What does a conservative carbon tax look like, anyway?

Greg Mankiw, Martin Feldstein, James Baker and Ted Halstead
of the Climate Leadership Council

“[T]here is mounting evidence of problems with the atmosphere that are growing too compelling to ignore. And, once again, there is uncertainty about what lies ahead. The extent to which climate change is due to man-made causes can be questioned. But the risks associated with future warming are so severe that they should be hedged.

The responsible and conservative response should be to take out an insurance policy.”

If you have not been paying attention to climate politics, you could easily assume these are the words of liberals.

Meanwhile, you could be forgiven for thinking that fierce opposition to a carbon tax in Washington State that would have allowed for a tax rebate of up to $1500 per family for low-income families would come from the GOP.

But if you have been paying attention to climate politics, you would know that my opening paragraph are the words of George Shultz and James Baker, III, both former Secretaries of State and Secretaries of the Treasury, and arch conservatives.   You would also know that the group that torpedoed a Washington State carbon tax designed to protect the poor was none other than the Sierra Club.

There are strange fractures in our polity, some of which are most unsuspected.

In this post, I am going to explore the most recent proposal for a carbon tax.  It is being proposed by the newly formed Climate Leadership Council (CLC), which consists of George Shultz, James Baker, Hank Paulson (George W. Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury), Greg Mankiw (conservative Harvard professor of economics) and other conservative luminaries.

What does a conservative climate policy look like?

1. It is a free market solution.  What does that mean?
It focuses on private action, not government decision.  There is an assumption that government is inefficient.  There is a basic belief that individuals and businesses will find the best ways to cut emissions in their daily lives and operations if they have the incentive to do so.  Governments won’t find the optimum means.

There is merit to this.  In the micromanagement of my day, no one knows better than I what challenges I face and what tools and techniques will best accomplish my goals.

Here is a simple example.  Only I know that I need to travel X amount of miles in a day, with longer trips a certain number of times per year.  Only I will know what particular EV will meet my needs best.  Why should a government entity be picking the cars that should get support?  I should be picking the car.

A price on carbon simply increases the cost of anything that includes carbon.  The decision about how to avoid that increased cost resides in the individual.  They call this a “market signal.”

The CLC proposes a $40-per-ton carbon tax.  (They are unclear about whether it would increase over time; their piece has a reference to the possibility of it rising). That would add about 36 cents to a gallon of gasoline.  Of course, it doesn’t impact only gasoline.  It would find its way into every item that requires the use of fossil fuels in its production or transport.

2. It is revenue neutral.  What does that mean?
It does not grow government.  Government keeps none of the money.  It is returned to individuals to spend as they see fit.  Of course, those spending decisions are now made in an environment in which there is a market signal away from carbon.  The Shultz proposal would provide a family of four with about $2000 per year. (This would increase if the tax increased annually up to $5000).  Seventy percent of Americans would get back more than they spend in the increased fee.

3. It has a border adjustment.  What is that?
A border adjustment is really two separate things at once.  First, any goods sold from here to countries without a comparable tax would get a rebate at the border so they could fairly compete.  Second, and more importantly to climate action, any goods brought in to the US from countries without a comparable price would have it imposed at the border.  This would create an incentive to those countries to implement a comparable price.  We could thereby push other countries to follow our lead.

Up to this point, the CLC proposal is very similar to that of Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL—yes, the acronyms are close, but no, these are NOT the same groups).  There is a small difference.  CCL starts at $15/ton per year and increases $10/ton per year.  It would add less cost, and have a commensurately smaller dividend in the first year, but then increase.  CLC, on the other hand, is vague on whether it would increase annually, but starts higher.  Both of these proposals differ a great deal more from Washington State’s proposal which was a carbon tax swap (cut sales taxes in equal measure to the carbon price collected).

But it is here, with the last point, that CLC differs so tremendously and shows its true appeal to the conservative base... and which progressives will likely abhor.  It may also be why these conservatives seem to think they have a chance of actually getting the policy implemented.

4. Eliminate regulations on carbon.  What regulations?
It would be used to justify the end of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) and federal and state liability for emitters.

Ending the Clean Power Plan is not in itself such a big deal.  The CPP is likely to die one way or another under the current administration, anyway.  Moreover, the CPP isn’t very aggressive; the markets are achieving just about everything the CPP was designed to do anyway.  Indeed, it is unlikely that eliminating regulations is much of a carrot to the right.  The CPP is dead to them already.

It is the liability for emitters that is the crux of this.  Currently, corporations like Exxon are facing the prospect of serious liability.  Lawsuits will be popping up.  It appears that the conservatives are hoping to get Exxon and other fossil fuel companies off the hook with the incentive of a carbon tax.

The question will be whether that is incentive enough.

My opinion?  It should be enough.

First, the carbon tax is powerful.  Studies demonstrate that a carbon tax will cut emissions effectively, reaching all points that carbon reaches within our economy and not just those we manage to think of and create regulations for.  It will reach agriculture, consumer goods, transport, electricity, heating…we will be creating shifts everywhere carbon can be found.  Moreover, a quarterly check cut to American families will make this climate policy nearly repeal proof.  Voters are very unlikely to support you if you vote to repeal their quarterly check of $500.  Once implemented, we can continue to build on it, but we are unlikely to lose it.  The border adjustment will push other nations to cut carbon as well.

But what about Exxon?  How can we let Rex Tillerson waltz into office and gain himself immunity for the truly horrific decisions that he and his company has made over the years?  Decisions that have condemned us all to at least 1.5C and likely much much worse?  What about those same greedy and truly evil decisions by those that KNEW all along just how bad it would be?  Rex Tillerson KNEW.  His scientists DID the studies.  They knew how much suffering their profits would cause.  How can we let such evil be?

What I am about to say is a hard pill to swallow.  I say it as a mother.  I say it as a fiancée, as a friend, as a teacher.  I say it because what I love is in harm’s way.

We. Are. Out. Of. Time. We MUST cut emissions. NOW.

We do not have the luxury of worrying about retribution.

The poor of the world, first and foremost, and then we all, will suffer much more by the arm of carbon emissions than that of oil executives gone unpunished.

Besides, once the real devastation comes, the will of the people, the thirst for retribution, will out.  Illegality is not likely to prevent it.

In the meantime, I'll take carbon cuts, now, thank you.

It will be interesting to see if the urgency of climate change has yet truly sunk in.  If it has, even the left, even Sierra Club, will agree.

Just How Bad Is It, Really? A Primer on Our Current Climate Crisis

Increasing numbers of people are coming to me to ask about climate change.  More and more, people are realizing that they must get informed and become civically engaged.  As they see the new administration and Congress looking to get rich on fossil fuels and see the Russian corruption issues linked to oil, they realize that climate change is now integral to the survival of our democracy.

Becoming informed on climate change, carbon emissions and energy policy is now imperative.  Thankfully, the questions are coming in.  At the base of every question is the implicit question, “just how bad is it, really?”

The news is not good.

Let's start with the basics.  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.

In Paris, in December 2015, 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 positive feedbacks).

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.  That’s right.  If we put not one more carbon atom into the atmosphere, 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, yet people continue to use fossil fuels.  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 can 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 required infrastructure.  That's right.  This is basically a question of time and money.

We might have built the infrastructure in the US necessary to avoid 2C or even 1.5C under a Clinton administration.  The Trump administration, and the current GOP Congress do not intend to build the infrastructure necessary to avoid 2C.  On the contrary, the current GOP seems hell bent on accelerating warming (They are so committed that their first priority upon gaining the White House was to remove mention of climate change from the website within minutes of Trump's swearing in). They are driving more drilling, mining and fracking by building more fossil fuel infrastructure:  pipelines, compressor stations and oil rigs.  Each investment into fossil fuel infrastructure is a commitment to decades of fossil fuels or abandonment of assets.  But even more, it is a failure to seize the market opportunities the rest of the world is seizing.

No.  We must stop building new infrastructure to which we then commit for decades and start building clean energy infrastructure we need to run our modern lives.

Fortunately, while the Trump/Bannon administration and the GOP leadership appear determined to profit from oil and coal, we have allies around the world.  Other nations, like China, India and EU members (most recently Sweden) have signaled an intention to make dramatic cuts in their emissions.  In addition, many states, including New York and California, in the US have signaled a similar intention, as well as cities.  Perhaps most encouraging of all, the markets are clearly transitioning to carbon free energy and will do so even without concerted government action (though not quickly enough to avoid 2C warming on its own).  Yes, climate action is actually profitable and an economic winner.

It must be our aim to join them and to stimulate carbon free energy in every way we can, individually, locally, at the state and regional levels and internationally while blocking the GOP from driving further burning, drilling and fracking.  

As we resist the assault on our democracy, we must recognize the assault may close the door on our chance to avoid 2C warming.  We are not only fighting for government by and for the people.  We are also fighting for energy policy by and for the people, as well as all living things.  We do so with the support of the larger community of nations.

The Women's March Aftermath: Political Will Reemerges

Women's March, DC, Saturday, January 21, 2017

Can marches make a difference?  They can just ignore us and continue on, right?  Is it pointless?

The answer is a resounding THEY MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE.

The Women’s Marches of January 21 is a perfect example of how such demonstrations can spark political engagement. The March’s organizers are really on top of their game.  They have created follow up actions-one every 10 days over the next 100 days. 

The first is seemingly small.  Many might dismiss the action as too small to bother.  It is to meet up and talk about the march and write printed post cards to our legislators.  Surely, in the face of all of the other actions out there, like the Daily Action, this is just another action. 

BUT IT ISN’T.

My best friend said, “Hey, the first action is to meetup and write postcards.”  Then she listed the five or six people we knew that had either been at the march or supported it and said, “let’s text them and see if they want to do it.”  Before ten minutes had gone by, she’d texted or emailed six women with an invitation for coffee after work and a quick post card writing.   Within a half hour, all had RSVP’d “yes,” with several more to join.  The group practically formed itself.  By the time we met, we had eleven.

It was made up of roughly 1/3 Bernie supporters, 1/3 women who have not been particularly politically vocal and 1/3 people who likely supported Clinton. Out of the group, perhaps only 1 or 2 have written legislators before. Not everyone there actually marched.  Our ages range from the twenties to the sixties, we have a wide array of focuses, and we have varied life experiences. We represent a broad spectrum. We met at a restaurant; one stranger came up to thank us for our work. He left with cards in hand to write. Another man that we know came up and became part of the group.  It looks like our number will grow.

These are folks that are ratcheting up action level beyond previous actions. Grouping together across political divides. Angry, concerned, frustrated and worried but looking to become very practical.  We all seem willing to learn.

This is unprecedented among this group; it represents a new level of political engagement. I imagine that our group is not alone.  People are becoming politically active—from the left to the center…and maybe even center right—in new and exciting ways.

The question is not whether this is what needs to happen. It is. The question is, did we wait so long to get to this point that we may not be able to preserve democratic process?  Will we act in time to save the institutions that have girded us through tumultuous times before?

Here's the thing. Over the past few decades, the US became an oligarchy. People were abdicating their right and duty to vote and stay informed.  Apathy allowed corporations to govern.  And, now, that's mutated into something even more sinister. 

But up until recently, we had at least kept most of the democratic PROCESS. Then, last spring, that was thrown into chaos with the GOP’s refusal to advise and consent on Merrick Garland.  Obama’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice languished as the Congress refused to respect the authority of the presidency.

Here we were, an oligarchy that had lost even the procedures that could bring us back to democracy if we tried.  We had neither democratic political will nor democratic process.  A situation that allowed for an autocratic corrupt narcissist to take over.

But we find ourselves right now at an interesting moment.  A crucial moment. 

We have lost much of our needed democratic process.  On the other hand, democratic power is showing signs of reestablishing itself. These marches are awakening people’s political will.  Not just the left, like the Occupy marches. A broad coalition that includes people like those in my coffee group who could potentially unify behind someone like an Obama, a Bloomberg or a Cuomo.  What would be different in following these kinds of people now as compared to before?  The polity would have the newly developed skills to engage in government that they are mastering now.  Skills to reestablish and preserve democratic power rather than oligarchic power.  Decisions made in the interests of people, not corporations.

If this continues, we will have an engaged polity representing BROAD political interests.  We can potentially see coalitions that don't cater to the values of one segment of the polity, like the far left or far right, but represent the pragmatic compromises we MUST have to represent all peoples in a true democracy.  If we act quickly, we may be able to use that political will to reestablish the not yet forgotten democratic process.

We need government to be representative. That could happen if we put together these two pieces--the true political will of the people and established political process.  Right here, right now, we may have our chance.

Climate is a feminist issue. Women's rights are a climate issue.

We managed a photo at the big Earth.

The Women's March.

The Great Women's March of January 21, 2017.

There was a lot to digest from yesterday.  Of course, this was a woman's march.  There were many, many people letting the world know that we would not tolerate a world that normalizes sexual assault, that demeans women by equating us with pussies, that disempowers us by taking away reproductive rights.  There were many that were letting the world know that LGBTQ rights were not going away without a fight.  There were breast cancer survivors walking shirtless to demonstrate that mastectomies are not all pink ribbons.  Left wing identity politics, as they say, were on full display AS THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN.  November 9 was a day we woke to find that we must continue to demand our rights are respected.  They are imperiled and it comes down to us to demand our rightful place in this world.

Environmentalsim=Patriotism

Not all was so-called left identity politics, though.  There were people reminding us all of the Russian problems and that Trump is compromised.  There were Christians simply letting the world know that they wanted a world that loved their neighbor.  People demanding educational opportunities, healthcare, and more.  Most notably to me, I saw people picking up the mantle of patriot, wearing the flag, carrying signs that called themselves patriots.  I was particularly excited when I saw someone that equated environmentalism with patriotism, given  my own push to reclaim the word patriot for those that act to protect our natural resources and strengthen our nation through cutting carbon emissions.

But there is another thing that became apparent yesterday on which I want to focus.  Outside of the focused climate movement, perhaps for one of the first times, in the greater, broad coalition of people that might attend a march, emerged a clear and resounding demand for action on climate.  It turns out people are beginning to fully recognize climate change is a central issue.  Look at just a small sampling of the signs:

You can't merge women's rights and climate better than this!

Scientists and Science Show Up
At the March

Look carefully! Three unrelated
climate signs caught in one moment.

Turns out people can
care about science and
human beings all at once.  ;)

There is nothing more feminist than
recognizing women are scientists and
need funding.

We managed to pop into this one :)

It is a beautiful thing to see science, science funding and scientists represented at a woman's march.  More, it is a powerful thing to see that demands for climate science and action are now merging with demands for democracy, for equality, for empowerment of all of our citizens.

And well it should be.  Women have demonstrated time and again that when we are empowered, we make good decisions for our families and our homes.  Scientists have demonstrated time and again that we need to make good decisions to cut emissions in order to build a clean energy economy, to preserve a strong nation, to preserve the natural resources necessary to a strong economy and a livable world in which our children can thrive.

At the end of the day, perhaps this was a march for human beings, where it was recognized that women are human beings.  That is profound, as profound as Clinton's famous words to the same effect.  More, it is essential that we are beginning to recognize that empowered human beings protect healthy climates and that healthy climates protect us all.

Post Script:

One of the first blog notes I ever wrote was an entreaty to feminists to recognize that climate change was a feminist issue.  Climate change impacts the disempowered first and most fiercely.  Too, I entreated the climate activists to recognize that feminism was a climate issue.  Empowering women meant empowering those that make many of the decisions that impact climate, including reproduction and consumption.

I wondered then if it was the Kochs, as common enemy, that would unite these two forces.  It appears to have been the case.

Who Really Won the 2016 Election

There is a difference between winning an election campaign “fair and square” and carrying the legitimate democratic power that comes with representing the interests of the people.

Hillary Clinton lost the election.  There seems to be no evidence to contradict this, just conjecture and wishful thinking.  Donald Trump won the election.  It seems that the use of psychological profiling developed from Facebook “likes” and “loves” was used to great effect.  Steve Bannon and Cambridge Analytica very efficiently targeted individuals in swing states that fit the profile of someone that voted for Obama but could be swayed to vote for Trump.  They tailored messages to those individuals and with a small amount of money and very little organizing, managed 80,000 votes in key places that swung the election.

We should understand these tactics.  We should understand why the Clinton campaign dismissed this type of strategy.  And we should be sure to win at this game next time.

However, we must be very careful not to confuse strategic and tactical failures with failures of message.  At the end of the day, nearly 3 million more voters voted for Hillary Clinton.  At the end of the day, voters clearly decided that Clinton’s message and the Democrats’ progressive party platform represent their interests.

When we add the stunning fact that Vladimir Putin was also essentially campaigning for Trump, and that the propaganda war waged persuaded voters to vote based on Putin’s interests, we cannot conclude from this election that the Democratic agenda is the weak link in getting elected, but rather tactics and strategy. This election was turned on interests that are not held by the majority of people that voted.  There is no democratic legitimacy to Trump’s power.

What, precisely does Trump’s power spring from?  We can make the case that it stems from bigotry, sexism, homophobia, fear of other religions and ethnicities.  That is valid.  However, we would be wise to look at who will be gaining from this election most.  A clear answer to that can be seen in his appointments.

Secretary of State?  A man who has done nothing but work for oil his entire career, who directed disinformation campaign to discredit science, who has been thwarted from oil profits by sanctions against Russia, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson.

But that is just the start:

"Trump has also put forward a host of other appointees who are overt climate denialists and generally also have financial ties to industries threatened by the Carbon Bubble. These include Rick Perry, Trump’s choice for Secretary of Energy and a close ally of Big Oil; Scott Pruitt (EPA Administrator — a virulent climate denialist); Nikki Haley (U.N. Ambassador, also known for suppressing climate science as Governor); Steve Bannon (Chief Strategist, and just generally gross); Ryan Zinke (Secretary of Interior — who strongly supports more oil and gas exploration on public lands): Jeff Sessions (Attorney General and climate regulation opponent); Elaine Chao (Secretary of Transportation, who will be tasked with getting a huge fossil fuel infrastructure plan through Congress, working with her husband, Mitch McConnell); James Mattis (Secretary of Defense, who is not a denialist but does have oil industry ties); Michael Flynn (National Security Advisor — and former oil industry lobbyist); Larry Kudlow (Council of Economic Advisors — a climate denialist and frequent defender of the Koch brothers); Wilbur Ross (Commerce Secretary — holds ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’ in oil and gas investments); even Betsy DeVos (Education Secretary) is sister to Blackwater founder Erik Prince, who is investing heavily in African oil and gas fields, ‘places where he thinks his expertise in providing logistics and security can give him a competitive edge.’” (emphasis added) https://medium.com/@AlexSteffen/trump-putin-and-the-pipelines-to-nowhere-742d745ce8fd#.azsbl1vpn

And then there is Putin, authoritarian and aggressive leader of a country highly dependent on oil and gas.

These people have everything to gain by persuading us that we need coal, oil and gas.  They have everything to gain by persuading us that electric cars aren’t actually the totally cool innovation that they are, with awesome torque, minimal maintenance and zero stops at the gas station.  These people have everything to gain from creating a false perception that wind and solar aren’t going to create energy independence.  These people have everything to gain by stopping our innovators and engineers from developing the infrastructure for storage and transmission that would make us a clean energy superpower, competitive against China who now stands to profit hugely from our failure.  These people have everything to gain by convincing coal miners that their only hope for their families is to continue to go into dark caverns and develop black lung instead of working in the sunshine installing solar panels or maintaining wind turbines.  These people have everything to gain by convincing us that wind turbines and solar panels are ugly in our backyards, while gas plants in our backyards are the price we must pay for energy.  These are the people that will con us into buying their oil, coal and gas for as long as we let them.

It is time to recognize that ENERGY is at the crux of our politics.  It is time to get angry at the fossil fuel barons.

As we organize to resist Trump, let us be perfectly clear that our biggest enemy is the fossil fuels that put him in office.

Scientists Are Takin' It To The Streets

Scientists are taking to the streets:

"Scientists aren’t generally known for their political protests. But like so many things, that’s all changing under the shadow of a looming Trump presidency.

Dec. 12 marked the start of the four-day American Geophysical Union conference, a gathering of climate scientists that isn’t typically known for its raucous itinerary. But on Dec. 13, in between sessions on nonlinear geophysics, seismology, and the study of the earth’s deep interior, many attendees also took to the streets of San Francisco to protest the incoming administration’s stance on climate change. The rally drew hundreds of participants."  http://qz.com/862921/trumps-skepticism-about-climate-change-is-turning-scientists-into-activists/

Scientists are copying public data to protect it from future censorship and redaction:

"Alarmed that decades of crucial climate measurements could vanish under a hostile Trump administration, scientists have begun a feverish attempt to copy reams of government data onto independent servers in hopes of safeguarding it from any political interference.

The efforts include a 'guerrilla archiving' event in Toronto, where experts will copy irreplaceable public data, meetings at the University of Pennsylvania focused on how to download as much federal data as possible in the coming weeks, and a collaboration of scientists and database experts who are compiling an online site to harbor scientific information.

'Something that seemed a little paranoid to me before all of a sudden seems potentially realistic, or at least something you’d want to hedge against,' said Nick Santos, an environmental researcher at the University of California at Davis."

Scientists are refusing to name names:

“'We will be forthcoming with all publically-available [sic] information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team.' Burnham-Snyder’s email had the last sentence in boldface for emphasis."

Scientists KNOW the reality of climate change.  And they are refusing to name names, protecting truth and taking it to the streets.

These are climate patriots that deserve our utmost respect.  More importantly, they deserve our total support:  financial, spoken, written and activist.

It is hard, in the wake of this devastating election, to return our thoughts to reason and science.  Those of us that have been steeped in it for years are frustrated and wonder if there is a point.

Let me say this.  OF COURSE THERE IS A POINT.  Reason didn't stop being reasonable.  Science hasn't stopped being valid.  Reality is still reality, though it doesn't feel like it.

These scientists are RIGHT.  They were right and they continue to be right.

All that has changed is that they are now not just right, but they are refusing to name names, protecting truth and taking it to the streets.  We owe it to them to stand right there with them.  We owe it to ourselves.  We owe it to our children.

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.