“Politics is the art of controlling your environment.” — Hunter S. Thompson
I’ve been writing for years about how renewable energy is “an issue we can all rally around” that shouldn’t involve partisan politics.
In an ideal world that would hold true. But after seeing the relentless campaign waged by a small-but-powerful group of belligerents determined to marginalize the industry, my opinion changed in 2011.
That shouldn’t stop us from trying to bring this issue above politics. But we’re in a fiercely partisan election year. And after witnessing the successful political campaign waged to raise doubts about climate science — thus creating an army of conservative presidential hopefuls who see talking about human-caused global warming as a political death sentence — we should all be on high alert.
Let’s face it: The clean energy industry isn’t going to match the tens of millions of dollars being poured into anti-clean energy propaganda by the Koch brothers or the latest fossil-fuel PR campaign from the American Petroleum Institute. By the time clean energy interests can actually match that level of spending, there probably won’t be the same need to guard against the constant barrage of baseball bats swinging for the knees of anyone who cares about moving this sector forward to address climate change.
To make push back more difficult, Washington-based advocacy organizations don’t have any interest in getting into fisticuffs. They risk losing support if they lash out too much, so they hang back and try to make friends with as many people possible. This is understandable for trying to craft policy. However, it also means they don’t have a very big dog in the political fight — a fight they’ve been reluctantly dragged into over the last six months.
A lot of people working in clean energy on the ground level feel the same way. Who wants to get dragged into a bar-room brawl started by a bunch of jabbering political drunkards who have no idea what they’re talking about? It’s best just to put their heads down, do their job, and hope they can ride through the bad vibes.
But that’s just not going to work in 2012. Waiting for things to blow over isn’t going to be an adequate response. If you care about clean energy issues and actually want to make an impact on the dialogue in 2012, you’ve got to get involved.
Here’s what I mean.
I’m not talking about being a supporter of Obama just because he tends to be more publicly supportive of renewable energy. Given how quickly the Administration stopped talking about climate change after 2009, it will be a huge surprise if Obama makes climate and clean energy a major part of his campaign anyway — which is just another sad example of allowing someone else to hijack the issue.
What matters is stepping up to these candidates toe-to-toe when they come into your state to campaign and show the voters They Know Best. The industry may not be able to cut through millions of dollars in television ads by the fossil fuel lobby. But thousands of people scattered around the country challenging presidential and congressional candidates on their positions will have an impact.
When a candidate says Green Jobs don’t exist and are nothing but propaganda, you need to show up at a town hall dressed with more green than Kermit the Frog and ask him or her, “I work in the industry. Do you not think my job exists?” Hold them accountable. Shake up their carefully controlled environment.
Republican voters in New Hampshire started doing it for climate change. Over the last few months, an active group of GOP members concerned about climate have been consistently challenging the presidential hopefuls at campaign stops, forcing candidates to talk about the issue. Some of the quotes from candidates have ended up in the mainstream press, making climate a greater topic of conversation in national debates and news stories about the election.
Supporters of clean energy have gotten lazy. Under Obama, they believed this would be the turning point for energy — that somehow we’d reach a Point of No Return in national support of the industry.
Last year proved that wasn’t the case. And it’s likely not going to change if people who care about these issues — particularly those actually representing the industry — turn the other cheek and try to keep their issues completely apolitical.
Related Post:
In dozens of focus groups we have conducted this month across the country on a wide variety of subjects, when voters are asked where they would like new jobs in their state to come from, the first words out of their mouths are almost always the same – clean energy and related technology. Voters believe that the clean energy economy is here and is growing, and they want their state to have a part of it.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
9 Jan 2012
Unlike all the other Republican primary candidates, Jon Huntsman does not deny climate change. But he proposes no solutions either.
Moderates and conservative NH Republicans concerned about global warming are so desperate for a “fully rational” primary candidate, they are overlooking Huntsman’s anti-climate, pro-fossil fuel proposals: expedited oil drilling in the Gulf & Alaska, quick approval of the Canadian oil sands pipeline, full deployment of gas fracking, coal-to-liquid fuel.
Huntsman’s supply-side energy plan relies almost exclusively on toxic carbon, liquid fossil fuels. Worse still, Huntsman has said not a word about energy conservation, energy efficiency or renewable energy. Simply stated, his energy proposals will merely continue “our heroin-like addiction” to oil, natural gas and coal.
For those looking for solutions to climate disruption, Huntsman is the “least bad” GOP primary candidate. But he should be supported because there are so few Republicans willing to acknowldege global warming at all or who are receptive to the overwhelming evidence of climate science.
Republicans sorely need a climate champion. Someday, a Republican president may provide aggressive leadership on global warming, rather than simply pay lip service to its existence.
Given such dismal GOP choices, as a conservative New Hampshire Republican, I will vote for Huntsman in the primary — not with enthusiasm, but with resignation.
So, I hope that Huntsman does well in the primary. But no promises for November.
—Farrell S. Seiler, Chair
New Hampshire Republicans for Climate
Littleton, NH
chair@NHClimateRepublicans.org
Thanks for the concise report, and thanks for being a Republican climate hawk. May your voice be heard!
In New Hampshire: Republicans Fed up with Science Denial
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/01/05/in-new-hampshire-republicans-fed-up-with-science-denial/
I like that strategy, particularly if you can get your own comment into a ten second TV grab with the candidate. Watching an extreme one like Perry respond to reality would be invaluable.
But what a shame you lost Michelle B so early. She produced the same awful fascination as watching a funnel web spider crawl over a baby, ME
I think the Obama camp should setup a dedicated website (with blogging in a sense Joe does on a daily basis). In this way you can really check what is done about clean energy by the current administration. This also involves a kidn of roadmap to see what is the target approach under current actions, what would be the approach in the case of the most progressive republican contender and what would be done in the best possible outcome.
Some tid bits of this kind can be found on the official white house blog from time to time. This would greatly improve messaging, even if there is not a major agenda in the mainstream.
But everybody acknowledged that there are substanial steps taken on diffrent approaches, especially with creating the environment for electric car distribution on large scale. Battery subsidies are a great way to push the market.
Same goes for what the DoD department does when it comes to energy security, energy alterantives. A similar blog by the DoD (which i can recommend) is the Armed with Science blog, where you can read about clean tech and climate change.
But we need more of this kind, in the mainstream media, in other countries.
We need to make the public more aware of serious implications we are going to face from climate disrupting events.
We are not doing enough to transisiton to what would put us below the threshold of 2C., to avert worst case scenarios.
We need to tap into Biochar’s carbon sequestration potential. We need to rethink how we deal with energy, how we use fossil resources.
If we do not learn this soon, we are doomed.
What we need is to create two new candidates for president – one independent and conservative to split the conservative vote and one to challenge and replace Obama for the win.
Fantasize about a 2012 Perfect President as much as you like. Nothing unhealthy about that.
Then vote for Obama.
Anything else supports the Koch brothers and the rest.
Obama has shown very little interest in taking action on the climate. The next president after him will be a Republican. (Americans have only elected back-to-back Democrats once in the last 150 years.)
So that means we will have to wait at least 8 more years, until 2020, before we have a chance to elect a climate friendly president. We may even have to wait for 12 years, until 2024. We don’t have that long.
One the other hand, if Obama, and Democrats in general realize that they are not going to get support from a significant block of voters without working much harder on the climate problem, then we will start to see them change direction.
If that makes Obama lose, then you will see much stronger climate friendly candidates in 2016. If Obama narrowly ecks out a win, we may even see climate action before then.
The reason the Tea Party has so much political power is not because they will back Republicans who don’t support their point of view. Just the opposite, they will destroy any Republican who is not aligned with them. As a result, we have seen all of the Republican candidates carefully fall in line with the T Party platform.
When Democratic voters back Democratic politicians simply because they are Democrats, regardless of whether those politicians support the ideals of the voters, then those voters will never make any progress on their goals.
Enen in the UK right wing numpties constantly try to dish out disinformation and propaganda against clean and dispersed generation systems, favouring their corporate backers fossil fuel and nuclear empires
They get well dished in the comments though.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jan/09/wind-turbines-increasing-carbon-emissions?intcmp=122
Spike, thanks for that link.
There is a great deal of helpful information and discussion in that post. China is a test case for massive deployment of wind power and I believe it has capable engineers to plan deployment carefully. But, wind as a primary source of electricity will remain a ‘work in progress’ for many years because we have not observed the full life-cycle of a wind farm operating 30 years and longer to determine how durable and structurally sound they might be; whether on land or off shore.
Well, Steven, I am glad to see this post. After reading Grover Norquist’s screed against state renewable energy standards this morning, I thought many of the same things, including that the renewable energy movement is too shy to take on the powerful forces now attacking renewable energy.
We need to respond forcefully, including the professional movement. We need to take on the plutocrats and the anti-government ideology that is part of the anti-renewable energy push.
Too many of our leaders are stuck in the past and trying to run the same playbook year after year after year. We need new tactics and more forceful responses.
I say this as a person who worked for a Republican Governor once on alternative fuels and has always thought these issues transcended partisan politics. With the takeover of the Republican Party by corrupt and polluting special interests, all that has changed.
Andy, I am totally on board with
We need to respond forcefully, including the professional movement. We need to take on the plutocrats and the anti-government ideology that is part of the anti-renewable energy push.
Do you mean organizing better? Targeting various opponents? Are you thinking of specific actions to create the kind of response necessary?
I meant to post a link to the Norquist screed:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70610.html
What red faces they all would have, if somebody did introduce an alternative clean free energy supply, something like @GravityTurbines on twitter..
I appreciate Climate Progress’ recent focus on messaging. I think it’s one of the most important tools at the climate movement’s disposal. The fossil fuel industry has billions at its disposal to invest in countless repetitions of their anti-climate utterances, so climate activists need to focus on being clever and catchy.
Since the mainstream media has evidently been co-opted by the Koch brothers and their ilk, environmentalists should turn to the Internet to spread their message. The recent Greenpeace ad posted here was particularly effective.
Direct confrontation by clean energy job holders (and presumably shareholders & business owners) at GOP town halls is an excellent tactic but, I would think, benefit from some industry coordination for sustained nationwide encounters. This will not cost much and just might be effective in focusing debate. It’s also encouraging that a few GOP climate hawks are raising questions – and that NH scientists recently spoke out.
But your analysis says that this is what’s left for strategy because the high ground is already forfeit for 1) lack of serious money available, 2) lazy clean energy supporters, especially within the sector, and 3) Washington-based advocates too worried about about funding to risk making a political stand.
First, I just can’t believe there is no chance of raising considerable funds. There must be at least 50 individuals in the US willing to put up 1m each into the climate/clean energy fight, and many more smaller potential contributors (including clean energy investors).. IF there was a collaborative national campaign with a no-prisoners media strategy to send it to! It’s not necessary to actually match Koch money, but it would crazy not to try raising as much as possible.
Isn’t it finally time to reject the model that says we’re locked into complementary-but-permanently-fragmented efforts? Why is there apparently no back-channel progress (or is there?) on consolidating around a national campaign when the potential for forcing the issues into the 2012 debate, taking control of the narrative, and actually defeating anti-science at the ballot box is equally apparent?
What if there IS no coalition, no national campaign, no serious attempt to pool and deploy the enormous credibility & resources of scientists, universities, legislators, mayors, faith-based advocates, policy orgs and existing campaigners? What if that potential is left fragmented: no grabbing the media stage, everybody gets to say they did what they could, but come Nov. the public is still on the fence and Republicans still hold the House? What a waste of political opportunity that will later be deeply regretted, IMO. Town hall presence alone won’t fill the bill.
Second, can you be more specific who you mean by “Washington-based advocacy organizations [that] don’t have any interest in getting into fisticuffs.”?
HST also said: “Buy the ticket, take the ride.” Which I always interpreted as: once you’re in it, you don’t give up any ground.