David Roberts, a blogger with Grist, makes a great point that this is another HUGE win for clean energy that doesn’t receive nearly enough coverage. Perhaps the largest argument against renewables is cost, specifically that the cost of renewables is not competitive with fossil fuels without massive subsidies. Environmental damage and subsequent costs notwithstanding, this study shoots a huge, indisputable hole in that argument, but hasn’t gotten the coverage or national attention it warrants.
This reminds me of a piece I read about a month ago in Wired, by Erin Biba, on why science, and specifically the global warming movement, needs to “step up its PR game”. The message is quite simple: perception of the threat of global warming is muddled and confused leaving the public lethargic and complacent.
The global warming movement needs serious work in relating to the public (get it?). Sure, individual companies and groups do a good job at marketing their products and services, but the overall industry suffers from doubt, confusion and severe skepticism. In the article, Kelly Bush, founder of entertainment PR firm ID, offers some great insight on how the issue isn’t brought close enough to home. Here is an excerpt:
“They need to make people answer the questions, ‘What’s in it for me? How does it affect my daily life? What can I do that will make a difference?’ Answering these questions is what’s going to start a conversation,” Bush says. “The messaging up to this point has been ‘Here are our findings. Read it and believe.’ The deniers are convincing people that the science is propaganda.”
Oddly, the piece doesn’t mention the BP oil spill once, which seems to be the best example of how to make the clean energy movement hit home (even though the consequences of the oil spill are not really comparable to the consequences of global warming). On top of that is the shocking “Gasland”, a documentary that reveals the massive environmental legal loopholes awarded to natural gas companies, and the deplorable impacts of the operations on local drinking water. With examples like these that literally bring the environmental impact to our front door, environmentalists and the clean energy industry should have enough ammo to counter just about any argument. So why can't they?
President Obama, facing intense criticism over his handling of the Gulf Coast spill, resorted on Tuesday to an Oval Office address to the American people. This is a first for Obama, who has delivered momentous and stirring speeches about new initiatives and national security in the Rose Garden and other locales that tend to symbolize "the nation," but who had never, until now, used the power and symbolism of the Office as a backdrop. The Oval Office, compared to other frequent national PR and media announcement venues, projects a very specific, intimate image--that of the President as Commander in Chief, solemn, perhaps sorrowful, but ultimately inspirational--and forges a much more personal connection between the President and his country. As NPR's Liz Halloran pointed out on June 14's broadcast of Morning Edition:
"The President, in choosing the Oval Office as a setting for his televised speech, has given the oil spill the imprimatur of a serious crisis. Presidents in the past have used the setting to, for example, announce war, respond to national tragedies like the attacks of Sept. 11, and, in the case of Richard Nixon, to resign."
It is encouraging to note that, although the motivation for staging of this particular address may have been an effort at damage control, Obama nevertheless used this opportunity to issue a clarion call for a clean energy revolution. He spoke of the oil spill, the environmental and economic hardship it has created for Gulf Coast residents, flora and fauna, and he vowed to hold BP financially accountable. Using militaristic language and calling the spill an "epidemic," Obama labeled the spill "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced." But he went beyond mere posturing and finger-pointing when he double-negatively proclaimed, "We can't afford NOT to change how we produce and use energy." He candidly acknowledged that there will be financial burdens associated with the transition to a clean energy economy, but noted that the long-term costs to the United States' security and environment are untenable.
I'm generally skeptical of political posturing, particularly when it's set against a backdrop involving an American flag, but when the President of the United States makes a clear, compelling case for increased investment in and focus on renewable energy and energy legislation, it's hard to hold a little bit of PR scenery against him.
It is amazing that as political will and Senate support for cleantech dwindles, the American public supports it more than ever before. According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 87 percent of Americans support requiring utilities to adopt renewable energy and 78 percent support the passage of stricter energy efficiency standards.
Even more surprising and encouraging is that nearly two-thirds of Americans support putting restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. This would seem to indicate that a cap and trade system or carbon tax should unequivocally be included in any climate legislation.
So where is the political will to get a more renewables and cleantech friendly bill passed?
