Democratic Congressional Candidates Agree on Climate Science, Differ on Solutions (IL-18)

The Democrats running in a special election to replace Aaron Schock in Congress both admit the scientific consensus behind climate change but one sounds more serious about tackling the problem.

Check out my latest at Huffington Post Blog.

Candidate Rob Mellon immediately moved the conversation to where it belongs. "We have to realize that climate change is real and there's no debate about that." He took on the latest dodge of climate deniers who claim it's happening due to natural cycles, not man-made pollutants. "The overwhelming majority of scientists are clear about that. That humans play a role."
Mellon, who teaches at Quincy High School, says he agrees with Pope Francis and pointed out that climate change disproportionately hurts the poor. "Individual politicians have to step up to the plate. We have to remove our focus on fossil fuels. These are finite resources, and if we continue to put our resources into drilling, fracking, and pipelines, we're doubling down on a failed policy."

Also posted at Daily Kos and Democrats for Progress. 

Hillary Clinton is Taking Democrats Backward on Climate Change

When Barack Obama announced his Presidential campaign in Springfield, Illinois he spoke of climate change.

Let's be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil. We can harness homegrown, alternative fuels like ethanol and spur the production of more fuel-efficient cars. We can set up a system for capping greenhouse gases. We can turn this crisis of global warming into a moment of opportunity for innovation, and job creation, and an incentive for businesses that will serve as a model for the world. Let's be the generation that makes future generations proud of what we did here.

Obama was the first major party nominee for President who made climate change a central theme included in every major campaign speech. He even showed politicians how to make it sound poetic. It helped elect him twice. Climate change or clean energy policy was a significant portion of every State of the Union address. That's something environmentalists should celebrate for what it says about the electoral appeal of the issue.

Nearly seven weeks after she announced her campaign for President, Hillary Clinton has yet to make a noticeable statement on climate change. At her first campaign speech in South Carolina Wednesday she didn't mention it all, despite the threat of more hurricanes hitting the state.

The best gesture for the climate movement so far is a tweet from an adviser. It's a disappointing step backward from having climate take center stage.

It's a risky move since Clinton already has a credibility problem on climate. Her most significant actions to date are promoting fracking as Secretary of State and allowing oil industry influence to corrupt the state department process on Keystone XL pipeline. The climate crisis requires bold, aggressive action against entrenched corporate special interests, which isn't a style of politics Clinton is known for.

Clinton will probably have an easy time getting endorsements from beltway green groups hoping to gain influence. But as Pat Quinn learned in Illinois, and Mark Udall learned in Colorado, promoting regulated fracking is a tough sell to environmental voters no matter what endorsements a candidate can brag about. Without a major change to her campaign, primary voters will be forced to look elsewhere for a climate champion.

After making a joke in South Carolina about coloring her hair, Clinton claimed, "you're not going to see me shrink from a fight." But so far, she's ducking the most urgent fight of our time.

It Doesn't Pay to Be a Fossil-Fuel Democrat on Election Day

My new blog at Huffington Post. Cross-posted at Democrats for Progress and DailyKos.

This was a difficult election for Democrats and it was even worse for Democrats still pushing fossil fuels. The Democratic co-chair of the Congressional Coal Caucus lost his seat along with a slew of others who tried to prove they're as pro-coal, pro-oil, and pro-fracking as any Republican. 

There are plenty of examples like Grimes in Kentucky. Or Tennant and Nick Rahall in West Virginia who mimicked conservative talking points on coal in their losing races. Mary Landrieu is expected to lose in a Louisiana run-off. If you can't run on clean energy and climate change in a state that saw Hurricane Katrina and the Gulf oil disaster, then you're an incompetent politician. 

No state made the point more clearly than Illinois, where Democrats serious about climate won reelection while fossil-fuel Democrats lost. Governor Pat Quinn once bragged about passing a bill to launch fracking along with lead Senate sponsor Mike Frerichs. Quinn lost reelection after spending months avoiding the issue (and anti-fracking protesters).

Read the rest here and thanks for sharing.

Illinois 13th Congressional District Democratic Candidates Answer My Questions on Climate Change, Green Jobs, Fracking

There's a three way Democratic primary to take on Rodney Davis in Illinois' 13th Congressional district. I asked the candidates questions about energy and climate change issues, and amazingly enough, they all responded. Their responses are up at Huffington Post blog.

All three accept the scientific consensus about climate change. Republican Rodney Davis continues to use the climate change denier talking point that there's still an ongoing debate about whether man-made pollutants are contributing to the problem.

All three candidates think federal oversight of fracking is too weak. One supports a fracking ban now, and another will support a ban if fracking can't be proven safe. They also spoke about how to tackle climate change and their position on fossil fuel subsidies.

Check out their full answers and please share!

See Chasing Ice in Springfield, Wednesday, December 4

Liberty Brew & View is partnering with Springfield OFA for a free screening of Chasing Ice in Springfield this Wednesday, December 4, 7pm at Capital City Bar & Grill. This is a movie you must see on a big screen like the one in the Capital City theater room.

Chasing Ice is the story of one man’s mission to change the tide of history by gathering undeniable evidence of climate change. Using time-lapse cameras, his videos compress years into seconds and capture ancient mountains of ice in motion as they disappear at a breathtaking rate.

Tornadoes in November! Is Winter Coming?

Climate change is coming!

There isn't much research on whether climate change contributes to more tornadoes. More focus is given to how it will impact coastal cities. As Sarah Palin would say, thanks for nothing northeastern intellectual elites!

But, scientists have told us climate change would lead to more frequent severe storms, more precipitation, and more unseasonable variations in temperatures, which all contributed to the conditions leading to the freak tornado storm we saw in Illinois today. In November!

John Shimkus, Rodney Davis team up to show hypocrisy on energy prices

Congressman Rodney Davis usually does a good job of sounding vaguely moderate, even when he's pursuing extremely conservative policies, so I'm a little surprised to see him co-author an energy editorial in a Champaign newspaper with his mentor, former boss, and national punchline for anti-science extremism, John Shimkus.

Shimkus and Davis joined forces for an editorial to let you know they oppose new carbon regulation proposed by Obama's EPA because it may result in rate increases. They neglect to mention their record of supporting large rate increases, as long as the money is going to the coal industry.

Shimkus enthusiastically supports the new Prairie State coal plant that resulted in rate increases of 30% or more for municipalities and co-ops that invested in the Peabody project. He continued to brag about his support for Prairie State, claiming it provides "affordable power" and was a "smart investment" even after the hidden costs hit consumers. Wind power would have been a safer investment to keep rates low. Rate increases for a coal plant earned praise from Shimkus despite his opposition to the supposed "job-killing" rate increases that might be caused by EPA protecting human health.

Shimkus and Davis both lobbied extensively for Tenaska's coal plant proposed in Taylorville, Illinois. They requested federal support from the same energy loan program they attacked when it financed Solyndra. The loan program is good for coal, bad for solar, according to Davis and Shimkus.

Tenaska admitted their coal plant would raise electric rates, which is why their bill to mandate hikes was opposed by the Illinois Chamber of Commerce. An Illinois Commerce Commission study found that the plant's energy prices would be significantly above the market rate for both wind and nuclear power. Davis and Shimkus continued their support of the plant, despite knowing it would raise rates.

Davis and Shimkus remain perfectly consistent. Rate increases and taxpayer subsidies are good for coal, and bad for clean energy.

It's also interesting to note that Davis continued his dance of questioning (but not explicitly denying) the scientific consensus that man-made pollutants are driving the climate crisis. The Davis/Shimkus line that "temperatures rise and fall over time" is an obvious reference to the natural cycles argument used by climate change deniers. They don't acknowledge that the coal industry is the top source of man-made pollutants leading to climate change impacts on the regional economy, such as interrupting river barge traffic and deterioration of Illinois cropland.

A major goal of climate change denier groups is to spread just enough doubt about man-made pollutants causing the problem that the public will hesitate to support policies that could lead to rate increases. Davis' strategy of focusing on potential rate increases while treating the science as an unsettled question is copy and pasted from the Exxon/Koch Brothers playbook.

Davis objected last month when the League of Conservation Voters ran an ad calling out his pattern of refusing to acknowledge the scientific consensus. His spokesperson complained that Davis was taken out of context when he repeated the claim made in a discredited article that climate change stopped 16 years ago. But, he still didn't say Davis disagreed with the misleading statement he chose to bring up, and now he's back to spreading natural cycles nonsense. Clearly, the LCV ad accurately reflects Davis' position as a denier, despite his spokesperson's attempt to nitpick inconsequential details of how it was worded.

Rodney Davis knows that a majority of the 13th Congressional district won't support an anti-science zealot like his mentor, John Shimkus. He also knows the Republican base demands the Tea Party position of denying climate change. I'm curious to see how long Davis can continue walking this tightrope without giving a plain answer on where he stands.

Congressman Bill Enyart doesn't want help from environmentalists or Obama supporters

I received another fundraising email today from freshman Democratic Congressman Bill Enyart. As it turns out, he doesn't want my money after all. He made that very clear in his public statement promising to fight Obama's climate change agenda.

“As co-chairman of the Congressional Coal Caucus, I will work tirelessly against any proposed new federal mandates that will increase our energy costs, and decimate our Southern Illinois coal industry in the process. 

Do you know what actually caused a large electric rate increase in his district? The new Prairie State coal plant. New coal costs more than wind power. What's hurting the economy in his district lately? Record drought, extreme flooding, and not being able to move barge traffic along the Mississippi.

I understand the politics of Enyart's district in southern Illinois coal country. I also know that, despite the coal industry's dominance over local press and politicians, there are many voters who understand why relying on a coal economy keeps southern Illinois poor, just like West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. No region is going to prosper by waiting for the mines to re-open. Southern Illinois deserves a Congressman with the courage to help build a new energy economy instead of selling the empty promise of coal.

Clearly, Enyart believes the coal industry is more important to his re-election effort than environmentalists and Obama supporters. He doesn't need our donations or volunteer efforts. I'm going to reply to his fundraising email by letting him know that he should direct it to coal industry executives and hope they pull through for him.

If someone isn't willing to tackle a problem that threatens the homes, jobs and lives of millions of people then I don't understand why they're in public office. Organizing for America has been targeting Republicans who won't take action on climate change. But, it was fossil fuel Democrats who stopped the cap-and-trade bill from getting a vote in the Senate. This problem will be solved when Democrats are forced to accept that they can oppose action on climate change or they can get re-elected. But they can't do both.

Obama has no second term climate change agenda

Well, that was a bit of a surprise. First, I was surprised when a journalist asked President Obama about climate change during the press conference today. It would have been nice to hear those questions during the campaign, but better late than never.

I was surprised again by Obama's answer, which was basically that he hasn't yet developed a plan to deal with climate change in his second term. He said he would speak to scientists, members of Congress and others to develop one.

Obama bragged about his first term accomplishments, which he has a right to do. He did a great deal with little support from Congress. He's the best clean energy President in American history X10. But, as Obama acknowledges, there's a lot more work to do.

Obama's campaign focused on his record. He said very little about what more he would do on most issues, including climate change. I didn't expect that meant he had no plan though.

The optimistic way of looking at this is that he's listening, and he's going to spend some time listening to the right people. That means it's a good idea for everyone to make some noise.

The pessimistic view is that he repeated the framing of polluting industries that we may have to choose between slowing climate change and creating jobs. There's no merit to that point anymore. Green jobs were the most successful part of the stimulus bill. Building new sources of clean energy, new mass transit, and improving efficiency creates more jobs than keeping old coal plants running. That tired old argument shouldn't be something we're still struggling with.

I missed the beginning, but my impression is that Obama was confident and aggressive on every question during the press conference, until he was asked about climate change. It seemed like he really doesn't know what to do. I hope there's some follow up from the White House because that was disconcerting.

Help me, EPA, you're my only hope!

I was disappointed during the election when many environmental writers downplayed the role of Environmental Protection Agency regulation on coal. It was a timid response to the "war on coal" hype.

Sure, there's not exactly a war on coal. There's a war to save modern civilization as we know it from climate change disasters. The coal industry just happens to be on the pro-ending-modern-civilization side.

The argument downplaying EPA action bothered me. First, because I think it was somewhat disingenuous. You can't honestly go from bragging one week about how many proposed coal plants activists have stopped, often by using EPA regulation as a tool, and the next week pretending the movement doesn't exist. It's the kind of defensive, weak-kneed messaging that gives tree-huggers and liberals a bad reputation. The low price of natural gas may be the bigger factor in determining the future of coal, but compliance with regulation is an important part of the cost/benefit analysis companies do when making decisions about building or retiring coal plants.

That rhetorical retreat was troubling because EPA may be our last best hope of dealing with carbon pollution during the next 2-4 years. The climate change movement will be forced to rediscover their conviction to cheer EPA action as a positive.

It's not hard to see why. The House is still controlled by a Republican majority in the pockets of oil and coal. Even though most of them campaigned on being bipartisan, they made similar promises in 2008. We saw how that turned out.

The Senate has a small Democratic majority, but the Democratic caucus still includes fossil fuel Senators like Mary Landrieu and Joe Manchin. Plus, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seems uninterested in exposing oil and coal Democrats to controversial votes. He refused to bring cap-and-trade to the floor two years ago because it didn't have 60 votes to pass, but then allowed three failed votes on stripping EPA authority to limit carbon emissions.

So, a big legislative solution like cap-and-trade is about as realistic as "clean coal." I've seen suggestions about a carbon tax. As much as Congressional Republicans hate the idea of any tax increase, I can only imagine the category 5 hissy fit they would throw over a tax increase to deal with a problem they won't even admit exists. I'd be happy to see someone try, but I won't hold my breath.

What I'll hold out small hope for in Congress is another jobs bill focused on energy efficiency, improving the grid, and promoting renewables. That was the best part of the stimulus bill, and we need another big round of green jobs spending in term II. Preferably, they should target spending in coal regions to offset job losses.



That leaves us with the authority a previous, more functional Congress already granted EPA to limit air pollutants. Obama moved forward with expanded EPA protections after Congress failed to act during his first two years in office. Some regulations have been stalled, like CSAPR. That needs to be completed along with better rules on mountaintop removal, coal ash, and air emissions like carbon.

My number one hope for Obama's second term is that he moves forward much more aggressively with EPA limits on deadly coal pollution.

Combine that with Obama's campaign comments and this is what a second term energy policy could look like:

• Renewed effort to cut oil subsidies.
• More spending on energy efficiency.
• Extending clean energy production tax credit.
• More mass transit spending through transportation budget.
• Renewed call for a clean energy portfolio standard.
• Hopefully combine that with more aggressive air regulation and a green jobs bill to speed up the transition to new energy sources.

That plan may be better than a cap-and-trade bill filled with special deals for oil and coal lobbyists.

Of course, even that won't be easy because major pieces would still require Congressional action. During the next four years, environmentalists and progressives will have to work out whether they can play a role in promoting positive action by Obama and EPA, or whether they will limit themselves to nursing every disappointment, as so many pundits and bloggers did during his first term.

Frankenstorm economic plan brought to you by the coal and oil industry

I've heard a lot during the election about how great burning coal is for the economy. I can see that now...

Rodney Davis makes wacky claim that climate change stopped 16 years ago

How did I miss this whopper?! Republican Congressional candidate Rodney Davis claimed during a radio interview that climate change stopped sixteen years ago.

Clearly, you can tell that's true because over the last several years we definitely haven't had an unusual degree of extreme flooding along the Mississippi, no extreme droughts, and no Frankenstorms. Oh yeah, wait, those things are happening more often and it's exactly what scientists told us to expect as a result of climate change.

You can listen to his comment after the 42:00 minute mark during a Focus interview on WILL public radio. A caller asked Davis how he plans to deal with climate change (no, it wasn't me this time). Davis answered by claiming that, according to recent reports, "global warming stopped about sixteen years ago."

Then he launched into his usual repetition of the Exxon/Koch Brothers talking point that there's still a debate about whether man-made pollution is causing the crisis. It's the argument climate change deniers have retreated to now that it's impossible to ignore the change that's already happening. As always, he dodged saying where he stands on whether man-made pollutants are the problem. He has gone through the entire campaign refusing to tell which side of that debate he's on.

The caller interrupted Davis to tell him "that's absolutely wrong" about climate change stopping, and challenged him to talk to a noble prize winner at the University of Illinois about the scientific reality. That guy deserves a gold star. He may have been referring to a Professor of Atmospheric Science, Don Wuebbles, an outspoken, internationally recognized expert on climate issues who's right here in central Illinois.

I googled the wacky claim about global warming stopping sixteen years ago and discovered it has been making the rounds on right-wing blogs and talk radio shows like Glenn Beck. It started with discredited writer Davis Rose publishing an article in a conservative British tabloid, which claimed there's a report showing global temperatures stopped rising in 1996. The original report came from the British Met office.

The Met Office is the British version of the national weather service. They wrote a brutal, detailed response to what they describe as "misleading information" in the article. Here's may favorite part:

Secondly, Mr Rose says the Met Office made no comment about its decadal climate predictions. This is because he did not ask us to make a comment about them.

I can understand. Why bother asking for a comment if you're distorting an agency's data to claim something you know they will dismiss as false?

Their response gets technical, but they do point out that eight of the ten hottest years on record have been in the past decade. Looking at the broader trend, the "1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both." This is easy to confirm from multiple sources, such as those smarty pants who send people into space.

A Google search also turns up a load of responses from actual scientists who all debunk this bogus claim. It takes very little effort to confirm that the scientific community believes this writer is misleading the public.

What this suggests is that Davis will believe any inaccurate claim from conservative blogs or talk-radio that reinforces his views, and will repeat those falsehoods to the public without checking them out first. He's following the example of his former boss and BFF, John Shimkus, who went around his district misleading constituents with conspiracy theories about EPA regulating tractor dust on dirt roads, even after the EPA administrator told Congress that nothing of the sort was being considered.

I can understand why Davis mostly speaks to partisan crowds at private events. He has good talking points about bipartisanship and "all of the above" energy. But, it takes very little prodding for him to go off script and reveal how extremely conservative he really is. Putting Davis in front of moderate swing voters would only lose him votes. A district with over a dozen colleges doesn't want an anti-science Congressman.

Central Illinois has a long history of electing moderate Republicans from Ray LaHood To Abraham Lincoln. Rodney Davis is far outside that tradition.

Romney laughs off Frankenstorm

Just to make sure people remember and are clear where the candidates stand on things: This is Mitt Romney's attitude about having Frankenstorms become the new normal.



So Romney, how about helping the families hit by climate change disasters like this one? How about helping the next generation of farmers? How about helping families in the Mississippi River valley where we're seeing 100 and 500 year floods almost every year now?

What an ignorant ass.

Debate Moderator Fail: Does anyone worry about gas prices when their home is destroyed by disaster?

I always felt Candy Crowley focused on the frivolous, like most of CNN, so she exceeded my expectations moderating the Presidential debate. She mostly did an acceptable job, but her decision to focus the energy discussion on gas prices rather than climate change was a massive failure.

Crowley chose the question on gas prices and asked two follow up questions to keep the focus there. It's a way of framing the energy debate that ignores a far more important issue. If a persons' home or workplace is destroyed by a catastrophic flood, hurricane, or wildfire; or if their crop is destroyed by drought, then suddenly gas prices aren't the most important problem. I can only guess about whether Crowley's misguided focus is due to a lack of understanding the enormity of the problem or because of CNN's reliance on massive advertising revenue from the fossil fuel industry. The press is still part of the problem.

It's disappointing that Obama didn't raise climate change himself, but keeping the focus on gas prices is a way to put politicians who want to deal with climate change on the defensive. Obama did the right thing by investing heavily in clean energy and efficiency. But, the smaller stimulus investments in clean coal have largely been a failure and pandering to coal is gaining Obama nothing politically. The coal industry will continue spending millions to fight him, no matter how much he increases coal mining production or throws subsidies at them.

The American energy infrastructure needs to be rebuilt. It's the best large-scale jobs plan anyone has come up with. It's time to stop kidding people about bringing back coal jobs (new mining methods employ half as many people anyway) and make sure more of the new energy economy jobs are created in poor coal mining regions. The alternative is to let our economy be destroyed by climate change disasters. Obama may not be aggressive enough, but Romney's energy policy is simply suicidal.

Added update: Last night, I didn't see Crowley's quote after the debate that's making enviros moan this morning.

"I had that question for all of you climate change people. We just, you know, again, we knew that the economy was still the main thing so you knew you kind of wanted to go with the economy."

So, she thinks climate change is an interest group, not a problem that will impact all of humanity. And, she doesn't think more frequent floods, hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts are an economic issue. Now I remember why I stopped watching CNN.

Rodney Davis denies science behind climate change. Would kill green jobs in Illinois.

It finally happened! During an interview with the State Journal-Register editorial board, Rodney Davis was asked if he accepts the scientific consensus behind climate change.

The question came near the end of their interview with the three candidates in the 13th district Congressional race (at 53:00 in the video online). It was finally discussed after independent candidate John Hartman scolded the SJR editorial board for not asking about an issue as important as climate change. When asked if it's man-made, Hartman spoke about the broad scientific consensus that man-made pollution is driving the climate crisis.

David Gill reinforced the position on his campaign website, saying, "It's not a question of belief, it's a question of what is. The science is extremely clear on this. It's very, very real and it's a grave threat. Irreversible damage is already taking place now. The failure of the Exxon-Mobil funded politicians in Washington D.C. to address it appropriately is perhaps the biggest mistake that we're making."

Gill didn't mention that his Republican opponent, Rodney Davis, already took the maximum allowable campaign contributions from Exxon and the Koch brothers PAC. Both Exxon and the Koch brothers funded deceptive propaganda campaigns to spread doubt about the science of climate change. Does Davis represent the views of his corporate sponsors who try to undermine science?

Davis claimed that, "I think we all agree that climate change is reality. There's a debate between how much of it is man-made and how much of it is due to natural causes."  He didn't say where he stands in that debate.

Once again, Davis dodged saying plainly what he believes about climate change science. Furthermore, his claim about the debate is misleading. There's broad scientific consensus that man-made pollutants are driving greenhouse gasses far beyond normal levels, causing the planetary emergency we face now.

After it became impossible to deny that climate change was already happening, the deniers switched to the "natural causes" argument in an attempt to cast doubt on the scientific consensus. Davis is repeating the misleading talking points used by the fossil fuel industry and their puppets like Glenn Beck, James Inhofe, and John Shimkus. He passed on the opportunity to distinguish himself from the anti-science conspiracy theorists who support his campaign.

Davis even brought out the old straw-man argument I often hear from coal industry spokesmen, that we can't power the country on wind and solar alone. Back on planet reality, no one is seriously proposing we try doing that in the near future. What people do propose is that we create jobs by quickly building a ton of new clean energy. Unfortunately, Davis made it clear in his interview that he opposes meaningful policies to expand wind and solar.

When pressed about what tax loopholes he would close, Davis said “I would like to take away the energy tax credit that gave us the Solyndras of the world.”

First of all, Solyndra made news because it defaulted on a Department of Energy loan guarantee, not because it received a tax credit. Second, Davis personally spoke in favor of a loan guarantee from the same Department of Energy program for a proposed coal plant in Taylorville that was five times bigger than Solyndra's loan.

What's even more baffling about his position is that the production tax credit for wind power is one of the few tax cuts proven to create jobs here in Illinois.

Five to ten thousand direct and indirect jobs are created from Illinois' wind-based maintenance, construction, and manufacturing sectors. The rapid expansion of wind power in Illinois is partly due to the production tax credit.

The tax credit is scheduled to expire soon. Wind power companies argue they need the certainty of knowing it will be extended before launching new projects. Ending the tax credit, as Davis suggests, would destroy construction and manufacturing jobs in Illinois.

Davis speaks frequently about cutting taxes to create jobs and the desire small businesses have for certainty. Extending the production tax credit does both of those things for the wind industry. It's exactly what Davis claims to support in principle, but for some reason, he flip-flops when it comes to wind power.

Ending the production tax credit is the one and only tax increase Rodney Davis claims to support. It takes a real zealot to put thousands of people out of work just to spite clean energy.

When asked if he would also cut tax subsidies to the oil industry, Davis retreated into his standard talking points, defended how the oil industry uses the money, and spoke about the need for more refineries. He never directly answered the question, but he made it clear that he supports oil subsidies.

Davis worries a cap-and-trade system would hurt the economy. He says nothing about the economic impact of more frequent extreme weather events like droughts, flooding, and wildfires that wreak havoc on communities. I didn't hear anyone claim the recent drought was good for Illinois agriculture or hope that we get many more years like it. Doing nothing about climate change will bring economic disaster, and in contrast, building new clean energy is the best jobs plan anyone has come up with.

Voters have a clear choice in this election. One candidate, David Gill, takes a rational approach that respects science. He sounds as though he understands that we must take bold action to reduce climate change pollutants. The other, Rodney Davis, mimics anti-science conspiracy theorists and would subsidize oil and coal while Rome burns.

Here's the full hour-long video of the candidate interview.

 

Does downstate Illinois need better energy journalism?

David Roberts has an interesting article at Grist in response to a reader asking how energy journalism can be better. It got me thinking about my experiences giving interviews and pitching stories on energy topics in Illinois.

He writes that journalists and politicians are mostly sleepwalking into the great crisis of our time. With rare exception, we don't have energy-specific journalists.

There are finance and business journalists who cover energy as a commodity business, tracking global supply and demand flows, prices, futures trading, all that sort of stuff. There are business and tech journalists who focus on cleantech. There are environmental journalists, who tend to cover energy (when they do it) through the lens of enviros vs. polluters. And there are political journalists who cover energy as a campaign and/or policy issue, sometimes as a specialty, more often as part of a portfolio.

He goes on to write that journalists generally view energy stories from the angle of of their beat, and that isn't well suited to an issue like climate change that intersects so many national and international problems. How do journalists used to looking through one lens paint the bigger picture?

That is not necessarily something that comes easily to journalists, especially old-school reporters. Pushing climate change or energy poverty into a conversation where it hasn’t typically appeared and isn’t typically taken seriously can feel like advocacy or moralizing. It pushes against some quiet but insistent social and professional pressures. Right now, frankly, think tanks, NGOs, and bloggers are doing a better job of it.

Roberts' observations make a lot of sense when I think about my interactions with the regional press.

Like most papers, the State Journal-Register doesn't have a writer dedicated to energy. Several years ago I never would have expected to write that the best reporter on energy at the SJR is the business editor. Tim Landis covers developments in the regional coal industry without the critical view I would take. But, when there's a controversial story, he does a good job of getting different perspectives and explaining complex issues. I'm consistently impressed by his work.

On the political side, there has essentially been a blackout on climate change at the SJR. In last year's Springfield city election, they failed to ask candidates about clean energy or climate change even though the city council oversees our public utility. The decision to build a coal plant and purchase wind power was one of the hottest local government issues in the past decade but the SJR felt the top issue to cover at the utility was patronage hiring.

Their election coverage this year is no different. Every candidate is asked about the conservative wedge issues of guns and gays, but nothing on climate change. Despite the fact that state and national legislators will spend far more time on energy issues than gun control or gay marriage; despite the fact that climate change is the subject of intense citizen interest; and despite the fact that every paper in the region believes the impacts of climate change are a front page story when droughts hit farmers and rivers flood. In the 13th Congressional district race, political reporters across the district have helped Rodney Davis continue ducking the most pressing issue of our time. It's difficult for me to understand why.

Roberts didn't write about the biggest obstacle to good energy reporting specific to downstate Illinois: the political and cultural influence of the coal industry. The Belleville News-Democrat and Southern Illinoisan are the worst offenders I've seen at publishing articles that lack any hint of objectivity about coal and allow falsehoods to go unchallenged. A recent pro-coal editorial in the Southern Illinoisan was so astoundingly out of touch with reality that it could make even an industry lobbyist blush. The editors haven't updated their perspective on energy in at least 20 years.

Papers like those help create a bubble in southern Illinois coal country that holds to delusional claims long discarded by informed people in the rest of America. I expect politicians in the region to cowardly pander to coal industry interests, but the press should have a better relationship with reality.

I'll end on a positive note. Illinois Times is the best source for environment and energy reporting in the region. Time and again they've covered important stories in depth that were largely ignored by others. Patrick Yeagle writes most of their energy stories now, but there have been others like R.L. Nave and Amanda Robert. Illinois Times is essential reading if you care about energy and the environment.

Getting fair coverage on energy is an uphill battle in Illinois coal country. But, there are many good reporters in the region, and I've often been surprised to get excellent coverage in press outlets that I expected to be biased against my viewpoint. Attitudes may change more slowly in downstate Illinois, but they are changing because the nation realizes climate change is an economic and moral challenge that must be met.

Talking heads focus on debate style over substance. Romney wants to flood your house.

I was pretty shocked after the debate when MSNBC hosts started crying about how badly they think Obama did. After a while I realized that their entire critique is about the performance style of each candidate rather than what either one actually said.

I'm used to Obama's style so I wasn't surprised by how he spoke tonight. He acts as though he has respect for the intelligence of the American public, which is obviously pretty risky. I like his calm, rational approach as a contrast to the foaming at the mouth conservatism that has been popular the last few years.

The national pundits disagree. Chris Matthews was the worst, bemoaning that there was no Robert Kennedy backstage. I'm surprised he could stop daydreaming about the Kennedys long enough to watch the debate. I muted the TV about the time that Matthews was screaming that Obama should watch MSNBC to get debate pointers.

No, Chris, no one should watch MSNBC to get pointers because most of what the cable networks do is crap. This may be news to the talking heads, but many people think that someone who constantly interrupts and talks over others like Romney did tonight (and like you do to your guests) is a rude jackass. Romney's rude behavior and smug smile did not impress me.

Personally, if someone is shoveling a lot of bullshit, I don't care if they do it with a smile. I can still smell bullshit. Not so with the cable news talking heads. They don't talk about substance and facts anymore because dealing in reality means opening yourself up to accusations of liberal bias. And so, they talk about which candidate gave the best "performance" in terms of style while avoiding discussion of any actual issue.

This is why cable news is a waste of time, including most of MSNBC. They rarely deal with substance. They know nothing but style, spin, and people screaming over each other. Rachel Maddow is the only MSNBC host I can handle in daily doses.

Speaking of substance, there was a clear distinction on energy issues. Romney loves coal, unlike his days as Governor when he said he wouldn't support jobs that kill people. He hates clean energy, and he lied about half of the businesses getting green stimulus funds failing. Once again, it's OK with the cable news talking heads if Romney makes things up, as long as he does it aggressively.

Mitt Romney apparently thinks that catastrophic flooding, hurricanes, droughts, and other climate change disasters will be good for the economy. Wow.

Creating green jobs through the stimulus package is the biggest success of Obama's first term. It needs to happen again on a bigger scale in his second term. Creating tons of jobs by rebuilding America's energy infrastructure is the best plan anyone has to revive the economy. I hope Obama will go on the offensive about climate change instead of letting Romney turn green jobs into something negative.

Anyway, the debate watch party I hosted was a good time. I liked watching with friends and meeting some new ones. A reporter showed up so there may be a State Journal-Register article. People are enthusiastic about local campaigns, including David Gill's congressional campaign.

Reactions to the debate were mixed. Some agree with the talking heads that Obama didn't do well, and others thought Romney was terrible. Everyone is looking forward to Joe Biden in the Vice-Presidential debate!

A hidden Obama success story: weatherization and energy efficiency

I sometimes hear people say they wish Barack Obama had created more New Deal style programs to create jobs like the WPA or CCC. It would be even better if he did it to build clean energy projects and deal with climate change.

I often think, that's a great idea! I liked it even better the first time when it was called the federal stimulus bill! Then I try to remember not to be such a sarcastic jerk and politely point out that Obama funded a lot of projects like that when he decided to make energy the main focus of the stimulus bill. Many forget or never knew.

Part of the trouble is that Obama didn't advertise stimulus jobs with catchy acronyms like CCC or WPA. Sure, there were signs at some public works projects but it wasn't mandatory. The vast majority of jobs saved or created by stimulus funding didn't arrive with a sign to let people know where the money came from.

For example, energy efficiency and weatherization funding. I learned at Climate Progress that, after getting $5 billion in the stimulus bill, the Weatherization Assistance Program has weatherized 1 million homes as of September 27, 2012. Woohoo!

The program is a triple win. It creates jobs, helps deal with climate change by lowering energy use, and lowers monthly utility bills. The post at Climate Progress points out that "state governments have been using a network of over 1,000 local agencies and more than 4,000 private contractors while employing an average of more than 12,000 workers per quarter to perform weatherization services across the country."

The Weatherization Assistance Program not only created jobs desperately needed in the construction industry, it also provided a boost for American manufacturing and small businesses. More than 89 percent of the materials used in home retrofits are made right here in America. In all cases, except refrigerators (which are 62.3 percent domestically produced), retrofitting homes exceeded the national average for domestic share of all manufactured products used in the United States of 76.5 percent. Recovery Act funding went through these channels to stimulate local economies, employ thousands, and create demand for American-made supplies. 

I'm sure workers in some of the factories making those materials know they won new orders because of the weatherization program. But, I wonder how many people are aware that a factory in their town was able to stay open or hire new employees because of orders generated by the program. Not many, I bet.

Consider how it was implemented in my community as a typical example. Federal money was given to the states and passed down to agencies with weatherization programs. It allowed Sangamon County to dramatically expand their program during a time of major budget cuts. I'll be cynical and assume that the heavily Republican Sangamon county government probably operated by their usual buddy system and hired contractors they knew.

Neither Republican county leaders nor the friends they hire to do the work will go out of their way to credit Obama. In fact, many of them are the sort of people who nod their head when a politician says "government doesn't create jobs," even if they've spent most of their lives working for the government.

One might read in the newspaper or on the county website that the program was expanded thanks to stimulus funds, but there's nothing obvious to point that out when the work is being done. No one from the federal CCC or WPA came to work on their house. A contractor sent by the county did. It's likely that many program participants are unaware or quickly forget about the connection to federal stimulus funding.

The $25 Billion of energy efficiency spending in the stimulus bill included much more than weatherization. Using another local example, Springfield's public utility did very well applying for stimulus funds, getting awards for a number of popular new and expanded programs.

The utility isn't shy about saying they received funding from the awkwardly named American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But, there's no particular reason to mention ARRA to every single person when work is being done and rebates are being distributed.

From a governing standpoint, it may have been more effective to distribute funding through existing agencies and non-profits rather than creating a new federal bureaucracy.

From a political standpoint, it was a huge failure not to brand the stimulus with a catchy name that would be mentioned every time a job is saved or created. That allows Republicans to call the stimulus a failure and continue repeating the delusion that government doesn't create jobs. It also allows Green Party cynics to make their own delusional claim that Obama is no better than Bush on energy issues.

This is more important than Democrats taking credit for a hugely successful program that every single Republican in Congress voted against. Obama just made the largest investment in clean energy and efficiency projects in American history, by far. But, every expert I've read believes we must do much, much more.

There's no path to dealing with climate change that doesn't include dramatically reducing the amount of energy we waste. It's important to brag about the success of these programs because they need to happen again in Obama's second term.

FaceMob floods Rodney Davis with climate change questions. Still no answer.

If you were watching Rodney Davis' campaign Facebook page Sunday afternoon you would have seen a flood of questions from citizens asking where he stands on climate change. They're still waiting for an answer.

I wrote about Davis ignoring my question and hurrying away when I asked if he thought floods and droughts are getting worse due to climate change. That's not the only question he's dodging. He attends very few public forums where he will have to answer questions from the public, and he won't get specific about where he stands on many major issues. Would he respond to citizens on his campaign Facebook page asking about climate change, the great challenge of our time?

I repeated my own question about floods and droughts.

Mr Davis, you didn't answer my question about whether you think floods and droughts in Illinois are getting worse because of climate change. It will be devastating to farmers, residents, and the regional economy if the extreme weather disasters we've had the last few years become the new normal. Do you acknowledge the scientific consensus that man-made pollutants are contributing to climate change and what would you do to solve the problem?

Dozens of questions by others were posted on his page.



My respectful questions were removed quickly and I was banned from commenting on his Facebook page again. That didn't surprise me. After a while, every mention of climate change by anyone was deleted as quickly as it was posted. Even the most politely worded questions were removed, like this one:

Thank you for putting forth an energy policy but I'm unclear about your stance regarding climate change. Since I will likely not be able to attend one of your appearances, might you be able to respond in this forum? Thanks so much.

That got deleted. As were these questions.



Many more excellent banned questions can be viewed at my Flickr set. I captured many, but not all, before they were removed by the Davis campaign. My favorite was posted under a photo of a campaign sign in a soy field.

Wonder where he stands on climate change? Rodney are you going to answer ever? It might help out the bean field?

Questions in response to the energy plan posted on his main campaign website haven't been removed yet. I'm sure they'll get to those after they read this blog post so catch them while you can. A couple of voters there let Davis know they aren't happy about their questions on Facebook being ignored and removed.

Congratulations, by not answering my question and blocking me from your Facebook page, you've just proven how you will not work with people who may disagree with you. When running on the spirit of working with others, you blatantly shut out a possible voter. I was a swing voter. I wasn't entirely decided on David Gill today. You've just changed my mind, and the mind of my husband, and the mind of my friend, all who were honestly considering a Davis vote. NEVER shut out a possible voter. Politics is about addition, not subtraction. Thank you.

The fact that he was able to hold a press conference on energy policy without any reporters pressing him for his stance on climate change is inexcusable. If record-setting heat waves, extended droughts, and extreme flooding year after year are front page news then climate change is important enough for journalists to ask questions and expect answers.

Davis did tell one reporter that his former boss, Congressman John Shimkus, has "lead the debate" on energy issues. What Shimkus has done is wage a war against science, spread misleading conspiracies about non-existent EPA regulations, and attempted to make climate change a religious issue. John Shimkus' unique interpretation of the Bible doesn't represent the many people of faith who understand that we must deal with the climate crisis. I'd like to know if Shimkus represents the kind of leadership Davis will follow.

Running for Congress in one of the nation's most competitive races takes a lot of work. But, there are only a few things most voters expect a candidate to do at minimum. One of them is to explain where you stand on the most important issues of the day. His opponent has no trouble saying on his website that, "David Gill is a man of science, someone who uses technical results in the ER to diagnose and treat illness and injuries. Our approach to addressing the growing problem of climate change and environmental damage needs to be scientific and fact-based, too."

If Rodney Davis is unwilling, or incapable, of answering questions, then he probably shouldn't be running for office.

Rodney Davis ducks my question about climate change

Illinois Republican Congressional candidates Rodney Davis and Jason Plummer held a press conference in East St. Louis last week to talk about the flood levee system. Both candidates are running for open seats in two of the nation's most competitive Congressional races. I decided to tag along and see how it went.

After speaking at length on promoting federal spending for levees, they answered questions about how the current drought is impacting farmers. That's when I thought, "Hey, I have a relevant question" and asked Davis if he thinks the floods and droughts are getting worse because of climate change.

Davis responded by ignoring me, then asking a reporter if he had another question, and quickly walking away. The scene is caught near the end of a video posted to the IL13RawFootage YouTube page. You can hear me ask the question off-camera before it pans over.




I understand why Davis wanted to rush away. He knows who I am and since he has seen my blog, he knows I'm not likely to praise him. But, I was polite. I didn't interrupt the press conference. I only jumped in when I did because I could tell his staff wanted him to leave. I would have been more than happy to post any answer he gave. Instead, he walked away.

 

It's an important question directly related to the extreme weather events Davis and Plummer were talking about. He spent 15 years working for Congressman John Shimkus, who earned national attention for his extremist, anti-science views on climate change. People deserve to know before election day whether Davis believes the climate crisis is a hoax. So far, he's not telling anyone and he has attended very few forums where the public can ask questions.

We do know that the Rodney Davis campaign already took large donations from Exxon and the Koch brothers PAC. Both groups financed campaigns to cast doubt about the scientific consensus behind climate change.

I'll at least give Shimkus credit for the fact that no matter how many times I wrote critical blog posts (which was often) his office always responded. My questions were never ignored.