hi all-
This “morning after” I am wondering about our talking points to use for LTEs and Op Eds to criticize the clean energy genocide of yesterday's legislative act.
Clearly one useful objective would be to clearly communicate the consequences for clean energy and carbon emissions, right?
Information like this-
“Compared to what Trump can do via executive action alone, if the Senate-passed OBBB becomes law: 1US greenhouse gas emissions would increase by ~190 million metric tons per year in 2030 & 470 million tons in 2035 Reduces new solar capacity additions by ~29 gigawatts and wind capacity by ~43 gigawatts by 2030, and ~140 GW and ~160 GW in 2035”
That information is from REPEAT? I am sure that Dana Nuccitelli will be working on digging up the most accurate stats for us, right?
But my question also relates to the boundaries of partisanship in our discourse.
Probably “it is time to give up on climate policies for the GOP and focus on voting them out of office” would be a bridge too far, right? As in our lobby meetings, better to talk about policy and just leave it as a mutually understood reality that citizens are under no obligation to vote for people who propose policies that they strongly disagree with.
How about this talking point: “we now see clearly what GOP legislators are not interested in doing: using incentives to expand the jobs, energy outputs, and pollution reductions of clean energy. But what we cannot find in the bill (because it simply is not there) is what they ARE willing to do to fight climate change! We are entitled to ask the question, and expect a coherent answer. Is the GOP now returning to the perspective of 30 years ago that it is not getting hotter? That perspective is clearly false. Is the position that climate change is a real problem, but government has no role in dealing with it? In other words, if you have the money as an individual to deal with the consequences of climate change, great, and if you don't, too bad for you? That position ignores the fact that the majority of GOP voters are not rich folk.”
I am struggling with discussing a highly partisan legislative act, which was primarily focused on destroying all clean energy policies simply because those policies were enacted by Dems. Sure, those policies also cost money- but the fact that the budget bill leaves intact all the taxpayer money devoted to fossil fuel subsidies, and that the overall impact of the bill actually INCREASES federal deficits, tend to contradict the GOP assertion that it is all about saving $. The other consequence of the bill is to rapidly add to our electricity bills while utilities struggle and possibly fail to keep up with electricity demand with fossil fuels alone- because wind and solar will be slowing down sharply, and nuclear takes too many years to build to keep up with the demand. There is even suspicion that the enormous demand for new methane burning power plants that is created in this bill will result in ordering backlogs stretching years- so that the promise that “fossil fuels are reliable and will be able to supply the power we need” will be revealed as hollow.
@Charlotte Ward and @Flannery Winchester your advice is always welcome.
@Chris Wiegard does this fact check post help with the numbers on the OBBB? Unraveling the Big Beautiful Bill Spin - FactCheck.org
@Chris Wiegard Hi Chris,
It’s definitely okay to vocalize disappointment / frustration over this bill and MOCs supporting it with their vote.
I think it's fine to remind them that constituents will likely keep this stuff in mind at election time but I agree that threats to vote them out of office are counterproductive and too partisan.
Your points about backsliding on clean energy are valid and we should share our concern that this policy goes in the wrong direction.
Next week, we’ll have a new op-ed template available with the hook of extreme heat/ preparing for heat waves and expressing concern and disappointment in this step Congress just took. We deserve better than higher bills and hotter summers.
There’s also a new press release template available to promote folks going to DC.
It covers how soaring energy costs and debilitating heat need to be addressed and that clean energy is an essential, popular and cheaper alternative to polluting technologies of the past.
Thanks for all you do!
@Chris Wiegard
I believe you are correct in that it is “better to talk about policy and just leave it as a mutually understood reality that citizens are under no obligation to vote for people who propose policies that they strongly disagree with.” But for that to work, citizens need to learn what the impacts of those policies are on their lives…and how that compares to the voting record of the representative. I.e., how does their representative’s vote compare to what’s good for the voter.
To me, that says that my efforts need to be focused on grassroots outreach and education during the next year…rather than lobby meetings with a Congressional Representative who - whether agreeing with CCL or not…only votes to avoid being primaried by his leadership. Until we have a Congress in which members dare to vote in support of their constituents‘ needs, I’d say we are lobbying empty suits.
The CCL solution to climate change is ‘democracy.” As you know, the root of that word is simply “people rule.” We may have a “representative democracy,” but it won’t work without an informed electorate. I see informing the people as our job. Lobbying elected officials who are no longer independent of their party is, to me, ineffective. It will be no easy task to convince enough voters of their best interests so as to tip the scales in a future election, but telling the truth is the best way I know to do so.
I’m not arguing that we should endorse candidates…merely prevent the facts. I‘m open to dialogue on the topic, but I cannot ask our members to put time into lobbying representatives who can not act in the interest of sound climate policy.
The problem with our current approach is that there are no consequences for disappointing us, and consequences — not the greater good — is all they're concerned about. Until they get that message — "You should be more concerned about the general election than the primary." — they will continue to nod and smile and then vote for things that we do not want. This can be done in a respectful way, but it's a message that needs to be delivered. Brian Fitzpatrick voted "no" because he represents a toss-up district and he's more worried about what will happen in the general election. In terms of major climate legislation, we've had nothing to show for our efforts with Republicans. We can still be bipartisan, but our approach needs to change if we want to be effective.
@Chris Wiegard
I am uneasy about backing off of our insistence upon protecting our high-road bipartisanship credibility. I hope as CCL goes through this post-reconciliation bill introspection we can preserve that aspect of our branding and credibility. Otherwise it could bite back in the future.
To me, that means we should critique or defend any policy and defend any scientific or proven truth and criticize any fact we believe is a falsehood (but not so much the source). And I feel we can best defend our bipartisanship if we can compliment any individual MOC or assert “the Republican Party's goal is wrong about…” or "HB 9999 is wrong about…" But I believe individual criticisms like "Congressman Smith is wrong" buy us little additional impact or credibility.
I actively participate in public protests that can become personal and negative, but never involve my affiliation with CCL. I have other affiliations where I can feel affective with GOTV (League of Women Voters), correcting falsehoods and disclosing half-truths, without involving CCL. The citation of FactCheck.org in this thread is a fine example.
I guess this nets down to three principles for me:
- Minimize personal criticisms, within CCL forums, or people we disagree with
- Strictly fact-motivated, never politically motivated, criticism
- Use our individual memberships in other, non-CCL, organizations to leverage any of our political and/or partisan expressions of preferences.
Am I “under”-thinking this?
@Lee Alley
I find it hard to see how many members of the U.S. Congress and 95% of the GOP these days are influenced in the least by FACTS.
@Michael Feeney
Excellent observation. We need to find a better way to communicate with them.
I agree totally with you, @Michael Feeney, that the GOP MoC's are DJT-driven, not fact-driven. And I'm angry that they are damaging our country's, and my grandchildren's future, just so MoC's can save their jobs today. As James Kimmel wrote in “The Science of Revenge,” my urge to enter the GOP's street fight is as magnetic and addictive as heroin. (e.g.,In 1968 I went AWOL from the Army at Fort Knox to join the rough and tumble protests at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, but I did not get caught.)
But I don't believe using the CCL platform to deliver my street fight tactics is my only choice. I dearly want to help preserve CCL's high road credibility of truth-based non-partisanship so that those strengths remain for me to leverage in the future. I believe once CCL loses that leverage we won't get it back in my lifetime.
I participate in (non-violent) street-fight tactics against the GOP MoC's in multiple fora other than CCL. I just don't understand why I need to drag CCL down to “go low” with me when I do.
I don't press this issue to persuade or educate you fellow CCL'ers. Just the opposite…I describe my thinking so you can persuade or educate me that I need to change my thinking.
Thank you for any advisory feedback.
@Lee Alley
I'm glad we see the same reality. As a relatively new member, I am not offering any direction for CCL as an organization. That is for the collective wisdom of the leadership. I just can't imagine keeping a lot of folks enthused about pushing for any significant policy agenda in Washington DC while democracy is being consumed by autocracy.
@Chris Wiegard I am glad I'm not the only one struggling to hold back my anger and find a higher-road message. I am preparing an LTE from Arizona that basically says climate change is nothing but bad for our state. If the reps who voted against it (I will name them but not mention party) don't think tax incentives are the way to address this critical issue, I urge them to work in a bipartisan manner to come up with something as effective as the incentives they deleted. Yeah, of course they won't, but it's the only way I can think of to write about this while keeping my anger in check.
And now can I just rant to you all for a minute. This state is already hot as hell and we are running out of water. I have no problem with people voting Republican because they don't like abortion or they want low taxes etc., but there is no pro argument for climate change. It's suicidal. I can't believe they're willing to do this to their own children and grandchildren.
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