There are two frames for solving the energy crisis. One says we need everything, because this is a crisis and people/markets need energy. The other says an era is over and we can now rethink our relationship to power, shifting away from all harmful sources.
Republicans want energy to become the new hot button issue, replacing ’security’ as the defining way that reds beat out blues across the board. “Democrats? They can’t protect our ports… Democrats? They can’t lower gas prices…” See recent remarks by National Republican Senatorial Committee chair John Ensign today; “We are having a dramatic drawdown on our economy, and because of that it is critical that we solve the energy problem,” Ensign said. “Republicans are on the right side of this issue and Democrats are on the wrong side,” when it comes to opening up domestic energy supplies.
Its clear which side the money’s on. Fossil energy companies are established and fat with profit, while our would-be clean energy tycoons are either lonely or in start up mode.
Ensign went on to describe the “all of the above” approach, saying, “We are for alternative, clean, green conservation, but we’re also for drilling…and most Republicans are for exploring up in Alaska as well.”
How do we argue against such an indiscriminate energy plan? They want the same things we want (and then some bad stuff too…) First, we need to point out the obvious: efficiency is a much shorter and easier path to lowering prices and lowering emissions than drilling. Second, we need to link justice and opportunity to switching to a clean energy economy. Third, we must consistently point to real examples here in America of families and communities that have switched to a clean energy lifestyle comfortably, affordably and conveniently.
Of course this means not falling into the traps of talking about come coal being clean and other coal being dirty or other coined phrases. And it means framing the choices we want people to make as opportunities rather than guilt-motivated compromises.
I’m worried we’re behind the ball a little. The nation’s focus has shifted rapidly towards the price at the pump, and so much of our general messaging is still focused on wind and solar. We’re talking about the polar ice caps when inner-city areas continue to be wracked with asthma. And far too many people don’t know that big labor and big green are fighting on the same side.
Are we prepared to meet people where they’re at when we talk about Power Vote? Are we using the public’s concerns to bring new members into our coalition? And have we educated ourselves about the ins and outs of oil, energy, efficiency and policy?
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
“First, we need to point out the obvious: efficiency is a much shorter and easier path to lowering prices and lowering emissions than drilling. Second, we need to link justice and opportunity to switching to a clean energy economy. Third, we must consistently point to real examples here in America of families and communities that have switched to a clean energy lifestyle comfortably, affordably and conveniently.”
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…
I think most folks are in favor of energy efficiency (most studies show we can save 20% to 30% of our current energy use). The controversy is over the remaining ways to reduce the carbon in the energy sector. I have visited off-grid homes that are all solar and there is a lifestyle difference over a standard home. The discussion does need to consider the tradeoffs of the various combination of options.
R Margolis: That’s why I think we need good examples of families and communities living much more sustainably that are more appealing. Solar hot water systems are often forgotten, but make a lot more sense then PV to some families. Community owned renewables are another. The discussion needs to consider tradeoffs, but it also needs to be more creative (and accurate and relevant to the average American) in how we talk about the benefits.
Morgan -
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.
Ugh, there have been these ridiculous specials on NPR lately about conservation in the home. They are all focused on — If you buy a $500 new gas water heater, a more efficient deep freeze for the basement for $500 and a new A/C unit for $800 you can make that money back over 10 years and save 15% off your energy every month.
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’m worried we’re behind the ball a little. The nation’s focus has shifted rapidly towards the price at the pump, and so much of our general messaging is still focused on wind and solar.”
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.
Elizabeth is absolutely right to bring jobs into this. When we start looking at numbers of jobs created, clean energy solutions win over fossil fuel ones in almost every match-up. (After all, efficiency and renables mean energy created by people, whereas dirty energy means energy created by fossil fuels). We keep saying clean energy means green jobs, and the democratic presidential candidates were bringing this point up routinely in their speeches, but the media just hasn’t caught on. Somehow we need to clarify or improve that message so that it becomes a reality for Americans. I think having clear, inspiring examples instead of abstract explanations is how we do that.
Great post, Morgan.
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.
I would only add that the current energy industries are having difficult times finding skilled labor. Assuming the renewables needs similar skills (e.g., welders, pipefitters, operators, engineers, etc.) but MORE of them, that will be an additional issue to be addressed in your appeal.
Here’s a little bit of good news: Americans don’t seem to be blaming Congressional Dems for high gas prices and are pointing the finger at oil prices, speculators, international competition from China and India and even Bush energy policies before Dems for high prices. But you’re dead-on Morgan that winning this frame game here is absolutely critical.
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?