New York Times on Break Through
November 13, 2007 |
The New York Times' Andy Revkin did a full package today on the New Environmental Centrists, of whom Ted and I are two. Click here for the print article.
This is introductory the New York Times TV segment on the New Environmental Centrists.
And click this is my interview with him.
Comments
Jesse, in fact that's the point I'm trying to make. I for one would like to see the the bloated historic subsidies for the incumbent fossil fuel industries light a little more fire in the public's demand for clean energy. I know that it won't eliminate the concern over potential costs, but we have other options to do that, as you mention. But it wouldn't hurt to add a little outrage into the public demand for clean energy. I heard somewhere that the best defense is a good offense. Seems to me like we need to play a little more offense here.
By Juliana on 2009 04 02
Juliana, you have a point in that one way to advocate clean energy investments is to point to the large historic - and even ongoing - subsidies enjoyed by well-entrenched dirty energy competitors and now embedded in their costs. It's not really about helping people be ok with their rates going up though. There's little you can do, especially during a recession, to make them ok with that, and all polling evidence we've seen shows that the best approach is to limit the up-front impact as much as possible and reinvest their money in something they actually want to see - e.g. green jobs, clean energy technologies and industries, greater energy independence, lower gas prices, etc. - rather than just give them their money back. Canada has tried that model and it doesn't go over well at all. When we talk about the subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry, it's far more about helping policymakers and pundits get over their market fundamentalist, knee-jerk reaction to "picking winners" in the clean energy sector. In the energy industry, we've always picked winners. And in an industry so fundamental to our economic and national security, with clean energy so clearly in demand, why NOT do what we need to to ensure a clean energy economy?
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 04 02
It's true that removing subsidies from fossil fuels won't change the current situation, but it is one glaring example of the role that government has played continuing their dominance. I brought this up largely to emphasize the fact that billions of dollars of taxpayer money has been spent in those subsidies, which is useful as we look to communicate to the public why energy prices are expected to go up under a cap and reduction plan. There are ways to protect individual consumers from rate-hikes from the fossil energy companies under a cap system. I know this would be hugely unpopular with the industries and the politicians they buy, but there are options for keeping the increase in cost from severely impacting consumers in the near term.
By Juliana on 2009 04 01
Hi Juliana, thanks for weighing in. I'm not sure that if we removed all subsidies for fossil fuels overnight that it would change much. Fossil fuels are, in the words of Marty Hoffert, an affirmative action program for humans. Clean energy just doesn't compare in terms of the energy density, low cost, and widespread availability of coal, oil and gas.
By Michael Shellenberger on 2009 04 01
One thing to remember is that fossil fuels are incumbent energy sources, thanks to Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) for the phrase. This means that fossil fuels have a pre-existing advantage over renewable sources because of the billions of dollars in subsidies provided to the fossil fuel industries for over a century. Given this unequal playing field, it's no surprise that the Senate is talking about energy prices going up. We have been spending taxpayer money keeping the cost of fossil energy low for decades. Unfortunately because the money for the subsidies comes from the federal budget and not from consumers wallets each month, the public hasn't seen their billions of dollars going to fossil industries with record breaking profits.
By Juliana on 2009 04 01
The bank bailout is seen as a raft of bad credit personal loans from the government to troubled financial institutions. There is a growing number of people that believe that a condition of the bad credit personal loans from President Obama to the troubled companies should be that the large banks that have absorbed toxic assets accept a period of nationalization. Nationalized banking has been tried before in the U.S., but it never lasts and it usually doesn't work too well. Freedom of choice is what America is all about. One would just worry that if it were to happen, banks would dominate all aspects of credit, and then there would be no choice where to get cash advance if we needed them. To read more check out this articles at http://personalmoneystore.com/Cash-Advance/
By Jamarion P on 2009 03 02
The green energy movement is going to bring a whole new way of life and industry to not only America, but to the world. As you say, immense possibility and hope - and the realm of technological discovery and innovation is what the USA is all about. Granted, there have been a lot of things that we've invented that have done irrevocable damage, but there's things that have brought wonderful change. (The computer, internet, etc.) A green revolution where we can have transportation independent of fossil fuels, materials devoid of metals that require dangerous levels of CO2 and other hazardous waste, and energy that if it burns any fuel at all, it's extremely limited - and we can do it. Hopefully, the green jobs that Obama's been talking up are going to be a reality instead of a pipe dream clogged by the oil and coal lobbies.
By JCollins on 2009 02 13
The fund they got was got by Wells Fargo was part of the TARP program. CEO John Stumpf, taken to task in the press, has stated that the functions aren't a big deal; they're for regular hardworking employees
By Payday Loan on 2009 02 10
America is also known because of using highly innovative technology, thus, I agree that technology is also part of Obama
By Jocelyn T on 2009 02 10
Dear Bloggers:
The answer to OPEC is the electric vehicles at http://www.energynews.gr
What we need is an International Public Prosecutor Intervention.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Basil Dimitropoulos
Electrical Engineer
104 - 106 Kremou Street, Kallithea, Athens 176-76 GREECE
TEL: +30-210-9590530
By Basil Dimitropoulos on 2008 12 09
After winning the Election of course we are curious about President Obama
By Lisa P on 2008 11 21
For a fascinating look into the coming energy revolution and potential for a bubble in energy technology, we recommend Robert Bell's book "The Green Bubble": http://www.abbeville.com/bookpage.asp?isbn=9780789209559
Thanks!
By Abbeville on 2008 11 13
Dan (and Dan, are you the same person?), thanks for your comments. It is indeed gratifying to see our President-elect advocating for clean energy investments as his Number One priority and doing so in a way that breaks out of narrow environmental arguments to embrace the full potential of a new energy economy to transform our nation. While I also agree that regulation and investment/innovation both have a role to play in renewable energy policy, it has taken no small amount of effort to expand beyond the notion that cap and trade and carbon pricing alone will do the trick. It seems that the economic crisis and the emergence of a pragmatic and persuasive presidential candidate were indeed the perfect storm that broke through the old paradigm and opened up a new set of solutions to our interlinking climate, energy and economic crises.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2008 11 11
After reading the Break Through I was excited with the clarity of thought and how spot on these guys are. Finally I could taste it, not this someday 10-15 years from now stuff, but NOW. Come to think of it I have been waiting 10-15 years for this time.
Timing... perhaps a perfect storm? Make no small plans. Thanks for being a beacon, keep up the great work!
By Dan on 2008 11 08
Congratulations to everyone at Breakthrough. This organization has been pivotal at changing the narrative on climate change-- making it winnable for progressives. While I ultimately believe that regulation and innovation will both play parts in renewable energy policy, Breakthrough has indeed changed the way Democrats can win debates on economics, energy, and global warming.
By Dan on 2008 11 07
David, Thanks for your criticism.
As I said above, I am not suggesting there's no place for nano-practices, as Adam Werbach calls them. There is. What troubles me is the perception that they are a substitute for large-scale action by governments.
By Michael Shellenberger on 2008 04 25
Your expressions of contempt for the Earth Day 2008 "feel good" buzz and propaganda are in some ways valid. But your opinions also display an arrogant tendency to diminish the hopes, dreams, and actions of people who are trying to do something, anything, in the face of this huge and looming threat. Yes, "magazines and newspapers like Time, Mother Jones, and the New York Times Magazine are filled with the [traditional Earth Day] dual message" that is naive and incomplete. But you don't seem to realize that these naive interests are your best allies. Your job, it seems to me, would be to appeal to, convince, and guide these naive greens to support massive energy investments that aren't rife with lies like Bush's support for hydrogen or food shortage causing corn ethanol subsidies, etc. Using expressions like "green bubble," "We will cast our eyes over our abandoned backyard gardens and chuckle softly to ourselves about how we once thought they were the solution to skyrocketing emissions in China," "Earth Day 2008 [is] vapid and annoying" and "the dark side of the green bubble" is absolutely insulting to those who would be most likely to support your initiatives. "Micro-practices" are cries of the powerless in our current socio-political and economic atmosphere. They have been the only actions possible, forced on us by a hopelessly ignorant political atmosphere for over 37 years now. "Micro-practices" may also be more essential parts of the solution than you think.
The food crisis that is happening now has been foreseeable for some time and is unfortunately being kicked off by enviro-energy demand pressures and misguided global agricultural policy decisions. Micro-practices didn't cause the problem nor are they in any way a means to ignoring it as you so emphatically and arrogantly proclaim.
Perhaps you could ease off on the insulting rhetoric and make your valid practical points without attaching the misguided and blame filled venom.
By David Pratt on 2008 04 24
Thanks David for your kind words -- and your criticism.
I'm not suggesting that micro-practices are bad. Just that they sometimes -- as in, say, the New York Times Magazine last Sunday -- they are presented as a substitute for government action in general, and investments in energy in particular. Hence this line: "My view is that the personal practices only matter ecologically to the extent that they help build a political movement capable of winning massive government investment in creating and deploying new energy technologies."
By Michael Shellenberger on 2008 04 23
In general, I tend to think that you are on to some very key insights at the Breakthrough Institute: I've recommended your site, your book, and your Harvard Law and Policy Review piece to many people. However, I find the mockery of Earth Day and the statement that "micro-practices like taking shorter showers, eating less meat, and installing better light bulbs are ecologically irrelevant in the context of our energy-intensive built-environment" to be exceedingly wrong-headed. I don't see, and I'm sure that many people who are not overly familiar with the internal debates of the environmental community, how Earth Day, personal practices and choices, new politics, and investments in clean energy could possibly be at odds? You are really getting into the kind of either/or mentality that you criticize so powerfully in your book. Personal practices do matter, and they are actions we can actually take. Consumption choices do matter, along all manner of dimensions. Instead of deriding some sort of "green bubble" (I'm not sure even what you mean here: some sort of cultural environmentalism? Or are you talking about Silicon Valley VCs' interest in energy?) why don't you focus on forming a more constructive way to build on the positive momentum of attention to the environment in the media, of Earth Day, of Al Gore's activities, and of personal practices to direct people to political action and the need for New Apollo scale public investments in clean energy development?
If those who care about the environment and global warming can't get past this kind of unproductive, inward looking, either/or perspective, we're not going to make it. The attitude expressed in your post will turn people off, confuse people, and drive them away instead of drawing them in.
By David C. Brock on 2008 04 22