In the video below, GOP Senator Roy Blunt, a longtime, ardent defender of the fossil fuel industry – which has, in turn, been most generous with him – explains that he is opposed to President Obama’s plans to combat climate change because he believes it will drive up energy costs for poor folks and seniors on fixed incomes. This is the same Roy Blunt who consistently votes against raising the minimum wage. In fact, in 2011, Blunt was given a score of “D” by the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty law based on his votes on bills that had potential to alleviate poverty. Interesting that he’s so worried about how the poor, particularly poor seniors, will cope with a shift to clean energy, isn’t it?

However, if we assume that Blunt is really sincere in his concern about impact of the President’s climate change proposals on the economy and on the poor – I know, I know, it stretches the bounds of credulity, but bear with me – someone needs to put his fears at rest. He’s dead wrong on all counts.

In fact, ignoring the impacts of climate change is costing us money now as we taxpayers foot the bill for the increasing numbers of climate-related natural disasters. The situation will only get worse as climate change escalates. The American Security Project has analyzed the costs that will be incurred in each state if we continue to ignore climate change.  Among their findings for Missouri:

–Corn and soybeans, currently staple crops for Missouri farmers, will likely no longer grow if climate continues in its current change trajectory. Forests will die out. The impact on the state’s economy will be major:

Farmers would have much to lose if crop yields fall. Missouri’s forest products generate nearly $1.69 billion in revenue, nearly 2% of the state’s gross state product. Agriculture commodities account for nearly 3% of the U.S. total. Climate change will significantly damage this industry.

–Extreme weather such as flooding and changes in terrain will put fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing at risk “placing roughly 57,000 jobs and $3 billion in income at stake.”

–Then there’s those increased energy costs that Senator Blunt’s so worried about. Of course, electricity will also become more expensive if we ignore climate change and do nothing:

Missourians will also pay more than necessary for electricity. If business continues as usual, consumers will pass up an opportunity to directly save $175 million on their natural gas bills, and, over the next five years, will overpay by $457 million for electricity. Furthermore, by failing to pass statewide energy conservation policies, specifically the International Energy Conservation Code, a model energy regulation policy supported by the U.S. Government, Missourians will have wasted over $108 million by 2020.

On the other hand, If we could get politicians like Blunt to stop whining about imagined or short-term economic impacts and do something constructive to help us cope with climate change, we’d realize some positive economic benefits as well as an improved quality of life. Coal, just like climate change itself, is costlier than it seems. Clean energy, however, is a growth industry that has the potential to generate many, many jobs:

Renewable energy investment around the world topped $257 billion in 2011 (80% of the investment in fossil fuel capacity), approaching half of all new electrical generating capacity globally. Energy efficiency and “green-buildings” have also become multi-billion-dollar markets, and growth is showing no signs of slowing.

Furthermore, as the technology that enables renewable energy continues to evolve, the cost drops – for instance, wind power is already competitive with fossil fuels in terms of costs. And, as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 proposed, if you’re really concerned about folks who may be penalized by slightly higher energy prices during the transition, you can always subsidize their energy use. I personally would prefer that taxpayer-funded subsidies go to the poor rather than continue the generous subsidies that Senator Blunt regularly fights to preserve for the very prosperous fossil fuel industry.

I read that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) believes that the “right should not cede the moral high ground” on poverty. Senator Blunt’s comments today certainly proved Ryan’s point; it can be very convenient for a dyed-in-the-wool corporatist to invoke the suffering of the poor from time to time.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) held a town hall in Concordia, Missouri at the Community Center Gymnasium on Tuesday, August 10th. Approximately sixty people attended.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) at a town hall in Concordia, Missouri on August 10, 2010.

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – media availability (August 11, 2010)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): town hall in Concordia, Missouri – Q and A, part 1 (August 14, 2010)

The second part of the transcript for the audience question and answer session follows:

….Question: My biggest question is, um,  I’m a businessman [inaudible]. My question is, [inaudible] in the thinking process, why was [inaudible]?  It does create a [inaudible]. [inaudible] It quadrupled in [inaudible]. [inaudible]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D):  Well, actually, I think that they will go across state lines, the exchange in Missouri, because you’re allowed to sell insurance across state lines in a cooperative basis. The decision was made to not have the place that people can go to pool risk, which they can’t go to now, uh, is all gonna be private insurance companies. And the states are gonna administer that. And the states have every right, if they would like to go together with other states. And I’ve talked to the man who runs the insurance department in Missouri – it’s his intention to try to go together with a number of states so we can make the pool even bigger. And so there will be that…

…But here’s the thing about going across state lines, interestingly enough. Some of the very people who have talked to me about going across state lines also say to me, what about state’s rights? Now what you do, when you say from Washington that insurance companies don’t have to pay any attention to state law, that they can just sell anywhere in the country, what you’re basically doing is saying that states have no right to regulate what goes on in their state. Which means that the rules they set for insurance companies in New York or in Florida or in Texas could be the rules that a Missourian would have to live by, depending on where [inaudible] coming from. So we’ve always tried to respect the right of states to regulate their marketplaces within their borders. It is a radical concept that we would wipe that out. And the very people who are waving the Constitution saying, Tenth Amendment, Tenth Amendment, I’m a Tenther, are the same ones that say to me sometimes, what about selling across state lines. And I get dizzy. I mean, you can’t have it both ways. We can’t wipe out all the state regulations and also respect state rights. So that’s why I think the way we did it, by having these decisions made at the state level so the state can decide if they want to go in with other states that maybe have similar regulations or rules, you know like in Missouri a woman who has a baby, you can’t kick her out of a hospital in less than twenty-four hours. In other states they don’t have that rule. Well, the Missouri legislature went down there, elected by all of you, and they voted. I think it’s twenty-four, isn’t it? I think it’s twenty-four hours in the laws you guys passed, isn’t it? Yeah. And, you know, so do we want to say to Jeff City you can’t say to insurance companies that women get to stay in the hospital for twenty-four hours when they have a baby? That’s the problem. [inaudible crosstalk] No, no, these are all gonna be private insurance companies. What this is gonna be, it’s gonna be like, uh, the best example I can give you is like Expedia. You know how you can go on Expedia and you can buy a airline ticket here or from Delta or from Northwestern or any of those? That’s what this is gonna be, it’s gonna be like a marketplace. There are gonna be a number of different kinds of policies and a number of different companies that are gonna offer polices. The idea is that it’s one central location where you can get a lot of people to go buy insurance, you get bigger risk pools. And the fact that everything is gonna be in the pool, the idea is it’ll bring down costs for everyone. And we will, you will no longer be paying for your competitor across the road who decides he doesn’t want to offer insurance. And somebody on his workforce breaks their arm, and they go down to the hospital and get their arm fixed and freeload off all of us, ’cause we pay for it with our higher insurance rates. That’s the idea behind this, as unpopular as it is, that’s the concept. Um, and that’s why we didn’t do a public option. It is not gonna be run from Washington. It’s gonna be run at the state leve and hopefully they will combine across state lines to make it more affordable for your company to continue to offer insurance.

[….]

Question: Immigration is one of my pet peeves. It seems to me that, uh, [inaudible] Do you agree with Obama and Hillary Clinton [inaudible] the Arizona law. In my opinion, it’s a [inaudible] Congress sitting on their hands [inaudible] They’re not doing what they’re supposed to be doing. [inaudible] My, my question is, do you agree with [inaudible] Obama [inaudible}?

Senator McCaskill: Well, I agree with some things, I disagree with others. Uh, let me start with the best news. The best news is that, uh, the day before we left Washington last week we were able, I voted for a whole lot a Republican amendments to step up border enforcement, against most of the people in my party. I was able to get border security passed the day before we left Washington, six hundred million dollars. And the whipped cream and the cherry on top of this is the way we’re paying for it. Um, they way we’re paying for it – there are some foreign companies that have come to our country and more than fifty percent of their workforce is H1B visas. In other words, they’re bringing foreigners here with their companies to be the employees. So the idea was that if you have more than, if you’re a foreign company and you have more than fifty percent of your employees that are H1B visas, any other visas you get are gonna be very, very expensive. And the Wall Street Journal, the day after we passed it, this is the best, this Indian company that it will affect, it’s a, it’s a, basically a call center kind of operation, very, very large Indian company, it would affect them. And they were quoted in the Wall Street Journal, saying, this means we’ll have to hire more Americans. Yahoo!  I like that. That’s a-okay with me. That’s a great way to pay for the bill as far as I’m concerned.

This will [inaudible] six hundred million dollars in a very focused way along the border, um, for task forces. As a former prosecutor I know that, you know, you don’t just put the same amount of help everywhere along the border. It’s a very long border. It will be unmanned drones, aerial vehicles for real time aerial photography that we can see, real time, various places across the border without a lot of manpower. It’s gonna help. The good news also is immigration is down. Deportations are up. The percentage of the deportations being people who have committed crimes is up sixty percent. And audits against businesses that hire illegal immigrants are at a record high. So, we’re moving the right direction. More people are getting deported, more of them are bad guys, less people are coming across the border, and more businesses are being audited. Rather than just photo-op workplace raids, that’s wha
t we used to do, we’d do a workplace raid and the people that were there that day that were illegal, there’d be cameras rolling and everyone gets this mistaken impression that the employer was being held accountable and they never were. Employers didn’t even get a rap on the knuckle. Now we’re going more aggressively after the magnet that’s pulling them across.

I get the frustration in Arizona. Do I think that every border state can start doing federal immigration policy? I don’t think our Constitution allows for that. Now maybe we need to change the Constitution in that regard. I’m not here to debate that today. I completely understand the frustration of the Arizona people. But I think the way to get at that is do what we need to do to secure the border and begin to enforce the laws we have. I voted against comprehensive immigration, I voted against amnesty, I’m not gonna go there until this country demonstrates to the people who occupy it legally that we can enforce the law. So, that, that’s where I am on immigration. So that means I come down yes some places and no other places.

[….]

Senator McCaskill: [reading the question] I’m interested in protecting the environment. How do you think clean energy can be made economically beneficial and promoted as so? Mos, most of the publicity has been to scare us about the cost to individuals of regulation. We’re behind many countries in this area.

I appreciate your sentiment. I will tell you that my hesitancy in this regard is because Missouri is a coal dependent state and this is a tough economy. The last thing I’m going to be a part of at this point is larger costs to working people in Missouri, small businesses and manufacturing, for a cost on carbon that we don’t yet have the technology or the alternative energy developed that make it a cost effective alternative. Now, there are allowances in the bill for coal dependent states, but I thought they were allowances in the bill that were paying off people that we shouldn’t be paying off. You know, I’m not big on let’s pay off this state to get these votes, let’s pay off that state to these votes, so that’s why I was not happy with the House bill in that regard. Um, we’re doing some things to incentivize alternative energy. And yes, I do think we need to lead the world, but on the other hand it’s the same atmosphere. And if China and India are putting up coal fired plants every ten minutes, I, I want us to lead but I don’t want us to be [inaudible]. I don’t want us to be in a situation where all of a sudden manufacturing is really fleeing our shores, going for cheap dirty energy in India and China because our rules are so serious and stringent and their rules aren’t. We’ve got to bring our competitors along. Not just Europe, who’s done this, but our competitors, which for manufacturing is, is more South America, India, China and to some extent Japan.

Voice: Do you think that the, quote, mainstream media is downplaying the dangers?

Senator McCaskill: Is the mainstream media, I’m breaking my rule here ’cause I’m not supposed to go out of order, mainstream media is, are they downplaying the dangers? I don’t know what the mainstream media is anymore. Here’s one of my com…[crosstalk] [voice: “The three networks.”] Well, the three networks I think probably cover it pretty accurately on the evening news, but here’s the, the problem we’ve got with all the media right now. We now have news outlets that you go to get affirmation, not information. My friends on the left they all go watch MSNBC and you know what they feel? Righteously vindicated. We’re right, we’re right, listen to Rachel, listen to Keith. People on the right? They go to Fox and they say, the listen to Sean Hannity and they, and they go, you know what? We’re right, we’re right. And meanwhile what I had as a kid? [voice: “You think they’re equal.”] I think both, I think in different ways they’re very alike. Both of them are playing to a segment of ideological opinion in this country as opposed to [inaudible] really trying to present both sides. And when I was little I had to watch the evening news on network. And that was pretty straightforward. [voice: “Huh.”] That was pretty straightforward. I mean, you know, whether it was NBC, Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, and then we’d talk about the news at the dinner table. And it was pretty objective. I’m not sure that all of our news sources now are as objective as they used to be when I was a kid. [inaudible crosstalk] Yeah [laugh].

[….]

Transcript(s) of the remainder of the question and answer session will follow in subsequent posts.

Tonight President Obama eloquently elaborated on the lessons that we need to take from the disastrous gulf oil spill – lessons that apparently are way over Roy Blunt’s head. Blunt, simple soul that he is, professed via twitter that:

I was stunned to hear the president use the BP oil spill disaster as an opportunity to push for his job-killing national energy tax plan

It does seem clear that ol’ Roy hasn’t had time to peruse the EPA analysis of the American Power Act:

The Environmental Protection Agency has released its analysis of the American Power Act today, agreeing with independent studies that the legislation would cut energy bills, create jobs, and strengthen national security. Most critically, they also looked at the effect of the legislation on the fate of the planet’s climate. Scientists have repeatedly warned that catastrophic tipping points – global species collapse, megadroughts, rapid sea level rise, ice cap destruction – become inevitable as the planet warms more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Quite simply, an American cap on carbon is the deciding factor

Of course, since the EPA has as its mission the protection of the environment, Blunt, like other GOPers and some ConservaDems who have as their mission the protection of oil and coal cronies,  might not be inclined to consider the EPA’s expert analysis any time soon.

Nevertheless, when we’ re dealing with a crisis, I’m not sure I want my politicians to spout pre-digested focus group talking points, complete with catchy but empty phrases like “job-killing national energy tax.” I know that it’s got to be so much easier than actually thinking, but don’t we elect these clowns to actually, substantively deal with our problems?  

It’s a sure thing that Kit Bond will respect the GOP love affair with Big-Oil and King-Coal, not to mention his party’s general policy of obstruction when it comes time to consider the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act – just consider his absurd response to new EPA clean air regulations. Claire McCaskill, on the other hand, may hew to her Republican-not-so-light line, but, given her recent actions in regard to clean energy initiatives, it’s just possible that she may be coming around to understanding that CO2 emission control is part-and-parcel of getting to where we need to be, and that she needs to take a few risks and show some innovative, forward-looking leadership to help us get there.

It is surely this possibility that has led organizations like  Repower America and Clean Energy Works to lobby as hard as they can to bring Senator McCaskill on board. Which brings us to a conference call earlier this morning organized by Clean Energy Works. The call, which consisted of brief presentations from Missourians representing political, business, farm, and military interests, fleshed out four compelling arguments for passing the American Power Act (and, I hope, for improving that flawed proposal):

Clean energy alternatives are here right now: This point was made forcefully by Steve Flick, Board President of Show Me Energy Cooperative, “a non-profit, producer owned cooperative founded to support the development of renewable biomass energy sources in West Central Missouri.” The Cooperative has used “stable biomass” as the basis for a “bio-pellet” that can be used for heat as well as to create electricity – recently the KCP&L utility company purchased the pellets to try them out as an alternative to coal for generating electricity.

Better yet, given McCaskill’s concern that Missourians not “get the short end of the stick” economically, bio-pellet production has the potential to increase farm income. One of the goals of the Cooperative, for instance, is to  “provide additional revenue streams for farmers and producers for their products by utilization in biomass energy production.”

Clean Energy is politically viable: State Senator Joan Bray (D-24) observed that the public is ahead of the policy makers and wants the transition to clean energy now. She noted that the Massey coal mine disaster and the current catastrophic BP oil spill have brought home to Americans the costs of doing nothing. The public expects action not dithering from a congress that, according to Bray, doesn’t seem to be able to “walk and chew gum at the same time.” This argument might reassure our politically cautious McCaskill, especially since it is supported by some recent polling (see also here).

McCaskill, who professes to worry about the impact of precipitate action on the business climate, should also be receptive to Bray’s observation that Congress must make prompt decisions about energy for economic reasons as well, since businesses need to be able to rely on known rules if they are to plan intelligently.

Clean Energy makes us more secure: Jack Hembree, a U.S. Army veteran from Springfield and a member of Operation Free discussed the fact that because most of our oil comes from the Middle East – only 3% of our consumption is supported by domestic oil production – we will have no choice but to continue our military involvement in the region until we can move to clean energy. Listening to Hembree, it occurred to me that since McCaskill claims to support our troops, given the role of oil in putting them in harm’s way, how can she do other than to vote for the American Power Act?

Clean Energy has no downside: Ralph Bicknese, of Hellmuth & Bicknese Architects in St. Louis offered this formula for evaluating the real costs of our energy sources: just ask what happens when things go wrong.

Coal? Produces coal ash that ends up in unlined and unregulated sludge ponds. And what’s wrong with that? Think about toxic chemical byproducts seeping into your water, not to mention spills – remember what happened in Kingston Tennessee?

Oil? If I need to spell the downside out, you’ve been living in a cave for the last four decades.

Nuclear? As Bicknesse put it, when Nuclear goes wrong, it goes very wrong. Think Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and then think abut the problems inherent in storing poisonous waste with a half-life of a couple of millennia. Not to mention that power from nuclear energy is expensive. It’s a dangerous energy source and it’s not cheap.

Wind, solar? Maybe there are some little implementation problems but nothing that can go catastrophically wrong – no downside at all really. Biomass? essentially no downside that can’t be easily dealt with.

Given Senator McCaskill’s obvious understanding of at least some of the issues, as she articulates them on her Website, if she continues to walk backwards, as she did in her response to the proposed EPA regulations, we must demand that she tell us just why the considerations above do not convince her to not only support, but work to improve the American Power Act. So go call her – let her know that if she does the right thing, we’ll have her back in 2012.

So how can Missourians celebrate Earth Day tomorrow in a way that will have real impact? The answer is easy if you live in or near St. Louis or Kansas City: join Repower America and other “clean energy patriots” at a rally outside Claire McCaskill’s offices in those two cities (find information about St. Louis rally here; Kansas City information is here). Alternatively, Repower America will also host call-in events in Kansas City and St. Louis  (click on the cities to volunteer or get information).

At the call-in events, you can volunteer to do outreach to other Missourians and enlist them to, in turn, contact Senators McCaskill and Bond, and tell them how much they want them to support strong clean energy legislation. If you just want to contact one of our senators to deliver the message yourself, you can phone this Repower America number and ask to be patched through to either senator: 1-877-9-REPOWER (9-737-6937).

Why are these events important? We can take it as a given that Senator Bond is unlikely to change his stripes and support meaningful clean energy legislation any time soon, but it is still important for him to hear that many of his constituents do want congress to limit carbon emissions and invest in clean-energy jobs for Missouri.

As for Senator McCaskill, we have recently seen that she may be beginning to get the message that clean energy can mean growth and jobs for Missouri, as well as being essential to continued American competitiveness since other countries are rapidly jumping on the band-wagon. Nevertheless, she needs to know that we support her shifting position, and that we will have her back if she follows through and does what’s right – which includes measures to restrict carbon emissions.

In case you yourself want more reasons about why clean energy is important to Missourians specifically – apart from the general “save the world” issues involved with climate change – just take a look at any of these three fact sheet prepared by Repower America, “Clean Energy Potential in Missouri,” “Clean Energy Jobs in Missouri,” and “How Clean Energy Will Help Missouri’s Farmers.” And then, if you are able, make it on over to one of the Repower America rallies tomorrow or volunteer for one of the phone-in events right away.  Happy Earth Day!

It’s a shame how the media still bombards us with the bad news about acid rain. Not. That is so last century. And the reason we were able to curb that problem was that the Clean Air Act instituted a cap and trade system on sulfur. Utility companies analyzed the sulfur content of coal they had contracted to buy, and if it was high, they used that as a reason to void the contract and buy lower sulfur coal elsewhere, thus enabling themselves to sell their sulfur credits on a cap and trade market. It worked beautifully.

Sure, some coal companies fought the future: spread the idea that acid rain was a myth and that limits on sulfur would break the back of the coal industry. Sound familiar? But Arch Coal, headquartered in St. Louis, understood the futility of that course of action. The company dithered over whether to invest in the Powder River Basin, which had low sulfur coal that was easy to extract. Eventually, the leadership decided to make that heavy capital investment. It embraced the future instead of fighting the legislation, and that has paid off. Arch is now the number one domestic coal producer and, worldwide, the number two producer.

Tom Appelbaum, who was a coal geologist when all that was taking place, has since become a lawyer and is working with MAAEP–Missouri Association of Accredited Energy Professionals. Speaking recently at the Creve Coeur Township Democratic Club, he explained that not only will Cap and Trade work to reduce carbon emissions just as a similar system reduced sulfur emissions, it will also, like that older program, reward the forward looking companies–as well as reduce our long term energy costs. Coal companies that put money into wind turbines now and oil companies that invest in solar power will reap dividends later. Mass production, whether you’re talking solar cells or Model Ts, reduces the cost of production per unit. But first, that initial heavy capital investment has to happen.

Appelbaum applied that same lesson to a new kid on the clean energy block: highly efficient fuel cells being produced by a Silicon Valley company, Bloom Energy. Some of the heaviest hitters in the corporate world–FedEx, Wal-Mart, Staples, eBay and Google–have bought and used them in the last eighteen months. The Bloom Boxes will be available to businesses and homeowners as a way to cut energy costs in half and take themselves off the energy grid.

Sridhar [Bloom’s CEO] said the box is mostly a collection of fuel cells that use oxygen and fuel to generate electricity without creating any emissions. Oxygen is drawn into one side of the cell, while a fuel, such as a natural gas or bio-fuel, is drawn into the other side. The two combine within the cell and produce a chemical reaction that creates energy without any burning or combustion.

In the 60 Minutes interview, Sridhar said that he’s hoping to see Bloom Boxes become a common fixture in backyards and basements within 10 years. He estimated the cost of systems for individual homes at about $3,000.

Pretty exciting, right? Yes, though, like all the other clean energy alternatives, it will require that heavy initial investment. So Appelbaum foresees that the cost of dealing with climate change and weaning ourselves off foreign oil will be steep at first but that it will flatten out over time. Eventually alternative sources will:

“drive energy costs down. Dramatically. Now, in the interim, if there is an increase in energy costs, we’ve got thirty percent in our back pocket, and it’s called energy efficiency.

And that’s where MAAEP comes in. It is an association of professionals, a trade group consisting of private enterprise, non-profits and government agencies that mean to encourage energy efficiency upgrades in Missouri homes and businesses while making sure that the standards in this burgeoning business remain high.

Appelbaum’s assertion that we could save thirty percent on our energy costs is impressive. MAAEP intends to make more Missourians aware of that possibility and to show them how to get help paying for it. More on all that in the next posting.

After months of coy hints, Claire McCaskill finally came out of the closet about her opposition to clean energy legislation when she signed on to a letter seeking to stop EPA regulation of CO2 emissions from “stationary sources” (e.g. coal-burning utilities and factories). One naturally assumes that McCaskill is going for the short-term pander for political reasons – she is certainly not as dim as her various statements on this topic make her sound. However, a new study indicates that McCaskill’s stance could well backfire.

The Benson Strategy Group conducted a poll of 16 battleground states, including Missouri, asking the followinng question:

This past summer, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an energy bill that limits pollution and greenhouse gas emissions through what’s been called a Cap and Trade plan and also invests in clean, renewable energy sources in America. Soon, the Senate will debate it.

58% of the respondents favored the provisions of the House legislation, the  American Clean Energy and Security Bill (ACES), while only 37% disapproved. Even more telling in regard to McCaskill and her re-election strategy, 56% said that they would be more likely to vote for their Senator’s re-electon if he/she voted for the bill, while 50% said that they would be likely not to vote for them again if they voted against it. Only 37% said that they would vote against their Senator if he/she voted for the clean-energy bill.

The poll also indicated that this level of approval could withstand strong attacks of the cap-and-tax, job-killer, catastrophic energy costs,  etc. variety as long as they were met with equally strong messages about the merits of the legislation. For example, respondents were presented with a paragraph that was harshly critical of the economic implications of the legislation, but they remained steadfast in their support when that criticism was balanced by this paragraph:

Other people say opponents of this bill – oil companies and corporate lobbyists – have fought energy reform for decades to protect their profits. They’ve made America more dependent on oil from hostile nations – hurting our economy, helping our enemies, and putting our national security at risk. We spend a billion dollars a day on foreign oil and this bill will cut that figure in half – creating secure, clean energy sources made right here in America instead of sending that money overseas to countries that support and finance terrorists groups.

And, just to put the cherry on the sunday, the poll also found that:

The public’s desire to regulate carbon polluters is so strong that, by large margins, voters believe the EPA should act if Congress doesn’t.

Does anybody besides me think that maybe all that Tea Party Sturm und Drang last summer impressed our junior Senator overmuch? If so, she could be in for just as rude an awakening as Blanche Lincoln over in Arkansas.

 

“Going To The Wall.”

It’s a familiar expression. It means putting out the ultimate effort for family, friends and comrades, regardless of the consequences, without considering failure as an option.

The Alliance for Climate Protection and the Climate Protection Action Fund have teamed up to initiate a new ad campaign based on their joint project at the Repower America Wall, an interactive site where anyone can post a video or photo, and send an audio message to their congress persons about the importance of clean energy. The first iteration of the campaign will use testimonials from residents of four states, Arkansas, Indiana, Maine, and Missouri, and will be widely broadcast in order to reach as many people in those states as possible, with a goal of persuading them to contact their Senators and urge them to take positive action on pending clean energy legislation. Other states will be emphasized in later weeks.

This campaign comes not a moment too soon. The bad guys have gotten a big head start and have, so far, done a bang-up job of painting the whole issue as the hysterical ramblings of a few out-of-touch environmentalists whose obsession with a fantastical climate change scenario could cost lots of Missourians, particularly farmers, their livelihoods – claims that seem to have already had the desired effect and turned the spines of many of our Democratic legislators to quivering jelly.

The outstanding question is how effective the Repower America campaign will be in the face of what will, no doubt, be a massive corporate onslaught against any meaningful energy legislation. In a conference call today, Garrett Russo from the Alliance on Climate Protection attempted to address this issue, describing the Wall and the ads as a way to level the playing field and enable “everyday” Americans to speak out and be heard in an environment which, especially after the recent Supreme court decision on corporate political spending, now privileges big money over individual citizens.

During the call, two Wall contributors from each of the four targeted states spoke briefly about why reforming our energy policies is important to them. Reasons included sustainability arguments, quality of life concerns – clean air makes for healthy humans – and worries about the effects of fossil fuel dependency on national security. The predominant theme, though, was job creation, as seen in this ad from the group of three that will be shown in Missouri:

A retired official of the Maine AFL-CIO, Ed Gorham, talked about the steady loss of manufacturing jobs that the U.S. has experienced over the past decades, and pointed out that the transition to green energy could create thousands of new jobs to take their place. La Donna Appelbaum of St. Louis, a small business owner, stressed the importance of transitioning to a cleaner, sustainable energy source in order to create jobs and enable small businesses to survive. Gretchen Wieland, Missouri Communications Director of Repower America, described the potential importance of the wind turbine industry, both as a source of energy and as a source of new manufacturing jobs in Missouri. She claimed that clean energy industries could create 29,000 new jobs in Missouri.

The ads themselves are vague about specifics – but that is inherent in their nature; they are, after all, a “branding” exercise, intended to create a perception that job creation and clean energy go together. But because there are claims to the contrary out there – Kit Bond’s report, Yellow light on Green Jobs, was indirectly alluded to by one reporter, it will be interesting to see if this approach proves effective.

Part of the answer may lie in the media response.  For example, the Bond report’s conclusions are highly questionable, but as long as media figures, such as the reporter on the call, cite the report without questioning its sources – without even indicating that the report has generated controversy – it’s going to be a hard slog ahead.  

To follow up on Blue Girl’s excellent post from yesterday, there’s a reason the Missouri GOP is totally freaking out about the Vote Vets ad: it’s true and it’s convincing.

To recap, Roy Blunt has taken thousands of dollars in contributions from oil companies in his career, dollars that made sure that Roy Blunt and his allies stayed in office to block any clean energy legislation that led the US away from our deep dependence on oil. This same dependence on oil sends trillions of dollars to dictatorships in the Middle East, a portion of which funds terrorists. The Vote Vets ad simply points this out.

Now the Missouri Republican Party is crying foul on tactics that they were only happy to use yesteryear. They are sending out robocalls around the state attacking liberal allies of Robin Carnahan for making the ad. Roy’s son Matt (one of the worst governors the state has ever had) has been saying that because he was in the Navy, the ad should be considered out of bounds. And I imagine they are only just getting started cranking up the Mighty Wurlitzer.

The one thing I don’t hear from Missouri Republicans is whether the ad is true or not, because they can’t. It’s absolutely, indisputably true that Roy Blunt takes a ton of cash from big oil companies. It’s absolutely true that Roy Blunt personally espouses an energy policy that keeps us dependent on oil, and that will keep us sending money to the same countries where that oil money is funneled into the hands of terrorists. And it’s absolutely true that his voting record reflects that.

Somehow this is out of bounds to bring up, because it’s mean or something. Sorry if the truth hurts, Roy.