Leveling the Field

by Lee Bodner, ecoAmerica Executive Director


Today's NY Times front-page article "Saving the Planet, with a Thesaurus" reports on new work we’ve done on talking to Americans about one of the most important choices our country faces:  a future of clean and safe energy that doesn’t run out, or continued dependence on dirty 19th century fuel and an indefinite reliance on dangerous foreign oil.


We found what others who are doing similar research are finding – Americans overwhelmingly want our government to do what it takes to revive American leadership in technologies that will create jobs that can’t be shipped overseas and that build a healthy, prosperous future for my kids and yours.


This is front page news because the battle for public opinion is so fierce and so important.  The coal and oil companies spend 99% of their energy development budgets on the dirty and dangerous energy of the past.  But it seems like they're spending about 99% of their advertising budgets trying to convince Americans otherwise.


At ecoAmerica we’re fighting back.  We and our partners work hard to talk to Americans in ways that are more clear, less wonky, and that better convey the values underlying our policies.

No Responses to “Leveling the Field”

  1. Wow … tree huggers finally get it. What happens next week, hell freezes over?
    Reduce use of dirty fuels and energy independence, yeah, who doesn’t agree with this? So support nuclear, say alternative energy is being explored, and emphasize no one’s standard of living is going down.
    Global warming has made a mockery of the environmental movement, to the point that folks begin to question whether lead is a bad thing. No kidding.
    So all the hard fought (and they WERE hard fought) victories to clean up America, that cost beaucoup bucks, that really made a difference in the air we breathe and water we drink, are being questioned.
    Oh, and the radicals that say earth could do with a few less billion people doesn’t help. Even Hitler wasn’t that bold.
    As it stands, environmentalists have painted themselves into a corner. If global warming was the end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it … they would immediately support nuclear to save civilization. Nuclear being the only current proven off-the-shelf technology with zero carbon emissions that everyone would accept. There is no uncertainity about its success.
    If environmentalists dither around and bet the future on some future breakthrough in alternative energy that may never materalize … then global warming really wasn’t quite the critical issue they make it out to be.
    Cap and trade just isn’t going to happen. Not with China and India spewing CO2 with no intention of reducing emissions.
    And, I haven’t heard anyone on either side of the debate say CO2 levels are going down. CO2 goes up with temperature. No one doubts the physics of warming oceans releasing CO2. We all have experience with soda pop warm and cold.
    Whether CO2 leads, lags, or is lockstep with temperature … it is going up. So the end result of cap and trade is a gigantic tax increase, CO2 continues to rise … and who knows about temperature.

  2. What does “environmentally agnostic Americans” mean?

  3. George Orwell would be proud. Double Speak, change the language. You guys already tried to switch to “climate change” from “global warming” due to the pesky fact that the temperature of the planet has actually COOLED since 1998. How could that be possible? We haven’t reduced any carbon emissions? Maybe its because climate change is a natural occurrence driven by many factors but mainly the Sun, which is experiencing historical lows in solar output and sunspots. This whole carbon trading is a scam to enrich the pockets of politicians and environmental snake-oil salesmen like Al Gore.

  4. Monty, thanks for your comment.
    By ‘environmentally agnostic’ we mean folks who are not too aware or concerned about the state of our natural world, and therefore do not incorporate it into their personal behaviors or public policy decisions.

Leave a Reply