You ask the right question: How do we meet Americans where they are at and give them compelling solutions to our mounting energy crisis?

In today’s new political context of economic insecurity and energy price spikes, we must provide Americans with what they want: credible promises of cheap, abundant energy.

I think it’s time to adopt a message that sounds something like this:

Oil is hurting our economy. Coal is poisoning our air. Both are threatening our climate and our future. Clean, cheap and abundant new American energy sources await. Which would you rather invest in? Coal and oil — the old, dirty, expensive stuff? Or clean, cheap, new American energy sources? Which will power America’s future?

This goes far beyond messaging and framing though. Today’s new focus on energy prices is a game changer for the world of energy and climate policy. At a time of extreme sensitivity over energy prices, the prospects of advancing cap-and-trade or carbon tax policies designed to price our way to deep reductions in global warming pollution are dim.

On the other hand, energy now lies at the forefront of the American political environment in a way that it hasn’t been since the Oil Shocks of the 1970s. This opens up a unique but urgent opportunity, a chance to advance a robust and bold new policy agenda centered on energy solutions.

The time has come to move away from a carbon-pricing-centered regime and pivot the focus of our policy, not just our message. We need to advance a compelling and effective set of solutions focused on making clean energy cheap and abundant, not making dirty energy expensive and scarce.

Gore’s clean energy “moon-shot” speech was (almost) dead-on. He shifted the focus from climate change to the energy challenge (which is a broader nexus issue that allows us to reach more Americans and bring them onto our side) and from reducing greenhouse gas emissions to increasing clean energy production (which is what Americans are far more concerned about today). Whether we make this transition to 100% clean energy in ten years, twenty, or longer, I think the timetable is far less important than the overall thrust of the message: we’re going to make your energy cheap and clean and secure. And who wouldn’t want that?

In terms of messaging, I think that the movement really has been trying to switch gears, and we see a lot of the green groups talking about gas prices, jobs, etc. However, especially due to the economic craziness right now, it seems superficial and reactionary. It seems just like messaging.

The inspiring examples you point to are key. People need to be able to imagine themselves in the change that is taking place, rather than as victim to it. Right now, people see themselves as victims to high energy prices, to economic downturn, and Dems/enviros are easy scapegoats. We need to enable people to really imagine themselves as part of the clean energy economy to inspire them to work to become part of the switch to new sources of energy. Providing examples of this is key.

This is the reason Obama is so popular. Sociologists tell us that people naturally want to protect the status quo— so how on earth is candidate succeeding with a campaign based on large-scale, massive change? He has a brilliant messaging strategy. If you listen to his speeches, it is all about “we.” By including people–no, relying on people– to be part of the change, that change becomes far less scary.

So how do we create a profoundly inclusive movement? I think we need to involve people on a deeper level than even political engagement. While obviously political change is so incredibly important right now— what we do in the next year will shape and define our energy/climate policy for the next 50– I think that people still don’t feel involved. Personal sustainability stuff is good on some levels, but there is still so much “green noise” that people are confused about what actually helps. By highlighting folks who are building the clean energy economy as builders, engineers, designers, planners, etc, and making it their occupation and their livelihood, we would send an incredibly powerful message.

This is a huge problem. While we have been focusing on so many important and crucial issues like wind energy and solar power and home insulation, we’ve neglected to create any empowering messaging around transportation. Hybrid cars are well and good, as is carpooling, public transportation, etc. but we haven’t yet found a way to effectively articulate how this fits into our general frame of creating a long-term green economy as well as immediate help to those in dire financial straits.

Republicans put us in this position by taking the traditional environmental frame (conservation, green energy) and incorporating it into their larger one. As Morgan said, “They want the same things we want (and then some bad stuff too…).” We need to take their “lower gas prices with energy independence” and swallow it up in the idea of local, stable green jobs through transportation innovation.

Which is all true, but so classist. I think it is coming from a decent place, but what about turning your A/C down or off ($0 start up costs)? Turning off the junky fridge or freezer in the basement?
They don’t mention plasticking your windows and insulating your house if you’re going to be heating or cooling it (costs $17 for a couple hundred feet of plastic), I made that back in about 2 weeks last winter.

Anyway, to my ears, NPR’s “Green” solutions all seemed hopelessly middle class, or really, with the new economic crunch, I wonder if upper middle class homes can afford $1500 + in start-up costs, if that’s what people are saying “saving energy” costs. To me — this piece was shooting itself in the foot.

I agree that some renewable systems and efficiency measures are easier (and cheaper) than others. It might help to have something like a pareto chart showing the largest/easiest efficiency and renewables. There will likely be some amount of energy needed whose sources will be fiercely debated, but it will be a smaller amount if you win over the public.

These are important points you’re making.

One thing I like to remember when facing things like this is that we are more effective, dollar for dollar and hour for hour, than our opponents. Their platforms and victories are constructed, and ours are human. It’s just a matter of tipping that scale from corporate power to people power…