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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

The groundswell of support for the first Earth Day was indeed a potent force. It was the catalyst for change and launched an extraordinary time in environmental history. It inspired me and many of my colleagues at NRDC who were the drivers behind passage of landmark environmental protections like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. But, unlike Nicholas Lemann, I don’t believe our best days are behind us because I know how much we are accomplishing right now.

Political Landscapes Change, Requiring New Navigational Tools

Today the 1970-style teach-ins sound like a distant memory, much like FDR’s fireside chats did back then. When Earth Day first launched, it caught polluters off guard. Today is a different story. Now big oil and the gas industry are in full opposition mode. They spent $168 million on lobbying in the year before the climate bill was introduced, and it poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the 2012 campaign to elect climate denying candidates. Tea Party leaders in the House, meanwhile, voted more than 300 times to gut environmental safeguards in the last two years. The good news is the NRDC Action Fund and our allies activated our powerful network of supporters and prevented most of the terrible measures from becoming law. In today’s political environment, sometimes a good defense is our best offense.

While some may believe the tactics of the 1970’s is what we need to be victorious today, I argue that today’s political realities demand not just one, but all the tools at our disposal. Environmental victories will come from grassroots action, media outreach, scientific research and advocating our positions on Capitol Hill. We have to use our power, influence and message to affect change. There is no magic tool in our tool belt that can change the heart of fossil fuel opposition or defuse extreme Tea Party ideology. In today’s dysfunctional Congress, not even broad public support works. With polls showing that 90 percent of Americans support tougher gun control laws one would think Congress would easily pass a bill. Heck, so many voters called Congress to voice their support of stronger measures that they shut down the switchboard. Yet here we are today, still no closer to Congress passing anything. What was once considered the low hanging fruit-extending background checks to online sales and private gun shows-couldn’t even make it out of the Senate.

In his New Yorker article, Lemann bemoans the fact that there has been no major environmental legislation since the 2010 effort to pass a climate bill. But a Congressional strategy won’t work when Congress is this stuck. Even in the best of times, it takes multiple attempts to pass transformative legislation—just ask anyone who works on health care, immigration reform, or gun control.

How to Get Things Done, Without Congress

I get it. Change is hard. But, playing a blame game is easy. Rather than pointing fingers at one another or Congress, let’s keep working. While some have been busy plotting our early demise, America has been implementing standards which will continue to reduce our carbon pollution. U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined 12 percent since 2005. We are on track for far deeper reductions, because we’ve been using all the tools at our disposal to work with the White House to use its existing authority to reduce pollution.

Just last August the Obama administration issued fuel economy standards that will cut carbon pollution from new cars in half by 2025. They will also reduce U.S. oil imports by one third and save drivers $1.7 trillion at the gas pump. The administration also proposed the first-ever carbon limits on new power plants. These are not minor efforts. They target America’s two largest sources of carbon: cars and power plants.

But, we’re not done yet. Now it’s time for President Obama to take the next bold steps. We won’t rest until he uses the Clean Air Act to limit carbon pollution from existing power plants and rejects the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that would lock us into decades of carbon pollution from the dirtiest fuel on the planet.

President Obama is clearly committed to confronting climate change, but prompting him to move forward will require all our tools. We aren’t just relying on an inside or outside strategy. In today’s game you need both. Our plan includes a cost-effective plan from NRDC for how the EPA can structure its carbon standards for existing power plants. At the same time, the environmental community is coordinating grassroots efforts in support of the standards—just like when the environmental coalition collectively helped generate a record-breaking 3 million comments in support of carbon standards for new power plants. And NRDC is providing expert scientific, economic, and public safety analysis of the Keystone XL pipeline, while helping to organize protest rallies that brought tens of thousands of people to the White House.

Be Proud, but Never Settle

These efforts in concert with one another are creating the climate solutions we seek. The results are astonishing. This Earth Day is just one administration after the Cheney Energy Task Force practically sanctified oil and gas development. Just one year after a presidential primary in which nearly every Republican presidential candidate denied the existence of climate change. Yet, America has cut our carbon emissions, dramatically expanded our investments in renewable energy, and cleaned up our cars. But, we’re not done yet.  In fact, we are only getting started.  I’m confident we will have even more reasons to celebrate at Earth Day 2014 and beyond.

Running Clean: Good Policy, Good Politics

NRDC Action Fund Report & Videos Show Success of Clean Energy Candidates in 2012

WASHINGTON (April 9, 2012) – Americans overwhelmingly supported clean energy candidates in the 2012 elections, despite the massive investments by polluters pushing their dirty agenda. Election night polling showed that, regardless of partisanship lines or demographics, nearly 2 in 3 voters, 64 percent, say they have a favorable impression of renewable energy, compared to only 13 percent who say they have an unfavorable impression. When given the chance to choose a future of investing in renewable energy sources and a clean energy economy, voters time and time again chose the candidates who were Running Clean, according to a new report and video series released today by the NRDC Action Fund.

Today, the NRDC Action Fund released Running Clean: Good Policy, Good Politics an in-depth report and video series produced biennially. In the report, the NRDC Action Fund highlights multiple successful candidates who chose to run their campaigns on clean energy, protecting the environment and public health and conserving our natural resources. These hard-fought campaigns demonstrated that America’s leaders can be proud to support a clean agenda that fosters good jobs, healthy families, conservation and a more sustainable future.  This cycle the report contains case studies on: President Barack Obama and Senator Angus King (I-Maine) with additional video interviews with Senators Tim Kaine (D-Virginia), Jon Tester (D-Montana), Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).  

At a press conference in Washington, DC the NRDC Action Fund showed Senator Tim Kaine’s video for the first time. In his video interview Senator Kaine says, “Virginians really believe this is an important issue to tackle, and so I could comfortably do events with environmental organizations or with the environmental community because I knew that was right. I mean it’s what I believe, but I also knew it was right where my voters were.”

“The last election cycle showcased candidates who were able to prove that running clean is not just good policy, it is a winning political strategy,” said Peter Lehner, NRDC Action Fund Executive Director. “The NRDC Action Fund produced Running Clean as a roadmap for future candidates who want solid evidence that supporting clean energy and protecting the environment will help provide them a path to electoral victory.”

“It’s simple, Running Clean works,” said Heather Taylor-Miesle, NRDC Action Fund Director. “Supporting candidates who run on platforms which endorse clean energy investments, protecting the environment and conserving our natural resources will help us grow the environmental majority across America. Candidates from both sides of the aisle should be looking for opportunities to embrace these issues. Ultimately, these are the values represented by their voters and what’s best for our future.”

The Running Clean report and videos can be found online at www.nrdcactionfund.org/runningclean. To read the report: Running Clean: Good Policy, Good Politics. To view the video interviews:

            Senator Tim Kaine

            Senator Jon Tester

            Senator Martin Heinrich

            Senator Mazie Hirono

To request hard copies of the report please contact Melissa Harrison at mharrison@nrdc.org.

###

The goal of the NRDC Action Fund is to grow the environmental majority across America. The Action Fund is growing power in the places that always matter around the country, so that together we can protect public health and the environment. www.nrdcactionfund.org

Note to reporters/editors: The NRDC Action Fund is an affiliated but separate organization from the Natural Resources Defense Council. As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, the NRDC Action Fund engages in various advocacy and political activities for which the Natural Resources Defense Council, a 501(c)(3) organization, faces certain legal limitations or restrictions. News and information released by the NRDC Action Fund needs to be identified as from the “NRDC Action Fund.” The “Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund” is incorrect. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the NRDC Action Fund cannot be used interchangeably.  Also please note that the word “National” does not appear in Natural Resources Defense Council.

Running Clean Candidate Video Release, Full Report to Be Released April 9^th

NRDC Action Fund Releases New Videos with U.S. Senators Mazie Hirono & Tim Kaine

WASHINGTON (April 4, 2012) – In the 2012 elections, U.S. Senator Mazie Hirono (D- Hawaii) demonstrated that America’s leaders can run on and win with a clean agenda which fosters good jobs, healthy families, conservation and a more sustainable future. In anticipation of Running Clean, an in-depth report and video series to be released on April 9^th, the NRDC Action Fund is previewing a video with U.S. Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), one of the four candidate videos complementing the upcoming full report.

“Senator Hirono highlights how investing in clean energy job creation, protecting our environment and public health and conserving our natural resources is a winning political strategy,” said Heather Taylor-Miesle, NRDC Action Fund Director. “We are now just a few days away from releasing the full report and additional videos which will be the roadmap for future candidates on how to support these issues because it’s not just good policy, it’s good politics.”

To view the video interview: Senator Hirono

As a sneak peak, the NRDC Action Fund is also releasing a short clip of U.S. Senator Tim Kaine’s video, which will be shown publically for the first time at a press conference featuring NRDC Action Fund Executive Director Peter Lehner and NRDC Action Fund Director Heather Taylor-Miesle on April 9^th in Washington, DC. To view the clip: Senator Kaine

Due to space limitations, media interested in attending the press conference must RSVP to Melissa Harrison at: mharrison@nrdc.org. If you are unable to attend in person, a conference call number will be provided. Additional details regarding the press conference will be released on Friday, April 5, 2013.

###

The goal of the NRDC Action Fund is to grow the environmental majority across America. The Action Fund is growing power in the places that always matter around the country, so that together we can protect public health and the environment. www.nrdcactionfund.org

Note to reporters/editors: The NRDC Action Fund is an affiliated but separate organization from the Natural Resources Defense Council. As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization, the NRDC Action Fund engages in various advocacy and political activities for which the Natural Resources Defense Council, a 501(c)(3) organization, faces certain legal limitations or restrictions. News and information released by the NRDC Action Fund needs to be identified as from the “NRDC Action Fund.” The “Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund” is incorrect. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the NRDC Action Fund cannot be used interchangeably.  Also please note that the word “National” does not appear in Natural Resources Defense Council.

How can potential Michigan candidates appeal to the broadest range of voters? By calling for clean energy and climate action.

This approach worked across the nation in the 2012 election cycle.  Energy was a central issue in races from the top to the bottom of the ticket. Given the choice between candidates who promoted clean energy and those who held polluter-friendly positions on fossil fuels, voters overwhelmingly chose clean energy champions. And that includes Independent voters. Every major swing state went for President Obama, and states from Montana to Maine to Virginia swept clean energy candidates into office up and down the ticket.

This same approach can work in Michigan in 2014. Voters will have experienced two more years of extreme weather events pummeling their communities. But they will also have seen more wind farms and solar panels become ordinary parts of everyday life, and they will know more people with jobs designing and building fuel efficient cars.

Support for clean energy and climate action will only grow. Here’s why smart Michigan candidates should tap into that support.

Voters of All Stripes Support Clean Energy

Some GOP lawmakers still believe fossil fuels are our only viable energy source, but most voters have left those outdated views behind. They want American to develop clean energy. Last fall, polluting industries and their allies spent millions in Michigan races. Yet despite all the dirty money, undecided voters said they would side with a candidate who “supports EPA standards to reduce dangerous carbon pollution” over one who does not by a wide margin (56 percent versus 20 percent). Undecided voters also said they preferred congressional candidates who, like Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow, support “standards to reduce toxic mercury pollution from power plants” over those who oppose them (62 percent versus 18 percent.) Curbing subsidies for oil companies, increasing fuel economy standards, and boosting clean energy drew similar support.

Some may say clean energy suffered a setback in Michigan last fall when voters failed to pass a ballot measure that would have amended the state constitution to include policies to promote renewable energy. However, election night polling showed that voters were rejecting an attempt to alter the constitution. They strongly supported action from their elected officials to create renewable energy policies in Lansing, not in the constitution.

Now Governor Snyder is holding hearings all over the state to discuss the future of energy policy in Michigan. We are engaged and working with our partners to ensure support for clean energy job creation and energy efficiency are part of the plan moving forward.

Clean Energy Is Another Way to Talk about Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs

Michigan is ranked eighth in the country for the number of clean energy and clean transportation jobs in the state, according to a report released earlier this month by Environmental Entrepreneurs. The state is on track to add even more: companies and communities have announced 19 new projects that will generate nearly 4,000 additional jobs in Michigan. All together, the state’s renewable energy sector has attracted $1.79 billion in investments through 2012.

Meanwhile, Michigan added 34,100 auto manufacturing jobs last September for a gain of 32.7 percent since the trough in June 2009. A recent report published by NRDC and their partners found that a considerable amount of this growth is driven by new clean car standards that will be double fuel economy for cars by 2025—and save drivers $80 billion a year at the pump in the process.

Many Michiganders have benefited from clean energy jobs; many more could in the future. The state requires 10 percent of all electricity come from wind and solar power. Nearby Iowa, in contrast, is already getting 23 percent of its electricity from renewables. If Michigan created stronger clean energy standards and incentives, the state would get more home-grown jobs. And voters would reward candidates who helped deliver those jobs.

Climate Denial Is the New Black Helicopter

A generation ago, candidates sounded out of touch if they tried to convince voters the United Nations was sending black helicopters to take over America. Today, when candidates mention sun spots as a cause of climate change the extremist alarm bells start going off in the minds of voters. In fact, a majority now say that climate change is happening and we should do something to address it. While it may not be the top issue for every voter, most feel uncomfortable with candidates who blatantly reject science and chart out extreme positions…  

This is no different in Michigan. Michiganders had their fling with extremism and now they are paying a price. Republican Representative Justin Amash’s own party found his positions so far afield that they kicked him off the budget committee—leaving his district without a voice in this critical arena. Now there are rumblings Amash may run to replace Levin. His opponents simply have to ask him what he is going to do to protect the Great Lakes from climate change or where he stands on government efforts to reduce global warming pollution, and voters will see the extremism shine through.

Clean Energy: Good Policy and Good Politics

As we wait and see who jumps into this race, one thing is for sure. Michigan is poised to be a leader in the clean energy economy and Michiganders deserve a U.S. Senator who represents those values. If we learned anything from the 2012 election cycle, it’s that candidates can run and win on investing in clean energy, protecting the environment and conserving our natural resources. The best part is these aren’t just good policies, they are good politics too.

Tar sands oil, it is broadly acknowledged, is dirty fuel. In addition to local and regional environmental impacts, the process of producing tar sands oil generates three times the greenhouse gas pollution as producing conventional North American crude.[2] Support of the keystone pipeline is therefore a commitment to supporting one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet for the next 40-50 years.

If we acknowledge the threat posed by greater storms, droughts, and temperature extremes—if we know that we will be living in an increasingly carbon constrained world, such a commitment does not make any sense. Of course, we are not going to stop consuming oil tomorrow. But it does not follow from there that we need to make a new, 40-50 year commitment to production of the most polluting form of oil.

Investment can be better directed. At minimum, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is a way of tapping existing domestic sources with less carbon pollution than conventional oil. More importantly, investments in biofuels, electrification, and efficiency offer potentially higher returns than tar sands even prior to considering the cost of carbon pollution. But if you do consider carbon pollution, tar sands oil is not economic as compared to these choices, almost out of the starting blocks and certainly over time.

Joe Nocera, who has written in favor of approving the Keystone pipeline several times, recently noted that his last column on the Keystone Pipeline contained a serious error:

“In my column on Tuesday, I described the strategy of anti-Keystone XL pipeline activists as boneheaded. In writing about the effect of a carbon tax on Canada’s tar sands oil, I was pretty boneheaded myself. I said such a tax would likely make tar sands oil more viable. But, obviously, it would do the opposite, by decreasing demand for oil and making the already expensive tar sands oil even less economically appealing. What was I thinking?”

Joe deserves credit here for this candid admission, but let me venture to answer his question “what was I thinking?” Turns out he also favors a carbon tax as a way of making polluters accountable for carbon pollution. But, properly understood, a meaningful fee on carbon pollution would tend to undermine the economic viability of tar sands oil—over time perhaps entirely, making the Keystone Pipeline a complete waste. To be in favor of the project, he really needed to botch the logic of the policy, and so he did.

Bottom line: If you favor holding polluters accountable for pollution, there’s no rationale for going forward with Keystone’s 40-50 year commitment to dirty fuel. Joe Nocera is not the only pundit that clings to the contradiction of acknowledging the serious problem of carbon pollution, yet favoring the Keystone pipeline. It’s time for him and others to pull off the logic blinders. Denying a permit to the Keystone Pipeline should be, as he would say, “a no-brainer.”

 Chris Arndt is a private investor and a member of the NRDC Action Fund board.

Last year, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—a coalition of conservative state legislators and corporations—teamed up with a number of fossil fuel-funded groups including the Heartland Institute, the American Tradition Institute and Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) to dismantle state-level Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) around the country.  In 2012, legislators in at least nineteen states introduced bills that would repeal, freeze, or weaken their state’s commitment to clean energy.  Three of these bills made it into law—in Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia. 

But those attacks were just the beginning from these grown up bullies.  ALEC’s “Energy, Environment, and Agriculture” task force, composed of corporate entities including Exxon Mobil, Koch Companies, and Peabody Energy, among other fossil-fuel companies and utilities, has now drafted a model of legislation which would repeal state RPSs, calling it the Electricity Freedom Act.  Already, ALEC member legislators have begun or threatened to bring this fight to a playground near you, better known as the state legislatures in Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, Michigan, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Montana, Maine and Ohio.  And with a total of 29 states having passed RPS, many more states could still be under threat.

But, if there’s one thing you know about me from all my other posts: we’re more than willing to stand up to bullies. And that’s exactly what we’re doing.

In an early defensive victory, Kansas rejected ALEC’s efforts to tell them what to do.  There, the RPS has driven massive investment in wind energy development since its passage in 2009. In the legislature, there were two bills that would have either repealed or weakened the standard.   But just yesterday, the House voted 63-59 to send a bill that would repeal the RPS back down to committee for further review.  The Senate also rejected a bill weakening the standard by a 23-17 vote.  With a supermajority of Republicans in both chambers, we showed that the RPS has created 12,000 jobs and $3 billion worth of investment by the wind industry. Now those are some figures both sides of the aisle can agree upon. And something that even the bullies have a hard time denying.

However, the battle is far from over. The RPS in several other states is still under attack and there are ALEC members ready and willing to forgo stealing your lunch money to do the bidding of dirty polluters.

• Missouri: The Renewable Energy Standards (RES) were approved at the ballot box by a two to one margin in 2008. Republican state Rep. Bart Korman, an ALEC member has introduced HB 44 which would allow all hydroelectric plants, no matter how big or old, to count towards the state’s renewable energy quota, subverting the standard’s original intent.  The House passed HB 44 just yesterday.  The standard and the will of the people are now threatened.   So too are the prospects for the 10,000 jobs and $2.87 billion of economic stimulus that were predicted within two decades of RES passage in 2008.
• Ohio: The chair of the Senate Public Utilities Committee, Sen. Bill Seitz, is an ALEC task force member who predictably is calling for a “meaningful review” of the Buckeye State’s efficiency and renewable energy standards.  In a February 1, memo Sen. Seitz listed nine issues that he wants to see reconsidered.  His last bullet point tellingly begins, “In the event that the current EE/RPS benchmarks are significantly altered or abolished…”  And sure enough, on the same day, Ohio State Sen. Kris Jordan—another ALEC task force member—promoted his bill (SB 216) before the Senate’s Energy and Public Utilities Committee which would repeal Ohio’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard (AEPS).  Sen. Jordan must not be listening to his constituents, because a recent poll shows that nearly 80 percent of Ohio voters support a legally-binding clean energy standard.

In addition to Kansas, Missouri, and Ohio, progressives in Wisconsin and Minnesota are having to fight to preserve the integrity of their states’ renewable energy policies.  Every state with an RPS can expect to be challenged by the deep pockets ALEC and their dirty polluter allies. These bullies are well funded by billionaire oil barons who use false data and scare tactics to get their way. 

But, we don’t have to take it. Together we can stand up to these modern day bullies and tell them the American people have paid enough and we’re not going to take it anymore. It’s time take back our playgrounds and tell them hands off our clean energy economy. This is our playground too and we need to leave it in a better place than when we found it.

And when that day comes, people who value government safeguards should be ready, because the money the Koch brothers and their polluter friends are saving now will likely be dropped in lump sums later in the year.

The dollar amounts could be astonishing unless America finally creates sensible guidelines for political donations. A new court case could signal whether we will continue to let deep-pocketed donors hold sway.

The case—argued before the Supreme Court—could remove the current limit on how much individuals can donate to political campaigns, parties, and PACs. Right now people can give up to $48,600 to candidates and $74,600 to PACs every two years. Since this case will be decided by the same justices who removed caps on corporate giving in the Citizens United ruling, it’s possible the floodgates of personal spending will be thrown wide open.

We need more accountability built into the system or we risk having our political system completely commandeered by the highest bidder. Citizens United blew the lid off donations and the effect was immediate and extreme. In the 2009 Virginia governor’s race, candidates spent $15.7 million. After Citizen’s United, the 2012 Senate race in Virginia shattered records: candidate spending shot to $32.3 million and outside spending hit $58.7 million.

When that kind of money pours into a race, it means outsiders talk to voters more than candidates do. Big spenders define the race—and policies and platforms—more than the people’s representatives.

The good news is that money can’t always buy you love. One of Karl Rove’s Super PACs spent almost $105 million in 2012 to support or defeat various candidates but was successful in less than 2 percent of its races. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, known for its climate denial and fossil-fuel friendly policies, spent more than $32 million in campaigns but achieved less than 7 percent of its desired outcomes. Instead, Americans swept clean energy champions into office up and down the ticket. Polluters had the money; but they didn’t have the votes.

Voters can combat the influence of money at the ballot box. But if we don’t start demanding campaign finance reform, our power could be eroded by bigger and bigger piles of money. We have to keep holding our lawmakers accountable for the money they accept and the steps they take to reform political spending.

And we have to be prepared the next time polluters’ money starts swirling around campaign offices. We beat the Koch brothers and their friends in 2012, but we can’t let our guard down. If we want to build a cleaner, more sustainable energy future for our children, we have to roll up our sleeves and get to work.