Big thanks to Jason Grumet for asking the question that everyone in the environmental movement should be asking themselves: “Are we trying to achieve our climate and security goals in theory or in practice?” Speaking for myself and not my company, I don't always agree with Jason. But his approach - that we need to remove the barriers to deploy clean tech fast so we can mitigate the worst of the #climatecrisis - is dead on. And I will ask any of the environmental leaders who are critical of Grumet and his approach: what have you done to tangibly reduce emissions? Because maintaining bureaucratic roadblocks that slow the deployment of #cleanenergy & enable NIMBY lawsuits makes you part of the problem - not the solution. On this point, Jason is predictably controversial but speaks to a larger truth: “I think it’s fair to consider the National Environmental Policy Act a fossil fuel subsidy... the longer we take, the longer we're taking to actually enable the transition." #energytransition
The crisis of fossil fuels is that the fossil fuel industry operates with a mix of legal and illegal strategies, so any negotiation never has solid ground beneath them. Compromising with the fossil fuel industry is a normal, sane, expected thing to do. But that isn’t what’s happening. The fossil fuel industry is already doing the only thing they are interested in doing: drilling for oil. Everything else, absolutely everything else, is outsourced to PR giants, including carbon capture and methane emissions. Grumet is partnering with Edelman and McKinsey PR campaigns, not the fossil fuels industry. Our only hope are criminal investigations led by State and DOJ. Our only hope. The state-based lawsuits from U.S. attorney generals against fossil fuel companies for what they knew or didn’t know about climate change will waste a decade and accomplish nothing. Ditto congressional hearings. We need due diligence and we need it now.
Could not agree with this more. From a Northeast perspective, there is just no realistic means of meeting state statutory climate requirements while constraining 1/2 to 2/3rds of the economic potential of clean resources. It's utter fantasy.
agree 100%
Senior Policy Analyst—Clean Energy Associates
9moFor those who are angry with Grumet - is it because he exposes how pathetically a movement dominated by 1970s thinking has responded to the new needs of the climate crisis?