In Case of Emergency, Break Glass

Alright, so a comprehensive climate change and clean energy bill is all but dead in 2010 and, depending on your mindset, for the foreseeable future. Despite my cynical and pessimistic exterior, I'm an optimist at heart and hold out hope for progress even at some point this year. I know, call me crazy.

So why the optimism, you might ask? Because I have to believe that logic and the moral obligation to act will win out the day. Right now, we have a House bill that passed in the the Summer of 2009 and multiple Senate options including, but not limited to, the the American Power Act (APA). The problem - they're hitting a political glass ceiling.

But now, right now, is the time to break the glass. Multiple reports this year have highlighted the link between human activity and global warming, the associated impacts, and our increased exposure to risk. The latest came out yesterday from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Its "State of the Climate 2009" report makes very clear that global warming is undeniable and we need to begin reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions now.

There are obvious challenges in moving toward a low carbon, sustainable economy. But the alternative is simply not something we are going to be able to handle.

Friedman Op-Ed

Tom Friedman has an interesting op-ed in today's NY Times. I think his last point is the most important - advocates of comprehensive climate change and clean energy policy have to get better at communicating why urgent action is necessary. It's easy to say no. It's much more difficult to come up with solutions to an extremely complex challenge and then communicate those solutions effectively.

DoD and DoE work together in perfect harmony

In the aftermath of a failed climate change bill, it's good to see the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense working together. On Tuesday, the two departments announced a Memorandum of Understanding "to accelerate clean energy innovation and enhance national energy security."

China: #1 emitter, #1 energy consumer

If you haven't already seen the Wall Street Journal article on China's rising energy consumption, take five minutes out of your busy schedule to give it a read. The article identifies some of the key implications of China's increasing influence on global energy markets and what that means for the US.

But don't stop there. Be sure to take a look at WRI's analysis of how and why China has gotten to this point.

New York Times editorial

Interesting editorial from the NY Times on why the climate bill failed. I'm not in a position to agree or disagree but I found the last line of the piece to be an excellent point - "global warming and oil dependency are clear and present threats to American security."

At least August should be quiet

In a year when one of the worst environmental disasters in US history has occurred, and in a year on track to be the warmest on record, legislation to address climate change and clean energy gets "shelved". Amazing.

You would think everyone would try just a little bit harder to get this done.

You'd be amazed what you can do if you try

I recently wrote about how proponents of comprehensive climate change and clean energy legislation need to come up with a simpler and clearer narrative. But such a narrative obviously needs more detail as the conversation gets further into the weeds. I've written a lot about the need for action based on the science. In addition I've had a few posts on the economic and national security cases for acting urgently. One angle I really haven't delved into as much I would have liked is the technology aspect of this debate. The technology is obviously available to us and we are starting to see that with the right policies we can deploy these resources on a much larger scale that will result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and an increase in new jobs.

So this begs the question, why aren't we trying harder?

So, what your saying is, I've still got a chance?

But not really. The White House held its long awaited meeting with a bipartisan group of Senators on Tuesday to discuss the prospects of climate legislation. By all accounts, it turned out to be a somewhat lackluster affair. And today we heard a speech from the President on immigration policy which suggests the next legislative priority remains up for grabs.

What continues to surprise me in all this back and forth is the lack of a coherent narrative for those who support comprehensive climate change and clean energy legislation. We have to come up with a very simple, straightforward argument for passing a bill now, not next year, or 2012, or 2013. Here's my shot at it.

We need to take action now because the science demands it, the economy needs it, technology exists to enable it, and our national security depends on it.

Let me know what you think.

"Climategate" a farce of global proportions

Emails were stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) last November. While thousands of emails were taken, only a handful provided fodder for those who reject the science underpinning climate change and muddied the waters for those who don't follow the issue closely. While this controversy stoked a lot of emotion, and high profile skeptics began ringing the death knell for climate change and clean energy policy, we are shown once again that "Climategate" and all its accompanying furor was in fact built on a house of cards.

I highly recommend this article from the Ecocentric blog hosted by Time. It provides some critical background and sets the record straight. Now let's move on and address the problem instead of pretending there isn't one.