Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) loves Twitter. And, on more than one occasion, her off-the-cuff comments have caused some uproar. Not the excited notes from a sports fan
(shared her same sentiments at that one), but off-hand comments about major policy issues that suggest potentially recklessly shallow understanding of critical issues. After the House voted to pass HR2454, the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act, Claire sent out the following twitter.

Not for the first time, Claire McCaskill seems to be showing some serious misconceptions about the challenes and opportunities before us when it comes to economic, energy, and environmental issues.  It is hard to figure out just how many ways in which this is not just wrong-headed about climate change issues, but ignorant of all of ACES’ protections for “businesses and families in coal-dependent states” and ignorant, it would seem, of the payoff Missourians (her voters) would receive if ACES became law.

Claire evidently heard from more than a few people, as later the 27th, Claire sent this follow-up :

Reading tweet replies last two days: definition of word polarized. Cap and Trade:job killer/job creator and gonna save us/gonna destroy us.

Among those were two from me:

1. You say cap & trade could “unfairly punish coal-dependent states”. Does Climate Change “unfairly punish” anyone?
2. Missourians will save money with energy efficiency and clean energy. And, have improved employment than with coal. Hmmm …

Those two, in short, seem to capture the key failures in Claire’s framing. There is not linkage to the greater issues of climate change nor any hint that Missourians (and others) coal-burning and other polluting habits have anything to do with the problems that we face. Or, if it does, that she fears that they will be “punished” for their polluting ways.  And, there is nothing there about opportunity — whether the opportunity for all Americans or, more selfishly, Missouri’s voters. And, there is a message here about running scared out falsely based fears of cost, rather than staking out a position of leadership to explain opportunity. Opportunity not just to make a choice to reduce the risks from climate change, but an opportunity to improve Missouri’s economy.

To be clear, if we are to tackle climate change in any serious manner, we must work to end our coal addiction.  And, that means change for Missouri, which currently gets about 85 percent of its electricity from coal (with, however, some 90 percent of the burnt coal coming from out-of-state despite the premise of coal behemoth Peabody Energy in Missouri).  Thus, Missouri’s electricity habits will have to change as part of Missourians contributions to a national (and global) effort to mitigate change.

And, change is scary.

And, change creates fear in people.

Even change for the better.

And, despite all ACES’ quite serious shortfalls and inadequacies, when analyzed for implications for specific states, ACES would be putting change into Missourians’ pockets. In 2020, the average Missouri electric bill should be $6.32 lower and the monthly transportation cost $13.93 lower with the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) full provisions, including energy efficiency and transportation investments. Yup, that “unfairly punish” that Claire talks about is $20 extra into the average Missouri home month in, month out. If that’s being “unfairly punished”, Claire, you can punish me whenever you’d like.

And, that $20 per month doesn’t even take into account many other factors such as cutting asthma cases among Missouri children due to reduced coal particulates, cutting cancer cases due to reduce diesel pollution, and reduced unemployment (and other social benefit) costs due to the jobs created to execute energy efficiency projects and build / operate a renewable energy infrastructure in Missouri.

Months ago, when questioned, McCaskill’s office provided this statement:

The scientific community has concluded that global warming is real and caused by humans, and Senator McCaskill agrees with them. When cap and trade legislation is drafted, Senator McCaskill will urge quick action on legislation that will curb greenhouse gas emissions and provide help for energy consumers in coal-dependent markets like Missouri.

Well, Senator McCaskill, ACES does “provide help for energy consumers in coal-dependent markets like Missouri”, arguably far too much “help”, as it seeks to provide a pathway forward to “curb greenhouse gas emissions”.  Haven’t your requirements been met?

Now, what is even more absurd is that Missourians have already demonstrated a real willingness to move forward to a more sensible energy future.  In the 2008 election. Missourians voted in a renewable energy measure (setting a 15 percent renewable electricity standard for 2021) with 66 percent of the vote, with only one county in the entire state not voting for Proposition C.   In other words, Missiouri’s voters are ready to be led to a cleaner energy future. Sadly, Claire isn’t leading her citizens toward a better path and, even worse, doesn’t even seem to be following their lead.

Claire McCaskill was an early, strong support for candidate Barack Obama as he sought the Presidency.  Claire’s message on energy and the climate bill certainly is at odds with the President’s.

President Barack Obama congratulated “the House for passing this bill, and urged “the Senate to take this opportunity to come together and meet our obligations – to our constituents, to our children, to God’s creation, and to future generations.” He also asked senators like McCaskill not to be “prisoners of the past“:

“Now my call to every Senator, as well as to every American, is this: We cannot be afraid of the future. And we must not be prisoners of the past. Don’t believe the misinformation out there that suggests there is somehow a contradiction between investing in clean energy and economic growth. It’s just not true.”

Sadly, these words written months ago remain true.

Now, if Claire McCaskill were standing up and giving strong speeches about how Missouri and other coal-dependent states should get lopsided assistance in terms of moving to renewable energy and energy efficiency, I’d be cheering her. That would be protecting her citizens while protecting the planet’s habitability for humanity.

If Claire spoke about the importance of thinking about the cost of “energy services” rather than focusing on the cost of a kWh, then I’d be cheering her.

If Clair were leading and showing political courage on the intertwined issues of economy, energy, and environment, then I’d be cheering her.

Sadly, that is not what Missouri’s citizens are seeing from their Senator.

Let’s hope that what Claire’s voters start seeing from her from this day forward.