Was it just me or did President Obama sound unprepared for a question on climate change at his press conference on Wednesday? Considering climate change is a top national issue, I was expecting a much stronger response from the President. Here’s a breakdown of the three things he flubbed and my perspective on how to tune up the President’s message on the issue.

1. “We can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change.” – The President’s opening line was a major missed opportunity. While technically true, it’s politically tone deaf. 

   What we should have heard: “Hurricane Sandy showed the nation what the real cost of extreme weather can be. Scientists agree that with climate change we can expect a rise in the number and severity of these kinds of events.”
    

2. “I am a firm believer that climate change is real” – This sentence commits two classic communications errors that play right into the hands of climate deniers. First, the sentence establishes the idea that belief in climate change is a personal choice. Second, making the assertion that climate change is “real” suggests that the opposite is also a possibility. Think about it. Would you assert your belief that gravity is real? Of course not.

   A better approach reminds listeners that climate change is no longer in question: “The evidence is clear and an overwhelming majority of scientists agree that our planet’s climate is changing, it’s caused by an increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, and that increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels.”
    

3. “I think the American people right now have been so focused…on our economy and jobs and growth that…if the message is somehow we’re going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don’t think anybody’s going to go for that.” – The President again commits the mistake of accepting the opposition’s framework that the cost of addressing climate change is bad for the economy and jobs.

   As today’s industrial outlook report showed, the cost of extreme weather is a risk to our economy with Hurricane Sandy reducing our performance by almost 1%. And as the recent National Solar Jobs Census shows, solar industry jobs have grown 13% over the last year to employ 119,000 Americans.

   Here’s what the president should have said , “Hurricane Sandy has shown us just how costly climate change can be. Failing to take action on climate change exposes our economy and jobs to unacceptable risk. We have an obligation to protect our children’s future by taking concrete steps now to address it. Furthermore putting the right policies in place will position our nation’s industries for leadership in clean business and technologies globally.”

Overall, I think the President’s answer reflected an ‘inside the beltway’ assessment of the political landscape. His approach understimates the will of the American people to do something about climate change. The public opinion numbers are clear. Since 2010, the number of Americans who believe in climate change has increased by 13%. And that correlates with the 88% of registered voters who support government action on global warming even it had a negative impact on our economy (Yale & George Mason University).

Mr. President, Americans want leadership on climate change and the political conditions are lining up to support action. Rather than rehashing the debates of the past, it’s time to engage the country in a constructive and aspirational discussion of our responsibility to future generations and to embrace our historic passion for meeting big challenges with American ingenuity.

With President Obama’s victory tonight, the renewable energy industry keeps an important ally in the White House. The win comes at a time when energy is rising in national importance. Given the extent to which the opposition made renewable energy an issue, I think the President’s win gives him a mandate to make clean energy a key part of the agenda for his second term. Now is the time to rally industry around a comprehensive plan to make our nation’s energy supply more secure, clean and affordable.

Over the last four years, our nation’s energy situation has changed for the better in two important ways:

1. Wind and solar have proven they can play a significant role in mainstream energy markets as an affordable source of clean electricity.  That’s thanks in part to President Obama’s leadership on the ARRA stimulus programs that bridged the industry through the global financial crisis.
2. The boom in U.S. shale gas production has fundamentally altered our domestic energy options, edging out coal as the fossil fuel of choice.

These developments open new doors in terms of how we think about our energy future. With abundant and cheap solar, wind, and natural gas we can effectively have it all—a secure and stable mix of domestically-sourced clean energy at no additional cost over the status quo.

But there are pitfalls in our new found abundance as well. If we’re not careful we could end up overly dependent on gas, leaving us exposed to future price shocks. Leadership is required to define our national energy goals and keep the country on the right path.

The attacks during the campaign on solar and renewables–and climate change for that matter–were as fierce and they were well-funded. Despite those attacks, public opinion about renewables proved to be resilient. Solar and wind remain the top two most positively viewed energy sources with bipartisan favorability ratings in excess of 80%. Americans clearly understand the benefit of renewables and I think the President can rightfully claim a mandate to pursue a clean energy agenda.

The solar industry and SEIA stand ready to do our part. We’re continuing to drive out cost, accelerating solar’s transition to competitive markets and reduced dependency on government incentives. What we need in return is a stable policy environment that enables our industry to plan with confidence and ensures the flow of capital to good projects and companies.

Congratulations President Obama on your win today. Here’s to four more years of making renewable energy part of our mainstream energy mix!

Once in a while during election season you see information that cuts through the campaign noise and provides clarity about what voters really want.

After a year of political attacks, you might think the only remaining solar supporters would be left-leaning Democrats. A recent poll released today by Hart Research and SEIA indicates just how wrong that assumption turns out to be.

Here are just a few of what I think are the most important conclusions that reflect the strong bipartisan appeal of solar (infographic here):

• Almost all voters (92%) think it is important for the U.S. to develop and use solar power, including 84% of Republicans.
• Translating that sentiment into policy, 78% of all voters (63% of Republicans) think solar deserves federal government support via tax credits or financial incentives.
• Solar enjoys the highest favorability of any energy source deserving government support, with 64% of all voters ranking solar top of the list.

So what do the numbers tell us? First, the attacks aren’t working. Democrats and Republicans alike recognize the value of solar energy and still overwhelmingly favor government support to help solar gain a foothold.

Second, it suggests a strategy based on bashing solar may shore up the right-base but won’t win moderate votes. In fact, the survey found that swing voters in general were slightly more inclined to view solar favorably than all voters combined.

The most interesting thing about the survey to me was that resposdents gave solar top marks even though the majority still believe solar was “too expensive” (66%) and “not practical” (54%). Just think what those favorability rankings will look like when we get the word out that solar is increasingly affordable and mainstream.

One of the anecdotes I’ve been hearing a lot about in the halls at Solar Power International in Orlando this week came from the opening day CEO Panel addressing Change in an Uncertain Market. The  moderator asked the CEOs whether they thought the solar industry would be better under a Romney or Obama administration. The surprise?  Everyone ran for safety, answering that it wouldn’t matter for them or the industry who wins in November.

As a CEO, I know why no one wanted to answer the question. At the end of the day, CEOs have to hold the interests of their companies and shareholders paramount. That means they have to be prepared to work with whomever is occupying the White House. And there’s no value to politicizing the industry by taking sides if you make enemies in places where you need friends. So when in doubt the safe answer wins.

But there’s a downside of giving a safe answer in a situation where the audience knows there are clear differences. It hurts credibility because it leaves the audience questioning whether the answer is authentic.

Here’s how I would have answered the question had I been on the panel.

First, solar is going to play a part in mainstream energy markets no matter who is in the White House next spring. Ask any energy expert what our future holds and the answer is always some combination of “solar, wind, and gas.” Why? Solar is increasingly cost competitive, the need for renewables is increasingly popular with voters, and once our economy recovers we’re going to need a lot more generation.

But that’s a long ways from saying there’s no impact of one choice over another. There are many ways our nation can reach a clean energy future, but some are longer and harder than others. Reading the Romney and Obama energy plans, you’d be hard pressed not to notice the difference in the roles solar and renewables play. In Romney’s plan, solar and wind are graciously allowed to sit at the table. Whereas for Obama, clean energy is a clear priority. For Romney, wind and solar are nice to haves; for Obama they’re must haves.

This is a big difference. Once we get past all the election cycle hype, both parties essentially agree that our energy future is “all of the above”, “solar, wind, gas”, “energy independence” or somesuch portfolio approach. However, within that formulation is a range of very different outcomes for our country depending on how you decide to focus energy policy. Does ‘all of the above’ mean mostly-gas-with-a-little-green or as-much-renewables-as-possible-supported-by-gas?

The most important thing a President does is set the agenda for our nation by sending a clear signal about legislative priorities. In this case, it’s clear that the candidates put very different emphasis on the components that go into “all of the above.” Under Obama, solar and wind are likely to be a centerpiece of energy policy with strong support. Under Romney, renewables will participate in achieving energy independence but they’re unlikely to be essential.

To anyone who cares about what the next few years look like for renewables, those are important differences. Solar will be a part of our future no matter what the outcome but it’s the “how” and “to what degree” that will matter.

In tonight’s acceptance speech at the RNC, Romney is widely expected to blame the Obama administration for an overzealous attack on coal. Along the way he’ll probably shed a tear or two for the hardship this has imposed on coal country. Smart energy observers won’t buy it and neither should you.

The reality is that what is killing coal right now is low cost natural gas. Coal can’t compete with the abundant shale gas our nation now enjoys. Due to new drilling techniques gas is so cheap that gas-fired electricity is roughly half the cost of coal-fired electricity.

If anything it is the huge increase in drilling and access to public lands that has occured under the Obama administration that is killing coal–not over-regulation.

The irony of this fact is that a key part of Romney’s energy plan is to further relax the rules and expand access to drillers. This would have the effect of reducing gas prices and thereby driving coal usage down even more. So Romney’s energy plan would actually worsen the situation for the very people he claims to be helping.

Whatever you hear tonight, don’t buy the story that regulation is killing coal. It’s not the rules that are killing coal–it’s the economics of abundant natural gas that are doing it. And Romney’s bid to win coal country votes with his energy plan will actually have the exact opposite effect!

The Romney Energy Plan hit my desk last week and I’ve been thinking about it since. The reality is that the plan is a political document, heavy on grand principles and light on specifics. It sets a goal of achieving energy independence by 2020 through tapping our abundant natural resources, giving states more power over permitting and regulation, and opening public lands and offshore regions to to energy development.

The plan is clearly constructed to endear Romney to the oil and gas industry. It notes the now obvious fact that new drilling techniques have enriched the U.S. with accessible fossil resources. The text is salted with “drill, baby drill” crowd pleasers such as removing barriers to drilling on public lands, approving the XL pipeline, and opening offshore regions for more exploration. It’s hard to feign surprise about this stance from a political perspective. These positions enable Romney to appeal to the right wing of the Republican party and simultaneously open the wallets of a deep-pocketed lobby.

But in an election year that has seen heavy politicization of energy issues, I was anticipating more of an outright attack on renewables. With their need to energize the right (and considering some of both Romney’s and Ryan’s previous statements), I expected something that looked like the campaign outsourced the energy plan to Haliburton. But it doesn’t read that way.

There are a few links to media stories about solar under the “Did You Know?” sections following each policy principle statement. But none of the links are to the typical screeds against solar. And there is no mention of renewables being ‘imaginary’ as Romney seemed to believe several weeks ago while on the stump.

Instead there are a handful of links to media stories about the challenges of permitting solar that support Romney’s case that the energy industry is overregulated. A couple links note that solar and wind power are now competitive in some markets (perhaps to question why solar and wind need support?). And perhaps most surprising, there are only two passing mentions of Solyndra in the entire document.  

Something I found interesting was how at key turns, where the plan could have focused only on the needs of oil and gas, the plan is careful to be inclusive of wind and solar. It’s odd because it undermines Romney’s differentiation from Obama who has staked out a “all of the above” position on energy. Here are a couple of examples from Romney’s plan:

• As part of “empowering states” (p.8), the plan says, “from oil and gas and coal to wind and solar and biofuels, states are far better able to develop, adopt, and enforce regulations based on their unique resources, geology, and local concerns.”
• Under the theme of “fair and transparent permitting” (p.16) the play claims “Overregulation, permitting delays, endless reviews, and senseless litigation interfere with all forms of energy production, from oil and gas drilling to nuclear and coal power generation to the construction of wind farms and solar plants.”
• With a nod to “leveling the playing field” (p.19) the plan advocates, “The same policies that will open access to land for oil, gas, and coal development can also open access for the construction of wind, solar, and hydropower facilities.”

A similar writing technique is evident in the pains the document goes to use generic terms such as “energy”, “natural resources”, and “industry” that can be read to refer to both fossil and renewable energy. In that sense, the plan can be interpreted as a kind of cipher that can mean different things to different audiences–the hallmark of a well-crafted political message.

One might conclude that Romney’s advisors are trying to avoid running afoul of the political reality that a large number of voters favor renewable policies. Or perhaps it reflects their experience in a swing-state like Iowa where Romney’s strong anti-wind production tax credit stance has become a liability with thousands of Iowans who work in the wind industry. Does reading between the lines reveals an aknowledgment by the campaign that an anti-renewable stance hurts Romney with moderate voters?

The skeptics will say I’m being too generous. The document is a clear ‘wink and a nod’ to the oil and gas industry and I’m grasping at a few morsels in the plan that seem renewable-friendly. 

So let me be clear. It would be a mistake to read the plan naively and conclude Romney supports renewable energy. The plan is a political document that commits a Romney administration to almost nothing concrete and preserves an awful lot of flexibility to construct policy after the election. It hits the hot buttons of the oil and gas industry while avoiding head on conflict with the majority of Americans who believe in renewables.

Romney’s inclusiveness of solar and wind are welcome surprises. However, it’s clear the campaign does not believe that climate change is an important issue (never mentioned). Nor does it make a case for why (and how easily) our nation could achieve a clean energy future (in addition to an independent energy future). Both of these principles are critically important if you believe in a strong case for renewable energy policy.

Bottom line: No one reading the plan should come away believing that a Romney administration would provide the kind of support for renewables that the Obama adminstration has. At best, it’s interesting to note that while doing the politically necessary things, Romney has left the door open to renewables in his energy policy should he win the trust of the American public.

I sat through the entire Chris Christie keynote at the RNC opener hoping he would talk about wind and solar. Boy was I disappointed! Oh well, at least we have YouTube to remind us how his support for renewables has been key to NJ job creation and economic growth.