By Teryn Norris & Daniel Goldfarb
Published by Americans for Energy Leadership
President Obama’s exclusion of “climate change” from the State of the Union, combined with Carol Browner’s exit as the administration’s top climate advisor, has sparked wide debate across the climate movement. On one hand, many climate advocates are backing the president’s strategy. As Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) put it, “He’s trying to unify… I think it was very smart of him.”
On the other hand, climate advocates like Joe Romm of Climate Progress and David Roberts of Grist are criticizing the president for not using climate change as a central justification for his clean energy proposals. Unfortunately, even after the collapse of cap and trade legislation, Roberts and other critics continue to follow a type of policy literalism that has undermined environmentalists and climate advocates for years.
The argument goes something like this. First, Roberts claims that without climate change as the central justification, the case for federal investment in the clean energy industry “is no stronger than the argument for supporting pharmaceuticals, or telecom, or any other industry that’s likely to be big in the 21st century.” (Roberts wrote partly in response to Norris’ article on the rise of “innovation hawks.”)
However, as the American Energy Innovation Council and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology recently explained in their reports, other industries like pharmaceuticals, aerospace, and computer electronics spend far more on research and development than the energy industry, due to a variety of market and non-market barriers. The underinvestment is dramatic: whereas pharmaceuticals invest about 18.7% of sales in R&D, the U.S. energy industry only invests 0.3%. The federal government already invests over $30 billion annually in health research, and $80 billion on military R&D, but only $3-5 billion in energy R&D.
Moreover, the current economic challenge from China and other “rising tigers” in clean-tech is clearer than any other industry, and it remains one of the most powerful motivating factors for the U.S. public and policymakers alike (analysts predict the global clean-tech market could surpass $600 billion by 2020). The importance of clean energy technology for the Department of Defense, and for saving the lives of American troops, is creating a new imperative in the defense community. Rising oil prices and instability in the Middle East are simultaneously strengthening the energy security consensus to reduce U.S. reliance on oil. And disasters like Deepwater Horizon and Massey Energy continue to highlight the public health and environmental benefits of reduced fossil fuel consumption.
So much for the argument that only climate change can seriously justify major federal investment in clean energy technology over other industries. The case for expanding these investments for economic competitiveness, national security, and public health reasons is stronger than ever before. (And beyond domestic concerns, cheaper forms of clean energy can help alleviate the poverty of billions who lack electricity access and already suffer from the vagaries of the climate.)
The second reason Roberts criticizes President Obama is that he believes “The only way that well-worn partisan division can be transcended is through reference to climate change.” In another reaction to Obama’s decision, Roberts asserts that “telling the truth about climate change is also good politics.”
Could it be true that only climate change can transcend partisan divisions? Was the president wrong to appeal to a broader set of public interests to advance clean energy RD&D investment and a portfolio standard? Let’s revisit the latest public opinion analysis. In a recent report titled “Little Change in Opinions about Global Warming: Increasing Partisan Divide on Energy Policies,” the Pew Research Center concluded:
“Views about climate change continue to be sharply divided along party lines… Among Republicans, only 38% agree the earth is warming and just 16% say warming is caused by humans… Just 14% of Republicans say global warming is a very serious problem and 27% view it as a somewhat serious problem; only about a quarter (24%) think it requires immediate action by the government… Among Republican registered voters who agree with the Tea Party, fully 70% do not think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth is warming.”
No wonder Republican strategists have successfully used climate change as a wedge issue to rally their base and tarnish Democrats. Even with cap and trade gone, the Republican leadership sees opposition to EPA greenhouse gas emissions authority as a major linchpin of its 2012 election strategy.
How could Roberts and others possibly get the idea that focusing on climate change is good politics in this environment? Contrary to their assertions, a focus on climate change would only serve to undermine the possibility of clean energy reform, fueling an ever-greater climate war and potentially contributing to another major Democratic defeat in 2012.
Based on this data, the recent collapse of cap and trade, and the current state of climate change politics, we conclude that the president’s choice made sense. Although climate change remains extremely divisive, Gallup and Pew polling continues to indicate that federal investment in clean energy technology remains one of the most popular forms of energy policy. These investments will drive down the price of low-carbon energy and pave the way for stronger deployment efforts — perhaps even including a strong carbon price at some point — both here and in the developing world, where the vast majority of future emissions will originate.
The question is not whether climate change is an important reason for action on clean energy. That is obvious. The question is what type of political and policy strategy can successfully expand the national clean energy consensus and begin shifting us in the right direction. In this context, the role of effective leaders is not just to “speak truth to power,” but to bridge our divides to achieve the outcomes we need.
We can agree to disagree on the role of climate and focus on policy achievements in the near and medium term. Climate change will eventually get its moment in American politics. Until then, Obama and his administration have outlined a new approach, and climate advocates would be wise to get behind it.
Dear “Sparki”:
In spite of agreeing with your conclusion about Mr.
Obama’s shrewd pursuit of a “middle” energy policy course,
I remain very pessimistic about the future. Between
the liars and deniers, I (along with many intellectuals)
predict a New Dark Age, where the truth will continue to be
an ever-downgraded commodity; human rights/human health,
–who cares?? (Only a precious few, apparently.)
I feel so sad for the children now being born. They
face dirtier air, more reactor accidents, bankrupt
federal budgets, and a general lack of good public
education, especially in the sciences and math.
It’s shockingly appalling to think that the Smithsonian
Institution could be/HAS been corrupted by the Koch brothers,
donating many millions in order to set up Koch Hall, which
talks about climate change alright, just not the recent
acceleration caused by human use of fossil fuels.
But it is all understandable if utterly unsupportable, when
one consider the usual human psyche: “–What?? MY baby is
beautiful, not ugly, how dare you!” (This is how most react to
critiques of anyone/anything they hold dear, even a corporation.)
There is hope, but so little time. If enough people read
the right stuff and are scared enough to effortfully oppose
the criminal stupidity now running planet Earth, we will survive,
even thrive.
If not….
Best Wishes, A.
Why are we wise to get behind this? We’ve been hoodwinked before:
“We cannot afford more of the same timid politics when the future of our planet is at stake. Global warming is not a someday problem, it is now.”
—Barack Obama, Oct. 8, 2007
And now, because Sputnik is here (?) we all need to rally behind the president to do really vague big things related to energy? Eighty percent renewables by 2035 without any climate or energy bill? Yeah right. Maybe for China.
The worst environmental disaster in our country’s history occurred in the spring of last year when a climate and energy bill was on table to be debated in the summer. Rather than risk any political capital during a golden moment to pass some type of energy bill, the administration didn’t even bring the bill to the table. And then they says “oh no, the political calculus has shifted…we’ve lost the support of key Republican senators…we’ll have to undo our lifting of the oil moratorium and wait another three years (if we’re lucky) to get this done.” The Obama administration deserves the flack it get from environmentalists, and particularly from youth, for being unwilling to seize what was arguably the best moment in American history to pass a clean energy bill that puts our economy on a path to clean growth. Because we didn’t get this done, the ENTIRE WORLD will have to wait for a feasible and effective international climate treaty, and that time mean more suffering for our generation and the generations to come due to the climate change that is already happening (http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/).
But the argument above is to support the president for the little steps and sound the retreat on convincing people about climate science and confronting leaders on climate change denial, because, let’s face it guys, science will eventually come out on top some day, right? Because we don’t want our political retreating from their nonscientific positions propped up by oil interests, right? Because what’s the rush? We’re being asked to depart from the science that says emissions must peak by 2015 to prevent the planet’s climate from becoming unstable and risking an uncontrollable cascade of effects that will change our atmosphere for generations. Is this acceptable to you, to betray your rational senses for more promises of minor political gains while the security of our posterity is at stake?
Before the administration gets my support for energy action, they’ll have to rebuild trust, speak firmly and directly about the grave dangers of climate change, and bring something to the table other than more lip service.
Why are we wise to get behind this? We’ve been hoodwinked before:
“We cannot afford more of the same timid politics when the future of our planet is at stake. Global warming is not a someday problem, it is now.”
—Barack Obama, Oct. 8, 2007
And now, because Sputnik is here (?) we all need to rally behind the president to do really vague big things related to energy? Eighty percent renewables by 2035 without any climate or energy bill? Yeah right. Maybe for China.
The worst environmental disaster in our country’s history occurred in the spring of last year when a climate and energy bill was on table to be debated in the summer. Rather than risk any political capital during a golden moment to pass some type of energy bill, the administration didn’t even bring the bill to the table. And then they says “oh no, the political calculus has shifted…we’ve lost the support of key Republican senators…we’ll have to undo our lifting of the oil moratorium and wait another three years (if we’re lucky) to get this done.” The Obama administration deserves the flack it get from environmentalists, and particularly from youth, for being unwilling to seize what was arguably the best moment in American history to pass a clean energy bill that puts our economy on a path to clean growth. Because we didn’t get this done, the ENTIRE WORLD will have to wait for a feasible and effective international climate treaty, and that time mean more suffering for our generation and the generations to come due to the climate change that is already happening (http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/).
But the argument above is to support the president for the little steps and sound the retreat on convincing people about climate science and confronting leaders on climate change denial, because, let’s face it guys, science will eventually come out on top some day, right? Because we don’t want our political leaders retreating from their nonscientific positions propped up by oil interests, right? Because what’s the rush? We’re being asked to depart from the science that says emissions must peak by 2015 to prevent the planet’s climate from becoming unstable and risking an uncontrollable cascade of effects that will change our atmosphere for generations. Is this acceptable to you, to betray your rational senses for more promises of minor political gains while the security of our posterity is at stake?
Before the administration gets my support for energy action, they’ll have to rebuild trust, speak firmly and directly about the grave dangers of climate change, and bring something to the table other than more lip service.
The President’s call may work if one can make the case that global energy demand will sufficiently tax conventional sources to make alternatives economic. So long as the public perceives that cheap natural gas will last forever, even the push for new technology without the climate change issue will falter.
I disagree with the premise of this post. Thanks for inspiring me to write about it. http://www.peacefuluprising.org/to-win-the-fight-for-truth-we-must-be-willing-to-lose-honestly-20110201
In your blind support for pro-administration policies, you seem to have leaped to the conclusion that “a focus on climate change would only serve to undermine the possibility of clean energy reform, fueling an ever-greater climate war and potentially contributing to another major Democratic defeat in 2012.” Taking a look at the data you presented, it’s clear that the majority of independents also believe in climate change, and it is likely with more talk about climate science from organizations such as the Americans for Energy Leadership would likely bring more people into that camp.
Suggesting that it is taboo to talk about climate science is a horrible idea. There is an extensive messaging complex built around folks like Patrick Michaels, and to cede the airwaves to climate deniers because of some faint hope of small near or short term gains emboldens these deceivers and only serves Obama’s more immediate concerns for re-election while weakening the climate movement in the long term. If Obama wants our support, then he needs to support our movement and ignore your suggestions of avoiding climate change.
According to the science, it is go big or go home time. And right now we may not be able to go big, but we need to continue to put the pressure on political and business leaders so that when the next (and, in terms of natural history, the last) go big moment comes, real climate solutions, rather than climate science, will be the issue on the table. Maybe there are some short term gain to be had, but they should not be had at the expense of the MUCH LONGER TERM climate movement.
Because what happens to my grandkids matters more than a few points here or there for Obama, Americans for Energy Leadership.
We can all agree that the frustration here is understandable. The climate movement has suffered serious defeats over the past couple years, from Copenhagen to cap and trade, and it’s understandably difficult for climate advocates to see Obama and the administration taking this approach.
For those young activists feeling frustration, though, perhaps it’s worth considering a couple things. First, what type of clean energy policy agenda would you have the president adopt right now? Would it be fundamentally different than what’s he advocating (a strong clean energy standard and significant increase in clean energy RD&D)? If not, then what difference does it make whether or not the administration justifies it primarily with climate science?
Second, what policy progress can we realistically make in the near and medium term if the agenda is centrally focused on climate change? Do you see any merit to the evidence that such a focus could actually damage the political prospects of clean energy policy reform? If not, how can we explain what happened with cap and trade in the last Congress?
Finally, is President Obama really undermining the climate consensus by not confronting the issue in the State of the Union? (As an analogy, does the fact that the president spent little or no time discussing international human rights mean that he’s snubbing that issue?) Is it possible that if Obama pushed hard on climate science right now it would only inflame and politicize the issue even more, and that perhaps he needs to play a different kind of role right now?
None of this is to say that some organizations don’t have an important role to play in raising climate awareness. But in terms of federal policy advocacy, the single-minded focus on climate science is damaging our potential.
We all recognize the need for rapid clean energy deployment, and we’re all working toward a similar long-term vision of climate security. The question is what kind of political and policy strategy can begin achieving the technology improvements and political consensus we need to get us there. None of us like the fact that we can’t have a serious national discussion about climate change, but we can make progress today nonetheless. That’s why we should get behind the president and start moving forward.
You say that climate change will eventually get its moment in American politics. How can that be true if people back down from talking about climate change? As usual, most discussions that begin with what’s politically feasible completely ignore social movement history, which shows that movements most often succeed by ignoring what Washington insiders think is politically feasible.
The idea of addressing the climate without talking about the climate is not new and has been standard policy for a large section of the movement for years. That policy has led to less and less people taking climate change seriously. Not talking about climate change empowers our opponents to argue that climate change is such a sketchy idea that even progressives are embarrassed to talk about it. At the same time it disempowers our movement.
Imagine where the GLBT movement would be today if gay rights advocates in the 80s weren’t willing to talk about the issue when it was extremely unpopular. Imagine if the leaders of that movement only talked about gay marriage in terms of how gay people are flamboyant and love to shop, so gay marriage would be great for the economy. Who would want to be a part of that movement? All their progress has come because they had the PRIDE to speak up.
Far from backing away from talking about the climate, I think we need some Climate Pride. Obama can be a coward if he wants, but I’m gonna fight for a livable climate.
Tim, nobody here is trying to stop you from fighting for climate science. We absolutely need people out there working to raise awareness about climate change, and if that’s how you feel you can make the biggest contribution, then power to you man!
The problem arises when the single-minded focus on climate science ends up alienating others and interferes with our ability to make progress on clean energy innovation and deployment in the near and medium term, which we absolutely need. Not everyone shares the same priorities as you and other advocates, but they’ll support clean energy anyway. That’s okay, and part of what it means to live in a democracy. Politics is very often about getting people who think differently to act alike, and not vice-versa.
Based on the evidence, a climate-centric strategy in today’s environment would primarily serve to divide the public, anger and empower the Tea Party base, encourage the Republican House to kill all legislative proposals, and better position themselves for 2012. On the other hand, an agenda with investments in clean energy technology at the front and center speaks to a much broader and more powerful set of public interests, and helps our movement build a stronger political consensus for action.
As my colleague Jesse Jenkins put it, “The question then, is what ground is best to fight on, and the answer seems unequivocal: climate change leaves us on shaky ground as a political rationale and talking point, whereas a clean energy innovation agenda centrally motivated by pluralistic concerns for national economic competitiveness, security, and public health can work across parties and ideological divides. The President knows this, and that’s where he’s laid down the gauntlet.”
Teryn and Daniel,
If you don’t want to talk about climate, what the hell are you doing on the blog of the youth climate movement? (You’re blowing your cover for all those Republicans you’re trying to win over.) I wish you luck in your political manipulations to build a Tom Friedman utopia, but please don’t try to undermine our movement.
For the climate movement, “fueling an ever-greater climate war” is exactly what we’re trying to do. We absolutely want to escalate the tension to the point where people have to pick sides between protecting the survival of our children or increasing short term profits for a handful of corporations. We’re trying to force Obama into that choice as well, which is why falling in line behind him is the worst possible thing we could do. Obama’s not part of our movement; he’s our target.
Furthermore, I know that a lot of people on this site are also part of the climate justice movement. Those of us in that camp don’t want a slightly cleaner, greener version of the world we have now, as that would still be a world of injustice, based on exploitation, and filled with people who are afraid of their own government. I have no interest in fighting for such a world. We want a truly healthy and just world, which we realize is a radical departure from the status quo. That’s why we’re building a bold, self-empowering movement to make it happen. We’re not trying to win over the corporate tyrants running our country; we’re trying to defeat them.
Tim, we hear you. You’re angry, and you’ve made it clear that your intention is to fight an oppositional climate war and defeat corporate tyrants. But believe it or not, not all climate activists are in the same camp or believe your approach is the most effective, or that it’s mutually exclusive with other approaches. It’s great to express your views, but let’s leave out comments like “what the hell are you doing on the blog” or you’re “undermining our movement” when you don’t actually speak for everyone who reads this blog, let alone the whole movement (youth or otherwise).
Hey Teryn. I’m not angry, but I agree with Tim that a blog for the Youth Climate Movement is not the correct forum to advocate for taking climate change out of the message. I completely agree with your statement that “politics is very often about getting people who think differently to act alike, and not vice-versa,” but you can’t post what you posted on a climate justice forum and expect to be supported. You’ve got to be a little more strategic. In particular, categorizing any opposition to your message as anger and frustration stemming from recent history is not a popular way to advance your ideas here.
Sacrificing talk about climate science for the sake of near term gains undermines climate justice which is a deal-breaker for most youth climate activists. Because it is a deal-breaker for me, I agree with the statement that taking climate change out of the clean energy message undermine the climate movement. And, because many–if not most–readers of this blog are concerned with climate justice, many readers will probably agree with Tim and I.
Maybe you’re right that this is a better strategy for short term energy gains. But if you want my support, you can’t say that because I won’t dig it. You could say other things that I would like because I fundamentally support clean energy gains, but if you come with this explicated strategy, I am not getting on board.
I am not getting on board 1) because I believe it undermines the movement and 2) I disagree with your conclusions that evidence suggests that “a climate-centric strategy in today’s environment would primarily serve to divide the public, anger and empower the Tea Party base, encourage the Republican House to kill all legislative proposals, and better position themselves for 2012.” I do not believe that this is necessarily true, and I believe that in the long run, sticking to the climate science argument is utterly necessary for the type of change that we need.
I’m willing to write up a response as to why I disagree with this conclusion, but first I would like to independently evaluate the same evidence that you took a look at while formulating your opinion. So please share it.
I also want to take some time to reply to your questions.
The first was, does it matter if Obama explicitly incorporates climate change into his clean energy messaging/strategy? The answer for climate justice folks is yes, it does. It matters a lot, hence Tim’s post.
And some other questions…what policy progress can we make if policy is centrally focused upon climate change, and is it possible that if Obama pushed hard on climate science right now it would only inflame and politicize the issue even more, and that perhaps he needs to play a different kind of role right now? What explains what happen to cap and trade?
We are not asking for policy centrally focused upon climate change, though we would like it. We are merely saying that removing it from the discourse hurts our movement and empowers people who confuse people about climate science. It is POSSIBLE that if Obama pushed hard on climate science, then it might inflame and politicize the issue, but there are other things happening (climate denier Patrick Michaels possibly lying to Congress about the amount of funding he gets from big oil, oil interests misinformation in the climate debate being highlighted, a letter today from the National Academy of Science to Congress calling for a public hearing on climate science to depoliticize the issue) that make this a prime time for Obama to push climate science hard in an effort to depoliticize the issue and get people behind clean energy solutions. Also, you seem to be approaching climate change as if all Republicans deny climate change, which isn’t the case. It’s a loud minority that is by no means a majority in our Congress. The righter part of the right would be inflamed, but that will be happening with other issues in this Congress anyway.
Finally, what did happen to cap and trade? Well, I moved to Washington D.C. 5 days before the oil spill with the hope of landing a climate and energy job for the summer so here’s my personal take (I’d like to hear yours too!): early April the administration lifts offshore drilling moratorium to build bipartisan support for the bill as a comprehensive energy package, mid April oil beings to leak, late April key Republican support (notably Sen. Lindsay Graham) for cap n’ trade is revoked, and the oil moratorium comes back sometime after that. Summer happens, but because it is so politically unpopular (as oil gushes into the Gulf) to discuss new offshore drilling that would be a major bipartisan bargaining point for the cap n trade legislation, the bill sinks into the black mire of the spill. Harry lets it go and climate activists all get sad for a week, knowing that Cancun will now be just another trip to the beach.
So, I don’t think it was the focus on climate that killed the cap n trade bill. Plenty of Republicans are concerned with the climate too, and some Democrats make awesome commercials in which they shoot climate legislation. I think it had to do with being unable to use the “drill baby drill” card (because of the “spill baby spill” card) as part of the strategy to enact sweeping energy reform.
Thanks Climegeist. Just to clarify, I didn’t cross-post this primarily as an effort to recruit support (nor did I expect an outpouring of support from the IGHIH community), but more to spark critical thinking and debate, which I’ve always thought is an important part of the purpose of IGHIH. I don’t cross-post here all that often these days, but given the nature of this topic, I thought it would be worthwhile. I think productive debate about ideas and strategy is very important for young activists, especially given the nature of today’s crossroads for the clean energy and climate movement.
In terms of evidence/analysis, let me know what you’re looking for more specifically and I’ll see what I can do (feel free to email me as well). Public opinion, election strategy, energy/climate legislation, cap and trade analysis? I’ve written on similar issues for a few years, and a collection of articles that might have useful info is available here, here, and here. Thanks for engaging!
Productive strategy debate is always good, and I do think it was worthwhile that you posted here despite all this disagreeing that happened. I am personally glad that you got me thinking about what the best strategy is for the movement. I hope that you’ll be able to make it to PowerShift the first weekend in April in D.C. to discuss strategy further with other young people who are thinking about the same issues as you.
I’ll send you an email tomorrow about the data you used to derive some of your conclusions.
The problem is that 80% of the globe’s energy comes from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have higher energy and power densities than most other energy systems (e.g., even algae fuel requires thousands of square miles to capture sunlight to replace our current gasolene consumption). Even politicians who understand the climate issue must be wondering how to bring about an energy transition with so few on the shelf low-cost options.
Dear “Sparki”:
Hey, guys, I’m not ashamed to say I’M angry,
political correctness not always spoken here.
It always makes me angry to see anybody suffer,
especially if I can’t stop it; but I reserve my
most heated anger for people like the Koch Bros.,
who are actually paying and scheming to ruin our
big blue marble! (-Many of you won’t remember
that term.)
I’m not sure you under 40′s want a 65 year-old
poster here, but know that I forward this blog
to my anti-nuke group, etc. (I still believe the
ripple effect works as well as direct action.)
I’ve been worried about overpopulation, pollution
and global warming for 35 years (I’ve never owned
a car and had only one child) thanks to Rachel Carson,
Barry Commoner, Ralph Nader, Paul Ehrlich,
Dennis Hayes and many others in the public arena.
So let’s keep the movement infighting to a minimum,
and keep up the intelligent pressure.
–I want to see some success before I die!
Best Wishes,
A.
I am 45, but certainly remember many of the folks listed above (though perhaps disagreeing with them on some issues…but maybe because I am an engineer). There is a PBS documentary “Earth Days” if anyone wants to hear more about these folks. It is still available to watch online.
Teryn, I think your perspective certainly has a place in the discussion, and I’m all for support in more R&D in clean energy. However, the area where I disagree with you is that I think you build up a bit of a straw man in your post when you essentially say that the President has completely avoided referencing climate change, and climate activists should get behind this strategy, as opposed to a strategy where climate change dominates the agenda. You make it sound like a “one or the other” in the post, but then in your follow-up comments you admit that the climate movement is diverse, and different factions have different motivations for supporting the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and an increase the clean energy usage.
Most activists and environmentalists I talk to and follow who talk about climate and clean energy legislation use a multi-faceted messaging strategy. This means talking about climate change, cleaner air, cleaner water, green jobs, more stable energy prices, environmental justice, reducing dependence on foreign oil, preservation of our most treasured ecosystems(such as rain-forests and coral reefs), out-competing China etc.
So essentially, I think you base some of your arguments against the climate movement on a ” Obama must talk about only climate or bust” approach that isn’t there. The movement is more diverse than that.
What I would like to see from President Obama a multi-faceted approach where he acknowledges in strong, bold language the importance of eliminating fossil fuel usage for a variety of reasons. I want climate change to be part of the conversation. It doesn’t have to be his only rationale, but I want it to be there, and I think it will never have it’s “day in politics” until it’s far too late if it’s never mentioned. Even when cap and trade was seriously being considered, I don’t think the President talked about this enough.
Matt, I appreciate the comment and think you make a fair point. We should have clarified that we weren’t suggesting no groups focus on building more consensus around the need for climate change mitigation. We absolutely need that, and I didn’t anticipate people would draw this conclusion.
What we were suggesting – and where I believe President Obama, Secretary Chu, and much of the administration are correct – is that we cannot win meaningful federal policy reform anytime for the foreseeable future with a climate-centric strategy, and we need an alternative approach with a greater chance of success.
You say that most or all climate activists don’t push climate-centrism, but I don’t think that’s accurate. Look carefully at the writing of Bill McKibben, David Roberts, Joe Romm, and several other climate thought leaders. Are they okay with talking about other benefits from clean energy, sure. But they’ve said numerous times that, most importantly, we need to make this about climate change.
Cap and trade is sine qua non for comprehensive climate policy, and it turned out to be a political disaster that wasted (literally) hundreds of millions of dollars in advocacy resources and years of effort. Did US-CAP members discuss other benefits of clean energy, clearly. But cap and trade for climate change was the main event, and it collapsed. There’s little to no evidence that it would have succeeded if Obama talked more about climate, as you appear to suggest.
How we frame the challenge, and what we put at the front and center of our political and policy agenda, matters enormously. What we’ve argued for years is that an investment-centric approach, primarily justified for economic competitiveness and national security, puts us on much more solid ground to win. It can also be more effective at driving down the price of low-carbon energy technologies as rapidly as possible (which may be the single most important factor in determining whether the world gets anywhere close to meeting IPCC emission reduction targets).
This doesn’t mean that Obama and others should never mention the word “climate” (characterizing what we wrote in this way is a straw man), and it doesn’t mean that parts of the movement shouldn’t be working to advance the climate consensus. I would be surprised if these efforts don’t eventually pay off, but we can’t keep making our federal policy success dependent on climate consensus.
Will this new approach require an aggressive campaign and debate, absolutely. We can’t know if it will succeed, but we’ve never tried. Until now – hopefully – unless Obama backs out and/or climate-centrist advocates shoot it down. That would be a huge mistake, in my view, and I hope other climate thought leaders will step up to defend and advance this approach.