Aimee Christensen’s Posts

• Hawks speak out for U.S.-grown clean energy 0

  Posted 4 years, 8 months ago

  "It's not a hardship to drive it. It's fun."
  -- George Shultz, former Secretary of State, referring to his Toyota Prius, a hybrid car that uses much less gasoline than a conventional vehicle, at the second annual summit of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, February 11.

  I found this nugget in my inbox, tucked into the recent issue of @stanford, "a monthly newsletter of campus news and research," in the "Heard on Campus" segment (I am an alum of the law school). How great to hear another respected Republican foreign policy leader touting the benefits of cleaner… Read More

• U.S. and global warming -- leave it to the rest of the world and we lose

  Aimee Christensen 0

  Posted 4 years, 9 months ago

  An article in the Washington Post last week prompted me to remember the history of our rhetoric on Kyoto, global warming, and developing countries.

  Since at least the 1990s, polluting industries and their friends in elected office have argued that until developing countries such as India and China are required to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. should not be bound by it. They claimed that this would be unfair, and that our industries would be rendered uncompetitive by the treaty's costs. This disingenuous claim is instead causing us to miss out on… Read More

• Easterbrook's lies on "Clear Skies" 0

  Posted 4 years, 9 months agoEver since his 1995 book A Moment on the Earth I have been disappointed by Gregg Easterbrook's message that because we have made so much progress in cleaning up our environment, we need not remain vigilant in fighting to protect our air, water, and natural places from those who would profit from their destruction. During the Bush administration's tenure, for the first time since our environmental laws were passed, key environmental indicators (such as urban air quality and rate of cleanup of our toxic waste sites) are reversing.

  Easterbrook's latest missive, "Clear Skies, No Lies," regurgitates arguments… Read More

All Posts

Aimee Christensen’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Radicalism vs. Rationalism

  I think this is an important thread: it is all about tactics to carry a message.  Last year at Environment2004 (a political campaign), the organization (with whom I worked) was diligently fact-based, 'cool-headed' and rational, working to provide clear information to the public to inform them of the outrageous Bush environmental record and how it was impacting their lives - after all, the record spoke for itself.  I think this approach was important, and is critical particularly for long-term organizations like environmental groups who after all only have their credibility to rely on, not money to buy influence.  This reasonable approach can also very much appeal to 'persuadable voters' - who were our targets.

  As the election approached, and nationally the environment was not getting the coverage it was due, the organization chose to take a risk to convey information it felt the public should know about - even though there was a chance this would be controversial and lead to backlash.  In that political context, with the clock ticking, the risk was assessed worth it.  The organization put up billboards in Florida that said "Global Warming = Worse Hurricanes, George Bush Just Doesn't Get It" with a picture of doppler radar showing a hurricane bearing down on the Florida coastline.  These billboards merely encapsulated a recently released NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) study showing that global warming is leading to worse hurricanes, and that Bush is doing nothing to reduce this danger - all true.  To draw further attention to this issue, a press conference was held in partnership with a science-focused political campaign, with world-renowned climate change and coral reef scientists and local business leaders talking about the future and growing impacts on Florida.  The event generated state wide and even national print coverage, as well as some local TV coverage.  The reporting was on the science and impacts on Florida, and that the Bush administration was not addressing global warming.  This important message got out, albeit primarily locally, but that had been our strategy: to impact a handful of key states, Florida being one of them.

  Within two days, however, opportunity for national influence arrived: FOX News called asking for a debate on the billboards against the head of the far right "Club for Growth".  There is an argument to be made against going on FOX, no question.  FOX frames the debate, they use progressives to fire up their base viewers, they put descriptors about you at the bottom of the screen like "crazy enviro" (okay, not that bad), and some claim that their viewers are so locked into their world view that you can't influence them - but in this case I thought going on FOX might lead to bigger and better things.

  Prior to the live broadcast, FOX's lead-ins showed the billboards over and over, saying how crazy these wacky people were for blaming Bush for the hurricanes (which is of course not what the billboards were doing), but FOX was trying to frame the message for their viewers before we had a chance to do so.  While I felt our side outperformed the opponent (fortunately the facts were on our side), the FOX viewer machine went into action and we were attacked by phone and email.  The FOX appearance had, however, created an opportunity, to potentially leverage this controversy (that FOX was accusing us of blaming Bush for hurricanes) with the mainstream media, providing a foot in the door to talk about the real story: Bush's radical anti-environmental record.

  I believe strongly that it would have worked, had it not been within a week of the election, when nothing but Osama Bin Laden and Vietnam were breaking through.

  I share these as a few thoughts about tactics from the electoral battlefront.  I believe that there are many ways to try to break through and inform the public.  A caution, however: the Swift Boat ads are a model I would never advocate emulating -- they told outright lies, instead of just using an over-the-top approach to convey the truth.

  (I became a Vegan after watching a disturbing and all too true video from Farm Sanctuary narrated by Mary Tyler Moore.  The information was powerful, and built on years of learning about animal rights and abuses from many groups.  Farm Sanctuary educates their members and supporters, but otherwise goes along doing their business of rescuing abused livestock, such as the famous cows who have jumped 10 foot fences and taken off down highways to avoid the slaughter they knew was coming.  Farm Sanctuary cares for these animals and files lawsuits and works with legislators to pass laws to increase animal protections.  We all have our way of making a difference).
  

  Ever hopeful!

  On PETA and getting your message Out There posted 4 years, 8 months ago 35 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Forget about CO2???

  I am afraid that this piece may have missed a key issue: a mandatory cap on CO2 emissions automatically puts a price on carbon, thereby increasing the cost of polluting and making cleaner energy technologies more competitive.  Indeed, on the international market under Kyoto, the sale of 'emission reduction credits' for each ton of CO2 (or its equivalent in the other five greenhouse gases) enables renewable energy projects and projects that reduce industrial emissions of greenhouse gases to go forward - as well as landfill methane capture/power projects.  It increases the rate of return of cleaner energy projects, making them more cost-effective for investors.

  At a recent American Council on Renewable Energy conference in December (check them out at www.acore.org), I was surprised by what appeared to be a strong sentiment that a cap on CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions was the best way to get renewables into the marketplace.  People also advocated for national renewable portfolio standards (that require a certain percentage of renewables in the electricity mix) as well as production tax credits, but I was surprised how much a cap and trade programs were mentioned.

  So when 'greens' or enviros in the advocacy community argue for addressing global warming, particularly for the McCain Lieberman cap and trade bill, it's about getting cleaner technologies into the market.  So we really get down to a conversation of language - and I think that is a critical issue, and raises the controversial head of the "Death of Environmentalism" paper advocating for an Apollo Alliance approach (www.apolloalliance.org).  I love Apollo's work partnering enviros and labor, so am all for it, but pushing for a cap and trade program is one tool to get us to a clean energy future with great new jobs.  It is, unfortunately, a tech-y way to talk about an exciting new future - 'let's pass a cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions' - I admit.

  But as I said to Senator Hagel when I asked him about his advocacy for markets and more consumer education and why he wouldn't therefore support a mandatory cap and trade approach, that cap and trade approach puts a price on pollution, and price is after all is the fastest educator of consumers and it lets the market pick the technology winners and losers!
  

  Ever hopeful!

  On Forget about CO2 for a minute already posted 4 years, 8 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Opportunities in Africa

  Friends,

  The website you mention, www.carbonfinance.org, is the website of the World Bank's Carbon Funds Business.  As you may have read in today's Wall Street Journal, the World Bank has some $800 million in funds (from companies and governments) to purchase emission reduction "credits" from projects in developing countries and economies in transition.  

  The exciting part in this is that the Bank and the governments and companies involved in these funds very much want projects developed in Africa and indeed in as many places as possible.  So the World Bank is working hard on capacity building and reducing barriers to projects in Africa.  I am hopeful about the potential for carbon finance in promoting sustainable development, indeed, it is why I got involved in climate change matters back in the mid-1990s when I was working to promote cleaner energy technologies in newly privatizing energy sectors in Latin America.  The 'carbon' or climate benefits of these clean technologies should be recognized and are now, thanks to Kyoto and the global greenhouse gas emissions trading market.

  It's amazing what can happen when you put a price on carbon - the creativity on the ground is impressive.
  

  Ever hopeful!

  On Kyoto and Africa posted 4 years, 8 months ago 2 Responses