Upper Delaware Valley Citizens' Climate Lobby.

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.