Author Archives: Heather Taylor-Miesle

Heather is the day-to-day director of the NRDC Action Fund where she guides the organization’s strategies to pass priority legislation. Heather has over thirteen years of experience in federal politics both as a public interest lobbyist and on Capitol Hill. Prior to taking on the role of Director for the NRDC Action Fund, she had her own consulting business and previously was the deputy legislative director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Prior to her position at the NRDC, Heather worked on Capitol Hill, first as an aide to now Governor Ted Strickland (D-OH) and then as a senior staff member for current Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. During her time on Capitol Hill, Heather also helped co-found the Democratic Caucus Environmental Message Team, which continues to help Democratic Members communicate more effectively with their constituents about environment and energy issues. Heather is married with two beautiful children and currently resides in Silicon Valley, CA.

GOP Presidential Candidates Fail to Recognize what GE Knows: Climate Solutions Generate Growth

Posted by: Heather Taylor-Miesle - March 14, 2012

Unfortunately, the energy talk on the GOP campaign trail remains dominated by climate denial. Rick Santorum, the winner of the latest two GOP primaries, wrote an op-ed over the weekend in which he called climate change “a pseudo-science” and “a liberal orthodoxy.”

Mitt Romney said last week that he had once been a “radical” on energy issues because he supported measures to cut carbon pollution. Now, he assured voters, “we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet.”

Some in the radical wing of the Republican Party lap up comments like these, but luckily, executives in corporate American haven’t been listening. Instead, the smart ones have been making money and creating jobs based on real solutions to climate change.

General Electric (GE), for instance, was in the news this week after it released its 2011 Annual Report. GE has spent several years positioning itself as an innovator in low-carbon technologies. Now the sustainable arm of the company — called ecoimagination — has generated $100 billion in revenues and is growing at more than twice the rate of the rest of the company, according to Mark Vachon, the vice president of eco-imagination.

Let’s be clear: GE isn’t squeaky clean. It is completely or partially liable for at least 78 federal Superfund sites. NRDC had to sue it for years just to make it start cleaning up PCBs from the Hudson River.

GE didn’t invest in climate solutions because it is home to a bunch of treehuggers. They did it because it is good for business. Vachon said GE’s sustainable strategy means “we’re viewed as relevant in the world.” What does that make the climate denying politicians? Trouble is America and American workers could become irrelevant too if one of these candidates wins the White House and creates a national policy of climate denial and fossil fuel dependence.

Our country could miss the boat. Global investments in clean energy reached a record $243 billion last year. Solar photovoltaic systems alone have a global market worth of more than $80 billion. Clean energy investments are forecast to grow by hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming decades.

“Is the US electorate willing to allow the competitive edge on technology to go to China or to Europe, or would they prefer to be the leaders of technology? That is a question that they need to answer,” Christiana Figueres, the official who leads the UN secretariat in charge of global climate negotiations, said at a news conference last Friday.

Not one of the GOP candidates has been talking about the power of clean energy to create jobs and give American companies a competitive advantage. Yet the Solar Energy Industries Association just reported that U.S. solar panel installation surged 109 percent over the past year and the average cost of the panels has dropped 50 percent. Meanwhile, 35 percent of all new power built in the U.S. in the last four years has come from wind energy. This new wind power will provide as much power as nine nuclear power plants.

GE CEO Jeff Immelt said the company has made a “boatload of money” in the wind business. He thinks wind and solar power will play a major role in America’s energy future. He also recognizes that oil and gas will be around for awhile too, so he is also expanding GE’s investment in those fuels as well. His approach sounds an awful lot like what some call an “all of the above” approach to energy development. Except Immelt includes clean energy in his plan, while some lawmakers either ignore it or disparage it.

This kind of negative political pandering has serious consequences. “I worry that the mood of the times prevents us from moving forward,” Immelt said recently.

While GOP candidates are boasting about their climate denial, other nations are nurturing their clean energy sectors. In 30 years, will we be selling clean technologies to those countries or will we be buying it from them? I’d put my money on the CEO who can envision a clean energy future instead of the candidates who have their heads stuck in the sand.

The Power of Running on Clean Energy — Even for GOP Candidates

Posted by: Heather Taylor-Miesle - March 7, 2012

Super Tuesday turned out to be Groundhog Day: Three candidates saw their shadows and winter could last for six more months. The presidential nomination process may be grinding on, but Congressional races are starting to heat up.

Candidates are zeroing on their messages, and at a time when jobs are scarce and gas prices are high, smart candidates are discovering the power of running on clean energy.

Even some Republican candidates are promising to deliver clean energy to their constituents.

Nevada Senator Dean Heller of Nevada, for instance, is a Tea Party darling who has followed the GOP leadership’s attack on environmental safeguards. Yet he has also been a staunch supporter of clean energy development in his state.

Why the apparent contradiction? Location, location, location.

Nevada is home to both record unemployment and enormous clean energy reserves. The state suffered some of the worst fallout of the housing bust, and anyone running for office since the financial meltdown has needed a laser-like focus on jobs in order to win.

Green jobs are the low-hanging fruit. Nevada currently has over 16,500 jobs in the clean economy — 33 percent more than the oil and gas sector in the state. Between 2003 and 2010, Nevada added 5,411 clean jobs, meaning that the sector grew nearly 6 percent annually even through one of the toughest economic periods in decades.

This growth won’t be slowing down anytime soon. According to a recent Ernst and Young study, Nevada is the fifth most promising state for geothermal and solar power. And a recent SNL energy project database found that construction has begun on 10 solar, geothermal and wind projects, creating jobs, cutting pollution and reducing our dependence on foreign energy.

Yet in 2010, Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle made the mistake of disparaging clean energy and calling green jobs a “scam“. She lost her race to Harry Reid.

Harry Reid, meanwhile, put clean energy jobs at the heart of his campaign. “We highlighted it in everything we did whether it was through our mail program, TV program, Internet program,” said Reid’s campaign manager Brandon Hall. “It was always the message that we led with.”

Reid’s campaign research found that voters were basing vote on how much Reid had done for the state. Clean energy, Hall explained, “was one of the top issues he was able to leverage his leadership position to benefit Nevada. There was investment coming into Nevada in clean energy. And jobs were being created. For us, it was our top-testing issue.”

NRDC’s Action Fund’s analysis confirms that supporting clean energy gives candidates an advantage. It offers a positive, solutions-based narrative to talk about issues that matter most to Americans: jobs, the economy, gas prices, and the health of their families.

Heller seems to agree. One of his campaign emails trumpets the fact that Heller “has long fought to bring a variety of sources of renewable energy to Nevada.”

And it’s true; he has. He voted for a renewable energy standard and has been a supporter of renewable energy production tax credit. He voted to extend royalties and lease income from solar and wind projects and to expedite clean energy development on public lands. He even sent a letter to President Obama in support of the White House’s clean energy plan and its ability to create jobs.

At the same time, Heller voted with GOP leadership on a raft of bills that would strip away clean air safeguards and make life easier for dirty coal-fired power plants. He also voted in favor of taxpayer subsidies for oil companies.

Some of the measures Heller opposed would have helped level the playing field between dirty fossil fuels and clean energy resources. It would benefit Nevada if Heller cast more votes on the clean side.

He wouldn’t be the only Republican to do so. Last month, 21 Republican representatives voted against a GOP-sanctioned transportation bill that would have allowed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and up and down the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.

These Republican lawmakers seem to realize voters are looking for more than the same-old drill-happy approach to energy development. Instead, voters want innovation, new investment, and job opportunities.

I don’t agree with a lot of Heller’s votes on the environment, but I respect his commitment to clean energy. His track record shows that even Tea Party favorites can deliver clean energy jobs for their constituents.

Snowe’s Retirement A Blow to Bipartisanship, Environmental Protection

Posted by: Heather Taylor-Miesle - March 2, 2012

Along with the rest of Washington I was shocked to hear Maine Senator Olympia Snowe’s announcement that she would not seek a fourth term. While many progressive voices cheered the announcement and the likely pickup of the seat for Democrats, I found myself saddened. Snowe’s departure will leave a gaping hole in the Senate and in the environmental movement where moderate voices once stood.

Snowe has been one of the few Republicans remaining in Washington who was willing to go against the Tea Party and Republican party leaders and vote for the environment, opposing offshore drilling, protecting clean air, and supporting action on climate change.

Snowe cited “polarization” in Washington as a reason for her departure. It’s easy to see what she means. Today, in general, Republicans in Congress seem to oppose environmental protection while Democrats support it. It wasn’t always like this. A Republican, President Richard Nixon, established the EPA. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 passed the House in a vote of 401 to 25 .

This new polarization doesn’t reflect our country. Just today we see a new poll that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that climate change is real. Yet, we can’t get near that level of support for action in either the House or Senate. Seventy-five percent of Americans want EPA to set air pollution standards. Yet, Snowe was one of only six Republicans to vote to protect EPA’s Good Neighbor Rule.

While Snowe may be replaced with someone even more consistently pro-environment, our joy will be bittersweet. We know that the key to a sustainable environmental majority is strong, bipartisan support for clean air, clean energy and our other issues. The loss of Olympia Snowe moves us further from that goal.

Photo credit: Miles Grant

GOP Wrong on Gas Prices

Posted by: Heather Taylor-Miesle - March 1, 2012

Gas prices are on the rise again, and people across the country are bracing for costly commutes and cancelled vacations. But instead of offering real, common sense solutions, GOP candidates for president are peddling mistruths and false promises.

Newt Gingrich recently said, “I want to campaign in California on more jobs and $2-a-gallon gasoline.” That’s a nice thought, but something tells me it won’t fly with OPEC.

Oil prices are set on an international market, not on Gingrich’s sound bites. Tensions with Iran have prompted Wall Street speculators to drive up prices. The number of cars in China has more than tripled in five years, tightening competition. India, Brazil, and other nations are increasing their oil appetite as well.

One nation alone can’t dictate the price of this precious commodity. Instead, the best way for America to free ourselves from high costs at the pump is to end the oil monopoly and expand our fuel and transportation choices.

Yet GOP candidates keep offering misleading promises that only reinforce the oil monopoly and do nothing to reduce fuel costs for Americans.

In his victory speech after the Michigan and Arizona primaries, Mitt Romney said he would expand drilling on American lands so “we can finally get the energy we need at a price we can afford.”

Again, affordable energy is a great idea, but Romney’s plan for expanded drilling won’t deliver it. We know because we have already tried it.

Oil companies drilled almost 21,000 oil wells in the first eight months of 2011—the highest number in almost 30 years. President Obama has opened millions of acres for oil and gas exploration and made 75 percent of potential offshore oil and gas resources available for drilling. Last year alone, the United States produced more oil than any time since 2003—topping even the Bush-Cheney heydays.

What did all this activity do to gas prices? They hit record highs in 2011. Americans wound up paying $4 a gallon at the pump, and Exxon walked off with $45 billion in profits.

Importing from our neighbors doesn’t help either. Over the last 11 years, the amount of oil we bought from Canada increased 50 percent, yet gas prices have tripled over that same time period, with highs and lows along the way that had nothing to do with our northern friends.

Building cars that go farther on a gallon of gas, on the other hand, actually puts money in drivers’ pockets. The new fuel economy standards President Obama proposed will help achieve that. Within 20 years, better-performing cars will save drivers more than $80 billion a year at the pump while cutting our oil use by more than we imported from Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 2010.

Americans want these better performing cars. A Consumer Reports poll found that 80 percent of consumers agreed that “fuel economy standards should require auto manufacturers to increase the overall fleet average to at least 55 miles per gallon by 2025.”

But not one of the GOP candidates has made efficient cars a centerpiece of their gas price talk. Instead, Gingrich has become fond of saying, “You can’t fit a gun rack on a Volt.”

That may get a laugh, but does Gingrich really believe gun owners don’t want to save money at the pump? My cousins would be happy to know they can go hunting and drive a fuel-efficient truck at the same time. Ford has come out with a new version of the F150—the most popular pickup in the US—using fuel-efficient EcoBoost technology that offers more horsepower and more miles-per-gallon than the old V8 engine. When gas prices spiked last spring, the new model was so popular the EcoBoost engine factory in Ohio ran full tilt to keep up with demand.

Innovations, gas-saving breakthroughs, technologies put Americans to work. Republican candidates have little to say about these solutions—the ones that really save us money.

Instead, they just keep pushing more fossil fuels. Every GOP candidate running for the White House and almost every GOP senator and representative has signed a pledge to make sure that oil companies continue to receive taxpayer subsidies to the tune of $4 billion a year.

When he gave his concession speech on Tuesday, Rick Santorum held up a chunk of shale rock and said, “This is oil! Oil out of rock… it’s the highest quality oil in the world: light sweet crude. It can produce thousands and thousands of jobs up in northwest North Dakota.”

As I watched him, I kept thinking he was holding up the equivalent of fool’s gold. Sure, it may produce a rush but in the end it’s still dangerous.

It’s time to break America’s oil addiction. It’s time for candidates to offer solutions, not empty promises. It’s time for leaders to call for fuel efficient cars, sustainably grown biofuels, and the broader public transit options that offer real savings.

Newt’s 30-Minute Energy Infomercial: 29 minutes Too Long

Posted by: Heather Taylor-Miesle - February 24, 2012

On Sunday, GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich released a video of himself talking about energy policy. Clocking in at 28 minutes and 59 seconds, I can tell you that the video lasts about 28 minutes and 56 seconds too long. That’s because the entire message can be summed up in just three words:

“Drill, baby, drill.”

I suppose Newt’s not known for being concise. Instead, Newt spent nearly 30 minutes detailing why America needs ever more oil, ever more gas, and ever more drilling. But, Newt willfully ignores the most important piece of the energy puzzle: climate change.

As one of my friends put it, “Newt sounds like a drunken sailor who cannot pass up one more slug after last call. Drilling-here and drilling-there will only perpetuate our oil addiction and delay our transition to a green and prosperous economy fueled by renewable sources of energy. And no café standards? What does he drive -– a model T? America has seen his backward vision for America and we rejected it two decades ago.”

Newt wraps up his pro-drilling lecture by saying, “And I think with that energy future, we’re going to have a better quality of life, a better economy, better national security, and take a big step toward balancing the federal budget.”

I share those goals. But, climate change threatens those objectives. Quality of life will be threatened by risk of illness and death from extreme heat. By 2100, just a handful of global warming impacts could cost the U.S. economy $1.9 trillion annually. The Pentagon knows that climate change is a threat multiplier that will harm our national security and contribute to instability across the globe.

We can aim to have it all, but not without addressing climate change.

Newt and I do agree on another thing. Throughout his feature film, Newt alludes to American innovation, science and technology as the tools to get to a dramatically different energy future. He’s right. But we need to apply that innovation and entrepreneurship to developing and scaling new clean energy technologies, not just to digging deeper for dead dinosaurs.

So, save yourself 30 minutes. Don’t watch the video. Instead, spend those 30 minutes soaking up the beautiful and unusually warm winter weather we’re experiencing. And contemplate the less fun consequences of the unchecked warming that “drill, baby, drill” will bring.