I did a segment on the show EnergyNow yesterday. I think the episode airs Sunday morning, after This Week with Christiane Amanpour, on ABC in the Washington, D.C. area. The clip is below. Yes, I need to quit doing that widen-my-eyes thing every time I make a point. And WTF is that smirk when I’m introduced? I don’t have a very good forced smile under the best of circumstances, but that looks like I’m suffering gastrointestinal distress. A few other, more substantive thoughts below.
On the first question, I would just note how pathetic it is for climate hawks to be stuck arguing vigorously that their big bill … had no political effect whatsoever. Woo!
On the second question, I wish I’d made the point clearer. The bipartisan energy options now being discussed aren’t a different way of accomplishing the same goals as comprehensive climate/energy legislation — “other ways to skin the cat,” as Obama called them — but an abandonment of those goals. Modest investments in nuclear, “clean coal,” electric cars, or natural gas vehicles won’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nor are they likely to substantially alter the country’s overall energy trajectory. Instead, under the guise of “energy security,” it’ll be the same grab bag of capricious, inefficient subsidies and tax credits for politically connected industries that has constituted American energy policy for the last 20 years.
On the third question, I’ve got a post coming on this soon, but suffice to say, Obama seems to me to be walking into a trap of his own devising. Dems better get a damn strategy around the EPA soon before they get their asses handed to them yet again.
Thanks to EnergyNow for having me on. It’s a fairly new show, the only news and analysis show I know of focused exclusively on energy, and they’re hunting for more broadcast partners. It’s sponsored by The American Clean Skies Foundation, a natural gas group, but Clean Skies News claims complete editorial independence. Check it out.
UPDATE: Greg Staple, CEO of the American Clean Skies Foundation, writes to clarify the nature of the enterprise:
It might be worthwhile flagging the show’s unique editorial charter outlining the basis for that editorial independence.
Given that the majority of the Foundation’s budget is devoted to underwriting energyNOW!, referring to ACSF as a “natural gas group” is a bit misleading. Sort of like still referring to the Carnegie Foundation, as a steel group or the Rockefeller Brothers Fund as an oil group … You get the drift.
I think the right phrase is probably “a clean energy oriented Foundation.” We are committed to educating the public about natural gas, renewables and energy efficiency — not necessarily in that order. And we think the country badly needs a smart TV show that focuses on the most pressing energy issues of the day — including climate change — and what America is doing about it. Hence, the big spend on energyNOW!.