{"id":14434,"date":"2016-11-28T09:28:09","date_gmt":"2016-11-28T15:28:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/?p=14434"},"modified":"2016-11-28T09:28:30","modified_gmt":"2016-11-28T15:28:30","slug":"the-value-of-pursuing-a-rational-middle-in-polarized-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/energyexchange\/2016\/11\/28\/the-value-of-pursuing-a-rational-middle-in-polarized-times\/","title":{"rendered":"The Value of Pursuing a Rational Middle in Polarized Times"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"rational-middle\"<\/a>At Energy Dialogues\u2019 North American Gas Forum last month, I had the opportunity to participate on a panel moderated by Gregory Kallenberg of the Rational Middle<\/a>. While the panel pre-dated the presidential election, the topic of constructive engagement through rational discourse is now more important than ever.<\/p>\n

We explored how environmental groups, industry, and other stakeholders need to come together to rationally discuss and collaboratively act on the challenges of meeting rising energy demand while addressing real and growing environmental risks.<\/p>\n

The still principally fossil-based energy system, which includes natural gas, is not the only cause of climate change<\/a>, but it is the largest. And so a range of stakeholders, from protesters holding signs, to investors with a long term interest in the future of natural gas, to industry consumers, are looking with increasing criticism at fossil fuels. That was true before the election, and it\u2019s true today. They\u2019re asking: How can we reconcile the environment we want to protect for the future with the traditional energy and feedstock resources we are using now?<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, industry, when pressed with concerns and asked to act, has often come up short. For example, with precious few exceptions, oil and natural gas companies have declined to set quantitative methane reduction targets \u2013 of their own choosing, and for their own product. And they have declined to join their counterparts\u2019 support for a 2 degree limit on temperature rise. Too often, industry has failed to engage with the real concerns of their customers and communities.<\/p>\n

But there\u2019s a better way<\/strong><\/p>\n

As Sarah Sandberg, from the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, said on the panel, \u201cYou\u2019re either at the table or on the menu.\u201d As panelist Michael Crothers from Shell observed, industry must engage directly and responsively with the legitimate climate concerns of the general public. And they\u2019re right.<\/p>\n

At Environmental Defense Fund, we work to create opportunities for diverse stakeholders to come to the table and have the conversations that feed the actions \u2013 whether establishing public policy, catalyzing technology innovation, or making best practice standard practice \u2013 to address environmental challenges and protect our future.<\/p>\n

There have been bright spots of industry leadership, like energy companies joining the table in Colorado to help craft the first methane regulations, or Shell Canada supporting Alberta\u2019s new climate strategy, including a methane goal backed by regulations. Unfortunately, such constructive engagements have been the exception to the rule. All too often, industry\u2019s response to environmental concerns and opportunities has amounted to \u201cJust Say No\u201d.<\/p>\n

A better response? \u201cJust Say How.\u201d For example:<\/p>\n