Staying Alive: Critical Clean Energy Tax Credits Hitch Last Minute Ride on Bailout Bill

By Keith Brower Brown; Cross-posted from the Breakthrough Blog.

Last Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill left for dead just weeks ago, apparently deciding the country actually ought to keep its burgeoning clean energy industry. But they didn't really mean to...

The Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind, the biomass/solar/hydropower PTC, and solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC) got their one-, two- and eight-year extensions, respectively. But they only got passed by being strapped to Friday's economic bailout bill, as a "sweetener" to aid its passage.

So how, exactly, does a key piece of federal policy supporting new energy become just another packet of Splenda slipped into a murky, half-caff bailout bill?

The lobbying efforts to pass this bill, from the American Wind Energy Association and Solar Energy Industries Association (AWEA and SEIA), and dozens of other industry and energy advocacy groups were impressive, and without them this bill wouldn't be passed.

But those efforts weren't enough to make it happen in time--after failing in the Senate eight times earlier this year, and finally passing that chamber on Sept. 23rd, it looked certain the House would let their session end before taking the measure for a vote. It was sheer legislative math that led Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to revive the credits by bundling them to the bailout--a "must-pass" for many legislators--as a sweetener for pro-clean energy Democrats who had opposed the bailout on Monday.

But the PTC and ITC are so much more than Splenda...

Now, let's be clear on how vital these credits are, and how they should be treated in Congress. The PTC, by the estimates of a 2005 Energy Information Report, will alone hextuple the growth of American renewable energy production in the next ten years, barring any other changes in energy policy. Yeah, and I mean hextuple. A study from Navigant Consulting, commissioned by the AWEA and the SEIA earlier this year, claimed that 116,000 energy jobs would be lost in 2009 by a failure to pass the credits.

It's time to end this perpetual peril of renewable energy producers, with a federal policy that treats them like the American pioneers and economic pillars they are. For a start, next year's likely big Democratic majorities need to pass Production Tax Credits lasting eight years each--just like the solar ITC. Federal policies supporting the fossil and nuclear industries don't have to come up every year or two for approval. So how dare a nation in "energy crisis" force AWEA and SEIA to have to constantly lobby for survival, treading water to stay afloat, instead of lobbying to make our country's renewable energy industry a world leader?

But we should do more, too, to stop the structural disadvantaging of renewable production. This takes an energy plan that nationalizes and digitizes the electrical grid, educates a new generation of energy engineers and technicians, and invests dramatically in the development and deployment of renewable tech.

The Clogged Legislative Pipe

Enough fantasizing, though. Fantasizing is fun, and I have done it actively for many years. But on energy and the economy, I don't want to just dream about what good policy looks like--I want to know I am doing everything possible to make it happen. And, I came to a big conclusion from the revival of the PTC/ITC today:

There is a major clog in the "legislative pipeline" from progressive lobbies to the Congressional floor.

All the petitions, the phone calls, the press releases, the legislators' meetings with advocates--all the standard paths of the progressive legislative pipeline--couldn't alone get this bill passed in time. But these are still the primary tools I see most every progressive non-profit and lobby using. These are still the only tools I have any idea how to access, to bring our think-tank policies onto the floor.

The PTC/ITC got passed by cold, hard legislative wheeling-dealing. So, the question is, how do we win in the daily give-and-take, in the procedural games on the legislative floor?

I see two options.

Option One: Energy and progressive lobbies need to learn from successful special interest groups of the past and learn from their success at funneling policy through legislature. In this option,the goal is to keep our bills from being singled out and shot down one-by-one, as happened to the PTC in the Senate, eight times this year. The abstinence-only education, Indian gaming , and agribusiness lobbies come to mind for me as groups which have done very well at consistently winning big victories, while avoiding a high profile or being forcibly singled out by legislators. But then again, a lot of their success comes from practiced and shady campaign contribution efforts. The next frontier for the renewable energy movement: bribery?

Option Two: We need to make a more compelling case about how renewable energy is not a special interest at all, but a mainstream economic issue. This will take time, though I think it's gradually happening. Thanks to the efforts of groups like Green For All, the Apollo Alliance, and yes, the Breakthrough Institute, I see a broad consensus building in the rhetoric of the American political center and center-left about the need for a new energy economy, to bring jobs and economic security to the country. But we have a long way to go before the rhetoric builds what we'd need; a concrete, forceful consensus and a "must-pass" bill.

I think we should work using both options, and see how far we can take them.

Let's come together, industry and non-profit and educators and researchers, and draft the "must pass" bill. Let's work on our legislative sleight-of-hand, and build a collective, aggressive lobby for the new energy economy . But I still want more answers and insights, so I'm throwing this out there; how else can we unclog the pipeline from the NGO to the roll-call?

Oh, and I can't forget: cheers to another year of clean, American-made energy, and huge thanks to everybody who helped get us here.

Image source: Washington Post

Read more!

Green Jobs Now: A Day of Action with Van Jones and the Green for All Initiative

It's great to be writing here on WattHead. Jesse asked me to re-post a piece I did for WorldChanging about last weekend's Green Jobs Now! Day of Action. Watching both candidates in the VP debate last night flounder for a compelling message about building a new, clean energy economy, reminded me how essential the work Green For All and its allies are doing.

Cross-posted from WorldChanging

Last weekend, while lawmakers huddled in Congress attempting to rescue Wall Street, people rallied in more than 600 communities around the country to propose an alternative bailout plan.

"There is only one comprehensive solution to the present mess," said Van Jones, founder of Green For All, the organization behind the "Green Jobs Now!" National Day of Action. "Put America back to work retrofitting and re-powering America with millions of green-collar jobs."

The promise of green jobs revitalizing our tired economy isn't a new one. Groups like the Apollo Alliance and the Energy Action Coalition, leaders like Van Jones and Majora Carter, and others have been calling for a green-collar revolution for a number of years. Recently, however, the economic nosedive and proposed bailout have amplified the usual chorus. As Carl Pope, head of the Sierra Club, commented on the bailout, "The amount being talked about -- $700 billion -- is roughly equal to this year's bill for imported oil. So if we really took ending our addiction to oil seriously, we could repay the Treasury for the bailout -- and it's hard to see any other pot of money lying around big enough."

What was new about the Green Jobs Now! Day of Action wasn't the message, essential as it is, but the messengers. Watching the slide-show of images from the day on the campaign's website one thing becomes abundantly clear: these were not your usual environmental rallies. These are pictures of graffiti installations, job fairs, green hard hats, hip hop concerts and, most important of all, people of every race, class and walk of life.

People. In the abstract call for millions of new green jobs, real people can be strangely absent. Who are the workers who will get these jobs? Where do they live? What do they look like? Could I be one of them?

In community after community, last weekend's day of action answered all these questions and showed us what a diverse, inspiring and powerful movement we really are.

In Atlanta, Georgia, students from Historically Black Colleges and Universities distributed compact fluorescent light bulbs to their low-income neighbors, and rallied together in support of Green Jobs Now.

In Coal River, West Virginia, the sons and daughters of coal miners stood up to coal companies and called for a wind farm on their beloved mountain. The wind farm would generate clean energy and 200 jobs for their community. But the Massey Coal company is preparing to blast the mountain for coal.

In Richmond, California (the home of a Chevron oil refinery), residents demonstrated they are now paying less for their energy bills, thanks to the solar panels that green-collar workers are installing on the roofs of the city's houses. The nonprofit organization Solar Richmond trains workers to do solar installations, then places them in jobs with solar companies, building the green economy and creating pathways out of poverty in the process.

"Who are these people?" Jeremy Hayes, one of the organizers behind the day of action joked. "There are so many incredible reports from around the country in places we didn't even know about."

So where do all these people go from here? On the national level, Green For All and the hundreds of other groups that rallied around the day of action will continue to push for legislation that creates at least 5 million new green jobs. On the local level, a number of innovative initiatives are under way from Albuquerque to Newark to create city-wide green job programs. The movement is even going international. Next month, students I work with in Singapore are hosting an Asian Youth Energy Summit to promote clean-tech employment opportunities.

Van Jones is right when he says: "We can't drill and burn our way out of this economic crisis. We can – and must – invest and invent our way out." The pictures from the Green Jobs Now! Day of Action remind us that when Van talks about new investments he isn't just talking about solar panels and wind turbines. He's talking about people.

Read more!

McCain Flip Flops as Dems Caught in Drilling Pickle

As usual, the Daily Show's John Stuart hits the nail on the head as he sums up the past week's political battle over drilling. From the halls of Congress to the Campaign stump, Stuart doesn't miss a beat. Enjoy...



(From the Sept 17th episode of the Daily Show).

Read more!

A Political Earthquake: Pelosi's Democratic House Passes Pro-Drilling Bill

The energy battle unfolding in the halls of Congress carries one clear lesson: energy prices and economic insecurity present a profoundly more powerful political imperative than calls for environmental protection and climate action. Rising gas prices and plummeting stock prices have dramatically altered the political landscape around energy, creating a pivotal moment for clean energy and climate advocates.

Republicans successfully capitalized on the changing energy landscape to advance an expanded oil drilling agenda, pushing Democrats back with cries of "Drill Baby, Drill!" and seizing control of the energy debate for the first time since the 2006 election.

Democrats won a tactical victory yesterday, passing a true "all of the above" energy bill out of the House that authorizes expanded oil drilling and creates new renewable energy production requirements for electric utilities. Pelosi and the House Democrats forced all but 15 Republicans to vote No on a pro-drilling bill, calling their empty "we support an all of the above energy strategy" bluff.

But make no mistake: while this was a tactical win, when Nancy Pelosi's Democratic House passes a pro-drilling bill, you're looking at nothing less than a political earthquake. We're witnessing a fundamental realignment of the energy debate.

Energy policy is now about bread and butter issues: jobs, economic growth and energy prices. While climate change and clean energy were once the center of the Congressional energy agenda, they are quickly becoming sidebar issues, supplanted by concerns that are far more pressing to everyday Americans.

Does this mean hope is lost for clean energy and climate advocates? Certainly not. But it means we'll have to adapt, and quickly, if we want to proactively advance a clean energy agenda.

Democrats may have won a tactical victory today, but they are still on the defensive in an ongoing battle set on Republican's terms. If we want to see Democrats on the offensive, advancing a proactive energy agenda, clean energy and climate advocates need to develop new policies and a new political narrative about our issues that provides Democrats with an answer to their most pressing political problems (hint: it's not going to be saving Polar Bears anytime soon).

What Democrats need most is a set of credible new solutions to rising energy prices and a stagnating economy. Right now, Republicans are providing the only solutions with any traction: expand production of dirty old energy sources, cut taxes, and send out stimulus checks. Sure, any decent analysis would reveal the GOP "plan" for what it is: a recipe for economic and environmental disaster. But Republicans and their allies have spent years positioning their policy recommendations as "common-sense" solutions to economic issues, and Americans are buying it. Meanwhile, many of the Democrat's strongest progressive allies have spent most of their time developing solutions to climate change and ecological challenges. Clean, green, carbon-neutral, emissions reductions, ecological crisis, climate change -- this is the language that climate and clean energy advocates have been predominantly using, leaving Democrats grasping for credible answers when their constituents - prodded by the GOP and their allies - start shouting about jobs, recession, unemployment and gas prices.

It's not too late for clean energy advocates to develop the economic answers Democrats are looking for -- but only if stop thinking as much about shrinking ice caps and increasing carbon emissions and start thinking more about vanishing retirement funds and increasing unemployment. In short, to win the energy battle, we need to make our clean energy agenda a solution to today's pressing economic challenges, not tomorrow's environmental challenges.

Luckily, we have some strong cards to play. A series of strategic public investments in a new energy economy can make clean energy cheap and abundant; create millions of new jobs; spur innovation and economic competitiveness; reinvest in our communities; modernize our ailing infrastructure; and spark the creation of entire new industries. We've got a powerful story to tell, and it's all good news for American families hit by an ailing economy and increasingly expensive fossil fuel prices.

But we've got a lot of work to do. "Drill Here, Drill Now!" has a powerful intuitive appeal to most Americans. To knock that lose and replace it with something like "Make Clean Energy Cheap and Abundant!", or "Ignite a New Energy Economy," we need to get focused, start talking predominately in economic (not ecological) language, and develop a set of policy recommendations that match our narrative. Are we up for the challenge?

Read more!

Democrats: Party in Power or Powerful Party?

The House voted yesterday and passed the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. The bill is truly an "all of the above" set of solutions, including:

• Royalty reform to ensure that oil companies are paying for the land that they lease from the government


• Tax subsidy repeals on the "big five" oil companies, along with closing other loopholes to make sure oil companies are paying their fair share


• Releasing almost 10 percent of the strategic petroleum reserve to help drive down gas prices at the pump


• Extended and expanded tax incentives for renewable electricity and energy generation, energy efficient homes, buildings and appliances, and incentives for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles


• Taking royalties from decade old drilling leases and invest in clean energy and energy efficiency technologies


• A mandate for utilities to be providing 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020


• And, the kicker: expresses the sense of congress that the Renewable Fuel Standard should ensure that every region can be a producer of cellulosic biofuels from a vast array of feedstocks.

The bill passed 239-189, picking up just fifteen Republican votes while losing thirteen Democrats. However, the likelihood of this bill turning into law is slim, as it has to make it through the senate, which, with the threat of a Republican filibuster, looks almost impossible. The chances of a bill that shifts oil subsidies passing the senate without a filibuster-proof Democratic super-majority (ie 60 Democrats) is, by my rough estimate, a billion to one.

This is not to say that the passage of this bill was not a success in the eyes of House Democrats. After being hammered all summer over refusing to pass expanded drilling provisions of provide relief at the pump, the Democratic caucus in Congress can now say, with honesty, that they voted for an "all of the above" energy solution package, and that the Republicans were the party standing in the way on drilling.

This is actually a remarkable tactical victory for Democrats, who beat the Republicans at their own game. But it is just that: a tactical victory in a political battle in which the Republicans set all the conditions. Democrats have been in control of the House for two years, but they are still struggling for tactical victories and playing Republican games. If Democrats want to not only be the party in power but a powerful party, they need to shift the Congressional political landscape with not tactical, but strategic victories.

The Dems need to proactively choose the battles that they will fight with Republicans instead of constantly reacting to Republican power plays. They need to win a battle that they start, a battle that they choose--a battle in which they represent the will of the electorate. It is these sorts of political victories that will have Democrats building political capital instead of preserving it, setting and owning the agenda instead of reacting to it.

The best place for Democrats to take ownership of the political process is energy. Providing a real vision for new energy to power America will put the Democrats on the offensive, creating a narrative of proactive Democratic solutions to problems of economy and national security. The best way for the Democrats to establish credibility as leaders of the country and stewards of our economy would be a bold push for new American energy. And until the Democrats are setting the terms, they will continue to play catch-up with Republicans and to scramble for a tactical victory.

Read more!

All of the Above, But What Matters Above All

The Republicans have been pounding the Democrats on energy policy so far this summer, effectively adopting an “all of the above” approach (at least in terms of their messaging) to solving our energy price woes. The Democrats’ responses, on the other hand, have failed to frame the debate on their terms, instead offering scattered solutions and saying “no!” to the Republicans’ plans.

The Democrats, however, announced they plan to take back the debate as they return from recess next week and head into the fall. According to Congressman Markey (D-MA), they will deploy a counter-strategy capable of doing “a political reverse takedown on the Republicans.”

The Democrats will test the Republicans with an “All of the Above” strategy that will embrace offshore drilling as it calls for a renewable energy mandate, energy-efficiency measures for buildings, and oil industry tax provisions.

As the Republicans chew on that, I also have to wonder if the Democrats are really paying attention, once again, to what truly matters when it comes to energy policy in 2008.

The Democrats say their bill is a work in progress and offered few specifics besides the information above and their certainty that they will pigeonhole the Republicans with an offshore drilling provision.

House Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) continued that the inclusion of an offshore drilling provision proves that the Democrats are prepared to respond to the needs of some in their caucus and the concerns of the American people.

Democrats say that their message this fall will focus on alternative energy and achieving energy independence. But will their policy solutions match their message? Based on what we have gleaned so far, it is apparent that the Democrats are overlooking some critical details:

It is September. The crucial Production Tax Credits (PTC) and Investment Tax Credits (ITC) for the emerging renewable industries will expire at the end of 2008 if they are not renewed by Congress. If they expire, so will an estimated 116,000 jobs and billions of dollars lost in clean energy profits for homegrown American energy – all at a time when our economy is struggling to pick itself up amidst a slowdown. These tax breaks are absolutely critical to the continued growth of America’s alternative energy industries and their extension will only be good news for our economy.

Promoting a renewable energy mandate, a political nonstarter, when the PTC/ITC extensions are at stake intimates that the Democrats’ priorities are not set straight. The Democrats should drop the mandate and focus on what matters between now and 2009.

The Democrats have a ripe opportunity to get this right – they can win on message, and on policy – if they adopt policies that reflect what Americans’ true concerns are: our economy and energy security. The Democrats, too, need to walk the walk when it comes to an “All of the Above” strategy and include what matters above all else for energy policy in 2008.

Read more!

Palin Pick Confirms McCain is No Green Candidate, Say Tom Friedman and Carl Pope

Thought the Republican's nomination of "Maverick" John McCain meant we'd finally see a showdown between two "green" candidates this November? Think again, say New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman and Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope. College students in particular should pay attention, Friedman writes.

"With his choice of Sarah Palin — the Alaska governor who has advocated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and does not believe mankind is playing any role in climate change — for vice president," Friedman writes in his latest column, "John McCain has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another representative of big oil.

Friedman takes the gloves off and hits McCain hard for his increasingly terrible energy policy:

Given the fact that Senator McCain deliberately avoided voting on all eight attempts to pass a bill extending the vital tax credits and production subsidies to expand our wind and solar industries, and given his support for lowering the gasoline tax in a reckless giveaway that would only promote more gasoline consumption and intensify our addiction to oil, and given his desire to make more oil-drilling, not innovation around renewable energy, the centerpiece of his energy policy — in an effort to mislead voters that support for drilling today would translate into lower prices at the pump today — McCain has forfeited any claim to be a green candidate.

Well said, Mr. Friedman.

Addressing college students in particular, Friedman goes on to plead, "please, students, when McCain comes to your campus and flashes a few posters of wind turbines and solar panels, ask him why he has been AWOL when it came to Congress supporting these new technologies."

I don't think we'll have a problem with that!

The Sierra Club's Pope makes some colorful additions to the column, getting his licks in with these two choice quotes:

“Back in June, the Republican Party had a round-up,” said Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club. “One of the unbranded cattle — a wizened old maverick name John McCain — finally got roped. Then they branded him with a big ‘Lazy O’ — George Bush’s brand, where the O stands for oil. No more maverick.

"One of McCain’s last independent policies putting him at odds with Bush was his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” added Pope, “yet he has now picked a running mate who has opposed holding big oil accountable and been dismissive of alternative energy while focusing her work on more oil drilling in a wildlife refuge and off of our coasts. While the northern edge of her state literally falls into the rising Arctic Ocean, Sarah Palin says, ‘The jury is still out on global warming.’ She’s the one hanging the jury — and John McCain is going to let her."

Friedman ends by again appealing to college students:

"So, college students, don’t let anyone tell you that on the issue of green, this election is not important. It is vitally important, and the alternatives could not be more black and white."

Again. Not a problem. With a million young voters joining in Power Vote by November 4th, we'll send a clear message to elected officials that the Millennial Generation understands just how important this election is and just how much we need a clean, just and prosperous energy future.

Honestly, for as much as Friedman keeps writing about clean energy and college students, you'd think he'd start reading this blog...

Read more!

A Pivotal Moment

<With Americans focused on energy prices as never before, a game-changing shift is occurring in the American political climate. The time has come for climate and clean energy advocates to adopt a new strategy and policy agenda. Next year will see the inauguration of a new president, a new Congress, and a new international agreement on global warming. The moment is far too urgent to fall on our swords for a cap-and-trade agenda developed in an entirely different political environment.

There's one thing at the top of Americans' minds these days: energy prices. Prices at the pump have been hitting Americans hard for months now, and an overwhelming majority (87%) do not foresee things getting any better before the end of the year. As of June, concern for energy prices eclipsed the Iraq War as #2 on the Gallup monthly poll of top American concerns (just behind concerns over the ailing economy). And as Republicans and Democrats enter their conventions still sparring over oil drilling, energy is now the #1 election issue.

All of this paints a very clear picture of where Americans are at: they are focused on their pocketbooks, grimacing every time they head to the gas station to fill 'er up.

This new focus on energy prices is a game changer for the world of energy and climate policy.

On the one hand, these developments spell Trouble-with-a-capital-T for politicians and environmentalists pushing a climate-centered agenda and policy solutions aimed at capping and pricing carbon to reduce emissions. At a time of extreme sensitivity over energy prices, we cannot hope to price our way to deep reductions in global warming pollution.

On the other hand, energy now lies at the forefront of the American political environment in a way that it hasn't been since the Oil Shocks of the 1970s. This opens up a unique but urgent opportunity, a chance to advance a robust and bold new policy agenda centered on energy solutions.

Newt Gingrich and his "American Solutions" organization clearly recognized this opportunity. Their "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" petition garnered over 1.2 million signatures in a matter of weeks. This "drill here, pay less" meme has been so successful, GOP strategists now think energy might be the Republican party's last best hope this election season.

In response, environmentalists and Congressional Democrats scrambled to 'block and tackle' and stop the gathering momentum to simply Drill! Drill! Drill! for more oil. With drilling opponents beaten up by the "drill here, drill now" push, a compromise proposal seems increasingly likely.

Meanwhile, the push for climate policy seems to be on hold, as climate advocates attempt to regroup from the defeat of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. Once touted as a bipartisan proposal, the cap-and-trade bill ran into a Republican filibuster in June and failed to secure the support of at least ten Democratic senators. After the repeated failure and declining support for cap-and-trade in Congress, environmentalists and Congressional leaders are surely debating what the next move should be.

It's time to recognize that these two conversations - how do we halt the push for more oil drilling and how do we advance a new climate strategy - are really the same conversation. The question at the heart of both discussions is this: how do we meet Americans where they are at and give them compelling solutions to our mounting energy crisis?

In today's new political context of economic insecurity and energy price spikes, we must provide Americans with what they want: credible promises of affordable, abundant energy.

That calls for a critical pivot away from a focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and halting climate change and towards a new focus on making clean, cheap American energy sources a reality.

It's time to get serious about winning the frame game and make the critical pivot to a new message, a message that sounds something like this:

Oil is hurting our economy. Coal is poisoning our air. Both are threatening our climate and our future. It's time to make clean energy cheap and abundant. Which would you rather invest in? Coal and oil - the old, dirty, expensive stuff? Or clean, cheap, new American energy sources? Which will power America's future?

Americans are crying out for new energy solutions. They are hurting at the pump and ready to turn to anyone who can offer a credible path forward. Gingrich beat us to the punch, but the game isn't over.

Support for drilling as the solution to our energy woes seems to be pretty shallow, especially once alternatives are presented. We want somebody to do something, so in the absence of any compelling alternatives, the "drill here, pay less" meme is kicking our butts. But Americans aren't stupid. We understand that the old stuff really isn't working very well and that more of the same will not relieve the strain on our pocketbooks.

If climate and clean energy advocates consistently position the dirty, old, expensive, poisonous stuff on the one hand and present compelling examples of clean, new, renewable, stable, secure and affordable energy sources on the other hand, I think the choice for Americans will be pretty clear and easy. I also can't think of anything else that will work!

This pivot goes far beyond just fighting off a push for drilling and far deeper than simply adopting a new messaging veneer on top of the same old policies. It goes right to the core of our entire energy and climate agenda.

This kind of message - "make clean energy cheap and abundant" - is incompatible with a policy agenda that expects unrestrained carbon prices to do the heavy lifting in igniting a clean energy future - i.e. a "hard" cap-and-trade program without provisions to control the price of carbon. One could conclude that we should shy away from this new message and find one more consistent with the carbon pricing-based policy agenda that has been the focus of climate advocates for so long.

The conclusion I reach, however, is the exact opposite: we don't need to abandon the "clean, cheap energy" message in favor of cap-and-trade; we need to make this change in focus about more than just our message.

If we want this message to stick - and I believe the success or failure of our entire effort to advance a clean energy future may hinge upon that success - we need to adopt a policy framework that's actually in synch with our message. We need a policy agenda focused on developing clean and cheap energy for every American. If we don't, we'll soon find ourselves incoherent and inconsistent, and our message will fail when the public sees that.

The time has come to advance a compelling and effective set of solutions focused on making clean energy cheap and abundant, not making dirty energy expensive and scarce.

Gore's clean energy "moon-shot" speech was (almost) dead-on. He shifted the focus from climate change to the energy challenge and from reducing emissions to increasing clean energy production. Whether we make this transition to 100% clean energy in ten years, twenty, or longer, I think the timetable is far less important than the overall thrust of the message: we're going to make your energy cheap and clean and secure. And who wouldn't want that?

I'm sympathetic to arguments that failing to price global warming pollution at it's full societal cost is simply economically inefficient. And I understand that principles of justice would call for a push to make "polluters pay." However, as we develop our new suite of clean energy solutions, we must make sure that our policy is built as if politics actually mattered. Our ultimate success depends less on appeals to economic efficiency and principles of justice than it does on our ability to meet Americans where they are and overcome the vagaries of the U.S. Senate.

This new policy platform should be centered around a new national project of strategic investments necessary to spark a clean energy economy and develop cheap and clean energy for every American. Carbon pricing and regulation play a role here, but they cannot be the top-line items when it comes to messaging, nor are they likely to do the heavy lifting that unlocks our clean energy potential.

A policy like this is really the only way we're going to pass something in a political climate of high energy prices and economic insecurity, and the only way we'll enact a solution set that gets the job done.

Next year will see the inauguration of a new president, a new Congress, and a new international agreement on global warming. The moment is far too urgent to fall on our swords for a cap-and-trade agenda developed in an entirely different political environment than the one that exists today. Nor do we have time to just make Americans care enough about global warming to act.

What we have is a unique moment of opportunity when Americans are overwhelmingly concerned about energy and about energy prices, and hungry for new solutions. If we can credibly advance "make clean energy cheap and abundant" as an alternative to the "drill here, pay less" crowd, we can win the battle. In fact, it's probably the only way we can win.

Read more!