The trouble starts looking at the website, which opens with: "The US economy runs on fossil fuels. They provide 86 percent of our energy, with renewable fuels and nuclear making up the rest. That mix will surely change, but how? We don't know and neither do our elected officials. The right approach allows the market to change the mix as new technologies alter the relative costs of different sources. Let consumers choose to power their lives with the resources they like best." We're not sure what it means to "let consumers choose to power their lives with resources they like best." It sounds a little like the deregulation line we used to get from Enron. Consumers can't just go to the power store to buy "the resources they like best." They have to influence their utilities through legislative and administrative advocacy to put policies in place that move our energy system toward a cleaner, more sustainable mix of resources. Kind of like CUB does. To advocate for anything else demonstrates a basic (and perhaps willful) misunderstanding of how the electricity system works.

A little farther down on the website, a boldly-fonted question "Why do radical environmentalists oppose these clean sources of energy for Oregon?" stands out over a list of various energy sources, such as wind, natural gas, wave, nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal and biomass (although the biomass section is still undeveloped). We were surprised by that question about "radical environmentalists" because in our experience as a consumer group working with environmental groups, many - if not most - are strongly in favor of clean and renewable energy resources. In fact, we worked with many environmental organizations to pass the Oregon Renewable Energy Act in 2007, which created Oregon's Renewable Energy Standard, requiring that 25% of the state's energy come from renewable resources by 2025.

Upon reading each section on energy sources, FreedomWorks uses a compare-and-contrast approach saying "on the one hand," some "reasonable" environmental group says generally supportive things about a particular energy source, while "on the other hand," other "radical" or "fringe" environmental groups raise some sort of concern, usually about a specific project or specific aspect of an issue. Here's where we start to have real concerns.

First, several of the groups named as "radical" or "fringe" are anything but. For instance, under the Wind Power section, the NW Energy Coalition (NWEC) is cited as being an anti-wind group because of very specific concerns raised in 2001 about the development of the Stateline Wind Project, concerns that were addressed, and today the project is operating with NWEC's full support. Here is NWEC's position on wind energy from their website: "Wind power is the fastest growing new energy source in the world. Widespread use of wind and other renewable power sources will bring costs down, making clean energy even more attractive than fossil fuels." Does that sound like the statement of a radical, anti-wind energy fringe group? Not to us either. But look over their website and decide for yourself (also note NWEC's membership, which includes a little ol' organization called CUB, and quite a few private and public utilities from around the region). The same tactic is repeated over and over in each of the sections where a group that is clearly on the record as being supportive of clean energy is criticized for being against it.

Second, FreedomWorks' "one-hand-other-hand" comparisons leave out important facts. As an example, in the "Natural Gas" section, they laud the Sierra Club "on the one hand" for being "in favor of natural gas." And they spend the rest of the time "on the other hand" castigating groups who are opposed to liquified natural gas, or LNG. Trouble is, Sierra Club is opposed to LNG as well. Their spin doesn't hold together in an honest way.

Third, throughout each of their energy sections, FreedomWorks favorably highlights positive statements or works by well-known environmental organizations: Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Environmental Defense. However, exploring the links where you can "learn more about energy and the environment" on their website highlights only free-market, right-wing organizations, one of which (the Capitol Research Center and its GreenWatch program) details a "Gang Green" list of the "worst environmental organizations." Who is on that list? Sierra Club, Greenpeace and the Environmental Defense Fund. Hmm. Seems like the "one hand" doesn't know what "the other hand" is doing.

There's a Call to Action section where site visitors are invited to "sign the petition to the state legislature" to "help support the development of clean and affordable sources of energy for Oregon." Good call ... but about a decade into the fight. That's what CUB and our allies have been doing pretty much full-time since at least 1999. And, really, even before that.

Just last year, CUB worked with a broad array of public entities, businesses, faith groups and environmental organizations to accomplish the following: increase investments in energy efficiency (something notably absent from FreedomWorks' website); implement incentives and requirements for solar energy; increase tax credits for renewable energy installations and manufacturing; and achieve the "25 by 25" renewable energy standard mentioned earlier. You'd think that FreedomWorks would be all over that, right?

Well, not only were they MIA last year in the legislature on these issues, they are actually on the record as opposing a national renewable energy standard as recently as a year ago. An examination of FreedomWorks' website and its energy issues section shows a general support for more drilling, more fossil fuels and not much else.

Developing a cleaner, safer, more affordable energy system is not a liberal issue and it's not a conservative issue. If FreedomWorks wants to have a substantive discussion on creating clean energy technologies, they're welcome. But they'll find the discussion slow-going if all they're really trying to do is throw stones instead of finding solutions, and defending fossil fuels rather than finding alternatives. And they are currently spending a lot of money doing just that. Maybe they need to tell us who is funding their ad campaign and we can better understand their goals and motives.

Until then, we'll just keep working for real clean energy achievements, and they can catch up later.