Five Things to Say about Clean Energy in Your Address

It is that time of year again.  This Wednesday, January 27, 2010, the President will glide down the aisle in the House of Representatives, greeted by thunderous applause, and encounter the usually more dignified elected officials in a slightly teen-bopper, Beatles-esque-frenzy, practically climbing over each other to shake his hand.  

He will ascend the rostrum in front of federal government and the nation and proceed to tell us how our country is doing. Within the first five minutes of the speech, President Obama will say the health of our nation is strong – because what else can a President say?  The State of the Union address is largely an exercise in tradition.  So, why then does it matter what he says?

It matters because behind all the ritual rhetoric lies a pretty good indicator of what the president will focus on in the coming months.

Which is also exactly why so many political pundits have been theorizing about the President’s speech for weeks now.  Speculation has reached a fever-pitch with the stunning yet not surprising election of Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) and the equally shocking Supreme Court decision last week, which some have argued, gave corporations the right to basically buy Congressional seats. Every public interest group in Washington is hoping – praying really – that their issue will rise to the level of a “shout out” from the President.  We all desperately want the President to acknowledge (via his SOTU speech) that what we each work on is a top priority.  

You can be certain that is what the community working for clean energy and climate solutions is hoping for – a shout out.  

There have been many predictions in recent days about the death of a climate bill.  Those predictions could be turned on their heads and dispelled with just a few sentences on Wednesday.  In my ideal world, this is what President Obama would say:

1. “Investing in clean energy and climate solutions will generate jobs for Americans.”

President Obama has already hinted he will talk about job creation in his address. That’s no surprise: it is the most urgent priority for American families right now.

One of the best ways to get Americans back to work is to give them the job of building a clean energy economy and rebuilding American infrastructure. As soon as we set limits on global warming pollution, we will unleash billions of dollars in private investment for low-carbon solutions like energy efficient windows and batteries for hybrid cars.

That investment will create jobs–nearly 2 million, according to economists at the University of California.

2. “We are losing jobs to our overseas competitors everyday.”

We are getting the pants beat off us by our international competitors.  According to the Green, Inc. blog over at the NY Times, “At the beginning of 2009, Chinese solar companies supplied 21 percent of the market; by year’s end their stake had more than doubled.” They are winning in the pricing game: “A Chinese module maker with little name recognition in the United States, Yingli, has captured 27 percent of the California market thanks to low pricing, the report said. Suntech, China’s leading module-maker, has a 10 percent share in California.”  We need to get ourselves in gear if we are going to compete.  

3. “Our dependence on foreign oil is unpatriotic.”

I am a mom with an SUV (granted a Honda CRV, but nonetheless, a SUV.) I love my SUV – I can shove kids, tricycles, backpacks, extra clothes, groceries, and even a box for Goodwill in the back and still have room for a family dog.  But I can’t pretend that my choice has no repercussions to our national security.

Every time I fill up, I am lining the pockets of those who hate America.  Almost all of us “soccer moms and dads” in our SUVs are in the same boat.  We need to drive something functional that doesn’t feed terrorism.  I don’t think that means that we need to buy tinier cars (although that may be part of the solution) – I think it means that we must make more efficient, cleaner cars. And the best way to do that is to give Detroit and other automakers the incentives they need to get the job done.



4. “An energy bill alone is not enough.”

This weekend the NYTimes notes in an editorial about climate, “The jobs argument should impress the Senate. Yet many Democrats as well as Republicans seem willing to settle for what would be the third energy bill in five years – loans for nuclear power, mandates for renewable energy, new standards for energy efficiency. These are all useful steps. But the only sure way to unlock the investments required to transform the way the country produces and delivers energy is to put a price on carbon.”

We keep writing checks for clean energy investments but we aren’t getting the most bang for our buck.  If we don’t place a price on pollution, we will only see some of the benefit.  In order to get the most for our money, we need to let the market work – and that means making those who pollute pay for their fair share



5. “Addressing climate change must be more than just a sound bite – it must be a process by which we will commit to get a bill passed this spring.”

Luntz also found that the public overwhelming believes that climate change is occurring – even 66% of Republicans think that global warming is likely happening – so now it is time to stop fighting about it and do something.

If you look on most Senate websites, you will find a statement about how climate change exists and we should do something about it.  We need to turn that lip service into action.  

Is the President likely to say all of this?  Maybe not.  But if he even gets half way there, I think we will be able to repeat that great Twain quote when it comes to a climate change bill: “Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.”  

As we all drink our morning coffee and digest what this latest change-up means for the Senate, let me be the first to say – I continue to be hopeful that the Senate will take action on climate change.

The signs of momentum for a clean energy and climate bill outweigh any signs that come from the Massachusetts special election.

Take, for example, that this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reiterated that he wants to pass the bill this spring, and that the bill has the tri-partisan support of Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman.

In a little more than 6 weeks, 1221 businesses have called for strong action on climate via American Businesses for Clean Energy.  

Not to mention the fact that President Obama spent 15 hours at the negotiating table in Copenhagen drafting an international climate accord with his own pen because he believes so deeply in the need to confront climate change.  Top it off with the fact that Americans are frustrated with the continuing high jobless rate. The clean energy and climate bill, meanwhile, will create nearly 2 million additional jobs.

That’s the national picture. Now let’s look at what Brown himself might do on climate. In fact, like his constituents, Brown has said he believes we need to address climate change.  

While it’s true that Martha Coakley was a more reliable vote in favor of a bill and it’s true that Brown has ties to the conservative tea party movement, I am not counting Brown out.

Most of Brown’s tea party supporters are out-of-staters, eager to push their agenda in whatever campaign they can. But now that the election is over, those folks will return home, and Brown will be left with the people who elected him — Massachusetts citizens who have said in poll after poll that they want clean energy and climate legislation to pass.

Brown has a choice to make. He can choose to serve the interests of those tea baggers who live elsewhere or he can choose to represent the people of Massachusetts. I hope he decides to follow the example of fellow Northeastern Senators Snowe and Collins, leaders who walk the tightrope between the conservative Republican leadership and their environmentally-minded constituents.

He opposes, however, most of the mechanisms currently on the table for accomplishing that goal. This seems to be the new GOP equivalent of having your cake and eating it too. (Senator Murkowski is especially good at playing both sides of this game).  But it’s significant that these Republicans want to position themselves as proponents of fighting climate change – it means they and all their well-heeled advisors have concluded that time is on our side.  They don’t think they can just deny that the problem exists or claim that nothing needs to be done about it.  We have to capitalize on their sense that the future lies with a greener economy, even if they seem to be doing their best to stave off that future for the time being.

I hope Brown doesn’t use his fence-sitting to justify further delay. For if there was one thing the Massachusetts election showed is that voters want change, and they want it now.

People have grown impatient with their leaders. They don’t give them much time to realize their campaign promises anymore. President Obama took office just one year ago, but people have already moved on to the next person screaming for change. Brown knows this: he adopted Obama’s rhetoric from 2008 and ran as the change candidate.

It’s true that democracy can be painfully slow. The average bill takes Congress several sessions to pass and the major bills can take decades.

But several issues are ripe for action. They have had more than enough time to mature, and voters are begging for resolution. Americans want lawmakers to ensure the fat cats on Wall Street become better neighbors, to bring health care to those less fortunate, and to create jobs and economic opportunity by tapping into the global clean energy marketplace.

This is the kind of change voters want to see, and Brown has a chance to be part of the action. If, on his first day in office, he decides not to repeat the Mantra of No but instead to actually get some work done, he could be a game-changer on climate.

Our door is open, Senator-elect Brown, if that is the path you choose. Help us draft a bill that will protect the environment and get the economy back on track.