Without 2009 data on the partisan breakdown we can’t say for sure, but as has been the case in other recent polls, much of the downward shift appears to be among Republicans:
For decades, the coal industry has supported quality high-paying jobs for American workers, and coal has provided an important domestic source of reliable, affordable energy. At the same time, coal-fired power plants are the largest contributor to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and coal accounts for 40 percent of global emissions. Charting a path toward clean coal is essential to achieving my Administration’s goals of providing clean energy, supporting American jobs, and reducing emissions of carbon pollution. Rapid commercial development and deployment of clean coal technologies, particularly carbon capture and storage (CCS), will help position the United States as a leader in the global clean energy race.
…
To further this work and develop a comprehensive and coordinated Federal strategy to speed the commercial development and deployment of clean coal technologies, I hereby establish an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (Task Force). You shall each designate a senior official from your respective agency to serve on the Task Force, which shall be Co Chaired by the designees from the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency.
There is nothing clean about coal. Aside from burning wood or feces, it is literally the most polluting, most dangerous energy source known to man. If the president wanted people to take his fiscal conservatism seriously he wouldn’t pump billions of dollars into the pet project of the coal industry. Further, every dollar spent doing the coal industry’s research into the myth of ‘clean coal’ is a dollar that could have been invested in clean energy research. Obama and his team are making some efforts to speed up the transition to a clean energy economy, while at the same time making other efforts to slow that transition down. It is counterproductive and wasteful, and I’m sure plenty of people in the administration know better. More pandering we can believe in, I guess.
As I reported yesterday, some Senate Democrats are calling for leadership to abandon a cap on carbon dioxide pollution and instead move forward with a bill that focuses only on energy provisions. And President Barack Obama yesterday also acknowledged that this may well be what happens in the Senate. In remarks to Senate Democrats today, however, Obama called on his party not to take “the easy way out” by dropping a cap on emissions.
Here is the relevant part of the transcript:
But — and this is just the point that I wanted to make because it came up in New Hampshire yesterday — we still — one of the best ways to be on the forefront in energy is to incentivize clean energy, and discourage the old sources or methods that aren’t going to work in the future.And so the fact that Joe Lieberman is working with Lindsey Graham, John Kerry has been all over this — the three of them are coming together to try to find a workable, bipartisan structure so that we are incentivizing and rewarding the future — and understanding that there’s a transition, so that we’ve got to make sure that the disruptions are minimized as we move into this new energy future — that’s going to be vital.
So don’t give up on that. I don’t want us to just say the easy way out is for us to just give a bunch of tax credits to clean energy companies. The market works best when it responds to price. And if they start seeing that, you know what, dirty energy is a little pricier, clean energy is a little cheaper, they will innovate, and they will think things through in all kinds of innovative ways.
So I want to congratulate specifically John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham, who it probably doesn’t help him for me to compliment him — (laughter) — but has been very thoughtful in terms of how they’re approaching this issue.
Also of interest, Senator Graham denounced the prospect of splitting energy from cap and trade this morning:
Graham on Wednesday also rejected moving the Senate energy bill alone. “If the approach is to try to pass some half-assed energy bill, and say that moves the ball down the road, forget it with me,” the South Carolina Republican told business leaders from the renewable energy industry on Wednesday.
More bad news from the naysayer in chief:
The most controversial aspects of the energy debate that we’ve been having: The House passed an energy bill, and people complained about, well, there’s this cap and trade thing, and you just mentioned, you know, let’s do the fun stuff before we do the hard stuff.
The only thing I would say about it is this. We may be able to separate these things out, and it-it’s conceivable that that’s where the Senate ends up, but the concept of incentivizing clean energy so that it’s the cheaper more effective kind of energy is one that is proven to work and is actually a market-based approach.
Brian Beutler quite rightly notes that Obama’s tacit acceptance of this outcome makes it all the more likely. For someone who ostensibly supports a clean energy and climate bill that follows the science, this president sure does seem to take a lot of steps to make such a bill less likely to pass the congress.
Here is a video clip of the exchange:
Update — Looking over the full transcript, it looks like Brian jumped the gun a bit. In context, it isn’t clear at all that Obama is signaling to the Senate that splitting energy from cap and trade would be acceptable. In fact, right after the clip above, he makes a decent argument for putting a price on carbon.
Update 2 — The White House is already walking this back:
A White House spokesman reaffirmed Tuesday evening that Obama supports moving climate and energy legislation as one package.
More of the transcript below.
During the CitizenTube State of the Union Q & A discussion, President Obama severely dodged a question submitted by young activists about his support of dirty energy.His answer is unwise, and deceitful. I hate to say this about the President that has done more to invest in a clean energy economy than anyone before him (not a hard accomplishment since W, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Carter were the only presidents in office since clean energy became an issue), but young people are tired of being lied to by the White House and congress.
He continues:
Despite the evidence and public support, President Obama’s comments disregarded the potential of renewable energy. Instead, he championed dangerous and dirty alternatives like Carbon Capture and Sequestration (for some incomprehensible President Obama keeps on calling it ‘clean coal’) and nuclear energy even though many studies question their ability to quickly and cheaply reduce our emissions. CCS is extremely inefficient, forcing us to dig up and burn much more coal per unit of energy produced (that certainly won’t help our friends in West Virginia fighting to protect their mountains). Nuclear energy consumes large amounts of fresh water, already a precious resource that will become even more rare as the climate warms up.Is President Obama’s support for these dirty forms of energy just a gimmick to schmooze voters?
It is becoming increasingly clear, to me at least, that President Obama truly embraces the Republican mantra of ‘all of the above’ as an energy policy. One problem: ‘all of the above’ is a catchphrase, not a plan for sustainably powering our economy for decades into the future. Acknowledging that there is legitimate role for coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas in our energy mix is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Even with the right policies and investments it will take decades to alter our energy mix to a somewhat-sustainable balance. But when President Obama uses his rhetorical gifts to sing the praises of dirty energy — and encourages increased oil/gas drilling and loan guarantees for constructing new nuclear power plants — he is moving our energy mix in the wrong direction and making the difficult transition to a low-carbon economy more lengthy and expensive.
You can watch the question and answer session here at the 31:38 mark:
On coal, President Obama said:
“For example, nobody has been a bigger promoter of clean coal technology than I am. Testament to that, I ended up being in a whole bunch of advertisements that you guys saw all the time about investing in ways for us to burn coal more cleanly.”
“We can’t operate the coal industry in the United States as if we’re still in the 1920s or the 1930s or the 1950s. We’ve got to be thinking what does that industry look like in the next hundred years. And it’s going to be different. And that means there’s going to be some transition. And that’s where I think a well-thought-through policy of incentivizing the new while recognizing that there’s going to be a transition process — and we’re not just suddenly putting the old out of business right away — that has to be something that both Republicans and Democrats should be able to embrace.”
On nuclear, President Obama said:
“I’ve said that I’m a promoter of nuclear energy, something that I think over the last three decades has been subject to a lot of partisan wrangling and ideological wrangling. I don’t think it makes sense.”
On energy policy in general, President Obama said:
“So if you look at the ideas that this caucus has, again with respect to energy, I’m for a lot of what you said you are for.”
The full exchange is below.
Update — JW Randolph at the Front Porch blog has the video.
In his State of the Union address last night, President Obama hinted at what many in the transportation world have anticipated all week: Florida’s emergence as a winner in the race for a share of the White House’s $8 billion (and growing) high-speed rail fund.But Florida will not be the biggest beneficiary of the administration’s first rail rollout. The state taking home the most high-speed aid today is California, which snagged $2.25 billion to begin the process of linking Anaheim and San Francisco. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration had sought more than double that amount to begin its $42 billion rail project.
Florida is set to receive $1.25 billion for Tampa-to-Orlando rail service, while Illinois is getting about the same amount to begin environmental studies on a Chicago-to-St. Louis route and improve speeds between Alton and Dwight to 110 miles per hour (mph).
Other states celebrating this morning include Wisconsin, which got $810 million for upgrades to trains between Madison and Milwaukee; North Carolina, winner of $520 million for improvements of service between Raleigh and Charlotte; and Washington and Oregon, which got $590 million to boost the rail link between Seattle and Portland.
Here is the map of big winners:
Here is a summary of the awards:
Matt Yglesias makes a good point on all of this though:
In that context, it’s worth noting that the new high-speed rail initiative the administration was touting today in Florida will still leave China and Europe with much faster trains. They’re anticipating this Central Florida rail corridor to operate at a maximum speed of 168 miles per hour. The Lorraine-Champagne TGV line in France goes 173 miles per hour on average with a maximum speed of about 200 miles per hour. The Shanghai maglev has a max speed of around 270 miles per hour.
Exhibit A: Repower America
Repower America sent an email to its list this afternoon that said the following (emphasis in original):
“And as our video shows, we have a President who understands that a clean energy revolution can create millions of American jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and help keep our planet healthy for future generations.
Now it’s the Senate’s turn. Opposition from the fossil fuel industry is fierce, but we have a campaign plan to win. Together, we can make 2010 the year we begin to Repower America — and the first step is to help spread the word about Obama’s commitment to comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation”
The video included in the email omited the part of Obama’s speech in which he explained what he thinks needs to be done to create clean energy jobs.
Beginning at 1:17, the video includes Obama saying:
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. [footage missing here] And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.
Here is the part that was omitted:
That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.
These are quite plainly not the words of “a President who understands that a clean energy revolution can create millions of American jobs… and help keep our planet healthy for future generations.”
Exhibit B: Natural Resources Defense Council
Before the speech even ended, NRDC released a statement that included the following:
“President Obama issued a clear and unmistakable call to action tonight, charging the Senate to pass the comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation we need…”
“Obama made an urgent case for clean energy legislation that promotes conservation as well as wind, solar and other sources of renewable power.”
“The president is right on the money.”
Does NRDC really consider referring to increased oil and gas drilling, clean coal investments and a new generation of nuclear plants as ‘clean energy’ to be a ‘clear and unmistakable call to action?
Does NRDC really think Obama made an ‘urgent case’ for ‘wind, solar and other sources of renewable power?’
Do they really think Obama’s promotion of dirty energy sources were ‘right on the money?’
NRDC’s statement goes beyond wishful thinking. Like the Repower America email above, it is deliberately misleading.
Exhibit C: National Wildlife Federation
Also prior to the end of the speech, the National Wildlife Federation issued a statement that included the following:
“His call for action tonight was clear. He is ready to help the Senate take on Big Oil and move a bipartisan clean energy and climate bill that creates jobs, limits pollution from energy companies, and reduces our dependency on oil from hostile nations.”
How can the president simultaneously advocate for ‘opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development’ and ‘help the Senate take on Big Oil?’ The two are mutually exclusive.
And can a bill that includes ‘increased oil and gas drilling, clean coal investments and a new generation of nuclear plants’ be considered a ‘clean energy and climate bill?’ I don’t think so. Does NWF?
All three of these organizations failed to push back on President Obama’s Orwellian characterization of oil, gas, nuclear and coal as ‘clean energy.’ If environmental organizations aren’t willing or able to tell the truth when the President promotes polluting industries as clean, who will? Fortunately, members of these three environmental groups aren’t likely to be fooled by their ridiculously optimistic interpretations of Obama’s remarks on ‘clean energy’ last night. If they are anything like Move On’s members, they like ‘clean energy innovation’, they don’t like ‘nukes and oil drilling,’ and they can tell the difference:
In addition to deliberately misleading their members and taking the risk of damaging their credibility, these organizations are enabling President Obama to greenwash polluting industries. Brad Johnson at Think Progress explains:
President Barack Obama’s discussion of energy policy in his first State of the Union address pandered to corporate interests while demoralizing his progressive supporters. Though Obama made a strong case that real investments in clean energy such as solar technology, advanced batteries, high-speed rail and efficiency are critical to job creation and international competitiveness, he also offered sops to established corporate polluters. Republicans, who spent much of the address refusing to applaud Obama’s call for economic reforms, ecstatically applauded his praise of polluting industry. Embracing the language of the John McCain campaign, Obama described nuclear power, offshore oil and gas drilling, and coal as “clean energy jobs.”
A few environmental organizations told the truth about President Obama’s speech last night.
Center for Biological Diversity:
“President Obama is correct that we need energy innovation and clean-energy jobs to solve the climate crisis and invigorate our economy. But a clean-energy economy does not include continued reliance on dirty coal and further risky drilling for oil in fragile offshore areas. We cannot solve the problem with business as usual, but instead need the change that Candidate Obama promised.”
“While we welcome President Obama’s call for comprehensive climate and energy reform — as well as his focus on job-creating high-speed rail and solar power — it was alarming to hear him refer last night to a variety of dirty energy sources, including nuclear, coal, offshore oil drilling and biofuels, as clean.President Obama’s support for all these dirty energy sources was a big win for corporate polluters and their Washington lobbyists, but it was a kick in the gut to environmentalists across the country. The President was essentially telling these Americans that their voices don’t matter.”
In last night’s State of the Union address, President Obama said that “(t)o create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.” Despite his statement, the President knows better.Nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. There is no such thing as a “safe” dose of radiation and just because nuclear pollution is invisible doesn’t mean it’s “clean.”
While I appreciate the candor displayed by these three groups, I am truly perplexed as to why Repower America, NRDC and NWF think misleading their members and enabling Obama’s greenwashing could possibly lead to anything good.
All three are invited to respond on this blog in order to clarify their positions.
Last night over 10,000 MoveOn members participated in our first real-time dial test of the President’s State of the Union Speech. Below is a chart showing their reactions to President Obama’s speech, with the points of strongest approval and disapproval highlighted:
