ClimateSpeak

Keystone XL and litmus tests

Once again, thousands of protesters have rallied at the White House on Sunday to urge President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. They put on a solid showing with a clear, simple message:

 

Photo: Emma Cassidy/Tar Sands Action 

Because President Obama announced last week that he, not the State Department, will personally make the final decision on Keystone XL, this issue is shaping up as a major litmus test for Obama's relationship with environmentalists. If he approves the pipeline he will face intense criticism from greens and progressives, many of whom supported him actively in the 2008 campaign. If he rejects the pipeline, he will be attacked mercilessly by conservatives and many mainstream pundits for capitulating.

But wait -- did you say a litmus test? All the Very Serious People, as Paul Krugman calls them, and many mainstream Democrats (overlapping groups, of course), oppose anything resembling a litmus test. Such all-or-nothing tactics are seen as excessive, or unbecoming, or extremist, or something. So we should expect that in the coming months, environmentalists will be subjected to much clucking of tongues and wagging of fingers regarding the Keystone XL litmus test. They will be pressed to deny that it is a litmus test, and will be criticized if they refuse.

This will be part of the next framing narrative of the Keystone XL issue in the coming months. Understanding litmus tests, how they work and who uses them is crucial.

When used judiciously and infrequently, litmus tests are a smart and necessary part of effective politics. A party or movement that is afraid to use them is destined to be treated as a doormat by the powers that be. Small-d democratic politics is not an ivory tower. It necessarily involves lots of push and pull -- and the occasional elbow jab to the solar plexus.

Environmentalists' and progressives' general reluctance to use litmus tests is a large part of the reason why they have been treated as doormats by the Obama administration, and by the Clinton administration before that.

Conservatives love litmus tests and have used them to enormous success, while liberals abhor them. 

Below is a quick, back-of-the-envelope summary of litmus tests currently in use:

Conservatives:

• Denial that global warming exists or is caused by human activity
• Drill, baby drill
• Pro-Ryan budget
• Pro-repeal of Roe v. Wade
• Anti-union
• Pro-tax cuts for wealthy, anti-new taxes or fees
• Anti-gun control
• Anti-gay marriage

Progressives/environmentalists:

• Recognition that global warming exists and is largely caused by human activity
• Anti-repeal of Roe v. Wade
• Support for Social Security and Medicare

Get the difference? Conservatives' litmus tests tend to be numerous, aggressive and proactive, while the litmus tests of progressives and environmentalists are few and defensive.

Simply in terms of political tactics, the Keystone XL is an excellent choice to make for a litmus test. It's easy to understand and dramatic. The foreign-owned pipeline would bisect the nation, pumping dirty, high-carbon oil from the tar sands through America's prairies and farms, all the way down to the Texas coast. The visceral yet largely subconscious impact of this imagery among many patriotic Middle Americans should not be underestimated.

As Jake Schmidt noted last week on the NRDC Switchboard blog, there's one other major decision on Obama's plate -- whether to impose stiff new greenhouse gas emissions standards for power plants. This latter decision may have an even greater impact on total greenhouse gas emissions than the Keystone XL decision. But power plant regulations are hardly a bumper sticker subject, and it is unlikely to penetrate the popular consciousness. Keystone XL does all that, in spades. It is a perfect litmus test.

Sticking the long knives into energy efficiency

A new, authoritative study has concluded that California can reduce its total greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent from 1990 levels by 2050 using technologies that already exist or are in demonstration. By nearly any measure, that's good news. It shows that serious action on global warming is feasible right now and does not require futuristic technological breakthroughs that might never come to fruition. 

But this message appears to have been bungled with a miserably bad communications strategy by the report's managers. As a result, the report is being spun as bad news that undercuts California's strategy of using energy efficiency regulations to reduce emissions.

The study, California's Energy Future -- the View to 2050, was released in May by the California Council on Science and Technology, an independent state advisory panel. The document received almost zero coverage by the mainstream and new media, and it sank like a stone from the public view.

This past week, however, the study's co-author, Jane Long, a top official at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, wrote an article published in the scientific journal Nature that subtly changed her own report's emphasis. 

Long focused on the glass half empty -- the fact that California's global warming law mandates that 2050 emissions reflect a reduction of 80 percent, not 60 percent. She explained at length the perfectly valid point that reaching 80 percent would require major technological breakthroughs. Yet she twisted a knife into the report's main strategy for getting to 60 percent:

Some say that we can radically reduce emissions with only a major emphasis on efficiency, or just by changing our behaviour. But what if it doesn't add up?

One might reply that in the current and foreseeable political climate, simply reaching 60 percent would be a colossal achievement. Getting to 80 percent is a pipe dream. Starting now with the politically accessible, low-hanging fruit -- regulation-driven efficiency improvements -- is what's needed.

A cynic also might say that Long's spin dovetails with Livermore Lab's deep vested interest in obtaining research funding for so-called "breakthrough technologies." Unlike the nearby Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, with which it is often confused, Livermore Lab focuses most of its energy/climate work on next-generation technologies, such as carbon capture and storage and nuclear fusion. Berkeley Lab, in contrast, is the Vatican of energy efficiency work, and it has played a central role in the development of California's global warming policies. 

But the real spinning of the report was done by Andrew Revkin at the New York Times. Revkin is a prolific and often interesting blogger who also is a highly partisan advocate of the "breakthrough technologies" camp in climate politics. 

Revkin devoted a long column Friday to Long's article. He gave only a brief, dismissive mention to the 60 percent angle and made a not-so-sly dig at his longtime nemesis in the intramural climate wars, blogger and energy efficiency guru Joe Romm of the Center for American Progress:

Given that California is a best-case scenario compared to other states (and, of course, countries) far more dependent on coal, Long’s piece and the underlying report pose a strong challenge to those calling for a “deploy, deploy, deploy” approach to cutting climate risks.

But let's look at the report itself. It says that getting to the 60 percent mark can be accomplished through several  key strategies:

• Aggressive efficiency measures for buildings, industry and transportation.
• Every existing building will either be retrofitted to higher efficiency standards or will be replaced.
• Electrification of transportation and heat wherever technically feasible.
• Developing emission-free electricity production with some combination of renewable energy, nuclear power and fossil fuel accompanied by underground storage of the carbon dioxide emissions, while at the same time nearly doubling electricity production.
• Finding supplies of low-carbon fuel to supply transportation and heat use which cannot be electrified, such as for airplanes and heavy duty trucks, and high quality heat in industry.
• 60 percent of light-duty vehicles will use electricity, so that the average fuel economy will be roughly 70 miles per gallon.
• The electricity generating capacity of the state will be almost entirely replaced and then doubled, and all with near zero-emission technology.
• Infrastructure to produce biofuels - costing tens of billions of dollars - will have to be built.

Not easy, but not impossible. Certainly a good strategy for the short and medium terms. Why has this good news gone so unheralded?

* Update: Joe Romm at Climate Progress has reposted this item and added extensive commentary of his own. Check it out.

* Update 2: This debate has grown legs. My follow-up post is here, with more to come.

When your private property isn't really yours

How the issue of eminent domain is interpreted by regulatory agencies and the courts -- and whether environmental groups have the sense to dig their teeth into it and not let go -- will go a long way to determining whether "drill, baby drill" becomes the new national religion.

In the past 24 hours, the New York Times has done some excellent reporting on TransCanada's aggressive use of eminent domain to preemptively grab land in the path of the Keystone XL pipeline. What the articles don't mention, however, is the growing use of eminent domain to clear the way for other pipelines around the country. As I reported a month ago, a series of oil booms is underway nationwide, from Ohio to North Dakota to California. New technologies in fracking and slant drilling are unlocking huge new petroleum reserves that only recently were unreachable.

This is prompting new conflict between the oil industry and many naturally Republican-leaning constituencies. Every time some gun-loving, God-fearing, liberal-hating, freedom-loving rural folk suddenly get a lawyer's letter from a pipeline company telling them that a pipeline is getting punched through their property whether they like it or not ... well, that's the time the environmentalists just picked up another new ally.

In addition to eminent domain, pipeline companies often use a related legal weapon called forced pooling. Forced pooling is a growing controversy in Pennsylvania, Texas, Louisiana, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana and elsewhere. ProPublica gives a good explanation of forced pooling:

Thirty-nine states have some form of forced pooling law. West Virginia and Pennsylvania each have measures that don't apply to drilling in the Marcellus Shale, and proponents are trying to expand the laws in those states.

In New York, the owners of 60 percent of the acreage in the proposed drilling unit must agree to lease their land before the state oil and gas board will consider a driller's petition for compulsory integration, as it is known there.

In Virginia, only 25 percent of the land must be leased. In all states with such laws, drillers must notify all the landowners within the prospective drilling area of their right to participate in a hearing before the oil and gas board, or whatever regulatory agency the state has set up for that purpose.

If the board approves the driller's petition, holdout landowners typically have three choices: contribute to the cost of the well and share profits from the sale of the gas; don't pay for the well and share the gas profits after a "risk aversion" penalty is subtracted, or receive a state-mandated minimum royalty payment. Landowners who choose none of these options are automatically enrolled in the last plan. Opting out is not a possibility.

 ProPublica also has drawn up a useful chart of state rules on forced pooling.

Best climate videos? Part 5 (oil orgy version)

This definitely wins the prize in the Direct Action category. It took place at the Canada-Europe Energy Round Table in London today:

 

Two contrasting tactics in opposing Keystone XL

In the past few days, two very different strategies have emerged from Congressional opponents to the Keystone XL pipeline.

On Friday, 36 House Democrats sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging her to require that "the oil and refined product the pipeline transports to be sold in the United States." It reflects a bold and risky gamble by leading House Democrats, including Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) to frame the pipeline as economically counterproductive rather than environmentally dangerous.

The letter does not exactly come out against the pipeline, although many of the co-signers had previously expressed opposition to the project, and the letter appears to have been written for that purpose. Instead, the letter frames its message narrowly in economic terms within the "national interest" parameters of the State Department's decision-making powers. That is, rather than arguing that the Keystone XL would cause an unacceptable environmental impact through the danger of oil spills or the unleashing of ever-greater greenhouse gas emissions, the co-signers say that without additional safeguards, the pipeline would simply funnel the Canadian crude to export terminals on the Gulf Coast, from where it would be sent abroad, with virtually no benefit for the United States.

As I discussed in two posts last month (here and here), the case that the pipeline would be largely for exports is built on broad extrapolations from limited evidence. To build the anti-pipeline argument solely on that pillar seems quite risky. Pro-pipeline analysts in the Obama administration need only undermine that one pillar and the whole argument crumbles.

Which doesn't mean the framing isn't tactically astute. The State Department has said it will decide by the end of this year whether the 1,700-mile, $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline project is in the "national interest." This term is notably vague, although the Obama administration's election-oriented focus on jobs may mean that the term will be defined mainly according to its perceived economic impact. So if the environment is simply not taken seriously anymore by the administration, you use whatever topic does indeed get traction.

This kind of maneuvering is far, far Inside the Beltway. For those of us who live across the country and do not spend large amounts of time on Capitol Hill, we can only shrug and trust that the D.C folks have top-notch insider intelligence and are making the right calculations. Let's hope they assess the odds more accurately than they did last year with the cap-and-trade strategy debacle.

The second strategy is to use a straightforward argument on environmental grounds -- saying that the pipeline would be a disaster and that the official assessment process has been marred irretrievably by the State Department's blatant conflicts of interest with lobbyists for TransCanada. It's the basis of a separate Congressional letter to Clinton, one that is still being circulated for more signatures. At last report, it only had seven co-signers -- a rather underwhelming result.

The factual basis for that argument seems much more rock-solid and undeniable, however. It also lays the groundwork for a potential lawsuit after the final decision, alleging bias and improper procedure in the State Department's Keystone XL review.

Auto industry messaging: how to sell green

Like the environmental/climate movement, the auto industry has been struggling recently to come up with messaging for its hybrid/electric vehicles that can break out of the sector's narrow, niche market.

A new survey of more than 13,000 consumers in 17 countries shows that auto buyers are interested in electric vehicles but are unwilling to compromise much from regular gasoline-driven cars. The study, issued today by the giant consulting firm Deloitte, showed that consumers expect electric vehicles to have longer ranges, require shorter charging time and sell for a much lower price than existing models.

The Deloitte findings were similar to those in a study released earlier this year by J.D. Power. That survey of 4,001 Americans showed that auto buyers are reluctant to pay extra for hybrid electric vehicles.  

So part of the solution, it seems, is for automakers to successfully complete a technological revolution to improve battery capacity and reduce price. That isn't exactly easy to pull off. The rest of the solution is much more achievable in the short term, and it's also more relevant to the environmental/climate movement as a whole -- to make hybrids and electrics more appealing to average consumers. In other words, if you can't improve the steak, try fixing the sizzle.

This is where the automobile industry's PR machine is falling down. Of course, auto ads matter. They are everywhere -- on television, on radio, in our living rooms and morning commutes. So when Ford put out a new media push today for its new gas-saving technologies -- the Escape with EcoBoost, and the C-MAX Hybrid and C-MAX Energi plug-in -- it was worth a look, as well as a comparison with Ford's competition. Ford's new strategy is not in TV ad stage yet, but the preliminary vibe is clunky and dorky. Just like Ford's recent messaging for its Fusion Hybrid:

 

No lifestyle pitch, no green sexiness, no advanced gizmo appeal. Pretty drab. But let's look at the competition. Is Chevrolet better with its ads for the Volt? Check out this recent one:

 

It's better on the message, but its style remains hokey and overly earnest. It does have a sense of humor, which helps. Not bad, but not great either.

Another notch up on the effectiveness scale is the latest ad for the Toyota Prius. What makes it better? It's pretty conventional, but it does emphasize the Prius' futuristic gizmos, such as an automatic parking function, which helps reinforce the message that green technology provides a better, more consumer-friendly lifestyle. That probably matters for the many potential buyers who don't really care too much about the environment but can be swayed by the cutting-edge-ness of it all and the driver-friendly features. Otherwise, it's not much more memorable than a zillion other new car ads:

 

The most memorable purveyor of green car messaging remains the Nissan Leaf, as I discussed a few days ago. Nissan's latest ad is like the previous ones -- offbeat, creative and unforgettable. 

 

It's not a masterpiece, but you won't forget it. Advertising agency TBWA\Chiat\Day, which produces all Leaf ads, seems to specialize in creative styling. This video is even more heady and abstract than the other Leaf ads, which might not be a negative factor because it's probably intended to appeal to a smaller, niche market than the regular hybrids. In any case, given the glut of messaging in today's world, just being remembered is a big achievement. But can the Leaf break out of that small niche of people who care deeply about the planet? What about average folks who need more of a "cool lifestyle" sell?

How many wedges fit on the head of a pin?

Climate policy wonks have been abuzz about the extremely learned, erudite back-and-forth between Princeton Prof. Robert Socolow and a handful of other climate scientists and policy experts such as Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics, David Victor of UC San Diego, Christopher Green of McGill, Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution.

The conversation started with Socolow's article, "Wedges Reaffirmed," published Sept. 27 in both the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and Climate Central. I won't attempt to summarize the thrusts and parries, which included extended online responses to the two articles, plus two long posts (here and here) by Andrew Revkin at the New York Times, and David Victor's separate posting.

Their commentary is mostly interesting, and I don't mean to seem dismissive. But it's odd that so much brilliant analysis and finger-waving about climate politics and communications strategy could take place with so little -- virtually zero -- discussion of actual political and communications strategies. That is, what types of messaging work and what don't? What particular campaigns have made their mark and successfully elicited public sympathy? What formats, styles, substance, delivery platforms, etcetera, actually do the job? If we don't motivate the general public, business leaders and government to adopt low-carbon policies within the next decade or two, utililizing technologies that already exist or are currently in development, the fight against climate change will be lost forever and all our fancy elocutions will be irrelevant as the world burns.

Some of the Socolow commenters seem obsessed with calculating the number of wedges needed in 2050 and beyond, echoing the predictable interest in "breakthrough technologies" by the business-as-usual crowd in Washington. But what's most important is measurable action in the short and medium terms, using technologies that are either off the shelf or expected to be on the shelf soon. As Socolow writes in one of the back-and-forths:

We are losing the argument with the general public, big time. I am addressing the next few years, and I am asking how we can get the general public to take climate change seriously. This is not where any of us in 2004 thought the argument would be in 2011.

That's the focus of ClimateSpeak, of course, and I hope this blog fills at least part of that gap.

Best climate videos? Part 4 (optimists' version)

For anyone tired of bemoaning the climate movement's lack of communications savvy, there's always one easy way to get a quick hit of optimism -- go find out what the Yes Men have been up to recently. Sure enough, it turns out those lovable pranksters are still doing great stuff. Their latest campaign, released earlier this month, is an iPhone app titled Phone Story, about the environmental and human destruction caused by your smart phone's coltan materials:

 

Another Yes Men campaign earlier this year was touchingly titled Coal Cares, complete with a fake coal company website that purportedly offered free asthma inhalers to any child living near a coal power plant. And last year, the Yes Men set the all-time standard for creative monkeywrenching with their Chevron Thinks We're Stupid campaign, a spoof on Chevron's ubiquitous "We Agree" advertisements that brought a tidal wave of equally inventive Wiki-spoofs from activists worldwide.

Go check out the Yes Men website and bookmark it for those low days when you think the world is really going to hell. That's what I did today, and it worked!

Moving Planet

More than 2,000 Moving Planet demonstrations took place yesterday around the world, including in all 50 U.S. states and in 175 countries, according to 350.0rg. It was an impressive and admirable effort, involving tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people and countless hours of organizing work. The event in San Francisco was typical of many, although perhaps not all -- a conventional march and rally:

photo credit: 350.org/David S. Feng

Of course, San Francisco is not typical America. But the event is worth looking at for what it was -- a rally just like the others on many topics that take place nearly every weekend in the Bay Area. The crowd was certainly no larger than average. This one got a bit of media coverage, but otherwise it passed without much of a ripple. Check out the Moving Planet photo log, and you'll find many other events around the world. All the result of lots of hard work by earnest people who are truly on the side of right. The question, however, is this -- did the events have much of an effect? Was this style of mobilization and messaging able to break through the anarchic, mega-terabyte clutter of media images, messages and daily distractions that beset much of the human race? Or was it a kind of 80s-style activism that no longer works well and needs a jolt of new style, ideas and creativity?

Best climate videos? Part 3

Jason Mark emailed in to recommend a Nissan Leaf commercial from earlier this year. He's right -- it's brilliant, with a subversive environmental message that could have been written by the Sierra Club's Beyond Oil campaign. Here is the video:

 

What's great about this video? It's funny, offbeat and very memorable. It makes a powerful point in an understated way, with no sanctimony or dogma. It sticks in your mind and keeps replaying. It's the best yet in a series of TV ads for Nissan Leaf by the Los Angeles agency TBWA\Chiat\Day. Here's one from last year that also was good, managing to get something new out of the woefully overdone polar bear:

 

But it turns out TBWA\Chiat\Day also works for Apple, and is responsible for their wonderfully quirky and effective ad campaigns Think Different (1997-2002) and Get a Mac (2006-10). So it all makes sense.  Perhaps the entire environmental movement could just drop their PR people and hire TBWA\Chiat\Day? Of course, I doubt it comes cheap. Perhaps George Soros or Michael Bloomberg could pony up?