Last week the UK Guardian published a bombshell piece on the origins of the fatefully dreadful decision to try to sell the climate bill without talking about the climate

The story describes a March 2009 meeting at the Old Executive Office Building, the White House informed the leading environmental groups that it had decided climate change was not a winning message. The blunt headline:

Revealed: the day Obama chose a strategy of silence on climate change

Betsy Taylor, president of Breakthrough Strategies and Solutions, was at the meeting:

“What was communicated in the presentation was: ‘This is what you talk about, and don’t talk about climate change’.” Taylor said. “I took away an absolutely clear understanding that we should focus on clean energy jobs and the potential of a clean energy economy rather than the threat of climate change.”

The message stuck. Subsequent campaigns from the Obama administration and some environmental groups relegated climate change to a second-tier concern.

Most (but not all) environmental groups either agreed with the conclusion or felt they were not in a position to do go against the White House strategy:

“When the White House invites you to a meeting and says: ‘here is how we are going to talk about these things’, it sends a very clear message,” said Erich Pica, president of the US Friends of the Earth Action, who was also at the meeting.

Now with Obama fighting for re-election, and the climate agenda stalled and under constant attack from Republicans and industry, environmental groups acknowledge the go-softly strategy was a mistake.

I have confirmed with Taylor and Pica the accuracy of this story, one more sad chapter in the textbook the Obama administration is writing on how not to do communications.

In 2010 I discussed Eric Pooley’s reporting that former White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod and former Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel were the driving force behind the decision to downplay climate change — see “The unbearable lameness of being (Rahm and Axelrod).” I learned independently that the White House communications team (whom Axelrod helped set direction for) shot down a late-2009 effort by the Office of Science and Technology Policy to push back against the phoney attack on climate science the followed the theft of the University of East Anglia e-mails.

It bears repeating that this White House “strategy” was a bad idea from the beginning and based on faulty polling analysis (see, for instance,”Polling Expert: Is Obama’s Reluctance to Mention Climate Change Motivated by a False Assumption About Public Opinion?” and links below).

Support for climate action and aggressive clean energy policies actually rose slightly in 2010 climate action even during the depths of the recession, even in the face of an unprecedented fossil-fuel-funded disinformation campaign during the climate bill debate — even without the White House using its bully pulpit to tip the scales further (see “Memo to policymakers: Public STILL favors the transition to clean energy“).

The fact is climate action and clean energy have both consistently been shown to be winning “wedge issues” that split the most conservative elements of the Republican party from moderates and independents, who are closer to Democrats on both issues (see Krosnick: Candidates “May Actually Enhance Turnout As Well As Attract Voters Over To Their Side By Discussing Climate Change“).

The Guardian story asserts, “The White House, after studying polling and focus groups, concluded it was best to frame climate change as an economic opportunity, a chance for job creation and economic growth, rather than an urgent environmental problem.”

But even back then Mark Mellman, a leading pollster for progressives since 1982, explained just how wrong-headed this conclusion was in a May 2009 op-ed headlined, “Voters: Act on global warming“:

Read more

by Cara Pike, via Climate Access

As the waters retreat and recovery slowly begins, the silence on the topic of climate change in the election has been broken by President Obama and the media has shifted to assessing the impacts of the storm and how communities are responding as well as the challenges many still face. Organizations that address climate change and sustainability issues are engaging their audiences in a conversation about Hurricane Sandy and its connection to climate disruption, hoping that the disaster will at least serve as a “teachable moment” where the dots are connected between the devastation of the week’s extreme weather events, climate change, and the need to stop burning fossil fuels.

I believe Hurricane Sandy can be a teachable moment and that we should be talking about climate disruption but the way in which the connections are made across the issues and the sensitivity shown is critical.

The natural tendency is to focus on the science – whether a strong connection can be made between global warming and more frequent and intensified hurricanes and how best to convey that connection. While the science and knowing how to talk about it in a way that maintains credibility is critical, in the wake of such a disaster, it is much more important to focus on humanity and how a storm like Sandy makes us feel about our current state of security and what the trend lines mean for our children and grandchildren if we don’t start to respond.

This may sound cliché, but if you take a quick look at the climate change responses to the storm, people are sorely lacking from the picture and the messages do not convey a sense of empathy for what people are still going through. The “It’s Global Warming, Stupid” Bloomberg News visual and the related social media response can in the short term feel satisfying for those who have wanted to see action for some time. It is the scratch that reaches the itch of long-term frustration. But I think an approach focused on the facts and arguably void of compassion for people alienates those who are still coming to terms with the reality of climate disruption and what it means for all of our lives.

One of the biggest challenges we have in engaging the public in these issues is overcoming the image that those who care about environmental protection do not have the interest or concern of the average person in mind. Accusations that environmentalists care more about saving the polar bear than ensuring people have jobs and a reasonable way to get to work may be unfounded yet the framing choices groups make often reinforce these unfortunate stereotypes.

Read more

by Brett Walton, via Circle of Blue

Next week, voters in San Francisco will decide whether the city should draw up plans to end a century-old dispute over the environmental cost of Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, which supplies 61 percent of the city’s drinking water. The cost of removing O’Shaughnessy Dam and replacing both its storage capacity and the energy it generates would cost between $US 3 billion and $US 10 billion, according to estimates by the state of California.

But supporters say the benefits outweigh the costs to bring back a beloved natural wonder, a lost valley in Yosemite National Park that Sierra Club founder John Muir called, “one of nature’s rarest and most precious mountain temples.”

The fate of Hetch Hetchy is by far the biggest water-related item on any U.S. ballot, but it is not the only one.

More than half the states and many municipalities allow citizens to vote directly on matters of public policy. Ballot measures, initiatives, and referenda in this election cycle that touch on different water matters — disposal of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing, financing new infrastructure, desalination, and public control of water systems, to name a few — will be put before voters in Maine and Oklahoma, as well as those in big cities and small towns in California, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio.

The billions of dollars of potential investment that are on the table next week are representative of the slow devolution of infrastructure spending from the federal level to states, counties, and municipal governments.

Ever since a surge of spending in the 1970s following the Clean Water Act — which turned 40 last week — federal assistance has been chopped down and replaced with ratepayer dollars. Recently, Congress balked at establishing a national infrastructure bank and has cut the amount of money flowing into the federal funds for drinking water and wastewater projects.

Yet, most Americans support water investments:

• A 2010 survey from ITT, a manufacturing company based in White Plains, New York, found that 85 percent of voters agreed that federal, state, or local governments should invest in water system improvements, and 63 percent were willing to pay 11 percent more on their water bills to do so.
• Just last week, polling commissioned by global technology giant General Electric (GE) revealed that 84 percent of people surveyed thought that water resources should be a national priority.

As this election shows, even though Congress may have lost its appetite for investment and the presidential candidates are politely looking away, a hunger for reliable water still exists among the electorate.

Read more

A Screen shot from an anti-Proposal 3 ad

Earlier this year, conservative political organizations announced that they would lead an effort to repeal state-level renewable energy targets. In Michigan, voters are seeing just how far opposition groups are willing to go to shut down renewables this election season.

In August, clean energy advocates in Michigan successfully put Proposal 3 on the ballot, an initiative that would increase the state’s renewable electricity target to 25 percent by 2025. Three months later, a front group representing Michigan’s two largest utilities has raised nearly $24 million to defeat the proposal, outspending supporters 2-1 on television, radio and direct mailer advertisements.

The heavy-spending group, called “Coalition for Affordable Renewable Energy,” — or CARE — is primarily supported by Consumers Energy and DTE Energy, two large utilities with high penetrations of coal. Each company has spent $11 million to campaign against new renewable energy targets. The group also received $100,000 from Enbridge, the energy company responsible for spilling over one million gallons of diluted tar sands crude in the Kalamazoo River in southwest Michigan.

The group has released multiple ads attempting to scare voters about higher energy bills, and claim that the targets will force a reliance on “outdated” technologies imported from California. Experts have called the ads “misleading.”

Michigan utilities are highly coal-dependent. That’s one of the reasons why Consumers Energy and DTE Energy are so opposed to the new targets and are spreading fear about the cost of renewable energy. In fact, a Michigan Public Service Commission report from earlier this year showed that wind, solar, and hydro resources are “cheaper than new coal-fired generation” in the state.

And according to a recent economic analysis promoted by supporters of Proposal 3, the cost of delivering coal to power plants in the state has jumped by 71 percent since 2006. Consumers Energy has projected fuel cost increases to total around $530 million over the next four years — resulting in a 3 percent rate increase each year. In contrast, clean energy advocates say that increasing Michigan’s renewable electricity targets will cost the average residential ratepayer 50 cents per month.

In the case of Proposal 3, it’s mostly energy companies fighting new targets. But one conservative group, the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, has chipped in $1.5 million to defeat the ballot initiative as well. The organization, which has spent more than $31 million on ads nation-wide this campaign season, is sending out direct mailers to voters telling them how to vote on several of Michigan’s ballot initiatives.

Even with support from small businesses and prominent politicians like Bill Clinton, groups supporting the measure have raised just over $12 million — less than half of the cash raised by opponents.

This blitz of spending has changed public opinion about Proposal 3 in a very short period of time. In September, a majority of Michigan voters said they would support increasing the state’s renewable energy targets to 25 percent. But today, as voters are inundated with ads opposing the initiative, only 35 percent say they support Proposal 3.

When Proposal 3 was accepted on the ballot in August, onlookers called it one of the most important fights for renewable energy in the country. But no one foresaw just how much money utilities would dump into the ongoing scare campaign.

by Sean Pool

Economic growth is front and center in this presidential election, but the two candidates haven’t spent much time talking about two of the most important drivers of the economy: science and technology. Science is not only at the root of our increasing prosperity but it is also the best tool we have to understand our own health, our planet, and our future.

Both President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney have paid lip service to supporting science and technology. But as this fact sheet makes clear, President Obama, who has been endorsed by 68 Nobel prize-winning scientists, space leaders, and high technology executives, offers an impressive science policy record and vision for the future, while Gov. Romney’s shifting positions are all talk.

Investing in science

Public investments in science and technology pay themselves back in the form of greater economic growth, new businesses, new industry, new jobs, and ultimately new tax revenue. About half of every dollar of economic output we enjoy today can be traced back to past investments in science and technology, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow. And in the 21st century global innovation economy, discovery, invention, and innovation will only become more crucial to our long-term growth and competitiveness.

Talk: Gov. Romney said “research is great,” but his budget plan would invest only 75 cents in nondefense research and development for every dollar the president has proposed.

Action: President Obama proposed a budget to double research budgets of three key science agencies (the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology) and increase nondefense research and development overall by 5 percent. And despite the intransigence of the Republican House majority, he has secured some increases in these key budgets. The president also understands that we need investments in “research and technology that are key to a 21st century economy.”

Biomedical and stem cell research

Science investments aren’t just keys to growth and competitiveness—they also help us discover and develop new cures to disease.

Read more

by Katie Valentine

Last year, Mitt Romney tried to claim that the loan guarantee program supporting Solyndra caused investors to “pull back” from investing in solar. In fact, the last two years have brought record investments and project development in the industry, with U.S. installations growing 116 percent in the second quarter of this year — much of it driven by the loan guarantee program.

As a result of strong federal support, job growth in the industry continues to outpace the broader economy.

According to preliminary figures released last Friday by the nonprofit Solar Foundation, 13,872 new solar jobs were added from September 2011 to September 2012, bringing the total U.S. solar job count up to 119,016. This 13.2 percent increase surpasses the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s estimated employment increase of 2.3 percent during the same period. It also surpasses growth in some sectors of the fossil fuel industry – jobs in the fossil fuel electric generation industry fell by 3,857 or 3.77 percent, according to the study.

The full report, set to be released Nov. 14, bases its results on data gathered from more than 1,000 solar companies. The report will contain more detailed information about the reasons behind the employment increase, but a release from the Solar Foundation mentioned the falling cost of equipment and federal solar policy as some of the key drivers of job growth.

In 2012, solar energy accounted for about 2.5 percent of U.S. renewable energy consumption, according to the Energy Information Agency. That’s a still a small amount, but jobs in the solar industry are higher than some other industries with a higher penetration. Wind energy, for example, accounts for about 16.5 percent of U.S. renewable energy consumption, but provided 75,000 American jobs in 2011, compared to the Solar Foundation’s count of 105,145 solar jobs for the August 2010 to August 2011 period. The EIA predicts solar energy consumption will continue to increase over the next year – total U.S. on-grid photovoltaic capacity nearly doubled from 2010 to 2011 – and will grow 7-fold by 2035.

The Solar Foundation’s findings are in line with another report on clean energy jobs, which found that industries with higher numbers of “green” workers show higher rates of job growth than industries with fewer green jobs. The study analyzed BLS data and found that the higher the “green intensity” (the share of employment of green jobs, according to the BLS definition) of an industry, the higher the job growth.

Katie Valentine graduated from the University of Georgia with a degree in Journalism. Stephen Lacey contributed to this post.

Since Superstorm Sandy hit the East Coast, causing upwards of $50 billion in economic losses and taking dozens of lives, climate change advocates have used every chance they can get to remind Mitt Romney about his joke mocking Obama’s pledge to “slow the rise of the oceans.” It’s put Romney in an uncomfortable spot at campaign rallies in the last few days, as voters have interrupted rallies or asked him direct questions about his now infamous climate punch line.

But Former Alabama Congressman Artur Davis apparently didn’t get the memo to stop telling the joke in the wake of the storm. Speaking at a large Republican rally this weekend, Davis attempted to repeat Romney’s mocking comments. He changed them to reflect a post-Sandy context, directly mentioning New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who’s city was ravaged by the Superstorm and who has used the storm to talk about climate change:

“Now four years ago, ladies and gentleman, the president sounded so good. Remember the rise of the oceans would began to slow. The planet would began to heal. Now I don’t know about the oceans; I’ll ask Mayor Bloomberg and Al Gore about that.” [laughter]

Watch it:

Hurricane Sandy has opened a door for discussion of climate change in the final days of the campaign. Last week, as Mayor Bloomberg surveyed the damage to his city, he endorsed President Obama — citing climate change as the top reason.

“One [candidate] sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics,” said Bloomberg in a statement.

For many Americans, Sandy has highlighted the relationship between a warming planet and intensifying extreme weather. For others, it’s provided more fodder for jokes mocking the problem.

by Dan Mullen, via Ceres

In the lead-up to Tuesday’s election, all eyes are on the candidates at the top of the ticket. But if you care about energy policy, your focus should be local. Electricity policy in particular remains a highly localized issue, and in key states like Arizona, Louisiana and Georgia, voters have a real say in who calls the shots.

Each state has its own Public Utilities Commission (or Public Service Commission, Corporation Commission, etc.) that decides how utility dollars are spent. Over the next 20 years, PUC commissioners will approve about $2 trillion in power plants, transmission lines and efficiency programs. These commissions are hugely important to the future of energy because the electricity system they choose today will power our homes and businesses for decades.

Ceres recently published a report on how state PUCs can manage costs and risks, so we have a keen interest in the makeup of these Commissions. Why should voters? Well, in 13 states, they get to choose who gets into office. This week, the High Country News highlighted commission races in a number of states where the stakes are particularly high. Here are a few more to watch if you want to cast your vote for a clean energy future.

Arizona has the potential to be the “Persian Gulf” of solar energy, but that hasn’t stopped renewable energy from becoming a political flashpoint in the state’s commission race. Arizona utilities currently must source 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Democrats want to increase that percentage while Republicans, citing cost concerns, do not. A Democratic majority on the Arizona Corporation Commission could also overturn a controversial recent decision to count a high-polluting waste incineration plant toward a utility’s renewable energy requirement. Given recent reports about unpredictable fuel prices and the health impacts of fossil fuel-fired power plants, a limited renewable energy plan could trade short-term savings for increased future risks. It would also be out of step with public opinion; a 2011 poll found that more than 90 percent of Arizonans support increasing the state’s share of renewable energy – and are willing to pay more for it. Voters can help decide which path Arizona chooses.

Louisiana is a state that is no stranger to risk, and in the wake of recent blackouts following Hurricanes Isaac and Sandy, utilities like Entergy are beginning to adapt to climate risks. The PUC also plays an important role in building resiliency. Recently, the Louisiana Public Service Commission expanded its powers over electricity planning, which, wonky as it may sound, could be a big step forward for investing in smart, clean, resilient electric system resources. For example, Louisiana has barely scratched the surface on energy efficiency, which the Commission could push forward. Improved efficiency would be a boon to ratepayers who want to spend less on energy. And, as Ceres’s analysis shows, efficiency is the lowest cost, lowest risk energy resource for utilities and their customers.

Finally, Georgia is another state to watch closely. Two of five commission seats are up for grabs at a time when the state’s electricity bills are rising, partly because the PSC green-lighted the state’s first new nuclear plant in 30 years. That plant has already racked up nearly $1 billion in construction cost overruns, and it’s a familiar story. In the 1980s, the adjacent nuclear plant cost roughly 12 times initial estimates. Ceres’s analysis shows that new nuclear power plants are the riskiest energy resource, which is another way of saying that they’re most likely to cost much more than expected. Nuclear plants also need large amounts of water for cooling, which is a serious concern for a drought-stricken state like Georgia. On a more promising note, the state’s main utility, Georgia Power, recently announced plans to expand its purchases of renewable energy. With all of the important issues facing Georgia’s electricity system, the state’s PSC election should stir up discussion.

State utility regulators rarely make front-page news, but across the nation, voters are facing choice between “the energy sources of the future” and “what’s worked in the past.” If you’re in a state with a publicly-elected PUC, keep that in mind when you head to the polls on Tuesday.

Dan Mullen is Ceres’ Senior Manager for Electric Power Programs. This piece was originally published at Ceres and was reprinted with permission.

Brian Bowen, Manager, Communications, contributed reporting to this article.

The combination of Hurricane Sandy and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s announcement that he was endorsing President Obama largely because of Obama’s actions on global warming could do the same thing for climate change that the burning of the Cuyahoga River did for the passage of environmental laws, say scientists and political observers. [Los Angeles Times]

“This may be that sort of Cuyahoga River moment for climate change,” said Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist and Penn State University professor. “It has galvanized attention to this issue and the role that climate change may be playing with regard to the intensification of extreme weather.”

The world is destined for dangerous climate change this century – with global temperatures possibly rising by as much as 6C – because of the failure of governments to find alternatives to fossil fuels, a report by a group of economists has concluded. [The Independent]

Two new election ads have attacked Mitt Romney for making jokes about sea-level rise, as campaigners move to tap concern about climate change after Sandy. [Guardian]

The wind energy boom President Barack Obama touted as key to his energy strategy has hit a wall in an election-year dispute over taxpayer support for renewable energy. [Washington Post]

After swarms of drivers in New York descended to fill their tanks at fuel trucks stationed around the city — a line in the Bronx was three miles long, a National Guard spokesman said — emergency management officials decided to reserve the fuel for emergency vehicles and first responders because there was not enough to go around. [New York Times]

An official says the share of electricity in Germany produced by renewable energy sources is expected to easily beat the government’s forecast and reach almost 50 percent by 2025. [Associated Press]

The amount of power expected to be generated from gas by 2030 has quadrupled in the last year, according to official projections that will infuriate green campaigners who are demanding greater use of renewable energy sources. [Guardian]

Four members of a Japanese government team that sets atomic reactor safety standards received funding from utility companies or nuclear manufacturers, raising questions about their neutrality in the wake of last year’s tsunami-triggered disaster. [Washington Post]