Get Energy Smart! NOW!

With Obama in the White House and, for most of you, no election any time soon, are you feeling voting withdrawal. If so, the Environmental Defense Action Fund has a fix for your voting blues: a chance to vote for the best short video that best explains how capping greenhouse gas pollution will break America’s addiction to oil.

The five videos (after the fold) are pretty good.

That is, within the constraints set by the contest …

Carbon Limit
Female Voice:
You know this sign… But do you know this one?

Speed limits keep people from driving too fast, and a carbon limit will keep industries from polluting too much, and help us break free from our addiction to oil.

Here’s how: When oil is burned to release energy, it also releases pollution.

A cap on carbon emissions with make industry more careful about pollution because it will cost them. It’ll be in their best interest to switch to clean energy sources, and America will break free of its addiction to oil.

The carbon cap will make sure we don’t go over the limit, and set us on the road to energy freedom.

One of the issues of great concern when it comes to a Cap & Trade (preferably a Cap, Auction, and Trade — thus a CAT and not a Cap) is the question of “leakage”. How (and how well) will we know if we are actually meeting targets and how will we track pollution/polluters?

Think about this analogy: the speed limit. Hmmm, what is the leakage (when traffic isn’t preventing it) in terms of speeding on highways near you? Do 90+% of drivers go over the speed limit? As any Cap is likely to be, already, not nearly strict enough, does the speed limit analogy work for you? Doesn’t do it for me.

Cursing Cap
Male:
BLEEP!
I used to curse all the time. It was pretty foul.

So, I capped it. And if I cursed, I paid.

Till I got smart… Thought up alternatives: WALRUS BREATH!

Tap the imagination.

This jar ain’t a bad system!

Let’s say we cap carbon emissions dumped into the environment… Companies will have to pay for all the carbon they emit. They’ll get smart too, think up alternatives like wind and solar power.

It’s the way to kick America’s oil habit.

Cap it, and you’ll tap it.

What is best about this is the positive nature, the ‘technological’ and otherwise optimism. As bad as the situation is in regards to climate change (and, despite what skeptic truthiness, the situation is dire), we have solutions out there … if we’d only get serious and start acting.

By the way, in the near term, the biggest bang for the buck “alternatives”: negagallons and negawatts. E.g., energy efficiency and conservation. Using energy more wisely and, even, choosing not to use it.

Get Off the Couch
Male Voice:
You know that guy who wanted to crash on your couch for a few days and three months later he’s still there?

What if you tell him he has to start paying rent? Don’tcha think then he’ll figure out another option?

Maybe we should do the same.

Let’s face it: we produce too much carbon pollution because we use too much oil.

But what if big companies have to pay when they pollute? Maybe then we’ll all start looking for cleaner sources of energy.

Carbon Caps. Pollute Less. Pay Less.

It’s time to get off the couch.

hmmm … hmmm … Inventive in its attempt to deal with giving an analogy for ‘external costs’ (e.g, pollution with human and environmental health impacts), score credit for that. But, it just doesn’t work for me.

Goldfish
Escalating string music … No voices …

We are “eating ourselves to death” like a Goldfish with no limit to its appetite.

Work for you? Again, inventive, but not my vote.

Thinking Cap
Male Voice:
Every year we send billions overseas for oil to satisfy our energy dependence.

So how do we solve our addiction?

A carbon cap obligates companies to pay for the carbon they emit.

When they pollute less, they save money.

A carbon cap is really… a thinking cap: It provides financial incentive for companies to think of innovations and invest in clean energy.

It breaks the cycle of dependence, boosts our economy, and helps protect the environment.

A carbon cap… It’s really a thinking cap… For the 21st Century.

Again, this is a positive message. And, this covers the full range of issues: fiscal cost of oil and our addiction to it, forcing people to think about their emissions due to a carbon cost, and how this will drive innovation and actions to lower energy use. “Breaks the cycle of dependence, boosts our economy, and helps protect the environment” because it will make people think. “A thinking cap for the 21st century …”

And, there are nice subtleties within it. The “lightbulb”, to start with, is an incandescent bulb. At the end, when it is 21st century, it is a compact fluorescent. Well done.

Okay, in my mind “we have a winner …” That one works best for me …

However …

This contest focuses on oil use, clearly conceived of at the time when oil was over $100 a barrel. Don’t know about you, but gas and oil prices have dropped off the radar scope of the ‘conversations with friends and neighbors’. Been awhile since someone started a “I can’t believe the price …” conversation at the store or at a PTA meeting.

And, honestly, a carbon cap in and of itself will likely have a rather minor price signal when it comes to gasoline. We’ve seen a $2.50 variation on gasoline prices over the past year. A carbon cap is unlikely to drive gasoline prices up more than a few cents to start with and then a few tens of cents.

More importantly, oil is an issue, a real issue when it comes to Global Warming. But, oil is not at the top of the pile in terms of our necessary actions. We can (and should) act to reduce oil use (primarily in transportation), but the most critical priority is to end the expansion of coal-fired electricity and, as quickly as possible with increased energy efficiency and deployment of clean energy sources, start retiring coal plants off the grid (in the United States and globally). Thus, the focus on “oil” understates the real issues and real challenges.

And, is CAP (or CAT) the answer?

While these videos are amusing, there is the fundamental question as to whether a Carbon Cap (or CAT) is the path that we should pursue. Or, does a carbon tax (or fee) make more sense? Or, should we simply not even pursue this agenda.

Very simply, the shorthand:

• A Cap (or CAT) provides certainty (of some sort) as to the level of emissions (the maximum) and no certainty as to revenue streams.
• A Carbon Tax (or Fee) provides some certainty as to financing, but not necessarily assurance as to reduced levels.

And, whichever course might be “better”, is it even possible to get decent carbon legislation through Congress at this time?

Think about issues:

* The ‘deniers’/’skeptics’ still have a large voice and are confusing the discussion.

* Coal state Senators are not prepared to put in serious limitations on carbon (at least not yet).

* No matter whether Cap or Tax opponents will attack it with the false framing that it is “bad for the economy”, a difficult discussion to have as the nation will likely to continue with serious economic travails for quite awhile to come.

Writ large, at this time, while I would like to see a Global Warming Impact Fee combined with some for of overall CAT, my read of the political tea leaves is that we are far better off with what is referred to as a Trojan Horse strategy: let us get as much “green” infrastructure, science, reforestration, and other elements that will have a real impact on reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as possible into this (and the next … and the next) stimulus package. Let us (US) make real progressing at reversing our emissions through energy efficiency, electrification of rail, introduction of clean energy, etc … And, as we do so at a net positive for the economy, more people (including in Congress) will see the real benefits in how the United States can make some serious green by going Green.

Environmental Defense is one of the strongest environmental organization voices in favor of a Cap and Trade system (to the extent that some of us see this a ‘in favor of a Cap and Trade of any level, at any cost). They showed, with their strong support for the Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act, that the priority on getting a Cap in place could lead to one that is too weak to have a serious impact.

However … however … these videos are a real attempt to explain a very complex problem in just a few seconds. And, to a good extent, I believe that they did so.

In any event, why not take the moment to cast your vote … perhaps you’ll join me in trying to send $1000 in the direction of Scott Canney, the artist behind that video.