"The good news is spring is coming earlier and earlier [thanks] to climate change."

-- An anonymous White House official, on the prospect of the Senate debating a climate and clean energy bill in the spring of 2010.

Related Links:

Inhofe to Boxer: “We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!”

Carol Browner strongly backs bipartisan cap-and-trade bill

Reflecting on the lameness of my profession

"Never again."

Those ought to be the words coming from the White House right now on global warming. Never again can we tolerate a year like 2009, where attempts to cap carbon pollution experience such profound stagnation. Already this month President Obama has confirmed two painful truths. First: Congress will not complete work on a global warming bill in 2009. And second, the corollary blow: There will be no international climate deal in Denmark next month, dashing years of international hopes.

So now Obama's message ought to be "never again." The planet just can't endure another year of inaction. Obama should travel to the Copenhagen climate conference in December and guarantee dramatic action from the U.S. in 2010 even if it means blowing everything up in Congress and starting over. If a "cap and trade" bill won't fly in the Senate in 2010, then let the Environmental Protection Agency explore maximum-strength carbon regulations while, legislatively, we switch back to Obama's original presidential campaign plan: "cap and rebate."

Apologists, of course, are rushing to defend the president this week, explaining away the now-official climate failures of 2009. There was never enough time, they say, to fix in a few months all the global warming harm George Bush created in eight long years.

Maybe so. But we can't blame Bush forever. What's the plan for 2010? The only strategy the Democrats seem to have is borrowed from 2009: Get the Senate to finally pass the cap and trade bill. That would be the 1400-page bill narrowly approved by the House in June and loaded with subsidies for "clean coal" and likely big profits for Wall Street traders. It's been stagnating in the Senate for most of the autumn. Centrist Democrat Jim Webb of Virginia -- a vitally important vote -- all but condemned the bill this week in a press conference. What if the bill simply never passes? What will Obama take to the international treaty talks in Germany in June 2010or Mexico next December?

As long as Obama sticks to a principle of "never again," then Plan B should become relatively clear. Allow the EPA to move rapidly forward with its court-sanctioned ability to mandate carbon reductions across the economy under the Clean Air Act. This has always been the shotgun in the closet. No one really wants to proceed this way, unleashing messy regulations from a bureaucratic agency. But if the Senate won't act, then the EPA must.

But while that closet door is opening, we should all ask why the Senate has had trouble acting. The most obvious -- but least discussed -- problem is the concept of "cap and trade" itself. The bill treats our life-giving global atmosphere as if it were the property of private corporations. Up to 85 percent of the pollution permits under the bill would given away free to polluters in addition to loopholes that allow, for example, coal companies in America to avoid carbon reductions by paying faraway Zambian farmers to stop tilling their fields. Two prominent EPA attorneys -- both with extensive experience implementing federal pollution regulations -- have recently asserted that the cap and trade measure before Congress simply won't work and shouldn't be tried.

So what will work? For starters, we must rightly view the atmosphere as a shared resource, belonging to all people, not as a commodity owned by polluters. Obama had this idea in mind when he campaigned for president. His global warming proposal then would have required all polluters to pay for emissions permits. And at least 80 percent of the money raised would be rebated to American households. The rest -- over ten billion dollars per year -- would be invested in clean energy projects.

By rebating almost all the permit money to American households, this policy approach robs Republicans of their cherished ability to call a carbon cap a "carbon tax." And by making all polluters pay, the approach relieves many Democrats of their nervousness over corporate welfare. These features alone will provide afresh and popular boost to the climate debate should the cap and trade approach stall completely in 2010. A rebate approach -- especially one that gives all Americans an equal refund every month -- will also create the political space necessary for the kind of deep emissions cuts scientists say are needed to save the climate.

Unfortunately, after Obama's election, thanks to big lobbying from Big Oil and Big Coal, Congress went down the dubious trading path that now finds the clock running out in 2009. But if Obama wants to succeed as a politician and truly earn his Nobel Peace Prize, he'll embrace "never again" as a guide and prepare now to move the country toward his better, original instincts in 2010.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Cross-posted from Climate Progress. Co-written by Julian L. Wong of the Center for American Progress.

Obama and President Hu Jintao together at a reception before the formal state dinner in Beijing.Photo: whitehouse.govTuesday, a comprehensive plan for U.S.-China cooperation on clean energy and climate change was announced in Beijing by President Obama and President Hu Jintao. The overall plan is much more ambitious in scope and depth than we had anticipated and contains directives to create various institutions and programs addressing a wide array of cooperation on clean-energy technologies and capacity building, including very important efforts on helping China build a robust, transparent, and accurate inventory of their greenhouse gas emissions.

These efforts include cooperation in the following areas:

1. Greenhouse gas inventory. A memorandum of cooperation between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and China's National Development and Reform Commission sets out avenues for collaboration on capacity building in climate change, with an initial focus on helping China to develop a robust, transparent, and accurate greenhouse gas emissions inventory.

2. Joint clean energy research center. Originally announced this July, more details were provided on the joint center that will "facilitate joint research and development of clean energy technologies by teams of scientists and engineers from the United States and China, as well as serve as a clearinghouse to help researchers in each country."  Financial support from public and private sources of at least $150 million over five years, split evenly between the two countries, will be provided.  The Center's research will initially focus on building energy efficiency, clean coal including carbon capture and storage, and clean vehicles. (Factsheet)

3. Electric vehicles. Those initiatives will "include joint standards development, demonstration projects in more than a dozen cities, technical roadmapping and public education projects."  (Factsheet)

4. Energy efficiency. Building on the Ten Year Framework on Energy and Environment Cooperation, government officials of both countries will "work together and with the private sector to develop energy efficient building codes and rating systems, benchmark industrial energy efficiency, train building inspectors and energy efficiency auditors for industrial facilities, harmonize test procedures and performance metrics for energy efficient consumer products, [and] exchange best practices in energy efficient labeling systems." (Factsheet)

5. Renewable energy. The two countries will develop roadmaps for wide-spread renewable energy deployment in both countries.  The Partnership will also provide technical and analytical resources to states and regions in both countries to support renewable energy deployment and will facilitate state-to-state and region-to-region partnerships to share experience and best practices.  (Factsheet)

6. 21st century coal. The two countries will "launch a program of technical cooperation to bring teams of U.S. and Chinese scientists and engineers together in developing clean coal and carbon capture and storage technologies." The Presidents also welcomed a package of announcements on public-private partnerships in advanced coal technologies. (Factsheet)

7. Shale gas. Under a new Shale Gas Initiative, the U.S. and China will "use experience gained in the United States to assess China's shale gas potential, promote environmentally-sustainable development of shale gas resources, conduct joint technical studies to accelerate development of shale gas resources in China, and promote shale gas investment in China through the U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum, study tours, and workshops." (Factsheet)

8. Nuclear. The two countries reaffirmed the goals of the recently-concluded Third Executive Committee Meeting of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to promote the peaceful use of civilian nuclear energy, and " agreed to consult with one another in order to explore such approaches-including assurance of fuel supply and cradle-to-grave nuclear fuel management so that countries can access peaceful nuclear power while minimizing the risks of proliferation."

9. Public-private partnerships on clean energy. A new U.S.-China Energy Cooperation Program (ECP) will "leverage private sector resources for project development work in China across a broad array of clean energy projects, to the benefit of both nations."  The ECP, consisting of at least 22 founding member companies, will work on collaborative projects in renewable energy, smart grid, clean transportation, green building, clean coal, combined heat and power, and energy efficiency.

In a joint statement, Obama and Jintao agreed on a common approach to achieve a successful outcome in international climate negotiations (emphasis added in bold):

Regarding the upcoming Copenhagen Conference, both sides agree on the importance of actively furthering the full, effective and sustained implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in accordance with the Bali Action Plan. The United States and China, consistent with their national circumstances, resolve to take significant mitigation actions and recognize the important role that their countries play in promoting a sustainable outcome that will strengthen the world's ability to combat climate change. The two sides resolve to stand behind these commitments.

In this context both sides believe that, while striving for final legal agreement, an agreed outcome at Copenhagen should, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries. The outcome should also substantially scale up financial assistance to developing countries, promote technology development, dissemination and transfer, pay particular attention to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable to adapt to climate change, promote steps to preserve and enhance forests, and provide for full transparency with respect to the implementation of mitigation measures and provision of financial, technology, and capacity building support.

Taken together, these commitments and statements represent an important step forward towards agreeing on a protocol for accurate accounting and verification of China's policies for achieving the necessary emissions reductions that science requires. They will also hopefully start to satisfy those skeptical that China will agree to a protocol for accurate accounting and verification of its impressive array of policies for achieving emissions reductions.

The announcements also suggest that the United States and China are on the same page when it comes to both the necessity of aggressively moving forward on an affirmative agenda to reduce carbon pollution and create millions of new clean energy jobs. The agreement contains concrete measures for sustained and meaningful collaboration and demonstrates that the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases are prepared to move beyond the tired narrative of developed versus developing country responsibilities on climate action toward a more "positive, cooperative, and comprehensive" relationship on clean energy and climate change.

We hope that the upcoming United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen will follow this example and focus as much on bottom-up technological strategies for achieving real reductions in emissions as it will on top-down targets for carbon caps.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

In his latest column, Bill McKibben lays a wide range of sins at the feet of Barack Obama, accusing him of "fibbing and spinning" on climate change. He says Obama is "not particularly focused" on climate (while linking to coverage of an Obama speech dedicated to climate). He says that by putting health care ahead of climate change, Obama "guarantee[d] that health care would occupy most of the year." He says that by focusing on green jobs and energy security rather than climate change, Obama has "left the door open for climate deniers to have a field day." Obama's administration is "spinning" by focusing on the still-common 450 ppm number for atmospheric CO2 rather than the 350 ppm favored by some activists and scientists.

I could not be more sincere when I say that I wish Obama were responsible for health care reform dragging on, for climate deniers and delayers, for the lack of ambition U.S. negotiators can promise the international community. If these things were a matter of Obama simply not trying hard enough, perhaps he could be persuaded to try harder. He's a reasonable guy!

Alas, despite the far-reaching powers people tend to ascribe to the U.S. presidency in general and Obama specifically, it seems to me the real culprit is -- yes, I'm going to say the same thing again, I'm boring! -- the U.S. Senate.

Bill says Obama is using the Senate like Bush used China, as an excuse for delay. The analogy is apt insofar as China was out of Bush's control and the Senate is out of Obama's. But it's inapt in that there's plenty Bush could have done without China and he didn't; there's plenty Obama can do outside the Senate and he's doing it. When it comes to matters under executive branch control, the progress over the last 10 months has been amazing -- new fuel-economy rules, new enforcement of efficiency standards, EPA moving forward on CO2 regulations, energy standards and goals for all federal departments, tons of green stimulus money, national retrofit programs, delay of mining and drilling permits, sustained bi- and multi-lateral international climate diplomacy ... the list goes on. Obama is doing what a president can do -- more than any president has ever done.

Ultimately, then, Bill's beef comes down to Obama's supposed refusal to "push the Senate as hard as [he] possibly can." Tellingly, there are no details offered on what this pushing might involve, just some handwaving at "spending political capital."

But how to push the Senate? That's the most important question! Surely it deserves a little more attention.

Bill Clinton tried getting out ahead of Congress to prod it to action. He sent Gore to Kyoto promising ambitious action on climate. He handed Congress a health care reform bill that he (or rather his wife) had hashed out behind closed doors in the White House, ready to go.

Conservative Democrats bridled; they felt no loyalty to his agenda; they rejected the Kyoto treaty; they picked at the health bill and were happy to let it die.

Obama has been trying the opposite strategy. He is very carefully instructing his international negotiators not to promise anything that the Senate hasn't already signed on to. (That means waiting for the Senate to pass a bill.) On both health care and clean energy, he has laid out a set of broad principles and let members of Congress work out their own bills, cheerleading occasionally from the sidelines. On health care, the progress has been impossibly slow, dragging out longer than anyone not totally cynical about the Senate could have predicted. But it's been progress. On clean energy, the strategy worked like a charm with the House clean energy bill. Obama mostly let Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) handle it, with some crucial behind-the-scenes help. The administration strongly endorsed the bill when it passed. A roughly similar bill got to the Senate and raced through Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-Calif.) progressive Environment and Public Works Committee.

And ... conservative Democrats bridled; they felt no loyalty to Obama's agenda; they're trash-talking Copenhagen; they're picking at the clean energy bill and are happy to let it die. (See: Jim Webb.)

That's two very different executive strategies that ran into similar wankery from conservative Senate Dems. Maybe our conclusion should be that the problem is conservative Senate Dems. Many such Dems come from states that voted for McCain and/or Bush. Obama has no leverage over them; support from Obama isn't important or necessarily helpful for their electoral prospects. Unless they feel constrained by party discipline like their colleagues on the other side of the aisle, or God forbid feel the pull of conscience, they have no incentive to work to pass the progressive agenda Obama campaigned on. Nor do they have reason to accept any treaty his administration signs that goes beyond what they've already agreed to. Dems desperately need their votes, but they don't desperately need other Dems, and there's just very little in Obama's arsenal with which to "push" them. The dysfunction of the Senate is structural; it's not in Obama's power to change, no matter how much he tries, no matter how much capital he spends.

The difference between Clinton's flamboyant rhetorical pushing and Obama's relatively laid-back style is this: Obama's still has a chance to work. However frustrating it may be to activists who want bigger words, bolder promises, and faster action, the fact remains that the Dems are within reach of passing a health care reform bill and have at least laid out a path to passing a clean energy bill and ratifying a binding international climate treaty in 2010. It's too early to deem Obama's leadership a failure.

Yes: political realities can be changed. The kind of broad grassroots movement that Bill McKibben himself has been so instrumental in creating can shift the tectonic plates. But a crucial step in that process is to accurately identify what and who is blocking progress. It's not Obama who deserves the ire of the 350 army. It's Max Baucus (D-Mont.). It's Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). It's Jim Webb (D-Vir.). It's Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). It's the filibuster! These targets are harder to reach and in many ways less satisfying to battle, but they are the real locus of delay and inaction.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

This essay appeared first on MotherJones.com. Bill McKibben is chronicling his journey into climate activism with a series of columns leading up to the global climate summit in Copenhagen this December. You can find the others here. And you can put yourself on the cover of MoJo's special issue on climate change here.

Two caveats. First, early in the primary season, when I was asked to join Environmentalists for Obama, I signed on immediately. I knocked doors, made phone calls, gave money, and celebrated his victory--I think he's the best president of my lifetime.

Second, Obama has done much that's right about climate, including surround himself with a stellar staff of advisers. From auto mileage to green stimulus spending, he's done more to deal with global warming than all of the presidents combined in the 20 years that it's been an issue.

But that's a pretty low bar. And the announcement yesterday from the APEC meeting in Singapore that next month's Copenhagen climate talks will be nothing more than a glorified talking session makes it clear that he has, at least for now, punted on the hard questions around climate. The world won't be able to get started on solving our climate problem, and the obstacle -- as it has been for the last two decades -- is the United States.

And in fact none of this should come as a surprise to anyone paying attention. For a year now it's been clear that the president is not particularly focused on applying the political pressure that would have been necessary to reach any kind of pact, much less one that approaches what the science demands. Despite the deadline of the Copenhagen conference, Obama placed energy second on his priority list, guaranteeing that health care would occupy most of the year. He talked very little about climate, tending instead to talk about green jobs and energy security, and in the process left the door open for climate deniers to have a field day. And then, as with health care, he left it pretty much entirely up to Congress to write the necessary legislation. That kept him from having to bear the blame for a Byzantine bill, but it also meant that the Senate -- the body from which he came, and whose culture he had to know -- could work in its usual style, without White House pressure. Which at the moment means that Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham are essentially rewriting the legislation, to what end no one really knows.

The real tip-off of Obama's unwillingness to lead, however, has been the endless spinning of his climate negotiators. For 12 months they have been fibbing about the science -- reiterating over and over again that their goal is the "scientific standard" of 450 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere. That's no longer scientifically accurate -- in the last two years, since the rapid Arctic melt in the summer of 2007, scientists have made it clear that a treaty that aimed at 450 ppm would be a treaty that left the planet free of ice, a planet where many current nations would disappear beneath the waves. We're at 390 now -- we're already too high. The 450 number came from the various graphs and tables of the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- but Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC, has said repeatedly in the last year that that science is out of date. Recently, asked why he'd endorsed a 350 target instead, he said: "As a human being, I just couldn't keep quiet in the face of all this overwhelming evidence. I know it's probably not right for me to take a position such as this, but on the other hand, I think it would be totally immoral on my part not to take a position, so I came out and said so."

By contrast, the Obama administration's position has been that a tough treaty is politically unrealistic -- that the Senate would never pass it. That's certainly true, at least for the moment. But the White House is starting to use the Senate in the same way that the Bush administration used China -- as a scapegoat for doing too little. You don't get to blame the Senate if you haven't pushed the Senate as hard as you possibly can. It would take a huge commitment of presidential leadership, the sacrifice of large amounts of political capital, to change political reality. It would also take a movement of citizens, which we've tried hard to build. Three weeks ago we at 350.org organized what CNN called "the most widespread day of political action in the planet's history." Many prime ministers, environmental ministers, and foreign ministers participated -- heck, the president of the Maldives convened an underwater cabinet meeting to make the point about how desperate the situation was. We asked the White House if anyone -- some spare undersecretary of something -- might come to one of the 2,000 demonstrations across the United States. They couldn't find a soul.

They'll have another chance. With groups around the world, 350.org will help organize candlelight vigils around the world on the weekend of Dec. 12. Many will take place at American embassies and consulates. Not because anyone is anti-American. Because everyone remains hopeful that America will finally help lead to solve the problem that it, far more than any other nation, caused.

None of this is easy. (I haven't even mentioned the obscenely low amounts of money the administration and Congress are talking about appropriating for the foreign aid that will be required to help developing countries adapt to the global warming America has caused.) But all of it is easier than trying to deal with the world that's coming at us faster every day we don't act. Pressuring Senate Republicans (or coal-fired Democrats) is hard; pressuring physics and chemistry is harder still. In fact, it's impossible. That's why this is different than health-care reform or financial re-regulation. You have to actually meet the scientific standard, not just do better than George W. Bush.

And of course, politically, Obama doesn't need to do it. He doesn't need to worry about environmentalists abandoning him for someone else -- he'll always be the preferable choice, and I'll always be out there knocking on doors for him. But his legacy won't depend on the shiny medal the Norwegians hang around his neck next month; it will depend, more than anything else, on whether or not he really tackles the biggest problem the planet faces. There is still time for him to make the crucial difference, but not if his administration continues in fib-and-spin mode. At the same meeting in Singapore where he made it clear that Copenhagen would not negotiate a new climate treaty, he invited all the other APEC leaders to meet in 2011 in Hawaii, adding "I look forward to seeing you all decked out in flowered shirts and grass skirts."

Whatever -- that sounds more like his giggly, sophomoric predecessor than the leader we desperately need.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

[See update at bottom.]

The big news this weekend was that a coalition of world leaders made it official: there will be no full-fledged, legally binding agreement out of the Copenhagen climate talks. Instead there will be a "politically binding" agreement, pledging to work out a full agreement in 2010 -- "one agreement, two steps." This was Denmark PM (and Copenhagen host) Lars Lokke Rasmussen's way of salvaging a half-win from what was threatening to be a total loss.

Of course opponents of climate action are portraying it as a disaster that augers the death of UNFCCC process; they do that with every setback or delay. Climate activists don't seem to have decided quite yet what to think about it. My take: it's not as bad as it looks. I'd endorse some mix of Broder, Romm, and Schmidt.

NYT's John Broder is right about the main constraint here. Well, almost right. He says "Congress," but the real culprit is the Senate. That dysfunctional body is taking its sweet, preening time as always, letting health care reform drag on into winter and now, in a fit of cluelessness, delaying a deficit-neutral, job-creating clean energy bill to ... focus on jobs and the deficit. Behind the scenes, that bill is getting larded up with enough retrograde energy pork to secure precious conservative votes. Best case scenario, it limps through the Senate, gets a little remediation in conference committee, and passes in April or May. Beyond then, midterm politics take over and reasonable legislating becomes impossible.

This absurdly protracted process is playing out as dozens of countries hang out, tapping their feet, looking at their watches, flipping idly through waiting-room magazines. Concerted international action can't get started without the U.S., and the U.S. can't get started without the Senate -- the Obama administration won't promise anything to which the Senate hasn't committed. So the world waits for the Senate, observing its legislative process with a mix of bewilderment, anxiety, and disdain.

Joe Romm points out that the delay offers some needed breathing room. The sense that the world is waiting will increase pressure on the Senate to pass a bill (there's pressure from Brazil and France already). Conversely, legislation from the U.S. would increase pressure on China and India to step up to the plate with targets and timetables.

NRDC's Jake Schmidt notes that the extra time will be beneficial if a) enough details are settled in Copenhagen and b) world leaders focus on ironing out a final agreement in the intervening months. That's a big if.

Nonetheless, if the world's nations had headed into Copenhagen expecting a legally binding treaty complete with targets and timetables, the result would have been disappointment, acrimony, and worst of all, wasted time. By taking some of the pressure off Copenhagen, the two-steps agreement has avoided disaster and maintained momentum. It's also given the Obama administration time to engage in more climate diplomacy. Now if something could just be done about the Senate ...

UPDATE: I'm hearing from people close to the international process that Rasmussen's deal might not be as official as it's been made to seem by the U.S. media. Apparently Denmark and the U.S. sprang this on their Asian partners and there's been some pushback, from them and from small island states and African nations.

To boot, Rasmussen's agreement seems like a variation on the plan Yvo de Boer has been fronting for a while -- only without de Boer's hard deadlines, thus letting developed countries off the hook.

Anyway, there's a lot more to this story than is reflected in most media reports. We'll bring you updates as events unfold.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

The Savannah River. Photo courtesy Mountain Hermit via Flickr Earlier this year, President Obama canceled the federal government's plans to store high-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants and weapons facilities at the controversial Yucca Mountain site in Nevada -- but now there are concerns that South Carolina could become the permanent dumping ground for the dangerous waste.

That state is home to the Savannah River Site, a nuclear materials processing center along the Savannah River 25 miles southeast of Augusta, Ga. Built during the 1950s to refine nuclear material for weapons, the site no longer has any operating nuclear reactors and is engaged in cleanup activities.

Given the demise of Yucca Mountain, business leaders in South Carolina and Georgia are expressing worries that high-level waste at the Savannah River Site may now be left there permanently. Scientists have warned about potential environmental contamination from long-term storage of such highly radioactive waste in the Savannah River watershed.

This week the SRS Community Reuse Organization -- a nonprofit group working to diversify the region's economy and a supporter of the Yucca Mountain site -- released a report [PDF] calling for a special blue-ribbon panel to study options for disposing of the waste.

As the preface states:

The government's about face on this critical issue leaves state and local leaders with more questions than answers. Those responsible for public safety, job creation, image enhancement, and citizen confidence must now lead in a new reality. They must come to terms with their community's lingering -- perhaps permanent -- role as caretaker for the Nation's highly radioactive waste.

As a region, we are now left wondering what's next? How we will come together in unity to address a path forward in the wake of this broken promise -- one that has implications of the longest possible term and a potential chilling effect on the region's future growth and prosperity?

The group's report says that if and when a panel is assembled to plot a new strategy for high-level nuclear waste storage, the Savannah River Site region's leaders should get a "seat at the table."

This story originally appeared at Facing South.

Related Links:

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Hot planet to Obama: What’s your Plan B?

Two senators push to ramp up nuclear energy

The Investigative Reporting Workshop released a report on Thursday detailing how one of the first big chunks of money for clean energy under the stimulus package is actually being spent. Our findings (I was the lead reporter on the story) can be found here.

Most interestingly, we found that the program, which is designed to reimburse companies for 30 percent of the cost of building a renewable energy facility, has given out $1.05 billion since Sept. 1. Almost all of it (91 percent) has gone to 11 wind farms (a mix of solar, geothermal and biomass projects collected the rest).

The 11 wind farms are scattered throughout the United States, but the companies who own them and ultimately benefited from U.S. taxpayer funds are scattered across the globe. In fact, 84 percent of the total - $849 million – went to projects owned by foreign companies.

On one level, it's very much an old-fashioned "How-Are-Your-Tax-Dollars-Being-Spent?" story. We looked at who owned the projects, what country they call home and who built the wind turbines that were installed (turbine manufacturing is where you find most of the long-term economic activity associated with building wind energy). We also looked at who lobbied Congress for renewable energy incentives the stimulus bill. We found a mixed crowd of international companies, including huge conglomerates like BP and Alstom -- better known for their carbon and nuclear programs, all eager to come to America and take advantage of the package's benefits for clean energy (hardly a secret).

We also examined how this money was disbursed with virtually no strings attached (there is no obligation for any of this $1.05 billion to be reinvested, though several of the companies have said they will).

But there is more than this one level to the story, and the deeper issues have serious implications for anyone interested in clean energy's future in America. In a nutshell, the fact that European companies are lining up to collect stimulus money is indicative of something bigger: the American clean energy sector is not in great shape. There are only two major U.S.-owned manufacturers of wind turbines (GE Energy and Clipper Wind), and they produced less than half of the turbines installed last year. Even less this year.

The biggest developer of wind farms is still NextEra Energy Resources, a subsidiary of Florida Power & Light, but the Spanish firm Iberdrola is second. Foreign companies riddle the rest of the top ten. (Fascinating charts showing market share can be found on pages 14 and 15 of the American Wind Energy Association's 2008 annual report.) Since the economic crisis of last fall, U.S. companies have pulled back their investment and foreign companies have charged ahead.

So, how did we get here?

It's not a secret. Once upon a time, American innovators invented the modern turbine. After a brief moment of patriotic pride in the accomplishment, we mostly abandoned it until recently when we decided wind should be a bigger part of the renewable energy mix. Even in those brief periods when Americans did support wind, we loved other energy forms more (here's a great chart illustrating federal incentives for various energy sources through 2003).

Numerous attempts to get wind going were made through the 1980s and 1990s, and numerous American wind companies stumbled and fell. Meanwhile, European countries were subsidizing their wind industries and pouring money into their technology development.

It is not a coincidence that the No. 1 supplier of wind turbines globally (and largest foreign supplier in the United States) is Denmark-based Vestas. Denmark set ambitious goals for their wind industry and backed them.

Other European countries did the same, and now Asia and China are following suit, pumping money into their industry and watching as they spring from nothing to major players. Indian companies have been selling turbines in the U.S. for several years now, and minutes before our report was released on Thursday, the first major deal to bring Chinese-built turbines to the U.S. was announced.

Does it matter that we have to rely on foreign companies to build our wind power?

Several people I spoke to about this story -– analysts and other journalists -– have made a comparison to the auto industry. One person asked me, "Is a Honda Odyssey manufactured in Lincoln, Alabama, a Japanese car?"

On the one hand, we live in a global economy where international borders are increasingly meaningless. Money knows no borders and so much of our economic system is based on international trade and manufacturing. And when it comes to many of the leaders in wind energy (Denmark, Spain, etc.), we don't face the sort of geopolitical issues like we do with oil-rich countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Nobody worries about an addiction to Danish wind technology.

And in the midst of the worst recession in decades, a job is a job. Micheline Maynard's new book argues that in many cases, it does not matter who owns the company, because it is the jobs we need.

An industry analyst I interviewed asked me why, if you're talking about creating direct economic benefit -- jobs and investment, here and now -– would you care if a turbine plant in Iowa is Spanish owned?

"The only thing that goes back to Spain is the corporate profits," he said.

Well, the corporate profits and the fact that Americans are dependent on foreign technology, of course.

With the Senate beginning to debate a comprehensive climate and energy bill, President Obama has begun speaking out, very explicitly, on the need for the United States to assert its dominance in the clean energy sector -– i.e. to control the profits and the technology.

One week ago today, speaking at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Obama challenged the nation to be the clean energy leader:

If a comprehensive climate and energy bill passes with a requirement that 15 to 20 percent of our energy should come from renewables by 2020 or 2030 (as various drafts circulating Congress currently do), we're going to be buying a lot of turbines. So, it seemed to us at the Workshop that now would be a good time to talk about who we'll be buying them from.

View the full report on the Investigative Reporting Workshop's Web site. You'll also find charts, an interactive map of wind farms currently under construction and audio of administration officials describing how recipients can use their stimulus funds. The Workshop is a non-profit investigative journalism organization, based at the American University's School of Communication. It's mission is to provide high-quality investigative journalism reports and make the results available to the public and other news organizations to use.

Related Links:

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

‘Heretic’ battles straw man

While in charge of governmental affairs at Croplife America, Isi Siddiqui, second from left, talks global patent law with U.S. Trade Office officials on April 22, 2009. But don't use the "L" word! Photo: U.S. State Department

"[Croplife America] was relentless in its pursuit of monitoring and actively engaging with key influencers in its attempts to make certain that the Farm Bill was beneficial to members of [Croplife America] and ensuring it did not contain language detrimental or discriminatory to pesticides."
-- Jacob Secor, Director, Federal Government Affairs, Dow AgroSciences, quoted in Croplife America's 2008 Annual Report (PDF)

----

Last month, President Obama nominated Islam "Isi" Siddiqui, vice president for governmental affairs at pesticide industry trade group Croplife America, to the post of chief agricultural negotiator at the U.S. Trade Office.

If Siddiqui takes office, he will solidify his position as a textbook case of the "revolving door" between government and industry. Before going to work for the nation's most prominent agrichemical trade group, he had spent a long career as an ag official, first for the state of California, later with the Clinton USDA, where he served as Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.

At the time of his nomination last month, I cynically assumed that Siddiqui would skate through Congress and take his post--and promptly begin battering down global trade barriers, making the world safe for U.S. agrichemicals and cheap ag commodities. "Once the Senate's conservative stalwarts recover from the shock of supporting a man named Islam," I wrote, "they'll surely wave Siddiqui right through." 

Now I'm not so sure. Obama may have a confirmation crisis here--from his left. My colleague Tom Laskawy pointed out in conversation that Obama recently made a similarly dodgy pick: he tapped Joe Pizarchik, a Pennsylvania official with a track record of coddling coal interests, to head the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. And that didn't go as smoothly as planned.

As Kate Sheppard reported last week in Mother Jones:

When President Obama nominated Joseph Pizarchik to head the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, critics blasted the choice, charging that Pizarchik has a history of favoring coal industry interests over the well-being of local residents. Still, it appeared Pizarchik would sail to confirmation this week--until an unknown senator placed a hold on his appointment. [Emphasis added.]

Kate reports that after Pizarchik's confirmation had glided through the Senate Finance Commitee with just two "no" votes, a "mystery senator" placed a two-month block on a vote before the full Senate. Pizarchik now languishes in limbo--and Obama has time to think hard about replacing him with a regulator with a record of standing up to coal interests.

Now U.S. sustainable ag-related NGOs are trying to repeat that trick with regard to the Siddiqui nomination. In an op-ed published on Minute Man, Kathy Ozer, executive director of the National Family Farm Coalition and Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network North America, lambasted the pick.

They wrote: "It's crucial that the Senate Finance Committee hears from public witnesses while investigating his past roles." That's code for: "We know he'll sail though the committee; but won't someone please have the guts to block this egregious pick?"

They have a strong case, I think. As they point out, Obama did vow to end the corrupt old practice of letting former lobbyists from a given industry make policy for that industry. Siddiqui evidently somehow meets the letter of that vow--he's not currently a registered lobbyist (though he has been one in the past.) But let me repeat: he's the executive in charge of "government affairs" for the nation's main pesticide-industry trade group.

Read through Croplife's 2008 and 2009 annual reports (PDFs), and you'll note the group is very proud of the work Siddiqui has done in "governmental affairs": everything from pushing to reduce "trade irritants" around pesticides under NAFTA to making sure "agricultural interests" are accounted for when assessing pesticide's role in the collapse of honeybee populations.

The latter was a huge issue in 2008. Several European nations had banned certain insecticides on the suspicion that they were contributing to colony collapse disorder. Determined to stem a similar tide here, Siddiqui's office shifted into high gear, actively framing honeybee collapse as a problem fixable by pesticides. According to the 2009 annual report:

In June of [2008], CropLife delivered written testimony to the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture detailing... the many benefits to pollinator health attributable to the careful use of pesticides, i.e. miticides, used to protect bees from known natural threats.

Siddiqui and staff forgot to mention that widespread use of miticides in bee management had already given rise to pesticide-resistant supermites--which might themselves contribute to colony collapse.

Over on Politico, veteran food reporter Marian Burros published a good piece Monday detailing the backlash among sustainable-ag groups to to Siddiqui pick. Burros also dug up some good background. For example:

While Siddiqui was at CropLife, the company took part closed-door negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Management and Budget to find ways to permit pesticide testing in children. The firm also was instrumental in securing an exemption for American farmers from the 2006 worldwide ban of the highly controversial chemical methyl bromide, a pesticide that depletes the ozone layer.

Burros also got an interesting statement from a White House official defending the pick. She quotes spokesman Benjamin LaBolt like this:

During his time at USDA, Dr. Siddiqui led the first phase of development for national organic natural food standards in the United States.

So despite his Croplife stint, Siddiqui is really a champion of sustainable ag, right? Well, it's true that the USDA first rolled organic standards way back in 1998, when Siddiqui served as Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs. But those with long memories will recall that the ageny's initial stab at codifying organic standards was not one of its finest moments. As a refresher, here's a vintage 1998 Mother Jones piece that details that unhappy episode. Here's the money bit:

When the USDA finally released its national standards proposal last December, it not only included the use of genetically engineered products but also allowed for irradiation and fertilization with sewage sludge--which can contain metals and toxic chemicals.

The proposed standards also would prohibit organic certifiers from requiring higher standards than those of the USDA. "This means that if the government insists on allowing sewage sludge, irradiation, genetically engineered organisms, piperonyl butoxide, and other materials and technologies that the NOSB specifically rejected for use in organic production, then no one can certify that any product is free of these practices," says organic farmer and NOSB [National Organic Standards Board] member Fred Kirschenmann. [Emphasis added.]

So even before going on the Croplife payroll, Siddiqui was evidently already pushing the interests of the agrichemical industry--and trying to decorate some of their wares with the organic label.

This is the guy we want leading agriculture negotiations on trade talks? Mystery senator who blocked the coal guy from overseeing coal clean-up, whomever you are: please work your magic once more.

Related Links:

Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Hot planet to Obama: What’s your Plan B?

As the Senate debated the Kerry-Boxer climate bill in Washington, President Obama travelled to Arcadia, Florida to announce a $3.4 billion investment in to modernize the U.S. energy grid. Have a look at this official White House press release on the president’s new smart grid proposal:

Speaking at Florida Power and Light’s (FPL) DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center, President Barack Obama today announced the largest single energy grid modernization investment in U.S. history, funding a broad range of technologies that will spur the nation’s transition to a smarter, stronger, more efficient and reliable electric system.  The end result will promote energy-saving choices for consumers, increase efficiency, and foster the growth of renewable energy sources like wind and solar. 

The $3.4 billion in Smart Grid Investment Grant awards are part of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, and will be matched by industry funding for a total public-private investment worth over $8 billion.  Applicants state that the projects will create tens of thousands of jobs, and consumers in 49 states will benefit from these investments in a stronger, more reliable grid.  Full listings of the grant awards by category and state are available here and here.  A map of the awards is available here.

An analysis by the Electric Power Research Institute estimates that the implementation of smart grid technologies could reduce electricity use by more than 4 percent by 2030.  That would mean a savings of $20.4 billion for businesses and consumers around the country, and $1.6 billion for Florida alone— or $56 in utility savings for every man, woman and child in Florida.

One-hundred private companies, utilities, manufacturers, cities, and other partners received awards today, including FPL which will use its $200 million in funding to install 2.6 million smart meters and other technology that will cut energy costs for its customers.  In the coming days, Cabinet Members and other Administration officials will fan out to awardee sites across the country to discuss how this investment will create jobs, improve the reliability and efficiency of the electrical grid, and help bring clean energy sources from high-production states to those with less renewable generating capacity.  The awards announced today represent the largest group of Recovery Act awards ever made in a single day and the largest batch of Recovery Act clean energy grant awards to-date.

Today’s announcement includes:

The combined effect of the investments announced today, when the projects are fully implemented, will:

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Paul Krugman had a post the other day on the "aura of inevitability" and how it finally seems to be working for progressives instead of against them. I think he's on to something.

Summer was brutal for greens. "Cap and tax" attacks were bouncing around the Foxosphere. House Dems were getting killed back home for voting yes on Waxman-Markey. Conventional wisdom said that Pelosi had blundered by forcing them into an unpopular vote for a bill that could never pass the Senate, where health care reform was imperiled and clean energy legislation a forlorn dream.

Since then, however, greens have had one good break after another. And this isn't like 2006, when Al Gore's movie came out and for a while every magazine published a green issue. Those were pop culture events. These latest dramas have taken place inside the hothouse of the Beltway political world, where legislators and political operators take notice.

Good enemies

Start with the dirty energy Keystone Kops, shooting themselves in the foot.

First there was Big Coal's PR arm, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, formerly seen as a lobbying juggernaut that succeeded in putting all of DC in its thrall. Then came the astroturf fraud in August, as Bonner & Assoc. -- working for the coal industry -- got busted sending fake letters from civil rights and women's groups to legislators. ACCCE dropped Bonner like a hot potato, and Bonner blamed ... a temp. Rachel Maddow ripped them a new one. (This story isn't gone, either; a House hearing at which Bonner will testify was recently postponed and will happen later this month. Expect more embarrassing headlines). To boot, ACCCE saw high-profile defections from Duke Energy and Alcoa.

Then there was Faces of Coal, a new astroturf group whose faces turned out to be ... iStockphoto clip art. That one got ripped by Maddow and Stewart.

Then there's the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has bumbled its way into ignominy in record time. First companies began leaving it over its intransigence on clean energy legislation. Then it demanded a "21st Century Scopes Monkey Trial on the science of climate change." Then more companies left. Chamber chief Tom Donahue, oblivious to the changing political winds, bumbled around, at first defiant, then incoherent, then confused, then defensive. Then it emerged that the CoC's membership numbers were wildly inflated -- not 3 million business, but more like 200,000. Then the Yes Men came along and ganked them so successfully with a fake press release and press conference that Reuters got punked, making national headlines and completely eclipsing the launch of the Chamber's goofy PR campaign. Maddow ripped that one too. Then the White House joined in and started pummeling the Chamber, which has spent almost $35 million just in the third quarter of this year lobbying against Obama's initiatives. The Chamber is now in complete disarray, having become, almost overnight, a national symbol of yesterday's news: old, out of touch ideologues in hock to old, out of touch industries.

And finally there are the authors of Superfreakonomics, whose best-seller muddling the science of climate change and advocating for hail-mary policies like geoengineering seems mainly to have served to rouse the progressive intelligentsia to climate science's defense, and to a greater awareness and engagement on the climate issue. I haven't seen this many posts about climate change and climate policy in the progressive mediasphere in ... ever.

Good friends

Meanwhile, there are more and more Faces of Clean Energy, and they ain't clip art.

A huge group of businesses lobbied for legislation on the hill recently. A coalition of religious groups called Day Six is now lobbying for legislation. Operation Free, a group of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, is on a Vets for American Power bus tour -- "mission: secure American with clean energy" -- lobbying for legislation. (For supporting "cap and tax type policies," Penn. State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe [R, needless to say] called these vets "traitors" and "Benedict Arnolds." Again: you really couldn't ask for enemies this clueless.) A group of 18 leading U.S. scientific organizations just sent a letter [PDF] to the Senate reaffirming, in blunt terms, the scientific consensus on the nature and urgency of climate change.

This Saturday will mark Climate Action Day, with hundreds of events across the nation and the world. A string of recent polls has shown that Americans of all political stripes, including those in conservative Dem districts and especially young Americans [PDF], want clean energy, support Obama on the issue, and want legislation from this Congress. They aren't falling for the "cap and tax" hysteria.

Remember the Senate clean energy bill that could never pass because it couldn't get bipartisan support? It has bipartisan support now, and Lindsey Graham coming aboard has pushed Murkowski, Byrd, and Voinovich into the maybe column. The road to 60 votes, while far from easy, is clearly visible now.

And that's before the administration has fully engaged. Obama will give a speech at MIT on Friday supporting the legislation. The same day, Lisa Jackson will release the EPA's analysis of the bill. Next week, the Environment and Public Works Committee will begin hearings, and among the first witnesses will be Jackson, DOE's Steven Chu, the Interior's Ken Salazar, Transportation's Ray LaHood, and FERC chair Jon Wellinghoff. This kicks off what's expected to be a full court press from the administration to get the bill done.

---

In short, at least for the moment, greens have the Big Mo. There's a self-reinforcing cycle of positive stories happening. Deniers and delayers are on the defensive.

It feels good! Yes, it's certain to change, and change again, over the course of the long fight in the Senate. But confidence is everything. Greens aren't used to being the ones with muscle and momentum, but now that they've got them the thing to do is get a little swagger. Nothing succeeds like success, and nothing is more powerful in politics than the aura of inevitability.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

SuperFreak Dubner embraces ClimateGate conspiracy theories

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

MADISON, Wisc. -- President Obama's lieutenants put on their game faces as they fielded journalists' questions Friday, but there was a palpable sense that they know the game is already over going into the global talks on climate change in December.

I wish I could say something different, but that's the sense I got as these key administration officials appeared here at the annual conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Former vice president Al Gore also tried to say a deal is possible at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen. But read between the lines, and it's clear that the administration is already focused on what happens after that.

Just listen to Nancy Sutley, head of the White House's Council on Environmental Quality: "I'm optimistic we'll know what we need to do when we leave Copenhagen."

Jim Rogers, head of Duke Energy (I guess they're the "good guys" on climate now? Because they're working for a climate bill...) even came out and said it: "Copenhagen has the capability to (continue) all next year."

If there was a bright side, it was Gore's speculation that Obama will in fact attend the Copenhagen talks. The former veepster said "I feel certain he will," this coming on the same day Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. (The prize will be presented in Oslo on December 10, making it very easy for the president to zip down to Copenhagen.)

For the record, from Gore as keynoter and all the members of the opening plenary panel, the order of the day was cheerleading for U.S. climate-change legislation and a successful meeting in Copenhagen. (Well, there was one exception: climate change denier and GOP Rep. James Sensenbrenner said anything coming out of the COP15 meetings would be no better than "a blank piece of paper.")

In fact, Duke Energy's Rogers claimed that his firm is making decisions as if the climate-change legislation already had been passed.

Gore went so far as to predict relatively fast passage of climate legislation in the Senate, saying, "There is much more bipartisan dialogue behind the scenes in the U.S. Senate than is publicly known." He called Senate passage by December "more likely than not." OK, if you say so, Al ... but realistically, aren't senators going to be tied up with health care at least until December? Sure seems that way.

Gore went on to say he didn't expect a perfect treaty to come out of Copenhagen, but he looks at it the way he did the Montreal Protocol in 1987, which was drawn up to save the ozone layer: It was far short of what was thought was needed; but the very fact that so many nations signed on and got to work made it much easier to reach a more realistic and effective treaty three years later.

Jane Lubchenco, the ocean scientist Obama tapped to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was among those predicting a political tipping point on climate, just as happened previously with smoking, drunk driving, civil rights and women's suffrage.

"We are approaching the end game, I think," she told the conference.

But later I caught up with Lubchenco, and she didn't challenge my interpretation that administration officials aren't too hopeful about the climate talks. She allowed that every day that passes without climate legislation in the U.S. "makes it that much harder to get agreement in Copenhagen."

So, I asked, what's the road map beyond Copenhagen if there is no treaty?

"We've been working so hard on Copenhagen that we have not really thought beyond that," she answered.

Check out my Twitter feed @robertmcclure.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Like a tractor driven by a drunk, the Obama administration keeps zigzagging on food/ag policy--sometimes veering in the direction of progressive change, other times whipping back toward the agrichemical status quo.

In the last couple of days, there's been a sharp turn toward the status quo. As I reported yesterday, Obama plucked Islam “Isi” Siddiqui from the nation's most powerful agrichemical lobby group and made him our chief negotiator on ag issues in global trade talks. This is a major coup for Big Ag. Ramming open foreign markets for our cheap food commodities and pricey ag inputs is critical to the industry's future profits--and perilous for global food security and the environment.

And today, Obama's Big Ag side got the best of him again. He tapped Roger Beachy, long-time president of the Danforth Plant Science Center, as chief of the USDA's newly created National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).

A creation of the 2008 Farm Bill, the NIFA "replaces the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, which distributes $200 million in competitive grants and about $280 million in 'formula funding' to land-grant universities," Science blog reports.

Science continues:

The Farm Bill adds another $106 million annually of competitive funding for research into organic farming, biomass, and fruits and vegetables. It also calls for a "distinguished scientist" to be appointed for a 6-year term as director.

So this is a critical post. If the sustainable farming movement is going to scale up and really start providing a large portion of the nation's calories--and deliver on its potentially huge environmental promises--than we're going to need a significant commitment of federal research dollars.

Roger BeachyPhoto: Courtesy of the Danforth CenterAnd what are we getting with the appointment of Beachy? The Danforth Plant Science Center, nestled in Monsanto's St. Louis home town, is essentially that company's NGO research and PR arm. According to its website, the center "was founded in 1998 through gifts from the St. Louis-based Danforth Foundation, the Monsanto Fund (a philanthropic foundation), and a tax credit from the State of Missouri."

Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant sits on the center's board of trustees, along with execs from defense giant McDonnell Douglas and pharma titan Merck. Another notable board member is Alfonso Romo, a Mexican magnate who cashed in big during his country's notoriously corrupt privatization /liberalization bonanza in the early '90s.

Romo used his connections to build a company called Seminis into the globe's biggest vegetable-seed concern, with dreams (as yet unrealized) of loads of new GMO veggie varieties. Monsanto bought Seminis in 2005. Here's a revealing Wall Street Journal profile of Romo from 1999; and here's what I wrote about him and the Monsanto/Seminis tie up back in 2005. (Interesting tidbit: Romo claims credit for innovating those insipid and ubiquitous "baby carrots"; and for reducing the spiciness of jalepeno peppers.)

On its short list of "partners" we find several research-oriented universities and one corporation: Monsanto. In the Danforth Center's 2007 annual report (PDF), Monsanto is mentioned no fewer than ten times funding this or that project.

So essentially, the public face of Monsanto's research efforts now has his fingers on the USDA's research purse strings. Score a big one for agribusiness!

So Obama has become an agribiz shill, right? Well, it's not nearly so simple.

Last winter, the administration tapped Kathleen Merrigan as deputy USDA secretary. This is traditionally a powerful position within the agency; under Bush, a paid-up industrial corn man held the post. Merrigan has pristine credentials as an organic advocate--and from the whispers I've heard, has been pushing that agenda within USDA.

I'm told she's met with many prominent sustainable-ag advocates--folks who were completely frozen out by the Bush USDA. The latest: On Twitter, Michel Dimock of California's Roots of Change recently announced he has "4 mtngs w/ USDA nxt 2 days." That sort of access simply wasn't available at Bush's USDA.

Then there's Merrigan's brainchild, "The Know Your Farmer Know Your Food" initiative (complete with splashy new web site). It's essentially an attempt to alert players in the sustainable food movement to possibilities of getting existing USDA funding. (I wrote briefly about its limits and promise lat week.) Again, you can call the initiative largely symbolic, but nothing remotely like it was happening under Bush.

It's certainly energizing sustainable ag NGO chiefs. On Chews Wise blog, Sam Fromartz reports that such folks are "pumped" by the initiative. He asked several for their reactions. Words like "fantastic," "thrilling," and "quite encouraging" tripped off their tongues.

Meanwhile, Michelle Obama--and her food ambassador, White House assistant chef/gardener Sam Kass--continues to push sustainable ag from the East Wing. One can assume she has some influence in the Oval Office.

So what's going on here? Whither the Obama administration on food and ag--toward a food future that seeks big, top-down, corporate-led answers, always straining to leapfrog ecological limits--and creating new sets of problems to be (lucratively) solved? Or toward one that works within ecological limits, builds resilience, and generates wealth and health within communities?

Right now, we're getting a kind of policy whiplash. But I have a conjecture--based completely on my own observation, not on any inside info. I'll give it here; and I urge readers to give their own conjectures below.

My conjecture is this: Obama likes cutting-edge ideas. You look at the ag landscape, and you see two distinct areas with great innovation, energy, and movement: biotech and organic/sustainable. So he's coming out strong behind both camps, and plans to sit back and see which one develops the best ideas.

The problem is that the biotech side has a massive advantage in terms of resources; and, as I've shown before, has benefitted from years of government cronyism and coddling. Moreover, it utterly dominates the university research agenda, aided by the draconian intellectual rights the government has awarded it.

So if Obama is setting up a kind of contest between the two camps, the game is rigged in advance.

That's what I think. Please write what you think below.

Related Links:

GoodGuide scanner makes healthy food shopping point and click

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Is any piece of nonsense from right-wing opponents of clean energy policy too silly, too outrageous, to get its day in the national press spotlight? It would seem not.

Last week, CBS conservo-blogger Declan McCullagh breathlessly reported: "Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year." That figure spread like wildfire through right-wing blogs, then jumped to Glenn Beck, and eventually reached The Washington Post. Now Republican lawmakers are repeating it.

The number is completely and utterly misleading. At least in reference to current policy options, it's a lie. But now it's out there, forever part of conservative mythology and forever a "controversy" in the eyes of the establishment media. Is there any way it could have been stopped? Is there any way the next lie can be stopped?

A quick look behind the story:

Last week, the Competitive Enterprise Institute released (with great fanfare) a document procured from the Treasury Dept via FOIA request. In it, Treasury estimated the total revenue that could be raised by auctioning 100% of the pollution allowances under a cap-and-trade system. The department did no original analysis, it simply reviewed other studies and came up with a range, with $200 billion per year at the high end. (An earlier CBO analysis [PDF] put the high end at $300 billion.) This was done in preparation for the release of Obama's 2009 budget, which incorporated auction revenue. The budget included a conservative estimate of that revenue -- $79 billion a year in 2012.

You may be wondering, so what? Why is this a news story? Obama's proposal would have auctioned 100% of the allowances, yes, but Obama's proposal isn't on the table. ACES begins with just 15% auctions (ramping up to 70% by 2030). Anyway, Obama's program would have returned 85% of auction revenue directly to consumers via payroll taxes, and the 15% remaining wouldn't have been flushed down the toilet; it would have been spent to kickstart clean energy industries. CBO analysis showed that families in the bottom and middle of the income spectrum would come out ahead under the proposal. Similarly, the Waxman-Markey bill passed out of the House also returns most of the allowance value to consumers -- a brand new CBO analysis [PDF] shows that it would cost the average family $160, not $1,761, a year.

The Treasury Department's Alan Krueger said, "Treasury's analysis is consistent with public analyses by the EIA, EPA, and CBO, and the reporting and blogging on this issue ignores the fact that the revenue raised from emission permits would be returned to consumers under both administration and legislative proposals."

In summary, the Treasury analysis looked at revenue raised entirely in isolation from revenue invested or returned to consumers. CEI's spin was transparently, grotesquely misleading. The Treasury document reveals nothing new and casts absolutely no light on current legislative proposals.

This all has been ably chronicled and debunked by others. See: Wonk Room, Media Matters, Pete Altman, and PolitiFact.

What struck me about it is how much it reveals about the way the press works. CEI hack Chris Horner, who filed the FOIA request, pushed it to McCullagh, from whence it spread to other conservative outlets, notably Glenn Beck's show. At that point, "people are talking about it," so it goes to Politico, and eventually The Washington Post. Now, as it happens, Steven Mufson's Post piece on the issue is fairly good, in the usual he-said, she-said sort of way. If you read with your MSM decoder goggles on, you can tell Mufson knows it's a pile of sh*t.

But that hardly makes up for dozens of articles and politicians trumpeting a $1,761 yearly tax; repetition of a fact, even in the context of debunking it, reinforces it. As Politico's Lisa Lerer put it, in a sentence that exquisitely summarizes the attitude of the political press and the state of public discourse, "those types of numbers -- even if they are inaccurate -- could increase doubts already being raised by moderate Democrats about the climate bill."

In other words, the accuracy of what's being fed into the media bloodstream by Horner and his ilk is irrelevant. Lerer not only can't be bothered to get to the bottom of it; she states explicitly that the effect on public discussion will be the same regardless. She knows the media will never decisively call bullsh*t on something like this. She knows the charge will spread, even if only as a "controversy." The poison's been injected, now it will do its damage.

It's hard to know at what point in the media chain one should ascribe responsibility for this state of affairs. Worse, it's difficult to see what could be different next time. No amount of refutation, however fast and decisive (and response from enviros was pretty good on this one), stops the spread; the media just reports what "critics say." The incentives are all wrong. What's stopping Horner et al from feeding an endless stream of lies, exaggerations, misleading numbers, and general hysteria into the discussion? Nothing. There's no firewall. Our civic immune system is broken.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Van Jones sent this message out to friends and supporters on Tuesday, Sept. 15.

Dear Friends:

My family and I want to thank everyone for the outpouring of love and support that we have received over the past week or so. I resigned from the White House on Sept. 6, and I have remained silent since then -- in keeping with my promise not to be a distraction during a key moment in the Obama Presidency.

Over the past several days, however, many people have been asking how they can help and what they can do.

The main thing is this: please do everything you can to support both President Obama and the green jobs movement. Winning real change is ultimately the best response to these kinds of smear campaigns.

I ask everyone to:

1. Support President Obama's efforts to fix our nation's health care, energy and education systems. His victory last fall did not represent the "finish line" in the fight to renew America; his election was just the "starting line." This autumn, it is time to make history again -- with victories on health care and clean energy.

2. Sign up to support groups that are working for green jobs.

As others seek to vilify or marginalize the movement for a clean energy economy, the leading groups deserve increased support. This is the year to ensure that the clean energy transformation creates good job opportunities for everyone in America.

3. Spread the green jobs gospel. The ideas and ideals of the green jobs movement are grounded in fundamental American values -- innovation, entrepreneurship, and equal opportunity. My true thoughts can be found in my book: The Green Collar Economy. Check it out from the library -- or order a copy and share it with a friend. See for yourself why clean energy and green jobs are good for our country.

4. Stay connected and speak up for me via your favorite blogs (e.g., Huffington Post, Grist, Jack & Jill, etc.), on message boards and all of your favorite social networking platforms (Twitter, Facebook, etc.). Supporters have set up a couple of them, to help you stay engaged, including: I Stand With Van Jones and I Love Van Jones.

In due course, I will be offering my perspective on what has happened -- including correcting the record about false charges. In the meantime, I must get my family affairs in order and sort through numerous offers and options.

I want to be clear that I have nothing but love and admiration for President Obama and the entire administration. White House staffers are there to serve and support the President, not the other way around. At this critical moment in history, I could not in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. The White House needs all its hands on deck, fighting for the future.

Of course, some supporters actually think I will be more effective on the "outside." Maybe so. But those ideas always remind me of that old canard about Winston Churchill. After he lost a hard-fought election, a friend told him: "Winston, this really is just a blessing in disguise." Churchill quipped: "Damned good disguise." I can certainly relate to that sentiment right now. :)

Nonetheless, we must keep moving forward. Let's continue our work to make an America as good as its promise. These are historic times. And we have a lot more history to make.

Sincerely,

Van Jones

Related Links:

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Hot planet to Obama: What’s your Plan B?

U.S. and China announce plan for collaboration on clean energy and climate change

Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority and the obligation to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. At a stroke, the politics of climate change were changed. The choice was no longer between legislation or no legislation -- it was between legislation or regulation. One way or another, climate pollution would be controlled by a federal program.

Most experts agree that EPA regulations will be complex and somewhat unwieldy. Industry believes they will be onerous and expensive. Conventional wisdom, at least initially, was that fear of regulation would drive utilities and manufacturers to the bargaining table, changing the dynamic in Congress. EPA was supposed to play the role of the big, silent goon in the corner, tapping his baseball bat in his hand.

That theory isn't holding up too well. Opposition from coal and manufacturing states weakened the bill in the House and its passage through the Senate appears less and less likely. Fossil fuel and other industry groups are lobbying furiously against it. The conservative base equates it with socialism. Democratic Senators are openly expressing skepticism whether a bill can pass this year. Health care may drag on into winter and push it off the agenda; it could fracture into smaller bills; most likely, it simply won't find enough Blue Dog support to overcome a threatened conservative filibuster. At least at the moment, the smart money is on no climate/energy bill this year.

That means EPA regulations are suddenly germane again, though chances are high that 99.99% of Americans will continue to find the subject inscrutable and boring. What can the EPA do? When will it do it? Who will it do it to? How can we stay awake as we contemplate these matters?

Consider this post an effort to describe, in plain language, What the Deal Is with EPA Regulations. There will be acronyms ... but also pictures of bunnies!

What's everyone so scared of?

Why does industry fear, and the Obama administration prefer to avoid, EPA regulations of greenhouse gases? To understand the political dynamic it helps to understand that there's a three-part process ... and the third part is a massive headache.

1. Endangerment finding: A new air pollutant under the Clean Air Act first goes through an endangerment finding -- a determination by the EPA whether it's a threat to public health. For CO2, that's almost done. EPA submitted the finding for public comment and is now reviewing the (many, many) comments it received. It will likely issue the final finding this month or next.

2. Mobile sources: If the EPA chooses to go forward, it then crafts regulations for "mobile sources," i.e. vehicles, under Section 202 of the CAA. That won't be too difficult. In effect, EPA will partner with the Dept. of Transportation to raise CAFE standards; they've already submitted a proposal to do so to the White House Office of Management and Budget. (35.5 miles per gallon by the 2016 model year.) So far so good.

3. Stationary sources: The problem is, once mobile sources are regulated, the EPA must, by law, also regulate stationary sources, i.e., power plants and industrial facilities. That is a serious can of worms, which will involve creative interpretations, contentious decisions, and many, many lawsuits. Why so difficult? We'll get to that later, after a few more bunnies. First:

A little history

There's a fascinating backstory to be told about Mass. v EPA, the 2007 Supreme Court case that shook the political world. But we'll skip it. Instead let's jump in just after it passed.

The Bush EPA wanted to move quickly. Bush had identified America's addiction to oil in his State of the Union speech and proceeded to do very little about it, so there was some openness in the White House to conceding on a boost in CAFE standards. Since EPA regulation of mobile sources would effectively amount to just that, the Bushies were amenable to it.

To lead the large and capable team assembled to hash out the regulations (upwards of 100 people all told), EPA brought in Jason Burnett. Burnett is semi-famous to Grist readers for quitting the EPA in protest some months later, alleging interference from the Office of the Vice President. But initially, he says, "we were on a very fast clock. There was political desire to get everything done by the end of the administration's time [in office]."

(See: full transcript of my wonky interview with Burnett.)

What changed? In short, Congress passed the Energy Independence & Security Act (EISA), "which did much of what we were planning on doing through regulations," says Burnett. "After passage of the EISA, there was another way of accomplishing those same goals, and [the administration] didn't then need to deal with the stationary source ramifications."

At that point, things came to a crashing halt. Burnett sent the endangerment finding to the OMB, but the White House refused to open it. They told Burnett to take it back; he refused and left the agency. After that, the administration ran out the clock with endless public comment.

Obama came into office pledging to kick the process into gear, and he has. Lisa Jackson's EPA has been hashing through the issues quickly. The final endangerment finding is coming soon, the mobile-source proposal is already on paper, and the stationary-source regulations ... well, they're another matter.

What's so dang hard about stationary source regulations?

Grasping the challenges that greenhouse gases pose to the Clean Air Act means venturing into some fairly wonky territory; it is recommended that readers keep their bunnies with them at all times. Every effort will be made to minimize the ... hey, you there, wake up!

OK, the deal is, stationary sources of air pollution have to get a permit from the EPA. The permitting process is called New Source Review (NSR), implemented as part of the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. All new sources have to go through this process.

What about existing sources, the ones already up and running in 1977? In particular, what about the large U.S. fleet of old, inefficient, filthy pulverized coal power plants built in the '40s, '50s, and '60s? Funny you should ask. Therein lies the problem(s).

Existing sources were not brought under NSR. They were "grandfathered," in the lingo. Enviros consider this a deal with the devil, the Original Sin of the CAA. See: Carl Pope.

Congress didn't completely ignore existing sources, though. NSR also specifies that any existing facility that makes "major modifications" that produce a "significant increase" in air pollution must get a permit.

How much is a significant increase? That's defined by a standard called Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). What must facilities in attainment areas (long story, let's not bother) do to get a permit? They must install what's called Best Available Control Technology (BACT).

NSR! PSD! BACT! Can you feel the electricity in the room? Let's take a short bunny break ...

Anyway, this kludged-together NSR/PSD/BACT policy created all sorts of problems and has been the subject of endless lawsuits. And here's the thing: Many of the problems will be exacerbated by the extension of the Clean Air Act to cover greenhouse gases.

For instance: the PSD standard is now 100 tons for some facilities, 250 tons for others. Problem is, while 100 tons is a significant amount of most traditional air pollutants, it's a reasonably meager amount of CO2. A coal power plant producing 10 or 20 million tons of CO2 a year could trip the PSD trigger merely by running a few extra minutes a year. "The scare story," says Burnett, "is that that will cause facility managers for any large source of pollution to just freeze up and not make any modifications at all." The problem, he says, is that "these large emitters just emit so, so much CO2."

More troublesome: once you get down to 100 tons you're talking about churches, schools, and retirement homes. This is the conservative nightmare scenario, that EPA's regulatory reach will cover the entire economy and it will be red tape hell for every mom-and-pop operation.

Another problem is BACT itself. What is the best available technology for controlling CO2 emissions from, say, a coal power plant? Is it simply burning coal more efficiently? Cofiring with biomass or solar? Using carbon capture and storage, which is not yet commercially available? 'Tis vexing. EPA will be breaking new ground, setting new precedents. Lawsuits will follow.

PSD solution ... sort of

As we speak, EPA is trying to solve the PSD problem by raising the threshold from 250 tons to 25,000 tons (it has submitted such a rule to OMB). This is in line with the new mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule it proposed in March, which only applies to facilities emitting over 25,000 tons of CO2 a year.

Raising the threshold to 25,000 tons would exempt schools, churches, etc. -- overall it would cover about 13,000 large industrial facilities, which represent 85-90% of U.S. emissions. So it would solve one of the biggest problems. Recall, however, that conservatives and (some) industries want EPA rules to be a regulatory/legal nightmare, and will do everything they can to insure that outcome.

Since raising the threshold would reduce the friction, some conservatives, like the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Marlo Lewis, are arguing that it is illegal for EPA to unilaterally change the threshold. The rule, if it goes into effect, will undoubtedly be litigated to a fare-thee-well.

(Note: Congress could pass a one-line amendment to the Clean Air Act: "PSD for CO2 is 25,000 tons." Boom, problem solved. If the climate bill goes down in flames and the EPA's threshold rule is rejected, this is a easy face-saving move for Dems.)

The EPA might also try to express the greenhouse gas threshold with reference to a more potent gas like methane -- the standard could be "250 tons of methane or methane-equivalent," which would be lots of CO2. Even if the court rules against EPA, it might allow the agency to start at 25,000 and ratchet down to 250 on a schedule. There are also ways the EPA could make permitting for small sources relatively painless (think: a post card), but getting into more detail on this just feels anti-bunny.

BACT solution ... not really

BACT is determined on a case-by-case basis. Whatever rulings the EPA makes, the precedent-setters, will be litigated to high heaven. There will be blood.

Cap and trade?

Another way forward, which some say could reduce compliance costs, is for the EPA to set up its own cap-and-trade program for stationary sources.

There's a checkered history here. During Burnett's original spin through EPA, he was involved in trying to develop a cap-and-trade system for mercury. Industry supported it but environmentalists loathed it, mainly due to concern over mercury "hot spots" (there are no such concerns for CO2). The courts ultimately ruled against that program; the Bush administration appealed; Obama's EPA is going to drop the appeal.

But Burnett still thinks it can be done:

You dust off the legal argument EPA made for using [the CAA] for a cap-and-trade system, and you search and replace mercury with CO2. You'd put both environmental groups and industry in an awkward position. Environmental groups would want to support the rule, presumably. Industry would not want to, but they're already on record saying EPA has authority to issue a cap-and-trade system under [CAA Section] 111. They wanted to have that for mercury.

Interestingly, an EPA-run cap-and-trade system would not have the same federal mandates as a legislative system. Instead it would effectively set out overall targets and allow states to figure out how to meet those targets. For states already covered by regional cap-and-trade systems -- RGGI in the Northeast, MGGA in the Midwest, and WCI in the West -- that would probably mean relatively minor tweaks in their existing systems. For all other states, it would mean linking into one of those systems or developing a new one.

Some folks, like Terry Tamminen, are advocates of this bottom-up approach, saying that it's better to allow for regional variation and experimentation than get locked into a weak federal program. As yet, EPA hasn't shown any indication that it will pursue this route, but it could still happen.

Political implications

So how will all this play politically?

Conventional wisdom was that the threat of EPA regulations would make carbon-intensive industry amenable to a climate bill. But after seeing what passed the House, they've largely decided that they would rather have "the uncertainty of the Clean Air Act than the absolute certainty of a very expensive [legislative] program," says Jeffrey Holmstead of Bracewell-Giuliani, who served at EPA under the second President Bush. Among those in heavy industry and the non-nuclear power sector, "it is nearly a universally held view that they're better off just living with the CAA than they are having to deal with something like Waxman-Markey," say Holmstead.

That's not to say those industries will accept EPA regulations gracefully. Just as coal and oil have waged war against the climate bill, they'll wage war on EPA regulations. They will sue as often as possible, at each stage. Already the Chamber of Commerce has announced its intent to sue against the vehicle regulations -- and those, remember, had been hashed out with automakers beforehand. They were supposed to be the easy part.

The war against EPA regulations will also be waged with aggressive public relations campaigns. There will be great hue and cry about the economy-destroying burden that command-and-control regulations impose on American business. And unlike with a climate bill, responsibility (read: blame) cannot be dispersed. There is no hint of bipartisanship. Responsibility for EPA regulations will fall entirely on Barack Obama and his administration, not on Congress -- which is probably how Congress prefers it. If it's a total mess, or demagogued as one (as is all but certain), it's Obama that takes the hit. That is yet another reason he'd rather avoid it.

Greens are fighting to preserve EPA authority in the climate bill. Some have even said that it would be preferable for legislation to fail and the EPA to take over. It's not hard to understand why -- something needs to be done about existing coal plants, and there aren't many tools in the climate bill toolbox to address them. But no one should be under any illusions. The NSR/PSD/BACT approach is grossly suboptimal for the job that needs doing. It might have the intended effect -- killing coal plants -- but there's potential for unintended effects as well, including substantial political blowback.

Both sides, greens and industry, have reason to fear if the climate bill fails. It's terra incognita, a volatile and unpredictable situation. Obama doesn't need any more problems like that. That's among the reasons he is likely, this fall, to put some of the time and energy toward lobbying for a good climate bill. From his narrow political perspective, virtually any bill is preferable to catching the EPA tiger by the tail. That tiger eats bunnies.

Related Links:

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

September 6, 2009

Here's a quiz:

1)  What’s worse from a messaging perspective, “the public option” or “cap-and-trade”?

2) Tell me in one sentence what team Obama says is the benefit of passing a health care reform bill.

3)  Tell me in one sentence what team Obama says happens if we fail to pass the climate and clean energy bill.

On health care, no simple, repeated core message exists, so the whole effort is a muddle.  Obama needs to delete and reboot.  Let’s hope he does so Wednesday night.

On climate, at least we have one positive message:  clean energy jobs, jobs, jobs.  That is a key reason public support has held firm even in the face of a multimillion dollar campaign of fraud and disinformation by the fossil-fuel-funded right wing (see Yet another major poll finds “broad support” for clean energy and climate bill: “Support for the plan among independents has increased slightly” and Swing state poll finds 60% “would be more likely to vote for their senator if he or she supported the bill” and Independents support the bill 2-to-1).

Normally, however, a winning campaign has four messages, as I discussed in this post from a year ago, “Can Obama win with half a messaging strategy?“  Since team Obama got its messaging act together pretty fast after its near-fatal lameness of August 2008, I’m hopeful they will do the same after the near-fatal lameness of August 2009, since I don’t think they can deliver health security and energy security with half a message (or less).

Let me repeat what I consider to be Messaging 101, which apparently has been lost again by team Obama and progressive leaders.

As psychologist and Political Brain author Drew Westen explained in Huffington Post during the 2008 campaign:

There is a simple fact about elections that has eluded Democrats in every presidential campaign they have lost in the last 40 years: that as a candidate, you have to focus first and foremost not on a litany of “issues” but on four stories: the story you tell about yourself, the story your opponent is telling about himself, the story your opponent is telling about you, and the story you are telling about your opponent. Candidates who offer compelling stories in all four quadrants of this “message grid” win, and those who leave any of them to chance generally lose.

I’d actually put it a little differently. You need a story about yourself and a story about your opponent. And you need a counterpunch to your opponent’s stories about himself and about you. Ideally, the stories can be boiled down to a catchy slogan (”it’s the economy, stupid”) or one or two words (”compassionate conservative”) that make use of the memorable figures of speech from the 25-century-old art of persuasion, a.k.a. rhetoric (see “Why scientists aren’t more persuasive, Part 1"). Same for the counterpunch ("He was for it before he was against it.”).

The word “story” here is roughly equivalent to two other popular terms — “frame” (as George Lakoff uses the term) or “narrative.”  It is also equivalent to rhetoric’s “extended metaphor,” which I argue is the most important figure of speech in my not-yet-bestselling unpublished manuscript, Politics, Religion, and the English Language (see “How Lincoln framed his picture-perfect Gettysburg Address, 4: Extended metaphor").

Good candidates will pound away with a strong positive extended metaphor of why you should vote for them and with an equally strong negative extended metaphor of why you should not vote for their opponents. Winning two-term candidates, like President George W. Bush, with the help of Karl Rove, will have a counter-punch to their opponent’s positive and negative extended metaphors. The counterpunches always use the same figure of speech — dramatic irony, wherein someone’s words unintentionally mean something quite different from (and often opposite to) what they intended (see “How to be as persuasive as Abe Lincoln, Part 2: Use irony, the twist we can’t resist").

The goal is to find a powerful dramatic irony in their opponents’ words or deeds that blow up the opposition’s own extended metaphor. That always makes a great story, since it is satisfying sport for people to be hoisted with their own petard or for people to be uncovered as hypocrites.

Think Michael Dukakis in an army tank, or President Bush on the aircraft carrier with the “Mission Accomplished” banner in the background, or the Swift Boat ads run against John Kerry. Dramatic irony is the key to understanding both popular culture and politics — but that is another post.

What conservatives have figured out is that since the media doesn’t really police the truth in a meaningful fashion, you can pretty much take whatever your opponent says out of context and turn that into a defining dramatic irony. Or just make stuff up entirely.

The other point of having the four stories or frames or extended metaphors is that it makes responding to attacks very easy. If you know your messages, then whenever the other side launches a phony attack, you just frame the response with one of your narratives.

Of course, if your opponent has no positive plan, which is true in both health care reform and climate change (though not entirely true on energy), then your messaging job should be easier — but only if you are willing to be very blunt about what happens if we do nothing.  In the case of global warming, of course, many people on our side have been duped by dubious polling and focus groups and dial groups into pulling their punches on the climate science message (see “Messaging 101b: EcoAmerica’s phrase ‘our deteriorating atmosphere’ isn’t going to replace ‘global warming’ — and that’s a good thing” and Mark Mellman must read on climate messaging: “A strong public consensus has emerged on the reality and severity of global warming, as well as on the need for federal action” — ecoAmerica “could hardly be more wrong”).

I won’t spend much time on health care.  Like the 99 percent of people who aren’t expert on health care reform, I have no idea what Obama’s plan is nor what it would actually do.  I do know that most people could care less about the uninsured — they just don’t want to join that group — and while people may say they want cost containment, in fact they don’t want their own costs “contained,” they only want their premiums lower.

What Obama needs to sell is health security.  I was glad to see David Axelrod repeat the word “security” in his health reform pitch on “Meet the Press” this morning.  That suggests to me they are starting to do some serious message polling.

In the next few weeks, I will lay out all four climate and clean energy stories.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

The resignation of President Obama’s green jobs adviser was touched on during several of the TV networks’ Sunday morning political gabfests. Here are the relevant excerpts:

NBC’s “Meet the Press”

HOST DAVID GREGORY: Another domestic matter—Van Jones, who has been an advisor to the White House on environmental policy, resigned overnight because of some inflammatory comments he has made, over time, including a petition he signed that blamed the government for the 9/11 attacks. Was this an issue that got to the president? Did he personally order that he be fired?

OBAMA ADVISER DAVID AXELROD: Absolutely not. This was Van Jones’s own decision. You know, he is internationally known as an advocate for green jobs, and that’s the basis on which he was hired. He said in his statement that he didn’t want his comments to become a distraction from the issue, which is so important to the future of our economy and communities around the country. And I commend him for making that decision.

MR. GREGORY: Was he the victim of a smear campaign, as he alleges?

MR. AXELROD: Well, look, this is a—you know, the political environment is rough, and so, you know, these things get magnified.

But the bottom line is that he showed his commitment to the cause of creating green jobs in this country by removing himself as an issue, and I think that took a great deal of commitment on his part.

MR. GREGORY: But was the president offended by what he said?

MR. AXELROD: I haven’t spoken to the president about this. As you know, this thing has bubbled up in the last few days and, frankly, my conversation with the president has mostly been about health care, which is where our focus should be right now.

MR. GREGORY: Do you find what he said objectionable?

MR. AXELROD: Well, I haven’t read all of his comments, either, David. Again, I’m focused on how well we get health security for our all Americans; how we get this economy moving in the right direction. We’ve pulled back from the abyss of a potential collapse, and now we have to build for the future and get people back to work. I think those are the things that we should be focused on, and that’s what I am focused on.

Fox News Sunday

HOWARD DEAN: Well, I was just going to say this guy’s Yale-educated lawyer. He’s a best-selling author about his specialty. I think he was brought down. I think it’s too bad.

Washington’s a tough place that way, and I think it’s a loss for the country.

HOST CHRIS WALLACE: Governor, how about the fact that he had made a series of statements and had signed this petition in 2004 indicating—suggesting that the government might have some role or some complicity in 9/11?

DR. DEAN: Well, he was told by the people waving those clipboards around that he was signing something else, so I think that’s too bad.

Look, all of us campaigning for office have had people throw clipboards in front of our face and ask us to sign, and he learned the hard way you ought not to do that.

But I don’t think he really thinks the government had anything to do with causing 9/11.

MR. WALLACE: Senator Alexander, your reaction to the Jones resignation?

SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER: Well, I don’t think he’s the issue. I think the czars are the issue. We have about two dozen so-called czars—the pay czar, the car czar, all these czars in the White House.

And that really is an affront to the Constitution, because the Constitution was set up to say that the president is the executive, but the people who manage the government the secretaries, the Cabinet members, of which I was one, have to be approved by the Congress and have to report to the Congress.

So when you take all these people and make policy close to the president and the White House to people who don’t go to the Congress and aren’t approved by the Congress, you’re just adding fuel to the fire by those who think Washington is taking over everything.

ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”

HOST GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Does the president believe that he is the victim of a smear campaign or does the president think that Jones actions and words merit resignation?

WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS: Well what Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual. The president thanks Van Jones for his service in the first eight months helping to coordinate renewable energy jobs and lay the foundation for our future economic problem…The president accepted his resignation, but Van Jones as he said in his statement he was going to get in the way of the President.

STEPHANOPOULOS:  So the president doesn’t endorse in any way the things that Van Jones said before but the president doesnt want him to go?

GIBBS: He doesn’t but he thanks him for his service.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Around the web:

WASHINGTON, Sept 6, 2009 (AFP)—President Barack Obama’s special adviser for green jobs has resigned under pressure from leading Republican politicians and revelations about his controversial past statements.

Van Jones, a former civil rights activist from California, had been working for the White House Council on Environmental Quality since March.

“I am resigning my post at the Council on Environmental Quality, effective today,” Jones said in a statement dated September 5 but released shortly after midnight on September 6.

Jones went on the say that on the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, “opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign” against him.

“They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide,” he continued. “But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future.”

Jones became the focus of public attention last week when it was revealed that he had signed a petition that questioned whether officials in the administration of former president George W. Bush “may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”

It was also revealed that Jones used a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech he gave before joining the administration.

As a result, several prominent Republicans demanded action against Jones. Republican Representative Mike Pence on Friday called on Jones to resign or be fired.

Jones’ “extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate,” Pence said.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on the ABC show “This Week” that Obama thanked Jones for his service, and for “helping to coordinate renewable energy jobs that are going to lay the foundation for our future economic growth.”

When asked whether Obama had wanted Jones to resign, Gibbs was evasive.

“The president and the CEQ accepted his resignation because Van Jones, as he says in his statement, understood that he was going to get in the way of the president and ultimately this country moving forward on something as important as creating jobs in a clean energy economy.”

Howard Dean, former Democratic National Committee chair, said he spoke to Jones, a Yale-educated lawyer and bestselling author, about the controversy and lamented his departure.

“I think he was brought down. It’s too bad,” Dean, a former presidential contender, told Fox News.

“Washington is a tough place that way and I think it’s a loss for the country.”

With respect to the petition, Dean said that Jones had made the mistake of signing it without reading it carefully.

“He was told by the people waving those clipboards around he was signing something else,” the former Vermont governor said.

“I don’t think he really thinks the government had anything to do with causing 9/11.”

More news and opinions:

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Van Jones had to resign. It became inevitable when Gibbs offered no support.

Much of the blame for this incident lies squarely on the White House. The information used against Jones was freely available on the web. All it took was a search. I thought by hiring Jones they intended to take a chance on a real left progressive, but now it appears they were simply caught flat-footed. Either Valerie Jarrett -- Jones' champion in the upper echelons of the administration -- didn't know much about him or didn't widely share what she knew. They certainly seemed disinclined to mount a vigorous defense with Glenn Beck gnoshing on his favorite new chew toy and the health care reform battle about to heat up again. No distractions.

For the record, Jones isn't a truther. Five years ago, at the end of a busy paternity leave, he was asked to support the calls of 9/11 families for further investigation of the attacks (reflecting the concerns of millions of Americans). He agreed and his name ended up on a petition that contained language he didn't support. Three others who signed the petition have also come forward to say they were deceived about its final contents. But the truth of it hardly matters at this point. Jones has always spoken freely, not in the clipped, narrow confines permitted of those who aspire to public office. He talks real talk, in colorful, provocative language. There's plenty in his copious past writing and speaking that can be demagogued. This isn't a civic discussion among people who care who Van Jones really is or what he really believes, after all. It's a head hunt.

On substantive grounds, the resignation is not that significant. Part of the absurdity of all this is that Jones was basically a low-level functionary. By yesterday the dimwit conservative hack Dick Morris had him "in charge of running the cap-and-trade legislation" -- ignorant on too many levels to catalog -- but I doubt if Jones has ever so much as been in a meeting with Obama. By all accounts he was frustrated by the difficulty of getting even the smallest things done from the bottom of a massive bureaucracy. Even if he'd had the hidden intentions Beck and his pant-wetting audience attribute to every black liberal, he couldn't have done anything about it.

But policy, reality, that's not what bottom-feeders like Beck care about. The right governed the country for eight years and ran it into a ditch. Conservatives have no plausible health care solution, no climate solution. They have nothing to offer in response to the nation's pressing problems. What they have is affect. They have the amygdala, the fight-or-flight reflex. They have deep threads of racism, fear, and resentment.

In other words, they don't care what Van Jones does, they care what he is. Beck peddles a message that's been around since America was born: They're taking your country away. They -- the non-white races, the immigrants, the urbanites, the communists, the elites -- are stealing the country from nice, simple white Christians. They're taking what rightfully belongs to us, to Real Americans.

This basic, gut-level fear of loss, fear of tribal obsolescence and irrelevance, is all the 25%-and-shrinking right has left. It has been overwhelmed by its most paranoid, bigoted elements. Not activists, not online petitioners, but U.S. senators and Republican thought leaders say the president wasn't born in the U.S.; that he wants to kill old people; that he is not fit to speak to school children. They are banging drums and chanting just outside the campfire circle of rational civic discourse. Their din makes it impossible to think, to plan, to govern. They can not lead, but in their twisted fear they can prevent the rest of us from going anywhere either.

Our civic immune system has grown weak. There are no filters, no longer shared standards of evidence, truth, or decency. The poison courses unhindered through the body. Nothing, no matter how factually insane or morally repugnant, can be repelled.

Like I said, Beck's more greasy huckster than true believer. He went after Jones to get revenge on Color of Change, a group Jones co-founded, for targeting his advertisers (which are dropping like flies). Rupert Murdoch will only put up with the stench as long as money's coming in.

But make no mistake, it's racial resentment that blew this story up. The worst outcome of all this is that it will validate Beck and his long history of paranoid conspiracy theories and repugnant allegations. It will be like chum in the water, almost as invigorating to the crazies as bagging Dan Rather. Much, much more ugliness will ensue, and it will become that much harder to focus on the multiple crises converging on the country.

The White House will find someone else to tend green job-training programs; Jones will go back to his much more effective role as an activist. He will do much good in the world in his life, far, far more than a pissant charlatan like Glenn Beck. But I'm not as sanguine about the direction the country is headed.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring