Via Tom Friedman’s New York Times column, here’s a draft memo from the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board on Energy, the Environment and Technology:
We have already described the importance of the environmental impact of climate policy. It has an important competitive impact as well. If the U.S. fails to adopt an economy-wide carbon abatement program, we will continue to cede leadership in energy technology to other nations. The U.S. is now home to only two of the ten largest solar Photo-Voltaic producers in the world, two of the top ten wind turbine producers and one of the top ten advanced battery manufacturers. That is, only one-sixth of the top renewable energy manufacturers are based in the United States. To lose our advantage in technologies that were pioneered in the U.S. may cost us dearly if not reversed.
Sustainable technologies in solar, wind, electric vehicles, nuclear and other innovations will, in the view of many on our board, drive the future global economy. We can either invest in policies to build U.S. leadership in these new industries and jobs today, or we can continue with business as usual and buy windmills from Europe, batteries from Japan and solar panels from Asia.
The new green economy could be transformational for our country. Compare it to the internet. Fifteen years ago there was no web browser. There was no internet at your fingertips, no ecommerce, no search engines. Now, the internet has transformed our lives: how we learn and inform, how we entertain and communicate, how we buy and sell goods. Today, the internet economy is estimated at $1 trillion with 1.5 billion internet users worldwide—and growing.
The new green economy has greater potential. Energy is a large and growing global market with 4 billion users of electricity—and usage doubling in 25 years. It is perhaps the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century. With the right policies driving innovation and investment, America can retake the lead in energy technology and create millions of new green jobs and industries, preserve millions of indirect jobs and repower our economy.
Unfortunately, that’s a lot harder to chant than “drill, baby, drill,” and it won’t fit on a bumper sticker.
In recent years China has been moving ahead of us in green technology. James Fallows has written some articles for The Atlantic on this; see especially “China’s Silver Lining” from the June 2008 issue. Yes, China has been a horrific polluter. But in his column Friedman quotes Hal Harvey, the chief executive of ClimateWorks:
“They want to be leaders in green technology. China has already adopted the most aggressive energy efficiency program in the world. It is committed to reducing the energy intensity of its economy — energy used per dollar of goods produced — by 20 percent in five years. They are doing this by implementing fuel efficiency standards for cars that far exceed our own and by going after their top thousand industries with very aggressive efficiency targets. And they have the most aggressive renewable energy deployment in the world, for wind, solar and nuclear, and are already beating their targets.â€
Although Friedman is not clear in exactly what we are lagging behind, we are apparently lagging behind Japan, Europe, and China (in that order) in something related to new energy technology.
Why is it so hard for us to commit to even keeping up with green technology? Oh, yes. We have to fight the Right about it.
Remember when that great meathead Reagan — excuse me, Saint Ronald of Blessed Memory — ripped the solar panels off the White House? That signaled to the Right that to be pro-environment is to be a wuss, and possibly a liberal-socialist wuss. I might argue that this works for manufacturers too, but … what manufacturers? Do we still have any?
Anyway, I think 99 percent of the Right’s pathological refusal to back anything with the prefixes “enviro-” or “eco-” attached to them dates to that. Their lips would curl up and fall off their faces if they had to admit maybe, about something, Jimmy Carter was right and Reagan was wrong. They’ll pawn the whole bleeping country to China first.
Florida Atlantic University has been doing research regarding generating electricity from the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream runs 24/7/365.
Models show Gulf Stream turbines could supply over 60% of Florida’s energy needs.
The reason stated for lack of project funding is “lack of interest”.
Here’s the kicker, its all about profit. The construction/engineering giants like Bechtel get the design/ build work on the nuke plants, The big oil boys from Halliburton/ Brown and Root/ McDermott international get the off shore stuff.
The “drill baby drill “chant is too stupid for words. Before any drilling starts there are many other steps. Pipelines, terminals, staging areas, etc. The time frame is about a decade, and there is no guarantee that the work on the fabrication and staffing of the oil rigs wont go to foreign nationals, as I saw happen off Santa Barbara Ca. in the late 70’s.
I can envision a Florida where giant semi-submersible platforms fitted with solar panels, wind turbines, and ocean current generators comprise an energy “farm”
along the East coast, and bio fuel crops such as Jatropha Curcas, Sweet Sorghum, and algae/fungal culture take the place of our declining citrus and cattle production.
Sadly, the wheels of state and county govt. turn slowly, and memory is far too short.The other problem is that potential investors want fast return on their dollars.
A bio diesel crop that I grow takes 3 years from planting to the 1st harvest, and the projections have no working model, so its a crap shoot.
The only hope for bio fuel in Florida will be the dreaded involvement of government, carbon credits and tax incentives.
The other part of the picture is local sustainable agriculture / aquaculture.
Locally produced food dose not need to be shipped lng distance, reducing the production carbon foot print. Another reason why we should all make an effort to grow at least a part of what we eat. We eat a lot of fish in our house. Checking the country of origin on the frozen fish packaging
, I’ve found that a lot of fish in our local grocery comes from China, Taiwan, South East Asia, and Honduras. One wonders about the cesspools used for aquaculture in those locals.
erinyes — yes, and everything you say points to one of the many built-in weaknesses of “free market” capitalism. Only a government would make the kinds of long-term investments needed to set up a system that would tap Gulf Stream energy. A for-profit corporation would go broke before the system went “online.”
One of the arguments for “free market” capitalism is that it allows for innovation, but this reveals that the innovations must be of a small and incremental nature. The ideal is for private and public interests to work together for their mutual benefit, but that’s “socialism” to a wingnut.
One wonders about the cesspools used for aquaculture in those locals.
Why I won’t eat sushi.
I’ve been working on land use planning for a Midwestern city. Although there is awareness of the need to “go green” there is no will to do so. Leadership is divided and economic libertarians are taken very seriously here about. As a result nothing much will happen by will or through planning. It reminds me of one of Kenneth Patchen’s lines, “Some hope that an angel of the Lord will come down and clean up our mess, If he does, he’s liable to rub our bloody snouts in it.”
A reader — yeah, I can remember years ago trying to argue with some libertarians that planning and zoning laws were not necessarily evil. They couldn’t get past “the government” telling people what to do with their own property. I tried to get them to imagine putting their life savings into a home in a nice neighborhood, to find that your next-door neighbor is doing something with his property that affects the value and enjoyment of your home, like running an abattoir or burning rubber tires day and night.
To a Randbot, they defended the neighbor.
This is going to sound wierd, but bear with me a moment. Think about the role of opening up the buying and selling of stock and other financial instruments to persons who are not licensed brokers in this picture. Wierd? Not really. It’s once removed, but it’s there and it’s massive.
When the stock market was closed to the public, stock purchases were made for business reasons that, for the most part, made sense. Value of capital, capital to debt ratios, long term earnings potential, etc. The issues upon which stock was traded did not change dramatically from day to day, and brokers understood why a corporation might take a loss in one quarter as a mov toward greater long term profitability.
Enter the little old lady with a 401k who works as a typist at Kroger’s home office and owns 15 shares of Mobil Oil. She sees in the news that there was a disturbance in Iran and the news anchor adds that Iran produces oil. She has no idea what all of that that really means, doesn’t know if Mobil has any presence in Iran or not (it doesn’t), but it sounds bad, and she freaks. She runs to her computer, logs in to her online account and sells her Mobil stock.
Consequently we have this incredibly volatile stock market and the foocus on immediate profits. Corporate management is forced to make ever higher and higher immediate profit to maintain the stock value because the people who are buying/selling their stock no longer look at anything about his company other than that immediate profit for their buying and selling decisions. Yes, some of it is greed, but we’re blaming all of it on greed and none of it on the people who are driving the stock market with stupidly emotional buying and selling.
China is using our money to build their ‘green’ economy focusing on EXPORT driven development. China is performing long term economic warfare against the US and is winning; but not to worry, Wall Street will make plenty of money in the short term. Bill H’s egregiously misleading analogy to little old ladies trading in their 401K’s as being the market drivers notwithstanding. Bill do you really think all those managers make decisions based on short term gains solely to keep stock prices up in the short term for little old ladies? (Perhaps you should look up ENRON, once #8 on the Fortune 500. In addition you could do some research on capital gains tax rates and stock ownership percentages. Ever hear of ‘institutional investors’ or hedge funds?)
Tidewater energy generation ideas have been floated for years. If they were economically viable they would be in operation already. If WE as a people are serious on being green we will force our government to change its tax incentives to drive investment. It is a very complex issue which sloganeering won’t solve. Some politicians are even buying companies with taxpayer money – damned socialists http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1817390,00.html
Oh my Charle Christ is a Republican, what will Rush ever do…..
It was in Saint Ronnie’s day that environmentalist’s began to be called “watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside”.
How about “US energy independence now” for a bumper sticker? Clean energy, bright future. I’m sure there are many better bumper sticker slogans that can beat Drill, Baby Drill, although maybe not with quite the sexual connotations that made that one such a success with the wingnuts.
If they were economically viable they would be in operation already.
Not necessarily the issue. It sometimes happens there are things we really, really need that are not “economically viable.” Emergency rooms come to mind. Indeed, energy infrastructure generally is not “economically viable” because you don’t make a profit from the infrastructure. And that’s why ours is falling apart.
If WE as a people are serious on being green we will force our government to change its tax incentives to drive investment. It is a very complex issue which sloganeering won’t solve.
Slogans like “government should use tax incentives to drive investment”? I think I’ve heard that one. It’s not enough, and anyway, it’s money taken out of taxes one way or another. Forget tax incentives, decide what needs to be done, and contract private companies to do it. Period.
And let’s not forget the tremendous opportunity cost completely squandered when the Supreme Court gave GWB the presidency in 2000. Instead of $3 Trillion, hundreds of thousands of lives, our national reputation, and ten years pissed away in the sands of the Middle East to keep the old energy economy going, we could have had Al Gore promoting everything green.
Just as GM and Ford and Chrysler lost their edge to the Japanese and will never get it back, I fear that all these well intentioned policies by the new administration will prove themselves to be too late. Especially given the knuckle draggers.
Removing energy from the Gulf Stream could be a problem – what happens to climate if the gulf stream is slower or cooler? What happens to Atlantic fisheries?
wmd — if you were a fish, would you rather deal with windmills or oil spills?
Also, one of the purposes of switching to “green” technologies is to slow down the rate of climate change.
Bill H – you’re right, immediate profit is what it’s all about. Research and development, once common in American industry, takes too long to turn a profit. The GM guy said it all recently, “We make cars to make loans.”
Along that line, I recently read that for decades America’s large corporations (the real economy) have been buying new and innovative technology, not to put it to use but to bury it – I repeat, to bury it. Build a better car? Not if Detroit can help it which absolutely flies in the face of the absolute fact that economic health is measured by growth, growth comes by making things that consumers want to buy and they want to buy the ‘new.’ (Recession, afterall, is negative growth and we’re certainly familiar with that phenomenon by now.)
Fred makes some valid points, but here’s the real deal….
The current wars are , MAKE NO MISTAKE , energy wars.
We are spending TRILLIONS. The profit makers are again, Halliburton, Bechtel, Weapons manufacturers; and shortly the big oil companies and the bankers, when Iraq and Afghanistan have been pacified and ready for western business.
This model is unsustainable, and will lead to the collapse of the American economy. Say “good Bye” to our plum position. Enter the dragon.
If we focused our energy on sustainable green energy and sustainable green agriculture, getting less involved in other countries problems, and cutting the bloated military/ industrial complex, we could move our country and all humanity in the right direction.
Something to ponder :How many people do you know who have died from cancer?
How many do you know who have died at the hands of “the terrorists”?
The cancer problem seems to be due mostly to the environment; stress, crap in our food, water, and air. Contamination from asbestos, PCB’s, pesticides we grew up around ( remember the Shell “no pest strip”, kills everything within a 10 ft radius ?)
Actually, Fred, Charlie Christ falls somewhere between left and right (in modern terms). Charlie is really blowing it with his game of chicken with State Farm insurance. One more severe hurricane season in Florida, and Citizens is bankrupt, the new guys on the block crumble, and FEMA has a big problem
And Maha, you are so right about the climate change issue, and windmills vs oil spills.
Maha,
I live in one of the few, un-zoned areas left in Colorado, nay, the United States. The people are vehement about no building codes, mostly because it’s seen as a way to line government officials’ pockets.
We have specific development (for businesses only, not private) instead, where you go to the county and tell them what you plan and then they tell you if it’s ok on a case by case basis. Certainly onerous. Then you go ahead and do whatever you want to do anyway with your land. Then they send you cease and desist/corrective letters. Then you tell them to shove it where the sun don’t shine. Then they go “What do we do? What’s done is done.” Then you say “Exactly, now go away and leave me alone.”
Then your neighbor takes it into his own hands because he doesn’t like the smell of rubber tires burning and puts a really high wall up, ruining your view. Then you buy big fans and direct all smells over the wall. Then he randomly shoots at your barn or drives a tractor into your greenhouse (“Sorry officer, I thought it was my greenhouse”). Then you meet outside of Woodie’s Tavern with a few friends and beat the cr** out of him so that he is permanently disabled. The police say “Hmm, obviously self-defense”.
Hey, it’s the American way.
maha, my point isn’t windmill vs oil spills. I question whether taking energy out of the Gulf Stream in the Carribean might have larger consequences. The gulf stream is a significant factor in the climate of the northern hemisphere. What happens if our harvesting energy causes the ocean temperature to be a couple of degrees cooler when it reaches the outer banks? Small changes in one variable can cause large changes elsewhere and it is pollyannaish to say that we can harvest this energy without consequence.
Run some simulations, get some empirical data from pilot energy harvesting platforms, refine the models with the empirical data.
Intuitively removing energy from the Gulf to power human activities is appealing. Lower temperatures of Gulf water could mitigate hurricane intensity as a side effect… what are the other side effects – particularly 5,000 km away. Does energy for Florida make efforts to reestablish the Grand Banks fishery impossible? Does it cause lower evaporation in the mid atlantic, leading to less cloud cover and solar warming of Eurasia?
I don’t know the answer. We should do some science before committing to large scale investment in this kind of offshore energy.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/taco_bells_new_green_menu_takes?utm_source=a-section
Enjoy
wmd — I admit I’m not a technical whiz, but I don’t quite understand what you’re saying about taking energy “out” of the Gulf Stream. When we use solar energy, are we taking energy “out” of the sun? Do windmills take energy “out” of the wind?
Solar energy is replenished, but to the extent that sunlight doesn’t warm the ground there is a change in the earth’s response to that energy. The effects aren’t much different from building big asphalt parking lots versus white roofs. Wind turbines take energy out of the wind – there’s a measurable decrease in wind velocity caused by the turbine converting kinetic energy into electricity. The mathematics involved is really interesting, fluid dynamics is a very active research area in applied math. And while the “butterfly effect” posits a small change in local air pressure causing major effects in weather, most climate models give a lot more emphasis on the oceans.
Ocean current turbines slow the current in an analogous fashion to wind turbines. I have concerns as to how that manifests in the larger picture in particular if it cause a tipping point and shut down thermohaline circulation which would be catastrophic. I’ve got similar concerns about how shallow water/deep water heat pumps would change the temperature of the Gulf… the win on emissions and lower hurricane intensity is appealing, but what happens in the grand banks?
We should be looking at these possible energy sources and doing the science. My fear is that the focus is on harvesting the energy and other effects could be ignored.
wmd, I think it’s probably fair to say that there is no free lunch, and any energy solution we come up with will have some hazards attached. And yes, certainly, these hazards will have to be considered, and limits may have to be set. But we absolutely must explore as many alternatives as possible, and, like, yesterday. We’re in emergency mode here. The planet is in danger. When you’re in a burning house, you don’t tell the firemen not to use fire hoses because water might damage the wallpaper.
That’s a fine analogy. I’ll extend it – we want to be sure that the hoses aren’t connected to gasoline pumps.
wmd — since it doesn’t appear we are recklessly charging ahead to create alternative energy sources, I’m not going to stay awake at night worrying about the Gulf Stream. What should worry you is that nothing will be attempted until it’s too late.
Right you are Maha.
I wouldn’t be concerned about depleting the Gulf Stream flow, the column is deep and wide.This would like worrying about sail boats affecting the trade winds Besides, there are many sources of ocean current and tidal current power. The fjords of South East Alaska have enormous tidal flows, so do the areas in the pacific North West. The current under the seven mile bridge in the Florida keys is wicked.
Once upon a time, in this country, railroads ruled. No more. In the 80’s, the cable companies were the secure growth industry. No more. The local phone company has a safe secure monopoly, but a lot of us are discarding ‘wired’ phone service and going entirely cell.
The oil & coal industries KNOW they could be replaced, but they are not going to quit while there is still oil to be pumped and coal to be dug. Wingnut legislators have been bought, and wingnut shock troops are fighting any change in the status quo; that’s the cornerstone of conservative philosophy; preserving the status quo.
Together, the energy industry & the politicians they own are claiming that we can trust the coal & oil industries to run clean and develop alternate sources. That’s like the Nazis claiming they have the best interest of the Jews; they are just misunderstood. This is a war; they have the money; we have the truth.