Energy Bill Priorities pt 2: Clean Energy Investment

While many see climate change as the primary urgency guiding environmental policy, others cite the current recession as means to set aside global warming concerns. As mentioned previously, for the first time since being asked, a majority of Americans feel it is okay to sacrifice environmental protection for economic strengthening.

However, a post-election Zogby poll indicated that 78% of Americans feel clean energy investment is important to boosting our economy. Once again, the economy and environment aren't necessarily two sides of the same coin. While American's primary concerns are financial, the public overwhelmingly supports exploring eco-friendly means towards helping the economy.

This brings us to the issue of framing. Framing refers to the manner in which concepts are discussed within public discourse and the ensuing political ramifications thereof. When discussing environmental issues, framing is particularly crucial. As Richard Alexander, author of Framing Discourse on the Environment, writes:

...the perceptions or non-perceptions of ecological crises..., such as global warming...are not sensorially experienced. It is the many-voiced discourse of scientists that is the source of our knowledge of such issues. These voices are filtered and very often distorted by the media presentations of such happenings (p. 3).

So the information trickling down to the public about climate change is the product of several layers of "many-voiced" filters from research scientists to media reporters and politicians. The way we understand the environmental issues at hand is almost entirely grounded in language.

Going back to our poll stats, a viable option for climate change policy becomes apparent. Perhaps the best way to pass positive legislation is to frame policy in terms of what the people (78% of them) want to hear: (clean) energy, investment, and cash money.

Nancy Pelosi gets it. In a recent interview she claimed, "I believe we have to [pass a cap-and-trade bill] because we see that as a source of revenue. Cap-and-trade is there for a reason. you cap and you trade so you can pay for some of these investments in energy independence and renewables."

While cap-and-trade is certainly a measure geared towards mitigating climate change, it should be framed in terms of its potential to stimulate the economy. Furthermore, as Breakthrough Institute's Adam Zenel points out, such framing eliminates from cap-and-trade the contentious focus on a "hard" carbon cap. A quantifiable ceiling for carbon emissions is sought after by many progressives, yet focusing upon investment, energy, and revenue avoids a significant amount of political resistance.

As Teryn Norris, also of Breakthrough Institute, states, "By focusing climate policy on direct public investment in the clean energy economy, Democratic leaders position themselves on strong political ground and force Republicans to oppose job creation, economic revitalization, and energy independence."