I’m all about the videos lately…

How is your energy policy different from the last guy’s?

After more than a year of letter writing, petition signing, legislative call-in days, public hearings, lobby days and a huge conference, all involving thousands of people around the state, today the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act (for the hardcore legislative fans out there, the text of the bill can be found here) by a vote of 154 to 0. This bill requires reductions of carbon emissions of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 and between 10% and 25% by 2020.

From here, the bill, which has already passed the senate, returns there for some final merging of the house and senate versions, and heads to Governor Deval Patrick’s desk for signature. This is a HUGE victory in the state of Massachusetts, and a huge victory for the our state network, Massachusetts Power Shift, which has been a major force in pushing this bill forward. In April, MAPS held a conference and lobby day in Boston, attracting hundreds of students and adults from around the state and including high profile speakers Sen John Kerry and Rep Ed Markey.

Congrats to everyone involved in this campaign! Here’s to starting a new school year with new, bigger, more inclusive and world-changing campaigns. In the words of my favorite tv president, The West Wing’s Jed Bartlet, “What’s next?”

There are two frames for solving the energy crisis.  One says we need everything, because this is a crisis and people/markets need energy.  The other says an era is over and we can now rethink our relationship to power, shifting away from all harmful sources.

Republicans want energy to become the new hot button issue, replacing ’security’ as the defining way that reds beat out blues across the board. “Democrats?  They can’t protect our ports… Democrats?  They can’t lower gas prices…” See recent remarks by National Republican Senatorial Committee chair John Ensign today; “We are having a dramatic drawdown on our economy, and because of that it is critical that we solve the energy problem,” Ensign said. “Republicans are on the right side of this issue and Democrats are on the wrong side,” when it comes to opening up domestic energy supplies.

Its clear which side the money’s on.  Fossil energy companies are established and fat with profit, while our would-be clean energy tycoons are either lonely or in start up mode.

Ensign went on to describe the “all of the above” approach, saying, “We are for alternative, clean, green conservation, but we’re also for drilling…and most Republicans are for exploring up in Alaska as well.”

How do we argue against such an indiscriminate energy plan?  They want the same things we want (and then some bad stuff too…)  First, we need to point out the obvious: efficiency is a much shorter and easier path to lowering prices and lowering emissions than drilling.  Second, we need to link justice and opportunity to switching to a clean energy economy.  Third, we must consistently point to real examples here in America of families and communities that have switched to a clean energy lifestyle comfortably, affordably and conveniently.

Of course this means not falling into the traps of talking about come coal being clean and other coal being dirty or other coined phrases.  And it means framing the choices we want people to make as opportunities rather than guilt-motivated compromises.

I’m worried we’re behind the ball a little.  The nation’s focus has shifted rapidly towards the price at the pump, and so much of our general messaging is still focused on wind and solar.  We’re talking about the polar ice caps when inner-city areas continue to be wracked with asthma.  And far too many people don’t know that big labor and big green are fighting on the same side.

Are we prepared to meet people where they’re at when we talk about Power Vote?  Are we using the public’s concerns to bring new members into our coalition?  And have we educated ourselves about the ins and outs of oil, energy, efficiency and policy?

Check out this chart from Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh called “The Nuclear Illusion” about CO2 emissions displaces by dollar spent on different technologies.

Boy, and you were worried about the imminent destruction of our coastal cities, giant hurricanes, food shortages, and the cost of beer skyrocketing because of global warming? Last Monday the AFP reported on a study showing that Global Warming would increase suffering from Kidney Stones.  Now, I understand Kidney Stones are miserable. But I also find this reporting fascinating in the context of pop culture stories on global warming and the many tiny effects it will have. These stories don’t generally seem to connect the kidney stones and expensive beer to the larger societal problems we will have, nor do they seem to mention that the worst impacts of Climate Change are preventable, or that people might want to begin taking action to stop them.  Shouldn’t this article have a quote like, “If you don’t stop driving Hummers and building coal plants, don’t call me crying when you’re up all night trying to pee,” said climate activist so and so…

Not that I’m saying anyone would ever be so sanctimonious. Being right and saying, “I told you so” just isn’t fun when thousands and even billions are suffering and dying.

The point is, this is presented as a simple mundane fact, unconnected to the larger climate change issues.

Another point the article makes is that it will cost as much as $1 billion to treat these new kidney stone cases.  Maybe we should begin mentioning that and similar arguments when promoting renewables and arguing their cost effectiveness — “Think of the billions you could save the US economy from not having to treat kidney stones! And also preventing the cost of re-locating billions of climate refugees world wide…”

I for one am not looking forward to a world full of turmoil, strife and painful urination. Let’s do what it takes to stop global warming, if not for sake of the kids, then for the sake of our bladders.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - More Americans are likely to suffer from kidney stones in the coming years as a result of global warming, according to researchers at the University of Texas.

Kidney stones, which are formed from dissolved minerals in the urine and can be extremely painful, are often caused by caused by dehydration, either by not drinking enough liquid or losing too much due to high heat conditions.

If global warming trends continue as projected by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, the United States can expect as much as a 30 percent growth in kidney stone disease in some of its driest areas, said the findings published in Monday’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The increased incidence of disease would represent between 1.6 million and 2.2 million cases by 2050, costing the US economy as much as one billion dollars in treatment costs.

“This study is one of the first examples of global warming causing a direct medical consequence for humans,” said Margaret Pearle, professor of urology at University of Texas Southwestern and senior author of the paper.

“When people relocate from areas of moderate temperature to areas with warmer climates, a rapid increase in stone risk has been observed. This has been shown in military deployments to the Middle East for instance.”

The lead author of the research, Tom Brikowski, compared kidney stone rates with UN forecasts of temperature increases and created two mathematical models to predict the impact on future populations.

One formula showed an increase in the southern half of the country, including the already existing “kidney stone belt” of the southeastern states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.

The other showed that the increase would be concentrated in the upper Midwest.

“Similar climate-related changes in the prevalence of kidney-stone disease can be expected in other stone belts worldwide,” the study said.