Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Simple truth:  Due to the dysfunctional nature of the American political process (and essentially in one major party), there is zero question that

1. the Democratic Party candidate for President will be far better on climate and clean energy issues than the GOP candidate.
2. anyone who considers themselves a Climate Hawk should work, full bore, to get the Democratic nominee elected.

This is a regretful truth of the American politics.

In a more rational world, the American people might be presented with a meaningful debate about how best to tackle climate change (nature (cap & trade, carbon fee, …) and size (full social cost of carbon, small incremental, …) of carbon pricing, government paying for clean energy deployment directly (such as via tax credits) and/or via mandates (renewable portfolio standards, etc …), etc … Sadly, this rational, reality-based debate is not occurring on the most crucial issue facing humanity in the 21st century (and for the centuries to come) and it will not occur in the Fall election. Thus, to the far too minimal extent that rational discussion of climate enters Presidential election discussions,  the ‘debate’ is within the Democratic party.

How should a Climate Hawk vote in the Democratic primaries (that remain)?

Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton?

A seemingly simple question that causes many to step back and think seriously. Looking at campaign platforms on climate (People before Polluters (Sanders); Climate Change and Energy (Clinton)), rankings by environmental organizations, environmental organization endorsements, and otherwise are all useful and viable paths for comparing and contrasting the two on their climate issues.  Another angle is to look at key supporters and surrogates: who is around them.

In this manner, two people seem to provide a basis for a ‘surrogate’ discussion about the campaigns and candidates:

• John Podesta, campaign chair, Hillary for America
• Bill McKibben, climate activist (350.org)/journalist

• Very decent and highly competent
• Knowledgeable, passionate, and eloquent on climate change
• Experienced and meriting attention

• Both substantive, with strong core agreements.
• Both with substantive knowledge about climate issues and desire to move the United States (and global community) toward stronger action on climate.
• Podesta the incremental achiever and McKibben the impassioned truth-teller.
• Podesta the ultimate insider and McKibben the ultimate outsider.

Vote here for “Climate Hawks.

In my view, the real contrast will be between whichever Democrat gets the nomination and, almost certainly (though with a brokered convention, who knows?) the Republican nominee. If you care about the climate, you will want to vote for the Democrat, whoever that is. Full disclosure, when I voted in the Climate Hawks primary, I went for “No Endorsement” for this reason. To my mind, this is in line with what Climate Hawks Votes has tended to do; They avoid giving endorsements to candidates without real climate-savvy records. But, the choice is up to you.