Breakthrough: Al Gore, 8 Days Later...

By Lindsey Franklin, Breakthrough Generation Fellow

Over a week has passed since Al Gore made his bold call for 100% renewable energy in the next 10 years, initiating a wave of response. Conservatives called him crazy--ridiculous, even. Enviros applauded his vision and bold determination. Some Democrats cringed at his timing, afraid of the response of gas-sensitive voters. Some media barely covered him.

With the standing ovation long over and the media for now satiated, it seems appropriate to take a look at how Gore's speech was received and what its initial reception means for the story we must tell about the energy challenge. In the applause and critique, I find the kernels of that elusive narrative that will somehow galvanize the nation into bold action on energy.

In Sara Barz' recent, well written account on Grist, she provides a nice frame for discussion by organizing the media response into points about precedent and vision. Responses, according to Barz, generally fell into the lines of either deeming Gore's challenge impossible due to the current, unimpressive precedent our country is setting in renewables, and applauding it as the inspiring vision that could give an appropriate kick in the behind we may need to get started.

The right narrative, it seems, would capture the hope and urgency of the vision, and avoid the "ridiculousness" of the precedent.

In the precedent camp, two articles similarly titled "Is Al Gore Nuts?" and "Is Al Gore Serious?" ponder his ability to take a hard look at the facts and understand our energy reality. Neal Dikeman's "Nuts" take argues that when we as a country move too quickly, too soon, we open ourselves up to mistakes made in haste and lose the opportunity to get things right. Keith Johnson's "Serious" version suggests that the impossibility of the vision makes a political mockery of the urgent call for renewable energy. In sum, optimism is good, irrationality is not, from both a practical and political perspective.

Those on the vision camp applaud Gore's optimism and gall, a deviation from the doom and gloom message that now seems oh-so 2006. As Bob Herbert asks, with a frustrated jibe at the pessimists: "When exactly was it that the U.S. became a can't-do society?" Most acknowledge the improbablility of a 100% renewables by 2018 plan, but commend the plan as a "lofty kick" to get us moving.

Among the vision folks there were some whose analysis goes a bit deeper than just applause, however, and I think it is here where the real meat is.

Joseph Davis, for one, gets at some pretty essential points that I think were really missing from Gore's speech, that could have been profound for a public skittish on high energy prices and economic instability. As Davis asserts, it is an economic imperative to switch away from petroleum and coal, an economic opportunity within the switch itself, and national security necessity to update an "antiquated" energy grid. His analysis backs up Michael Shellenberger's call for a stronger narrative, one rooted in human progress and technological ingenuity.

Gore alludes to, even focuses on these connections in his speech. Yet his primary response to the question of cost is still the urgency of climate, which unfortunately, does not pack the political punch of economic and national security crises. At the end of the speech, connections between energy, climate, national security and the economy sound still vague and hollow, missing a key opportunity to drive home those connections for voters in a powerful way.

Alex Steffan of Worldchanging also makes an important point when he calls for a more nuanced look at innovation that extends beyond technology; innovation, he argues, must expand into rethinking all aspects of our society, from urban planning to policy, from design to business. Creativity also does not need to be on a large scale; it could be tweaking current practices in small, creative ways that have large, leverageable impacts.

Gore's complete focus on renewable energy, while an important step away from the focus on carbon, misses this point. By opening up his idea of innovation, he could really tap into the powerful and ultimately productive creativity of the American people. The most exciting thing about a narrative of possibility, innovation and optimism is that it leaves the future open. A focus on regulation may get us where we need to be, but leveraging our creativity to open up new ways of thinking and new avenues for action could get us far beyond, and is far more successful in inspiring action.

From Dikeman to Shellenberger, these critiques of both precedent and vision illuminate the direction that a new narrative must take us. Bold vision does not need to be irrational (although some will always find it ways to paint it as such) if it does not sugarcoat the reality of the precedent we have set. We need a narrative of innovation, based in human progress. One that outlines the necessity in remaking our energy system not just for the sake of the climate, but because our own demands for our 21st century selves won't accept anything less. And one that enables people to imagine themselves in a world they want to work to create, yet leaves a bit open to uncertainty and encourages fierce imagination.

This kind of boldness is not irrational, as it begins with a hard look at where we are. In this way, it would not run into the precedent argument, and would still maintain the positive--if open--vision for the future we need to get there.

Thank you, Al Gore, for beginning the conversation and becoming such a powerful force in communicating this message. Now let's refine it, tell it, and drive it home.

While I concur with the notes you�ve cited, there is another factor which will determine the eventual success or failure of a national energy independence initiative. However, I do emphatically applaud Gore�s leadership, a declaration of intention and objective is an important, even critical, component for success. Gore appears to have taken a cue from JFK�s leadership book: when Kennedy declared that we would put a man on the moon in a decade, he inspired a generation to action and unleashed an unparalleled surge of creativity. This type of leadership is needed on climate/energy challenge (many asserted Kennedy was delusional, but the moon landing was achieved in eight years). It is an open question what either presidential contender think. Beyond this, there is another practical consideration which appears to be unaddressed. Persuading 300 million Americans to fundamentally transform the country�s energy infrastructure: the way we fuel their cars, transmit electricity, and power and heat our homes and businesses, in the next 10 to 15 years is an enormous communications task (which is not to say that the other aspects��public investment in research, overhauling the grid, launching a cap and trade program, raising CAFE standards, restructuring tax policy��are not vital, but if the American public does not support real action vigorously, politicians and the government will not act). The amount currently allotted to build strong public support for meaningful research and action on climate is woefully inadequate. Try reframing the climate/energy issue as a marketing challenge: say you have a new �product� to roll-out and want to reach and then persuade 80 to 90 million Americans to �use� your product, how would you: 1. Create an effective, memorable and persuasive message? 2. Generate strong public �demand� in a huge, diverse country of 300 million people, a 13 trillion dollar GDP, and 230 million fossil-fuel vehicles? 3. Counter a determined, well-funded competitor that wants to undermine/eliminate the threat your product poses with a multi-million dollar disinformation campaign? 4. What industry would you approach to create, plan and implement your marketing campaign? 5. How much would it cost? And how long would it take to build strong public demand for your product? The annual marketing budgets of major US corporations offer a benchmark for gauging how much it would cost to generate strong public support for meaningful immediate action. In 2003, AT&T spent over $1 billion on marketing, Ford spent $832 million, McDonalds $619 million, and Microsoft $458 million. Furthermore, these staggering marketing budgets target relatively small slices of the population��a climate campaign would have to target much larger segments of the public. The Centers for Disease Control�s $125 million marketing campaign targeting teenage obesity provides a ballpark figure for what is needed to have any meaningful impact on public opinion. On the eve of the Iraq invasion as 10 to 15 million people demonstrated in cities around the world, the NY Times asserted there are �two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.� Now that the G-8 has released its tepid (and first post-IPCC report) �plan� to address the climate crisis, it ought to be clear that the bureaucrats are not up to the task of meeting the climate challenge. I want to remind people that public opinion is a superpower. Mr. Gore has compared the effort necessary to meet the climate challenge to the US's mobilization for World War II. While I admire Mr. Gore�s call for an Energy Independence initiative, it needs to be complemented by a comprehensive multi-year public education campaign strategy targeting key segments of the country. At the outset of WWII, one of the first things FDR did was to enlist the advertising community's help in communicating and explaining the challenges and stakes to the American public and the War Advertising Council was born (and is still with us as the Advertising Council). In 2006, Dr. James Hansen warned that CO2 emissions had to be dramatically reduced within 10 years to avoid catastrophic consequences of warming. Considering the urgency as well as the slow pace of social change in a country as large as the United States, a national mass media effort has to be mounted as quickly as possible. The next president would do well to take a page from FDR and call on the American advertising community to step up and help design a thoroughly comprehensive national communications strategy to build public understanding of what is a stake, support for meaningful action and lifestyle change. When the new president takes office, he ought to commission the Dept of Energy to fund a massive public awareness campaign (Gore�s WE campaign is not sufficient alone). Feedback welcome. Posted by: Eric Cato at July 30, 2008 9:41 PM

Thanks so much for your feedback, Eric and Meryl. Great responses. Meryl, Alex Steffen has greatly influenced how I think about solutions. I love hearing his perspective. Eric, I think that a massive communications strategy should very well be part of the unified, national effort that it will take to change the way we think about, produce and consume energy in this country. The difference with the World War II effort and the communications necessary in this day and age, however, is that it would need to encompass 21st century theory and methods of communication. This is where, I think, the "We" campaign falls short. It is still mainly about telling people the narrative; that we can solve it, and here is the diverse group of the people that think so. However, in a world of online social networks and inclusive media, any communications strategy needs to include people and engage people at a deeper level. Instead of utilizing the old-style (and less creative) forms of communication like print advertising and TV ads, the "We" campaign could take a lesson from the Obama campaign playbook and include people in a way that inspires them to take part in the change we are all trying to create. Alex Steffen, in fact, has a great post about this! Check out: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008231.html Posted by: Lindsey Franklin at August 3, 2008 10:15 PM

Post a comment