At first glance, the latest poll numbers from Pew Research Center on Americans’ top priorities for the new president might appear worrisome to climate policy advocates.
Global warming is in last place in the top 20, and the environment in general slipped down in the list since last year. Andrew Revkin over at New York Times’ Dot Earth blog goes so far as to say, “America and President Barack Obama are completely out of sync on human-caused global warming.” (There are some startling new numbers from Rasmussen on that question ...)
But I’m convinced that’s not the point. The fact is, solutions that will address the top two concerns—the economy and jobs—as well as several other top 10 concerns—energy, terrorism, helping the poor—are all wrapped up in the best solutions for combating climate change.
The fossil-fuel roller coaster has long whiplashed family budgets, and our economy remains shackled to its adrenaline-boosting unpredictability. Any economic recovery we muster in coming months will sputter if we fail to reduce our fossil-fuel dependence. As soon as the economy rebounds, oil prices are sure to shoot up again, negating the economic gains that we’ve made.
Our job now—and Obama’s—is to encourage fellow lawmakers and citizens to connect the dots and stop seeing the economy, energy policy, and the environment as even vaguely separate issues.
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Hot planet to Obama: What’s your Plan B?
Comments
View as Flat
GreenMom Posted 10:47 am
23 Jan 2009
Clean Energy. Energy Independence. Green jobs.
We need to link the memes and keep hammering those links into people's heads:
Energy efficiency equals jobs that can't be outsourced.
Clean energy + energy efficiency = energy indepedence.
Etc.
Permalink
JeffB Posted 11:36 am
23 Jan 2009
So we need to appeal to people's emotions by saying...
"God told us to take care of his creation."
"We need to protect our way of life for our childran and grand-children. So we need to make sure there are places to fish, hunt, and go 4-wheeling. If there is too much development, everyone will be at the same fishing hole, duck blind, mud waller...."
"We shouldn't be sending our money to the Arabs who just support terrorists."
"Americans are the smartest and most innovative people on the earth who can do anything that they set their mind on. So we should be smart enough to figure out how to run our air conditioners without having to take off the tops of mountains. I can't believe that we're letting the Germans and Spanish get ahead of us."
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 11:56 am
23 Jan 2009
this is a total, 100% slam dunk, and is ready to go NOW, not 8 years from now. so what are we waiting for? everyone wants solar panels on their roof, and who wouldn't want to be paid for producing more clean, green energy than they produce? why the hell would we want to keep destroying our wilderness, paying for the infrastructure, and then getting hijacked by Big Energy when we ALL have renewable resources right in our towns?
don't fall for the old baloney that we can't do enough. the EERE (DOE) in 2003 determined that 100% of US electricity needs could easily be met on existing rooftops, where the power is needed, with only 10% efficient PV. which means thin film. which is only $1/watt. we have enough sun, we have enough money, we have enough interest, all we are getting shafted on is policy.
stand up for your right to participate in the free markets, in the renewable revolution and become a ratepayer generator. we need loans, we need fair tariffs (50 cents) and we need to be allowed to make it as big as we want. go!
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 12:36 pm
23 Jan 2009
As we have just discovered, finding corporate investments that remain stable over 30 years and produce income that pays back initial investments with any interest is rather difficult. The former blue chips of past years GM and PG&E have both faced massive devaluation.
Investment in solar panels OTOH produces net power above the energy cost of production and installation. A lifetime return of 10 to one is reasonable to assume if you accept an average panel life of 30 years. The return is greater if the high-purity silicon is recycled into new panels.
Concentrated solar thermal (CSP) plants will have much higher returns and longer lives since modular construction allows replacement of only failed components. It's pretty reasonable that a tracking mount will outlast a VW bug of which many are still driving fourty years after production. They are way less complicated than a VW's engine.
Putting a percentage of Social Security trust fund monies directly into PV and CSP plants to be paid back with income from power sales at peak rates should produce a solid, inflation-proof investment. The nation gets power, an investment that will be repaid and relief from future tax and pension burdens without diminishing support for the elderly.
If somebody else can find me another investment that sits in the sun and produces income with little maintenance speak right up. I think that there are a lack of good dam site left though.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
guade00 Posted 1:29 pm
23 Jan 2009
Ask yourself--do you really think we're going to pull it off in time?
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 2:40 pm
23 Jan 2009
JeffB, and others -- it's not a choice between facts and emotions. It's being smart enough to emphasize the facts that make sense in people's daily lives.
We all have trouble wrapping our minds around consequences that are not in front of our noses in either time or space. So stop condescending to people who are focused on the challenges right in front of them, and not so focused on an abstract future, or an ice sheet on the other side of the world.
Like I said, and like others say ad nauseum -- pick the arguments that speak to people. Energy independence, local jobs, clean energy. Stopping mountaintop removal. Preventing more Katrinas.
Really, it's not that hard.
Permalink
randino Posted 10:53 pm
23 Jan 2009
If the polls were critical during the war for independence, we would still be toasting the Queen's health. After all, a third of the colonists were in favor of independence, a third for the Brits, and a third probably wished a plague upon the first two catergories. And I hate to tell you this, especially in the kumbaya afterglow of the Obama inaugaural, but if in the 1950s you would have made your decisions based on polls, I would wager we would still have White and Colored drinking fountains.
This poll mania, is the twin of another mirage, the search for the mythical center in politics - the god head of the chattering classes.
Our job is change, which is never "smart", never "practical" and never "popular." Our job should not be groveling before conventional wisdom, polls and the mad search for the right message to use to manipulate people with. If that is what we are about then I am sure there are a lot of other things we would rather be doing, and the Grist staff could find far more lucrative jobs with their proven talents.
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:55 pm
23 Jan 2009
A surplus of renewable energy sold into a smart grid could even pay expenses like property taxes that tend to make it cost prohibitive for retirees to keep their homes.
Dwindling pensions and savings invested in "bad paper" and devalued dollars from social security would be supplemented by reducing energy costs and offsetting property taxes.
It's a great point you make though, utilities were generally "widow and orphan" stocks, steady dividends and slow growth made them safe income generators for the risk-averse investor. Renewable smart grid and energy conservayion investments would make utilities safe investments again, removing the shakey legs of centralized coal and nuclear power. And replacing them with steady income generating technology.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Zephaniah Posted 8:07 am
24 Jan 2009
Rich green fertile bountiful verdant complex agricultural luxurious lush abundant plentiful inexhaustible unending perpetual boundless copious ample prolific flourishing profuse harvest cultivation produce sound vigorous hardy healthy preserve enhance improve conserve protect defend strengthen grow increase develop progress mature stable leaf out productive fruitful
Farsighted provident wise prudent acute shrewd considerate provident careful alert thoughtful
Unsustainable:
Sparse scant meager inadequate lean thin limited impaired weakened reduced diminished hurt crushed shrunken mortified distressed crippled damaged harmed ailing ravaged injured spoiled botched mutilate harm waste deprive squander dissipate misuse ruin wreck demolish dwindle decline weaken decrease diminish subside ebb wane wither uneconomical thriftless improvident dwindle shrink stagnate decline destabilize barren unproductive sterile empty fruitless impotent
Shortsighted myopic unthinking careless wasteful unthinking thoughtless incautious foolish impetuous improvident injudicious heedless inattentive neglectful foolish inconsiderate
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:09 am
24 Jan 2009
Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.500-one-la ...
You know you're not a liberal when...
Permalink
Angelsnecropolis Posted 10:47 am
24 Jan 2009
The average person can't afford to go all solar pv (at current prices) and the govn isn't going to front the bill to put PV on every rooftop.
BTW, how do you get your electricity?
Permalink
davedenali Posted 12:30 am
25 Jan 2009
A concerted effort by President Obama and his advisers -- and congressional hearings --- may help us dispel the myths created by the energy industry and the nut-job right and begin to educate the public. At some point Obama needs to give a climate speech -- a major prime time address with facts and solutions. He has to put his prestige behind this. And Congress needs to have highly publicized hearings that expose the more prominent deniers for what they are.
Permalink
Peter B. Meyer Posted 11:37 pm
25 Jan 2009
Given an EITHER/OR choice, the respondent picks the answer that seems preferable given the fact that the two cannot be had simultaneously.
Obviously, the worse the economy, survey respondents given a jobs - environment either/or choice will go for the jobs, or the income. Given the choice between "find new sources of energy" and "lower energy use," respondents pick the less threatening option - the first one.
The problem here is not US citizens' attitudes, it is how decision options are presented to them ... and what they "learn" from all the PR about the surveys based on bogus either/or choices (and I include Grist among those unnecessarily giving room to false propositions about "alternatives").
Permalink
J4zonian Posted 8:37 am
27 Jan 2009
the "market-based" "solutions" being pushed by some are exactly what you report Lovelock says--scams that won't help stop the effects of catastrophic global climate change. Mandatory limits and transition to renewables by utilities and industries, jobs/construction programs, incentives for homeowners and car drivers, big investment in rail--those are examples of things that will help. Cap and trade, ripoffsets, etc. are smoke-and-mirror boondoggles and need to be bypassed.
Permalink