...the environmental community, and most of the progressive one as well, have pretty much bought into the whole automobile/oil culture, and have been at pains to assume its continued existence for fear of alienating people.  So at the moment, they are all in a process of trying to absorb the idea that the era of cheap oil is ending.  This will take a while.

What you saw with Gore advocating, or implying, the end of a a fossil-fuel society, is a glimmer of attention to the idea, maybe for the first time.

When you say "energy", are you really talking about gasoline/oil prices?  Or are people also concerned about electricity costs, or god forbid, carbon-based electricity sources?  Because if it's the former, then people will have to discuss how suburbia will look, how cities will look, with an electrified transportation system, and I think that that is something that progressives/environmentalists are woefully unprepared for, as it will probably involve lots of talk of public transit/walkable communities, which, again, might sound scary.  And yes, electric cars.

And it's not limited to the environmental orgs.  Many of the groups I'm affiliated with in the pro-competition world, pro-efficiency world and environmental worlds are finally getting their messages heard, and all are far too fragmented to respond coherently.  

The most talented individuals within those communities are increasingly decamping off to launch their own solo efforts, realizing (probably not incorrectly) that they're better off on their own.  And lots of the rest are working hard to retain their "king of the dweebs" titles, standing directly in the path of success.  We ought to do better.

to stitch one together.  Start with a list of ideas that these groups could all agree on, and get most of these groups to agree to work together on these ideas.  Add a few charismatic leaders, a catchy name, and you're done.

Building this list shouldn't be too hard.  Just make sure to only include wide truths (e.g. Coal is an enemy to mankind) and don't add any specific controversial technologies to the list (e.g. nuclear).

I'd say it's actually quite hard.  You need a group that is:

(a) politically savvy
(b) politically powerful
(c) technically literate
(d) economically literate
(e) creative - a fount for good ideas
(f) capable of acting quickly

I'd challenge you to name any advocacy/lobbying/think-tank that meets these criteria and doesn't represent the status quo.  

Most of the best orgs that I know either agree on goals but fight about paths, or else spend their time trying to hold together coalitions of disparate interests (for political power) that can't agree on goals (making it impossible for them to act on anything).  The worst ones meanwhile may agree on goals and paths and have no dissension within their ranks, but are politically naive and grossly idealistic and - as a result - are politically powerless.  (Many environmental orgs, sadly, fall into this group.)

that you can't drill your way out of. - T. Boone Pickens.

I never thought much of Mr. Pickens, but he bought the time to run his ad during Meet the Press with Brokaw (Gotta agree with Dave about Tom) and Gore and he was right about this.

This is also a case where the media is failing to ask the obvious follow up questions when any politician takes this approach.

Wes Rolley CoChair - EcoAction Committee Green Party US

Gore's payroll taxcut/carbon tax that is revenue neutral takes care of the difficulty in getting a new tax to price carbon.  Without the typical rightie no-new-taxes swiftboatery.

I am all for public investment too, like government ordering a million plugin hybrid cars over 3 years, or putting solar on federal, state, and local buildings.

And subsidy as well, direct subsidy checks to homeowners, farmers, and businesses who generate GHG free kwh for the grid from their renewable energy systems.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Other than possibly (b), you've described the bloggers and readers gristmill.  And (b) would come with the coalition.

Of course all of your problem groups probably describe us as well.

Just start a seperate group made up and supported by this one.  Agree to create a platform and stick to it.  The rest is marketing.

focus on some specific legislation, count votes, dog the legislation daily

sort of like the negative Kos campaigns against the latest outrage, but for a positive goal

I suggest grid expansion

Sen. Leader has a bill already.  Many utilities want something.  Dovetails with wind and concentrated solar

figure out, specifically, what you want
AC  DC  how many volts.  Where.  What funding.  Any related FERC change?  What about NIMBY?

Sen Sanders is on Energy Comm.  He is interested.  Bring him your prize bill.

Work it.  Work it.  Work it.

Work

end the jibber jabber and philosophy; pick a goal; just do it

There is no energy policy coalition in the environmental community because humans do not want to hear what they need to give up in order to bring energy policy in line with a healthy environment.  A healthy planet is about responsibility, not about the rights and entitlements so dear to the hearts of progressives.   Earth may be saved by giving up, by not doing, by not buying.  No other solution has a chance.

Start with a group of humans who tell themselves they are committed to saving Earth.  Tell them they have to give up...

Breeding
Cars
Large houses
Land "development"
Processed food
Heating oil
Land "development"
Vacuum cleaners
Household cleaners
Retirement

Still there?

Economic "growth"
Pets
Bottled water
Airlines
Dry cleaning
Cosmetics
Nascar
School busses
Teflon
HMO's

And now?

3000 mile food
Lawns
Cell phones
Clothes dryer
Disney World, Land...
Plastic
RV's, ATV's, Snowmobiles, etc.
Eco-Tours
Cosmetic surgery
UPS

Anyone left?  That's what I thought.

Gene

We need a real leader.  Gore mentioned transporting the power from solar and wind rich areas on underground transmission lines, he meant high voltage DC lines.

Obama will be busy doing all the other stuff he has to do as president.  Gore ought to lead the renewable energy/ag conservation revolution.

But maybe from outside the normal government structure, heading up a commision or something?  What are the precedents for this?  If any?

I keep getting back to the idea of government ordering millions of solar systems and plugin hybrids to impell mass production, as in the case of WW 2 industries, and then the president jawboning big corporations into making matching orders of similar equipment.  To really get this manufacturing going.

It's a problem though, translating something this complex into simple enough concepts for legislators to grasp and communicate to voters.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Did Roberts just discover this? For the past year or more I have hassled numerous climate groups to get their act together and formulate their own energy legislation to counteract the Boxer-Lieberman gruel that passes for global warming legislation.  They just sat on their butts. Mostly they didn't answer me; those that did were nasty and told me not to complain or that I was a "purist". So much for environmental activism. And since then nothing has changed. Some groups support carbon trading. Some oppose carbon taxes. All supported the "80% reduction by 2050" in CO2 emissions, knowing that by that date the game is over. There is no leadership.
Even 350.org, Bill McKibben's group, has no clear plan for getting down to the 350 ppm the scientists urge. Do these people think that we should just sit around and pray for a miracle?      Isn't anyone embarrassed?   Or maybe they aren't scared enough? Or just lazy? Whatever the case, we have failed collectively. We complain but propose no alternative. No wonder the politicians are in control.  The activists are sitting in front of their computers instead of storming the doors of congress and marching in the streets.  We have put ourselves at their mercy even though science is on our side. We should just crawl away in shame.

It's basically what I've been saying for a long time, with details added.  One thing I'd point out: there's no point in trying to make a list, it's almost infinite.  It's the entire idea of industrial society and the anti-environmental attitudes that come with it, including materialism and putting human comfort and convenience above the rest of the Earth.  Even most of the posters on Grist fall into this category.  The people we should be learning from and emulating are the very few hunter-gatherers left, and maybe pre-industrial agricultural communities (if there are any left) for more immediate solutions, not yuppie types who are more interested in maintaining ecologically and environmentally destructive lifestyles than they are fixing ecological and environmental problems.  The latter group tries to convince us that technology will save us and/or the Earth, which is laughable considering that technology is the problem.  (Yes, some technologies are more harmful than others, but they're all harmful.)

And this perfectly explains the reactions that Lorna got when she tried to get climate groups to organize climate groups and get effective climate legislation drafted and proposed.  Again, in most environmental groups, people fall far more into the yuppie category than into the one concerned primarily about the natural world on which all life, including humans, depends.

That's the nice thing about Grist, you get a full spectrum.  Wouldn't want to preach to the converted.  And the people on Grist are generally way outside the box, or outside the Beltway, in terms of what people are thinking about (just look at the reaction to Gore's speech).  But keep goin' for it.