There are a number of efforts underway to stop any further development of clean energy. Such as: 1 eliminate the $7500 EV credit 2 halt any new offshore wind development 3 repeal the IRA entirely, or if the votes are not there, as much of it as can be repealed. Some of this involves executive orders, and some involves acts of Congress.
This is a target rich environment for LTE or op ed writers! My perspective is that we can be most effective in this effort by being the responsible and commonsensical voice in the room. We have a strong need to enlist clean energy conservatives in this effort, because the GOP majority right now is only one vote and will be that way until special elections replace a few members of Congress who departed in order to take jobs with Trump. In other words, use talking points that are nonthreatening to the majority of Americans such as
- clean energy is a good thing
- clean energy belongs in the electrical grid, as it increases reliability at a time of growing demand
- EV cars work, and are improving, and it would be unwise for us to abandon this technology and thereby let China enrich itself by becoming the sole provider of EVs to the world
- Clean energy provides more jobs in the USA than fossil fuel energy provides.
- Climate change is a real problem, and contributes to disasters that are costing us money, property, and lives.
There are also talking points that may be wise to avoid? One such talking point is the benefit of spending taxpayer money on subsidizing clean energy. Conservatives hate that idea, and immediately shut down when they see it, right? Here's another talking point maybe best to avoid: “Donald Trump is a fool regarding offshore wind turbines. He just hates wind turbines because he thinks that they spoiled the view from one of his golf courses in Scotland.” This talking point may be true. But using it probably immediately shuts down anyone who voted for him.
What are your thoughts on how we can best defend clean energy in the public arena? What would you like to try, and what would you avoid? This is going to be a big deal over the next three months.
@Chris Wiegard something like this? Just sent to the Los Angeles Times.
Dear Editor-
It dismayed me to read "Doug Burgum, Trump's pick for public lands boss, questions reliability of renewable power." Offshore wind is actually extremely reliable- it basically blows all the time. There is apparently a Trump effort underway to terminate the offshore wind power effort that is so important to meet the growing power demand here on the East Coast.
We can no longer discuss energy without mentioning climate change. In the past year, disasters powered by climate have cost us over $200 billion. The numbers keep going up, and the insurance industry is reeling. We cannot welcome energy policies that make no sense.
I just sent a letter to several local outlets of mine regarding this topic, I'm curious to hear your feedback.
"The Trump administration is looking to repeal clean energy legislation that boosts clean energy production and manufacturing. And yet, ironically enough, certain clean energy polices such as the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) had come under great favor from conservatives, it mostly benefited Republican districts despite the act being signed in a partisan manner by Democrats.
Removing clean energy policy would also lay off tons of workers doing passionate jobs that help boost our economy. And departing technology such as EVs, solar panels, wind turbines, etc. would let countries like China to hog all the production, manufacturing, and deployment of these technologies, we would be left behind in the race for innovation.
We need now more than ever to have reliable, and resilient energy policy that helps both party lines. These disasters, which are exacerbated by climate change, are costing us more and more money to clean up after, and costing us our livelihoods. This is a problem that we all must solve together, not separately."
@Chris Wiegard. Our chapter is test marketing this messaging with climate conservatives:
FUELING THE ECONOMIC TRANSITION
Modern economies have been getting steadily cleaner for decades but rapid advances in CLEAN TECH and the economics of scale means that the country that first succeeds in transitioning its economy will globally dominate.
China is using its coal reserves to fuel its economic transition and positioning itself to lock up CLEAN TECH mineral resources and manufacturing worldwide while ignoring the massive pollution affecting the quality of life there and the rest of the world.
The United States currently has sufficient, relatively clean natural gas to fuel its economic transition to clean energy, and could compete and win CLEAN TECH dominance over China on these two conditions:
- It does not recklessly export its natural gas bounty to foreign countries
- It undertakes permitting reform to fuel our clean energy transition
One of our open-ended talking points is this mismatch: U.S. is currently the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas but has less than 5% of the world's reserves. How long do you think drill baby drill going to be economically and competitively viable in patches that are already well explored, hard to develop, and greatly depleted? And then where will we be?
@Sam Cuchens Yes I think that messaging is fairly bipartisan and would work in a public setting. I understand that the letter is already sent, but if you use similar messaging in future maybe more detail on the recent disasters such as the Los Angeles fires (costs over 200 billion!) and last year's twin hurricanes Helene and Milton (costs over 80 billion) and how those disasters have impacted the insurance industry and therefore the costs we pay for insurance?
@David Cain Yes that messaging would work with many clean energy conservatives, I think that contrasting us with China is good messaging! My one caveat would be where this messaging on methane is used, and do progressives see it? The issue of methane is thorny! Progressives hate the use of methane as it does release around ½ as much CO2 per energy unit when burned as compared to what coal releases- still a lot of CO2! Progressives are also very aware that methane is a LEAKY substance, and when it leaks into the atmosphere instead of getting burned, it serves as a very powerful greenhouse gas in the short term, until it breaks down in the atmosphere. For these reasons, messaging in praise of methane can turn progressives away instantly. We saw this last year when we tried to pass the EPRA and many fellow greens sadly resisted our effort because the Barasso/Manchin bill permitted the construction of LNG facilities. Now that Trump is in office, those facilities are going to be built anyway, without the faster permitting of clean energy transmission projects, but sadly methane got in the way of that bill.
Other than that, I think your messaging is impactful. The issue with progressives would not be a problem if the messaging goes only to clean energy conservatives of course! But if the messaging goes out into broadcast media or print media, then progressives would see it and take issue.
Yes, I agree that this messaging does not work for "progressives." Our market segmentation model distinguishes a. folks who self-identify as environmentalists 20 - 40% and b. everybody else 60 - 80%. So if we don't address the latter group, according to this model, we are surely going to fail, big picture. The positive is we're finding CCLers can meaningfully and productively engage the "everybody else" segment with this kind of fueling the transition messaging - even though they know we're from CCL. So why not try?
How to approach the environmentalist segment? We've never been particularly successful reaching them, and I don't consider our messaging as usual bringing them over to our side any time soon. And therefore I maintain that the net loss compared to MAU is minimal. One useful key may be to put a date on completing clean energy transition, say 2050. I did a back of the envelope analysis (I lost the envelope) which suggests we have just enough market priced petroleum and natural gas to get us there (Note: AI and massive LNG exporting weren't considered). Aren't carbon neutrality and 100% clean energy by 2050 just about the same thing? Would our evironmentalists find this tolerable? Probably not.
Thanks for mobilizing us all, Chris!
Some talking points:
President Trump has called for “a revolution of common sense” and it is common sense that climate change is too costly to ignore. While we fail to take the necessary action, climate change-exacerbated extreme weather events will continue to escalate, impacting agriculture and leading to rising food costs and broader economic issues.
The Inflation Reduction Act may have passed along partisan lines, but red states have largely benefited from local economic development thanks to the legislation’s clean energy incentives. Last year, eighteen Republican House members sent a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson asking him to preserve clean energy tax credits from the IRA, because it is common sense for their districts to keep them.
Droughts, floods, and storms damage crops, disrupt supply chains, and reduce the availability of staple foods, pushing up prices. To solve the cost of living, an important election issue, President Trump and our elected officials cannot ignore how climate-driven disruptions contribute to food inflation. It is to their detriment to do so.
Add that you hope that leaders treat climate change as the threat multiplier it is and resolve to solve it. With commonsense bipartisan climate policy and by uniting across political divides, this challenge can be met head-on. In turn, helping this new administration to be successful.
Lastly, CCL Research Coordinator Dana Nuccitelli has a new article from Yale Climate Connections exploring how extreme weather is straining our country’s insurance systems to the breaking point.
Hope this helps!
@Charlotte Ward
Charlotte, can you cite where Trump said that? I had not heard it (I try to limit my exposure…), yet would like to use it as you have suggested, and may need the specifics. Thanks
Search Forums
Forum help
Select a question below
CCL Community Guidelines
- Discuss, ask and share
- Be respectful
- Respect confidentiality
- Protect privacy
CCL Blog Policy Area Categories
- Price on Carbon
- CBAM
- Clean Energy Permitting Reform
- Healthy Forests
- Building Electrification and Efficiency