Get Energy Smart! NOW!

The WE can solve campaign has opened, with $300 million dedicated to highlighting Global Warming concerns and the importance of Federal action to help guide America toward a sustainable and prosperous future. WE, however, is a non-partisan effort. It will raise the issues, highlight the concerns of Global Warming, but not be explicit about what that translates to for political contributions, volunteering for political efforts, and who to pull the lever for in the ballot box.

There will be attention brought, from many angles, to energy and environmental (principally Global Warming) issues in the coming months and, WE can hope, within the campaigns.  We can help bring focus to this discussion, to the electoral implications of the challenges and opportunities we face as individuals, communities, and nation.  

The opportunity is before us to bring focus to this issue across campaigns, across the United States, and make Energy/Global Warming a winning issue come November and a higher priority for serious Congressional and Administration action come January 2009.  Not Fear but Courage… Rather than fearing action in facing of our challenges, our effort can help spread the Courage and determination for action.  

Questioning … Does an effort to bring attention to such candidates, such opportunities make sense?  How should we work to do this?

ActBlue as a first step?

At this time, the Energy Smart vs Energy Dumb Act Blue page has this as a core philosophy.  

All of the candidates on this list will help foster a Congress and political climate conducive for more meaningful action toward a Prosperous, Climate Friendly America through dealing with the challenges of Peak Oil and Global Warming.

With that as a context and concern, what rough guidelines are driving selection for the list?

• A challenger to an incumbent.
• The challenger understands energy / environmental issues and will bring a radically different perspective to the Hill compared to the incumbent.
• The race looks competitive, open for the potential for support and attention moving it toward the win column. (Especially campaigns that are not currently on top-list opportunity lists at this time.)

Do these make sense?  Should they be changed? How?

Initial Candidates include

The initial candidates all seem to fit these guidelines.  (Note that there is at least one primary where good candidates are competing against each other, thus, neither is on the list, but post primary.)  Of course, there are other valid and valuable candidates to add to this list, the comment section is open. The six campaigns merit the Energy Smart vs Energy Dumb appellation. Some of these will be quite familiar with you, others … well, read on.

Kay Barnes
MO-6 running against Sam Graves who has consistently voted Energy DUMB, hand-in-hand with Dick Cheney.  Let us, well, simply rely on the League of Conservation Voters here:

“During her eight years as mayor of Kansas City, Kay Barnes supported renewable energy projects that created jobs in Northwest Missouri, such as the Ford hybrid plant and wind farms. As a member of the U.S. House, she promises to do even more to create good-paying, ‘green-collar’ jobs by working to steer the nation toward the clean, renewable energy of the future rather than following the dirty energy policies of the past,” said LCV President Gene Karpinski. “We are happy to endorse her candidacy.”

It goes on to outline

Yesterday, Graves voted against a bill (H.R. 5351) to roll back billions of dollars in tax breaks to big oil companies, and to reinvest that money into tax credits for wind, biomass and other clean, renewable energy sources. That investment will not only help reduce the carbon emissions that create global warming, it will create thousands of American jobs. The three year extension on wind energy tax credits alone will create a stable market for wind power that will allow companies across the country to expand their operations in places like rural Missouri.

Debbie Cook, CA-46, who has focused on sustainability issues as Mayor of Huntington Beach, California, and serves on the board of directors for the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO-USA) and Post Carbon Institute  (great bio).  From her issues page:

It is imperative to address the energy constraints in our future. Our insatiable appetite for fossil fuels is reaching a critical point in human history.

Faced with price volatility, the likelihood of supply disruptions and the physical limits of the world’s oil extraction industry, our government needs to think creatively about how we will provide services in an energy-constrained world.

We cannot predict the changes in our economies and ecosystems or even the likely responses to the peaking of world oil production, but we can begin the dialogue, raising public awareness, tackling public and private consumption, and making decisions about transportation and land use within the context of their energy implications. Just as we plan for medical emergencies, civil unrest and natural disasters, we must also plan for energy uncertainties.

By the way, Debbie’s opponent is Dana Rohrbacher who is Energy Dumb. The contrast is stark.

Scott Kleeb, Nebraska, Senate.   From his Energy & Environment issues page speaking to his state:

As a person who has earned a paycheck working in the outdoors, I am a natural conservationist.  As a hunter who worries about the shrinking migratory duck population, I am concerned about global warming.   Whether from farmers, ranchers or hunters, our government could take a few lessons from our way of life and once again show respect for our traditions and heritage.

He then discusses paths toward a “new energy economy” with creating new jobs while cutting costs, all combining to “make our country safer by cutting our dependence on foreign oil and decreasing pollution.”  Kleeb presents real Energy Smart approaches to our real challenges.  again, let’s just go with Energy Smart here …Glenn Nye, VA-02, arues for investment in clean energy while the Energy Dumb incumbent votes against Renewable Energy programs and for continued (abusive) tax breaks for those impoverished oil companies.

Tom Perriello, VA-05.  Where to start with Tom as he is, quite simply, quite impressive and would (across many issues) make a tremendous addition to Congress.  Want to talk about his role in the formation of Avaaz Faithful America or his work to help foster peace and reconciliation in Sierre Leone, Lieberia, Darfur, and Afghanistan or …  He is a good man who has already achieved much to be proud of and much for us to respect.  For this list, let’s turn to Climate Change

We need to commit to independence from fossil fuels within a generation, and that will require major investments, a substantial shift in incentives, and a culture change as consumers. A revenue-neutral tax shift is one way to do this, but so are cap-and-trade systems that have worked to address problems such as acid rain.  

As for the target, I most often hear from experts that we must draw the line at no more than a 2-degree Celsius temperature increase. Our goal must be set not by what seems politically possible but what will actually produce the end result we need.  

By helping get Tom into Congress we will make the necessary the politically possible.

Andrew Rice, Senate, Oklahoma. For this race, the following words should suffice:  the incumbent is James Inhofe (R-Exxon).  Enough said?

Energy Smart vs Energy Dumb

Okay, this discussion outlines a unifying philosophy, a unifying approach to try to bring attention to energy and environmental issues as election winning issues. And, to do so through the highlighting of campaigns where the contrasts are stark between Energy Smart and Energy Dumb.  Please consider supporting these Energy Smart candidates.

And, engage below:

• Is this a smart approach?
• Are the criteria reasonable? How might / should they be changed?
• Who are the missing candidates and why?
• How should this effort move forward (if at all)?