<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Obama’s pushing a clean energy agenda with swing-voter-pleasing rhetoric]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by KenG http://www.grist.org/article/a-defense-of-obamas-dirty-energy-rhetoric-part-the-third/ Mon, 20 Oct 2008 03:52:07 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-defense-of-obamas-dirty-energy-rhetoric-part-the-third/1 Who's Playing Who?

If I understand the thread here, Obama is an environmentalist who is playing the big energy interests in order to get elected. They, of course, are supposed to think he is an industry sympathizer who is playing the environmentalists. I suppose the affirmative action lobbies and opponents are supposed to line up the same way. Same with the health care special interests, etc, etc, etc.

It's a shame Abe Lincoln isn't with us now. We're about to get a lesson in how many of the people you can please how much of the time.

]]> Who's Playing Who?

If I understand the thread here, Obama is an environmentalist who is playing the big energy interests in order to get elected. They, of course, are supposed to think he is an industry sympathizer who is playing the environmentalists. I suppose the affirmative action lobbies and opponents are supposed to line up the same way. Same with the health care special interests, etc, etc, etc.

It's a shame Abe Lincoln isn't with us now. We're about to get a lesson in how many of the people you can please how much of the time.

]]> Comment #2 by David Roberts http://www.grist.org/article/a-defense-of-obamas-dirty-energy-rhetoric-part-the-third/ Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:01:23 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-defense-of-obamas-dirty-energy-rhetoric-part-the-third/2 Yeah, Ken,

I think that's basically right. Thing is, the green policies on paper are extremely strong. Even the stated support for dirty energy doesn't amount to much if you pay close attention to the language. And he's surrounded by literally hundreds of green advisers who understand the issue, and who report, in private conversation, that he understands the issue.

So yeah, it's a leap of faith to assume he's playing them rather than playing greens, but it's not without evidence.

grist.org

]]> Yeah, Ken,

I think that's basically right. Thing is, the green policies on paper are extremely strong. Even the stated support for dirty energy doesn't amount to much if you pay close attention to the language. And he's surrounded by literally hundreds of green advisers who understand the issue, and who report, in private conversation, that he understands the issue.

So yeah, it's a leap of faith to assume he's playing them rather than playing greens, but it's not without evidence.

grist.org

]]> Comment #3 by Ted Nace http://www.grist.org/article/a-defense-of-obamas-dirty-energy-rhetoric-part-the-third/ Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:20:13 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-defense-of-obamas-dirty-energy-rhetoric-part-the-third/3 Who's Playing Whom?

Excellent series, David. I agree with you that Obama has played the "clean coal" hand that he got dealt in the primaries very intelligently. He's called industry's bluff by saying, "OK, I'll play this hand, but you won't actually get my chips until you show me that your 'clean coal' hand is for real."

But it's important not to overstate how long this approach can work. Obama has to become an educator and push the whole national debate to a higher level.

If Obama stays too long within industry's framing of things (i.e. that "clean coal" is an actual near-term solution, which it isn't), then he risks falling into a big trap when industry comes back with: "OK, we'll show you the 'clean coal,' but you have to give us the big subsidy money for all our projects." Before that happens, Obama needs to shift gears--quickly.

Basically, Obama has to start painting on a bigger canvas where "clean coal" is positioned more in the background of "things that are in the R&D stage and might happen in subsequent decades." He has to say -- (1) the climate crisis is dire, (2) we have to make a huge transformational shift in our infrastructure, (3) this should be approached as an infrastructure issue on the scale of the moon race, the interstate highway system, etc., (4) this big new infrastructure project requires us to retire our existing coal fleet, which is actually getting quite old, (5) this infrastructure project will solve the climate crisis, but it will also help our economic recession and our security issues.

With regard to clean coal, Obama needs to start distinguishing between things that are ready to roll now (efficiency, wind, solar), and things that will not be ready for prime time until after his administration ("clean coal," 4th generation nuclear, enhanced geothermal).

This way, he continues to give lip service to clean coal and nuclear, but establishes the principle that a distiction needs to be made between rolling out some big new infrastructure (bigger expenditures) and doing R&D on possible steps for the coming decades (smaller expenditures).

As for the politics of coal, Obama needs to state repeatedly that an underlying principle of the new energy infrastructure transformation is that coal industry workers will not be the sacrificial lamb.  

Help build coalSwarm-- a shared informational resource on coal and alternatives to coal.

]]> Who's Playing Whom?

Excellent series, David. I agree with you that Obama has played the "clean coal" hand that he got dealt in the primaries very intelligently. He's called industry's bluff by saying, "OK, I'll play this hand, but you won't actually get my chips until you show me that your 'clean coal' hand is for real."

But it's important not to overstate how long this approach can work. Obama has to become an educator and push the whole national debate to a higher level.

If Obama stays too long within industry's framing of things (i.e. that "clean coal" is an actual near-term solution, which it isn't), then he risks falling into a big trap when industry comes back with: "OK, we'll show you the 'clean coal,' but you have to give us the big subsidy money for all our projects." Before that happens, Obama needs to shift gears--quickly.

Basically, Obama has to start painting on a bigger canvas where "clean coal" is positioned more in the background of "things that are in the R&D stage and might happen in subsequent decades." He has to say -- (1) the climate crisis is dire, (2) we have to make a huge transformational shift in our infrastructure, (3) this should be approached as an infrastructure issue on the scale of the moon race, the interstate highway system, etc., (4) this big new infrastructure project requires us to retire our existing coal fleet, which is actually getting quite old, (5) this infrastructure project will solve the climate crisis, but it will also help our economic recession and our security issues.

With regard to clean coal, Obama needs to start distinguishing between things that are ready to roll now (efficiency, wind, solar), and things that will not be ready for prime time until after his administration ("clean coal," 4th generation nuclear, enhanced geothermal).

This way, he continues to give lip service to clean coal and nuclear, but establishes the principle that a distiction needs to be made between rolling out some big new infrastructure (bigger expenditures) and doing R&D on possible steps for the coming decades (smaller expenditures).

As for the politics of coal, Obama needs to state repeatedly that an underlying principle of the new energy infrastructure transformation is that coal industry workers will not be the sacrificial lamb.  

Help build coalSwarm-- a shared informational resource on coal and alternatives to coal.

]]> Comment #4 by David Roberts http://www.grist.org/article/a-defense-of-obamas-dirty-energy-rhetoric-part-the-third/ Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:34:40 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-defense-of-obamas-dirty-energy-rhetoric-part-the-third/4 I agree, Ted,

that he should start doing those things ... after the election.

Frankly, I don't even mind if he subsidizes the construction of a few "clean coal" demonstration projects. Those are one-off expenses and, if you ask me, overwhelmingly like to show that costs are higher than anyone is predicting. The real fight is to resist the push for ongoing subsidies -- resist the notion that we "have to" keep using coal, and thus that we have to keep subsidizing it (or, conversely, that we have to put a bunch of loopholes in our carbon regs).

Honestly, by the time the demonstration projects are built, the whole debate is likely to be moot -- R&E will be taking off. I suspect Obama's simply trying to neuter the debate until circumstances settle it.

grist.org

]]> I agree, Ted,

that he should start doing those things ... after the election.

Frankly, I don't even mind if he subsidizes the construction of a few "clean coal" demonstration projects. Those are one-off expenses and, if you ask me, overwhelmingly like to show that costs are higher than anyone is predicting. The real fight is to resist the push for ongoing subsidies -- resist the notion that we "have to" keep using coal, and thus that we have to keep subsidizing it (or, conversely, that we have to put a bunch of loopholes in our carbon regs).

Honestly, by the time the demonstration projects are built, the whole debate is likely to be moot -- R&E will be taking off. I suspect Obama's simply trying to neuter the debate until circumstances settle it.

grist.org

]]> Comment #5 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/a-defense-of-obamas-dirty-energy-rhetoric-part-the-third/ Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:41:24 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-defense-of-obamas-dirty-energy-rhetoric-part-the-third/5 Refreshing

"I suspect Obama's simply trying to neuter the debate until circumstances settle it."

...to talk intelligently about the actions an intelligent president might take. This is going to be interesting.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Refreshing

"I suspect Obama's simply trying to neuter the debate until circumstances settle it."

...to talk intelligently about the actions an intelligent president might take. This is going to be interesting.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Comment #6 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/a-defense-of-obamas-dirty-energy-rhetoric-part-the-third/ Mon, 20 Oct 2008 04:46:41 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-defense-of-obamas-dirty-energy-rhetoric-part-the-third/6 Well put, Ken

and while we are on the issue of health care. I have recently concluded that it would be the perfect wealth redistribution vehicle to keep the American middle class alive, well, and working. We need something to stop the transfer of wealth into the hands of the few, as is the tendency, because you can't have a healthy economy if there are only wealthy and poor people with nothing in between.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Well put, Ken

and while we are on the issue of health care. I have recently concluded that it would be the perfect wealth redistribution vehicle to keep the American middle class alive, well, and working. We need something to stop the transfer of wealth into the hands of the few, as is the tendency, because you can't have a healthy economy if there are only wealthy and poor people with nothing in between.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Comment #7 by edarnold41 http://www.grist.org/article/a-defense-of-obamas-dirty-energy-rhetoric-part-the-third/ Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:42:44 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/a-defense-of-obamas-dirty-energy-rhetoric-part-the-third/7 Koolaid, anyone?

Oh, Good Grief! Barack Obama is a skillful pragmatic politician who will say anything to anyone to get their vote, meanwhile having his fingers crossed behing his back. If you want to see what he, and the Democratic Party, will actually do if they are placed in power, look at their actual voting record.
If anyone still believes in the Senator as an idealistic savior, research his current positive 'position' on the Second Amendment, compared with his record in Illinois and in the US Senate of supporting every gun-banning bill that his party put before him.
If you haven't been happy with what the Democrats have done for the environment in the past, don't expect anything different with Obama in the White House. He was created by the Party, and he is their property.

]]> Koolaid, anyone?

Oh, Good Grief! Barack Obama is a skillful pragmatic politician who will say anything to anyone to get their vote, meanwhile having his fingers crossed behing his back. If you want to see what he, and the Democratic Party, will actually do if they are placed in power, look at their actual voting record.
If anyone still believes in the Senator as an idealistic savior, research his current positive 'position' on the Second Amendment, compared with his record in Illinois and in the US Senate of supporting every gun-banning bill that his party put before him.
If you haven't been happy with what the Democrats have done for the environment in the past, don't expect anything different with Obama in the White House. He was created by the Party, and he is their property.

]]>