1. Reduce the federal deficit

2. Promote a clean energy economy

3. Make sure our children are the best educated in the world.

No mention of cap-and-trade, no mention of immigration reform. Pushing health care reform when he had a large majority in both chambers made sense strategically. Pushing education reform and investments in clean energy makes sense now that he doesn’t.

The strategy, according to leading environmentalist Bill McKibben, is to ignore politicians and focus on their constituents. McKibben is also calling on environmentalists to abandon their emphasis on energy independence and to focus instead on the science showing the peril global warming poses.

In an interview with the National Journal today, McKibben, said environmentalists were “outgunned” by industry in their effort to pass climate legislation and predicts that “significant legislation” on climate change won’t pass for two years.

According to McKibben:

And my guess is that if we can build the movement that really highlights the danger that we’re in and the moral urgency of this situation, then maybe we can change the politics. Clearly the numbers don’t add up the way they are now politically. And that’s a good thing to know. The groups inside the Beltway that led this fight — there is a real credit not only for fighting but helping us figure out what the possibilities are and aren’t. Simply trying to repeat the same thing again, I think, would be a big mistake — using the same series of arguments that the real issues are green jobs and energy independence and that the way around it is this sort of complicated trading scheme.

…

I think, for the moment, not worrying constantly about what is going on in Washington may be key. We need to build this movement all over the place as fast we can and as big as we can. And if we do that, Washington will have a way, in a sense, of taking care of itself.

McKibben founded 350.org, an organization that calls for lowering global carbon dioxide levels below 350 parts per million, the number that many scientists say is necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change.

And in dead last? “Dealing with global warming,” with 28 percent, which places global warming below all 20 of the other issues polled.

Even worse news for climate activists is that “dealing with [the] US energy problem” is the issue that suffered the greatest decline from last year, dropping from 60 to 49 percent. (“Dealing with global warming,” despite its two-point drop, was also the lowest-ranking priority in 2009.) Backers of cap-and-trade legislation on the Hill have sought to recast the debate from one centered on climate change — which has never scored many political points — to one focusing on energy independence, thought to be a political winner. But given that a minority of Americans now believe in the urgency of either climate or energy issues, the messaging task ahead for environmental activists is a difficult one indeed.

And it looks as if they won’t get much help from the president. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is specifically asking Obama to “underscore that climate and energy reform is a priority for 2010.” But climate activists fear that it won’t receive so much as a mention in Wednesday’s State of the Union speech.

“You have only one resource in America that will compete head-to-head with oil, and that is natural gas,” he said.

A few minutes later, as Reid distractedly tore up little pieces of paper (either a nervous habit or some sort of cover-up), Pickens reiterated, “If you’re gonna reduce foreign oil, you have only one resource. That’s it. There’s only one resource that you have here that can do that … which is natural gas.”

Pickens has drawn praise from both Democrats and Republicans for his push for cleaner fuels, but his single-minded focus on natural gas at a panel on an entirely different topic led me to question his commitment to greater environmental reform. After the panel, I asked him about it.

Me: You see natural gas as mostly a solution for the trucking fleet, right?
Pickens: Yes.
Me: As for other stuff, do you find your views generally in line with what Sen. Reid is proposing?
Pickens: Yes.
Me: So if you were in the Senate, you would vote for a cap-and-trade bill?
Pickens: No, I’m not saying I’m for cap-and-trade, ’cause I haven’t seen it. I want to see what they have in cap-and-trade. But you gotta watch out, you don’t want to be putting taxes on industry, cause right now it’s a horrible time. … So cap-and-trade, I don’t know what it’s going to do to us.
Dallas Morning News reporter: Do you agree with the need to put a price on carbon?
Pickens: I’m not sure. It makes me nervous as to how you’re gonna get there, and how you’re gonna measure the carbon, for one thing. And what’s gonna happen if you put a carbon tax on utilities, that’s just gonna passed through to consumers. That’s the only way they can do it.
…
Me: Is getting off of coal as big a priority for you as getting off of oil?
Pickens: No, it’s not.
Me: So it’s the national security element that really matters most to you?
Pickens: That’s it. The national security is A1 with me.

Now, I don’t mean for a second to diminish the importance of energy independence to our national security. But in the long run, simply moving us from one fossil fuel to another is not much of a climate solution.

Then again, maybe the long run isn’t on his mind. Said Pickens, “I’m eighty-years-old, so I’ve gotta do this pretty quick.”

–

TWI is on Twitter. Please follow us here.

“This moment of peril must be turned into one of progress,” he pledged. Noting today’s announcements of huge job cuts at Caterpillar, Sprint and Home Depot, he emphasized the need to rebuild the economy with an eye toward sustainability and green jobs.

On energy independence: “Embedded in the American soil, wind and sun … we have the capacity to change. … America will not be held hostage by dwindling resources.”

On fuel efficiency: “We must ensure that the fuel efficient cars of tomorrow are built right here.” He will implement stricter fuel efficiency standards beginning in 2011.

On emissions: Washington will no longer “stand in the way” of the efforts by California and other states to enact stricter emissions standards than those in place nationally.

California has famously applied for an Environmental Protection Agency waiver forcing emission reductions of 30 percent by 2016. But the automakers claim the change would threaten the industry by forcing it to produce two sets of vehicles: one catering to the national standard and another to the stricter standards of California.

Defending the carmakers, the EPA rejected California’s waiver last December.

The EPA denial has only fueled the debate, and more than a dozen other states have signed on to the California proposal. Florida is the latest to move in that direction, after a state panel endorsed the plan just this week. Daniel Becker, who heads the Safe Climate Campaign, said the participating states represent enough of the new car market that the automakers would be forced to make just one set of vehicles complying to California’s stricter standard.

In a Dec. 4 letter to the heads of the Big Three, Florida’s Nelson urges the begging CEOs to quit stonewalling the state waivers:

As I review your proposals for federal financial assistance, I ask you to agree not to oppose Florida’s move to mandate cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. Any effort to lobby against or otherwise derail this bipartisan initiative, led by Governor Charlie Crist, would be adverse to America’s long-term energy independence.

The Big Three executives testified before the House Financial Services Committee, headed by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.). Though Frank supports a Detroit bailout, he echoed Nelson’s concerns today, warning the CEOs today that their opposition to the new emission standards isn’t helping their cause. From The New York Times:

“You’re now suing a lot of states that are represented here,” Mr. Frank said. “That’s a serious obstacle.”

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) was even more forceful, as quoted by The Detroit Free Press:

Sixteen states have adopted or planned to adopt laws to lower greenhouse gas emission standards. My basic question to you is why in the world should my constituents or taxpayers in New York state or any state provide $38 billion in loans to your companies if you will continue to attempt to undo laws that we have adopted in our states?

Wouldn’t that be equivalent to giving you money to sue us?

The CEOs, of course, denied that would be the case. But these guys can compartmentalize money any way they please. Remember when bailed-out Wall Street banks justified the continued payment of shareholder dividends because they said those checks would come from a pot of money separate from the bailout cash?

Right. It’s happening again.