Friday, September 11, 2009

Fw: Climate Progress

Climate Progress


   

Fox News blurts out its agenda: "Now that Jones has resigned, we need to follow through…. First, stop cap-and-trade, which could send these groups trillions," and then put "the whole corrupt 'green jobs' concept outside the bounds of the political mainstream."

Posted: 08 Sep 2009 08:35 AM PDT

http://www.foxnews.com/i/new/fn-header.jpgHaving taken Van Jones down, the job destroyers and climate destroyers of the right wing most certainly smell blood (see Beck: "Almost everyone who does believe in global warming is a socialist").

Now Phil Kerpen, policy director for Americans for Prosperity, has laid out the right-wing strategy for how "the Van Jones affair could be an important turning point in the Obama administration," in a piece on FOXNews.com.  AFP is "pro-tobacco industry" group that "worked around the U.S. in recent years to defeat" smokefree workplace laws (as SourceWatch notes) — and is now fighting for the big corporate polluters to block climate and clean energy action.  Brad Johnson at WonkRoom has documented how Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a front group for billionaire polluters, pushing the most inane pro-pollution ads you'll ever see (here).

But what Fox News and AFP would like to achieve is no joke:

The Van Jones affair is, as President Obama likes to say, a "teachable moment," and we need to put not just him but the whole corrupt "green jobs" concept outside the bounds of the political mainstream.

Conservatives hate the notion of green clean energy jobs because their entire anti-science, anti-climate, anti-environment message is built around the (false) notion of a trade-off between reducing pollution and jobs (see "Mything in action: Why conservatives hate green clean energy jobs").  If you don't care about the health and well-being of future generations, you certainly don't care if they have good jobs (or any jobs, for that matter).

Progressives are going to have to redouble our efforts if we're to have any chance whatsoever of creating 1.7 million clean energy jobs while averting catastrophic global warming.  Here is an excerpt of the FoxNews/AFP opinion piece strategy document, "How Van Jones Happened and What We Need to Do Next," which seems like a parody, but, sadly, isn't:

The Van Jones affair could be an important turning point in the Obama administration if we use it as a window to understand the structure of the left and to stop the huge power-grab now taking place in the name of green jobs.  It's also one of the most significant things I've ever had the honor of being involved in.  Here's how, from my perspective, it happened and what it means.

I was an unlikely Van Jones expert.  It started July 9, when "FOX & Friends" asked me if I'd come on the show the morning of July 10 to explain what "green jobs" are.  It meant an early morning the next day, but I was glad to do it, because exposing the green jobs scam is critical to fight cap-and-trade, my top legislative priority for the year.  The producer asked me if I knew anything about green jobs "czar" Van Jones.  I didn't but said I would find out.

I e-mailed a friend who follows the green groups and he said he thought Jones was socialist. –  I doubt he had any idea how deep it went. A couple Web searches later, I couldn't believe what I found in an article from the alternative San Francisco newspaper the East Bay Express.  The man was a self-professed communist, with ties to ACORN….  His real name was Anthony, with "Van" made up in college because he thought everyone cool has a one-syllable name.

Seriously.  His real name was "Anthony."  String him up, already!

There was so much material there, but what really stood out is what I used the next day on F&F: the "green jobs" concept was merely a new face on the old ideology of central economic planning and control, an alternative and a threat to free market capitalism.

The only central economic planning control we have in this country is the massive subsidies and regulatory favoritism for polluters.

As soon as I got back to the office, I e-mailed the East Bay Express article to one of Glenn Beck's producer, saying: "Please share with Glenn this article about green jobs czar Van Jones, a self-described communist who was radicalized in jail. Confirms "watermelon" hypothesis." (I was referring to an explanation we had offered on his show of the cap-and-trade bill as a "watermelon," green on the outside but Communist red to the core.)

No, this is NOT an Onion parody.  The cap-and-trade bill is a watermelon, a watermelon, I tell you, not a mango, for Chrissakes!
Here is a video of Kerpin and Beck eating a friggin' watermelon before the House vote.

The rest is history.  I spent the next two weeks researching everything I could find about Jones and the Apollo Alliance (much of which is still to be published, including a forthcoming paper from the Capital Research Center next month), the national umbrella organization for coordinating between the environmentalists, the labor unions, and the social justice street organizers that Jones has served as a board member and a primary national spokesman for.  Beck had me on his show to explain Apollo on July 28, and several more times thereafter, while he began pounding away.

Two days later, the stakes got higher when another Jones-founded organization, Color of Change, called for a boycott of the Beck show.  Amazingly, many in the mainstream media would report the fiction that Beck's coverage of Jones was retaliation for the boycott, even though coverage of Jones started first.  Given the chronology, if there is any connection we should consider whether the boycott was retaliation for the coverage.

The mainstream media completely ignored the controversy, but the Internet kicked into high gear, with so many people doing great work that it was hard to keep track of.  This week, when Gateway Pundit the broke story that Van Jones actually blamed George Bush for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, some of the mainstream media (but only some) finally began paying attention.  Rep. Mike Pence stepped up and called for his resignation.  And early today Jones made his exit.

Now Van Jones has left the administration, but we can't afford to stop thinking about him and what he represents.  Clearly, he was far less cautious than many of the left-wing radical currently influencing the direction of policy in this country.  Less cautious but not ideologically distinct.

The agenda laid out in Van Jones's book, "The Green Collar Economy," which we now know is an attempt to achieve radical ends, is squarely within the mainstream of the political left and the Democratic Party.  He urged adoption of a carbon cap-and-trade program, renewable electricity mandates– including Al Gore's outlandish and impossible goal of eliminating fossil fuel use by 2018, large taxpayer-funded green jobs programs, a so-called smart grid for electricity, more mass-transit subsidies, higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, federal funding for organic farms, a ban on new coal plants, expanded ethanol mandates, and even a spirited, multiple page pitch for a cash-for-clunkers program–he called it "Hoopties for Hybrids."

Even if Apollo is properly tainted by the Van Jones scandal, it's only the tip of the iceberg, as this chart shows.  In fact most of the action has already moved to the Center for American Progress, the hyper-politicized think tank that's advancing most of the left's agenda, especially the push for green jobs and all of the policies from Van Jones's book.

I will concede that many people call me hyper, but I like to think of the Center's energy and climate "agenda" as hyper-scientific.

Here is the chart — the 21st century version of Nixon's enemies list.  I just don't understand why I didn't make it, even if CAP did.  I guess I'm not hyper enough.

Green Jobs network

As I explained previously on the FOX Forum, the push for "green jobs" has everything to do with funding the far-left political activities that Van Jones so adamantly believed in.  Green jobs are not economic jobs but political jobs, designed to funnel vast sums of taxpayer money to left-wing labor unions, environmental groups, and social justice community organizers.

Now that Jones has resigned, we need to follow through with two critical policy victories.  First, stop cap-and-trade, which could send these green groups trillions, and second repeal the unspent portion of the stimulus bill, which stands to give them billions.  The Van Jones affair is, as President Obama likes to say, a "teachable moment," and we need to put not just him but the whole corrupt "green jobs" concept outside the bounds of the political mainstream.

Even though I have mocked this too-mockable piece of mockery, what happened to Van Jones makes clear that we have to take these folks seriously, even if one of the many necessary response strategies is to mock them for their paranoid fantasies and anti-scientific beliefs.

I will discuss strategic responses later, but for now, let's remember what we are fighting for.  President Obama has cut through conservative myths better than anyone:

"The choice we face is not between saving our environment and saving our economy. The choice we face is between prosperity and decline…  We can allow climate change to wreak unnatural havoc across the landscape, or we can create jobs working to prevent its worst effects….  The nation that leads the world in creating new energy sources will be the nation that leads the 21st-century global economy."

Related Posts:

In Labor Day speech, Obama says we must build "an America where energy reform creates green jobs that can never be outsourced and that finally frees America from the grip of foreign oil" — attacks the "status quo" special interests who want to "do nothing."

Posted: 08 Sep 2009 07:33 AM PDT

President Obama delivered a rip roaring speech yesterday in Cincinnati (text and videos here).  It's how he should have been messaging all along.  Even though it focused on health care and the economy, Obama talked about clean energy, as always does:

And we're making an historic commitment to innovation–much of it still to come in the months and year ahead: doubling our capacity to generate renewable energy; building a new smart grid to carry electricity from coast to coast; laying down broadband lines and high-speed rail lines; and providing the largest boost in basic research in history.

So our Recovery plan is working. The financial system has been saved from collapse. Home sales are up. We're seeing signs of life in the auto industry. Business investment is starting to stabilize. For the first time in 18 months, we're seeing growth in manufacturing….

We have to build a new foundation for prosperity in America….An America where energy reform creates green jobs that can never be outsourced and that finally frees America from the grip of foreign oil.

In the clip above, he launches into a scathing attack on the status quo special interests who are trying to block action on health care reform, and lays out the catastrophe that awaits this country if we do nothing.  This is precisely what he needs to do on climate change, even though (some of) his advisers are foolishly suggesting otherwise.  Obama said bluntly:

We've never been this close. We've never had such broad agreement on what needs to be done. And because we're so close to real reform, the special interests are doing what they always do-trying to scare the American people and preserve the status quo.

But I've got a question for them: What's your answer? What's your solution? The truth is, they don't have one. It's do nothing. And we know what that future looks like.

Memo to team Obama:  He could use the exact same words to talk about the climate and clean energy bill in the fall.  Obama continues:

Insurance companies raking in the profits while discriminating against people because of pre-existing conditions and denying or dropping coverage when you get sick. It means you're never negotiating about higher wages, because you're spending all your time just protecting the benefits you already have.

It means premiums continuing to skyrocket three times faster than your wages. More families pushed into bankruptcy. More businesses cutting more jobs. More Americans losing their health insurance-14,000 every day. And it means more Americans dying every day just because they don't have insurance.

But that's not the future I see for America.

Scary stuff, immediately turned into his positive message.  I just don't see why such fact-based messaging — sometimes called fear-based messaging by people on our side who don't understand messaging and by people on the do-nothing side trying to stop us from using our best messaging strategies — is fine for health care reform but not energy reform.

The good news on health care is that Obama started framing health reform as delivering health security, as I and others had urged (see "Can Obama deliver health and energy security with a half (assed) message?"):

And, yes, we're building an America where health insurance reform delivers more stability and security to every American-the many who have insurance today and the millions who don't….

I see reform where we bring stability and security to folks who have insurance today….

Security and stability for folks who have health insurance. Help for those who don't-the coverage they need at a price they can afford.

Nice repetition.  Security and stability.  Duh.  There's a reason one of the most successful progressive programs of all time is called "Social Security."  I only hope it isn't too late for this message to take hold.

On the climate and clean energy bill, we've been pushing clean energy jobs and energy security all along, a message that has clearly broken through.  Now Obama just needs to deliver a rip roaring speech like this on climate in the fall — and use the whole damn message:

We've never been this close. We've never had such broad agreement on what needs to be done. The special interests are doing what they always do-trying to scare the American people and preserve the status quo.

But I've got a question for them: What's your answer? What's your solution? The truth is, they don't have one. It's do nothing.

And we know what that future looks like [see "An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water "].

Duke Energy wants big rate increases for its new NC coal plant. Here's what Durham ratepayers should do.

Posted: 08 Sep 2009 05:35 AM PDT

North Carolina Conservation Network

To all readers in North Carolina — Duke University students, I'm talking to you — please spread the word from the North Carolina Conservation Network on the Duke Energy Rate Hike Hearing at the Durham City Hall this Thursday evening:

Duke Energy is seeking an 18% rate hike this year for residential electricity customers. Over 13.5% would cover costs such as the Cliffside coal-fired power plant, now under construction west of Charlotte. Another 4.5% increase has recently been approved for rising costs of coal. The NC Utilities Commission has scheduled six hearings across the state to hear public comment on whether or not to approve the proposed rate hike.

Please attend the public hearing in Durham, NC to show your opposition to this unnecessary rate hike!

Yeah, Duke Energy has argued "We Can 'Decarbonize' Without Painful Electricity Price Hikes," it supports the climate bill, and it just quit the scandal-ridden coal front group over the issue.  But they are still a big coal utility, and building new expensive, dirty plants when energy efficiency would be much cheaper and infinitely cleaner.  Why should NC ratepayers suffer for Duke's bad decisions?

The NCCN is "a statewide network of over 100 environmental, community and environmental justice organizations focused on protecting North Carolina's environment and public health."  Click here for details on attending the rate hearing.

You're perhaps wondering about how Duke can get a rate increase for rising coal costs when the price has collapse, as the figure from the Energy Information Administration below shows:

Average Weekly Coal Commodity Spot Prices

Well, let's just say public utility commissions are not notoriously fast on these matters, so this would look to be covering Duke's costs retroactively.  But given the under-utilization of natural gas plants in this region of the country — the average utilization of natural‐gas‐fired capacity by electric generators was about 11% to 13% in 2008 (see "Game changer, Part 2: Unconventional gas makes the 2020 Waxman-Markey target so damn easy and cheap to meet) — efficiency and natural gas and biomass should be able to more than cover the power delivered from any new coal plants at a far lower price.

It'd probably be cheaper to simply stop building the new friggin' coal plant.  Demonstrating that would be a good project for Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment and their dynamic dean (see "The Bjorn Irrelevancy: Duke dean disses Danish delayer").