Latest Updates

Republicans, Democrats Agree: Romney and Tea Party Were Wrong

This week on our Facebook page, you saw this bit of good news: that new polling finds huge bipartisan support for standards that increase fuel economy and reduce carbon pollution in America’s cars and trucks.

Blog fb graphic

These standards, which were written jointly by EPA and the Department of Transportation, will increase the fuel economy of new cars to an average 35 miles per gallon by 2017 and to an average of 55 miles per gallon by 2025. While they are hugely popular today, their enactment was not always a foregone conclusion. It’s a reminder that elections matter when it comes to clean energy.

Some Members of Congress Tried to Stop It

Members of Congress tried to repeal EPA’s scientific finding that greenhouse gases like carbon pollution are dangerous. Forty seven senators voted to repeal the endangerment finding in 2010 and a majority of House members tried to repeal it on more than one occasion. If these folks had succeeded, EPA could not have gotten involved in reducing carbon pollution from vehicles. In fact, when the Tea Party took over the House of Representatives in 2011, their very first bill (H.R. 1), specifically tried to stop EPA from working on these standards.

Mitt Romney Wanted to Stop It

During his long campaign to win the Republican nomination for President, Mitt Romney flip flopped and said that he would “get the EPA out of its effort to manage carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles and trucks.” Keeping EPA involved in the process means that we’ll reduce more pollution and save more oil.

These new standards will save consumers up to $5,000 over the lifetime of one of these new vehicles. They will save approximately 4 billion barrels of oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2 billion metric tons. The net benefits to society could climb as high as $451 billion. It’s no wonder that these standards are popular. And it’s a good thing Big Oil and its political allies didn’t get their way.

Mother’s Day

As I looked at the computer screen which displayed the faces of my mother and grandmother, I wished them both a Happy Mother’s Day. As we talked I thought of all the sacrifices they had made to ensure I was raised in an environment that fostered my growth and success. What some deem, another Hallmark Holiday, I love Mother’s Day because it’s one more opportunity for me to say thank you to them for all they have done to make my world a better place.

It’s hard to believe that juxtaposed to this Mother’s Day was another new date which will go down in the history books. Just preceding our mom’s special day, the planet went over 400ppm concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to the New York Times:

The best available evidence suggests the amount of the gas in the air has not been this high for at least three million years, before humans evolved, and scientists believe the rise portends large changes in the climate and the level of the sea.”

So, as mothers all over the world were celebrating, the planet was surpassing another climate change milestone, which is ultimately making the environment less safe for moms and their children everywhere.

Yet, after a weekend of articles on what is yet to come due to this new level, some still don’t understand the sense of urgency many of us feel. Ultimately, polls show that more and more Americans believe climate change is real and that we should do something to combat it, however they don’t want government to foot the bill. And when I bring it up among my friends, (what I like to call my personal focus groups) climate change still pales in comparison to their concerns about the economy, job creation and debt reduction.

Wrong Frame?

Recently, I attended a presentation by Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Following her foreign and domestic policy laden speech, she opened up for questions from the audience. As I stood to ask her thoughts on climate change, the President’s second term and the role current Secretary of State John Kerry should play in these discussions, I wondered what her response would entail.

Albright photo 2013

 Click Picture to View Full Response

“I think that all one has to do is look at various things and extremes going on. I think there is positive proof that there is something going on. The other, I think is the affect that climate change has on a number of aspects that have to do with stability. I have just been involved in many discussions now about problems to do with water. If people think we have been arguing over fossil fuels, wait until we really start arguing over water. About food security and problems there. A lot of it has to do with climate change. If people only think it’s about polar bears or something, that’s not what it’s about. What it is about is human security in all its various aspects.” -Madeleine Albright, May 3, 2013

“Human security.” While some still debate whether we should refer to this issue as global warming or climate change, former Secretary Albright skipped right to the heart of the matter. This is a human security issue and we should begin acting like it is.

We need to start asking the tough questions about what we can do as individuals, while demanding our elected officials take a stand and lead. It has been 89 days since President Obama said we’d “respond to the threat of climate change” during his State of the Union address. We’ve heard the talk, now it’s time to walk the walk. If you agree, send President Obama an email and tell him you are ready to hear his plan.

Like our mothers, who strive to protect us, now is the time for us to find ways to protect them and our other mom, Mother Earth.

Luntz is Right: Limbaugh Hurting GOP, America

Republican pollster and strategist Frank Luntz was caught on a hidden camera recently, talking smack about one of the most influential and least constructive people in America: Rush Limbaugh. Luntz asked that recording devices be turned off before he began to talk honestly about the destructive political polarization being caused by conservative media and divisive talk radio hosts. Luntz was right, if understated, in saying that Limbaugh’s m.o. is “problematic” for America and not helpful to the cause of helping Republicans get elected.

I want to use this space to agree with Luntz and propose at least one solution.

First, the problem. Luntz is certainly correct that bombastic talk show hosts are more interested in boosting advertising revenue than they are in solving our country’s problems. Limbaugh’s denial of climate change is but one of many examples where outrageous ignorance is standing in the way of progress. Luntz is right when he says that politicians understand the harm being inflicted by these media personalities, yet they remain unwilling to cross them, fearing the consequences of their ire.

Second, the solution. Politicians must begin responding to the wide swaths of their constituents – including Republicans – who want action of a range of issues, rather than kowtowing to Limbaugh and company. Across the suite of controversial and divisive issues, a clear majority emerges for action. On immigration, two thirds of Republicans support the recent bipartisan proposal for reform. Likewise, a clear majority supports action on environmental issues like clean energy and climate change. Seventy percent of Republicans believe, despite what Limbaugh says, that the world is warming and about 90% of Americans want to generate more wind and solar energy. This includes huge majorities of Republicans. For example 84% of Republicans said they think it is important to generate more solar energy. 

In the wake of 2012 election losses, the Republican Party has begun soul-searching. Moving beyond a narrow base and rebuilding a durable majority will require being on the same side with a majority of Americans. Those people want clean energy jobs. They believe in climate change. They want action. And unlike Luntz, I’m willing to put that on the record.

Leadership

Living in the Bay Area (the ATM for politicians in the US) and doing advocacy work means that I see a lot of Senators.  The Senate was on recess last week so most of the progressive elected officials came out to take in a Giants game and fundraise for their next race.

While this is the norm, one particular meeting this week really took me off guard. This particularly moderate Senator is a reliable vote for the environment, believes climate change is real and even has real world clean energy experience. So I looked forward to hearing a few enlightened pieces of advice for addressing carbon pollution.  Unfortunately, he just mostly blamed the broken Congress.

Congress Isn’t Off the Hook

Blaming a broken institution doesn’t leave the members of Congress off the hook. While Congress may be too polarized to pass national climate legislation, Senators and Representatives should be out there building support for tackling one of the biggest economic and public health challenges of our time. Sitting on the sidelines is not an option when our country suffered 11 extreme weather events costing $1 billion in losses each last year.

And yet some clean energy and climate champions in Congress say the time isn’t right to engage on climate change. They say if the president moves forward that’s fine, but they won’t stick their necks out on the issue.

But here we are, six months after Superstorm Sandy pummeled the East Coast, with more than 700 New York families still living in hotels because their homes were destroyed in the hurricane. Residents of Colorado Springs have to rebuild after a record-breaking fire ravaged the community last summer. And Texas farmers are praying they won’t suffer another $76 million in crop losses like they did in the drought of 2012.

Across the country, Americans are coping with extreme weather that’s been super-charged by climate change. We need leaders to step in and start protecting our families from these threats. The question is: where will that leadership come from? It can come from the White House because President Obama has the commitment and the authority to curb global warming pollution right now.

What If?

Rather than throwing up their hands—or worse, talking themselves into defeat—the members of Congress actually helped build support for presidential action? What if they talked to the public about climate solutions? What if they helped create the political space for America to confront climate change?

Some lawmakers are already doing this. Senator Jon Tester, for instance, is a third-generation, dry-land farmer from Montana. He recently published an op ed in USA Today in which he wrote: “Scientists tell us that climate change will bring shorter, warmer and drier winters to Montana. I see it every time I get on my tractor.”

He described how changing weather patterns make it hard to know when to plant crops, and how pests like the sawfly now attack his crops before he can harvest them. He urged his neighbors to raise their voices, “because the experience of America’s farmers, ranchers, and sportsmen and women will change the debate if policymakers start listening.”

Tester didn’t pay a political price for speaking the truth about climate in a purple state. Nor did he become overly associated with climate change or limit his ability to lead on other issues. Instead, he garnered praise in state and around the country. And he started a conversation with rural Americans about the hazards of unchecked climate change.

Other lawmakers could take similar steps. They could encourage colleges in their states to invest in clean energy curriculum and job training. They could challenge every mom living near a power plant to call for carbon reductions that would help clean up the air and reduce kids’ asthma attacks.

Happy friends

They could host town hall meetings during their August recess that focus on clean energy business opportunities in local communities.

And every chance they get, they can declare their support for President Obama using his authority to limit carbon pollution from existing power plants—the largest U.S. source of global warming pollution. According to NRDC experts, the administration can cut carbon by 25 percent by 2020 and save the typical family up to $700 a year in electricity costs. These are great savings for lawmakers to trumpet.

They can also urge the president to reject the Keystone XL pipeline for tar sands oil. Producing tar sands generates three times as much greenhouse gas emissions as conventional crude. Building the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would create the same carbon pollution as adding 5 million new cars to the road. President Obama cannot fight climate change and approve the Keystone XL pipeline at the same time. That’s like trying to prevent lung cancer while expanding the market for cigarettes.  

The final Keystone XL decision and the power plant standards rest with the White House. But Members of Congress can pave the way for presidential action. Rather than quietly whispering, “I’m with you on climate change, Mr. President, but I don’t think we have a majority in the Senate,” they can use their bully pulpits and educate their constituents.

Standing up for climate solutions doesn’t require 60 votes. It just takes leadership.

 

View all Updates RSS | Subscribe via Email