A National Energy Education Act would direct new federal investments to retool our nation's top universities and colleges as centers of research, education and workforce training in clean energy-related fields.
On July 30th, 2008, Teryn Norris and Jesse Jenkins of the Breakthrough Institute proposed a National Energy Education Act in the San Francisco Chronicle and Baltimore Sun (PDF). For more information, see the Breakthrough Institute's 2-page policy brief.
By Genevieve Bennett, Breakthrough Fellow
A new National Energy Education Act (NEEA) would be a comprehensive policy package directing government investment toward training a new generation of Americans in strategic energy-related fields, including engineering, technology, science, mathematics, business, and policy, and supporting their innovative work as they move through the education system and into a career.
NEEA would provide financial aid to students and funding to universities and vocational/technical schools for improving research, education and workforce training in energy-related fields. It would also expand funding for research, development, and demonstration of new clean energy technologies at universities, and support technical and vocational schools in developing and implementing programs to train a new energy workforce.
The Breakthrough Institute has recently released on what a comprehensive new national energy education policy might look like. We thought we'd provide a little background on how just powerful an investment in education can be.
"Ignorance," Thaddeus Stevens once noted, "is more costly than taxes." Wise words - and indicative of a kind of long-term thinking in which we only seem to engage in fits and starts here in the U.S.
Consider that federal financing of loans for higher education and workforce training is a relatively new development. 2008 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the National Defense Education Act, a bill that authorized $6.7 billion (2008 dollars) to improve access to and quality of education in strategic defense-related fields: science, math, engineering, technology, foreign languages, and area studies.
Breakthrough Institute's new National Energy Education Act proposal has drawn attention from coast to coast, securing two op-eds published in The San Francisco Chronicle and Baltimore Sun. Both pieces focus on how America can lead the way in forging a global clean energy economy by investing in education.
coverage by Adam Solomon Zemel, Breakthrough Generation
--------------
Jesse Jenkins and Teryn Norris, co-directors of the Breakthrough Generation program at the Breakthrough Institute, published two op-eds this week in two newspapers on opposite sides of the country -- the Baltimore Sun and the San Francisco Chronicle. Both pieces focus on how America can lead the way in forging a global clean energy economy by investing in education.
In the absence of clean, cheap renewables, ever-rising oil prices are prodding innovation into effect. Here are some examples of recent interesting, astonishing, and innovative ideas that have arisen largely due to higher energy costs.
Here at the Breakthrough Institute, we have held that making clean energy cheaper, rather than "dirty" (i.e. carbon intensive) energy more expensive, is the most effective way to spur the innovation we need to transition our energy dependence to new sources. In the absence of cheaper renewables, however, ever-rising oil prices are already prodding innovation into effect.
Let's acknowledge the uncreative response to higher energy prices and voter turmoil at the outset: yes, drilling for more oil in Alaska is neither innovative nor interesting, nor a way to lower America's oil bill. But more has arisen out of $147/barrel oil (the most recent high; as of today it has dropped back down to $123/barrel) than the routine of panic. Thomas Friedman wrote today that,
The only good thing to come from soaring oil prices is that they have spurred innovator/investors, successful in other fields, to move into clean energy with a mad-as-hell, can-do ambition to replace oil with renewable power.
Here are some examples of recent interesting, astonishing, and innovative ideas that have arisen largely due to higher energy costs.
Renewable energy is a clear strategic asset for the military, and military demand could help drive the cost reductions that clean tech needs in order to become a core energy solution.
Written by Breakthrough Generation fellow Zach Arnold
Look behind many of the key technologies of the 20th and 21st centuries, and you'll see a long history of military involvement. The U.S. armed forces kick-started American dominance in civil aviation through their demand for planes during WWI, and later drove the growth of the computer industry by buying every microchip and supercomputer in sight during the 60's. Military scientists and military-funded researchers developed the ideas behind the Internet, nuclear power, and personal computing. Indeed, the U.S. military has arguably been the greatest force for technological growth in modern times. And now, it's time for renewable energy to get the Army treatment.
Let's look back to the 1960s. Jack Kilby, a scientist at Texas Instruments, had pioneered an innovative circuit design a few years earlier by packing several transistors onto a single conductive "chip," creating a "microchip" that stood to be more reliable, better suited to mass production, and far faster than existing circuitry. It was the military - not the consumer market - that quickly realized the strategic value of Kilby's achievement. Throughout the early 1960's, military agencies bought virtually every microchip manufacturers could produce. These purchases enabled big advances in military technology, facilitating projects like Minuteman and Apollo and cementing America's position as a military power.
It's our last chance to tell Congress to extend the critical renewable energy incentives. After all, if we're spending so much time arguing about how to expand supplies of that old, dirty oil stuff, shouldn't America's vast and untapped reserves of clean, cheap domestic renewable energy be something we can all agree to develop?
It looks like Congress has one last shot to overcome partisan demagoguery and pass a bill that funds extensions of the soon-to-expire federal renewable energy incentives. The Senate is set to vote as early as tomorrow on S. 3335, a bill that extends the critical Production Tax Credit and Investment Tax Credit for clean, American renewable energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal energy.
With the standing ovation long over and the media for now satiated, it seems appropriate to take a look at how Gore's speech was received. In the applause and critique, I find the kernels of that elusive narrative that will somehow galvanize the nation into bold action on energy.
By Lindsey Franklin, Breakthrough Generation Fellow
Over a week has passed since Al Gore made his bold call for 100% renewable energy in the next 10 years, initiating a wave of response. Conservatives called him crazy--ridiculous, even. Enviros applauded his vision and bold determination. Some Democrats cringed at his timing, afraid of the response of gas-sensitive voters. Some media barely covered him.
With the standing ovation long over and the media for now satiated, it seems appropriate to take a look at how Gore's speech was received and what its initial reception means for the story we must tell about the energy challenge. In the applause and critique, I find the kernels of that elusive narrative that will somehow galvanize the nation into bold action on energy.
There’s really only one option - bring more price-competitive clean technologies into the global marketplace (surprise!), and put policies in place to facilitate their diffusion into China and elsewhere.
Written by Breakthrough Generation fellow Zach Arnold
Over at the Environment and Energy blog, Bradford Plumer points the way to a great Guardianarticle on the Chinese wind boom. Wind installation there has been surpassing projections for some time, blowing through 6 GW earlier this year, and by year’s end China should lead the world in capacity. By 2010, one wind farm will add 3.8 GW - i.e., one third of total current US capacity - in its first phase of expansion. In other words, T. Boone Pickens has nothing on Chinese entrepreneurs (does anyone?).
Fast Company details the rise of the young eco-capitalists, savvy young environmentalists turning to the market to address global warming. Despite the building momentum behind the carbon-credit market, there is little confidence that the rules currently being written for a U.S. cap-and-trade market will actually reduce overall carbon emissions.
I read a very interesting article this morning by Anya Kamenetz at Fast Company on the rise of the young eco-capitalist. Savvy young environmentalists these days are apparently opting not to be forest rangers but rather saving the world through hedge funds, private equity, and consulting.
The global carbon-credit market is taking off, and to a great extent it's being driven by a new generation - a new breed of socially-conscious Ivy-Leaguer looking to leverage the private sector to address the global climate challenge. "The work," writes Kamenetz, "is prestigious, it's trendy, and it's surprisingly well paid." As one young woman interviewed for the piece notes, "I'm making five times what I ever thought I'd be making as a tropical forester." In the U.S., the carbon-credit market doubled in value in 2005, doubled again in 2006, and tripled in 2007. It's projected to reach $1 trillion in value by 2020.
Given then, the incredible momentum of the carbon-credit market model, and the incredible promise of the people driving it, "It should be cause for concern that not a single person interviewed for this article, on either the investment or the carbon-project side, would assert with confidence that the rules currently being written for a U.S. cap-and-trade market will actually reduce overall carbon emissions."
Salmon fishing has been banned in California and Oregon -- we need a campaign to bring back our salmon. It may sound foodie-elitist, but the truth is that salmon fishing used to provide thousands of jobs that are now gone. A campaign to bring back the salmon would be pro-jobs and pro-consumption. Make the fishermen and women the spokespersons for it.
When I moved to California in 1993 I quickly fell in love with one of the rites of summer: grilling fresh salmon. Ted took this ritual to another level, hosting salmon BBQs at his house complete with fancy sauces, cold rose wine, and friends.
Back then, salmon was cheap -- thirty or forty bucks would get you a whole one, enough for 30 or 40 people. Over the years, the salmon stock declined and the price increased, enough so that the size of the parties and the servings got smaller and smaller.
This year, salmon fishing has been banned from the California and Oregon coasts. There are no salmon BBQs. There are many reasons, some historic and some proximate. More than 150 years of logging has stripped rivers of their shade cover, heating up the water and clogging it with silt, boiling and suffocating salmon eggs. Mining has had a similar effect. And the need for water for agriculture has lowered rivers to levels that the salmon can't swim back up stream.
I'm not sure what's more depressing, the loss of salmon or the lack of public outcry about it. I would have expected Alice Waters and Michael Pollan to be leading marches on Sacramento and Washington by now. Bring back our salmon! Yes, it sounds foodie-elitist, but the truth is that salmon fishing used to provide thousands of jobs that are now gone. Put the fishermen and women at the front of the march. What a great pro-consumption and pro-jobs campaign that would be.
I've been bummed out about this all summer, but couldn't figure out what to say or do about it. Then, this morning, somebody emailed me asking what my take is on environmental education. If we are post-environmental, what does a post-environmental education look like? I had given a talk on the subject back in 2005 to the New England Environmental Education Alliance and when I re-read it just now I was reminded that the centerpiece of my talk was one of my favorite children's book, Bring Back the Salmon, which I used to read to my son and which invariably choked me up every time I did.
It's an inspiring story about how a bunch of kids in Washington state restored a local creek and brought back the salmon. For me it was a launching point into a meditation about environmental education. But now I hope it can serve as an inspiration for a future effort to bring back the salmon. I encourage readers who know about existing efforts to bring back the salmon to our rivers (and dinner plates) to comment here.
Here's the first of three posts on "The Dream of a Post-Environmental Education."
Forget about ten years to save the planet, we've got 100 months. At least that's what the Green New Deal Group, based in Europe, is telling us. Set the fear-mongering aside, and their plans are worth examining.
Forget about ten years to save the planet, we've got 100 months. At least that's what the Green New Deal Group, based in Europe, is telling us.
The Green New Deal Group plans to tackle the "triple threat" of the credit crunch, high gas prices, and climate change in an effort to prevent degradation of life and "the world as we know it." Despite their fear-based messaging and impossibly short timeline, the Group's proposals sound pretty good. In fact, they sound a bit like what we've been talking about to build a bright future for America.
In the real world, the American polity and the American market are not ready for a tough carbon price. The best way to respond to the climate challenge right now is to massively expand the role of the federal government in researching, developing, and deploying clean technology.
This is a response to Max Epstein's guest post, "In Defense of Carbon Pricing: Why Clean Energy RD&D Isn't Enough." Our response is written by Breakthrough Generation fellow Zach Arnold.
Before anything else, I want to thank Max for his thoughtful post. His arguments have been a big help in clarifying our own thinking.
In my response, I'm going to try to define the problem we're trying to solve, and clarify the differences I see between a carbon price driven regime (as Max advocates) and an investment-led regime (as we're more fond of at Breakthrough). I'm then going to explore the political feasibility of a carbon price, and what a politically sustainable carbon price can and can't do to address climate change. In doing so, I hope to show that, for now, we can't rely on carbon pricing to drive the shift to a clean energy economy.
If we're serious about solving climate change, we have to be clear-eyed about what it will take. To wean ourselves off fossil fuels, we have to revisit nuclear.
There are a lot of good justifications for fossil fuel independence.
It will divorce us from politically unstable oil suppliers, it will
liberate us from high energy costs, it will lead us into the glorious
possibility of the twenty-first century. But let's be honest with
ourselves: if we're pursuing fossil fuel independence because we want
to stop carbon dioxide emissions and avert catastrophic climate change
(and we are), we will need more than solar panels, wind turbines, and cars that go "whizz!".
We have in reserve a proven technology that is ready for mass
deployment. It currently supplies 372GW of energy world wide, and if
scaled up three to sixfold, it could account for 2/7ths of greenhouse
gas emission stabilization. It is close enough to cost-competitive with
coal-fired electricity that a modest carbon tax would make it cheaper
than coal. But it is politically unpopular and characterized as dirty,
evil, and dangerous.
If we want to "solve the climate crisis," or at least make
significant steps towards transitioning towards a carbon-neutral, clean
energy economy, we need to face one inconvenient truth: We have to go nuclear.
Deep sea wind farms might not have an immediate effect on gas prices, but drilling for oil out there won't either. And, considering the fact that both off shore drilling and deep sea wind have about the same 10-year frame for return on investment of resources, it only seems prudent to explore every "American Solution" we have at our disposal.
Deep sea wind turbines have a lot to offer:
Data shows that the wind is stronger and more consistent farther out from shore, meaning that deep sea wind farms could provide more and more constant energy than even the more typical offshore wind turbines being argued over in plans like Cape Wind
This (older) article from MIT discusses building wind farms 100 miles off shore, which shows another strength for deep sea wind: 100 miles away from the shore, farther than the human eye can see, is not anyone's backyard. There is no threat from NIMBY activists, or NIMFrontY activists, or NIMYPeriod activists. A patch of water 100 miles away from land is not in anyone's yard at all!
Carbon-sucking trees. Mirrors in space. Biochar. Some of the proposed solutions to climate change seem better suited to the annals of science fiction. Geo-engineering -- along with nanotechnology and bioengineering -- belongs to a class of scientific innovation that many fear will threaten the integrity of life as we know it. Humans have been innovating new technologies since the first forward-thinking caveman used a rock to crack a nut from its shell, but new technologies still sometimes manage to weird us out. Certain technologies -- fertilizing the oceans with urea, for example -- just don't seem natural. Environmentalists of the deep ecology school fear that a tech-heavy approach to climate change glosses over the real issues (human greed and overconsumption), and could drive us toward a future more Blade Runner than ecotopia.
High tech solutions still early in the developmental phase often have the potential to play a significant role in transforming our national energy system. With continued support for RD&D, Carbon Capture and Storage - including synthetic air capture - will likely become a new, viable American energy technology.
Why can't we just suck all of the C02 out of the atmosphere and get it over with? This is a question that people- from elementary school children to top energy researchers-have asked in the pursuit of new climate-solving technologies. Researchers at Columbia University responded with a resounding YES! last year in their unveiling of the world's first successful demonstration of air capture technology.
A new "air extractor" technology presented by Klaus Lackner, a professor of Geophysics at Columbia's Earth Institute, offers something no other carbon capture technology on the drawing board has.
Direct current technologies, once defeated by Nikola Tesla's alternating current system, hold great potential in creating a supergrid for America's renewable electricity sources. A $70 billion project by the EU will channel solar power from the Sahara to Europe, America should take note.
Once upon a time in New York, Thomas Edison created an electrical system run on direct current. This early form of electricity captured the interest of the Northeast, but was more of a scientific curiosity than a utility: Edison's direct current lines were the only known way to make a light bulb glow, but they provided barely enough energy to illuminate a room.
"Abu Ghraib became a bizarro world where detainees were kept on dog leashes, subjected to ""invasion of space by female" and bombarded with intolerable sounds, including "meows from cat-food commercials, Yoko Ono singing and Eminem rapping about America." From the...
"Abu Ghraib became a bizarro world where detainees were kept on dog leashes, subjected to ""invasion of space by female" and bombarded with intolerable sounds, including "meows from cat-food commercials, Yoko Ono singing and Eminem rapping about America."
From the Timesreview of Jane Mayer's new book on American torture.
Promising current and next generation solar photovoltaic (PV) thin-film technologies are an important part of the U.S. response to the energy challenge. PV generated electricity will become increasingly cost-competitive with smart deployment policies and quantities manufactured.
Mention solar photovoltaics (PV) to a group of energy activists or policy wonks, and you'll elicit several different responses. "It's soooo expensive," will say one person. "Why don't we use more of it?" will be the cry of another. And if you have anyone from California in your group, you'll surely hear "Dude, its hella cool!" Lost among these responses is an understanding of the future potential of the cheapest PV technologies: thin-films.
Breakthrough Blog's week-long Special Issue puts the spotlight on potential new American energy sources. By plugging in to new, clean energy sources we can re-charge our economy, secure our energy future and win true energy freedom.
The time is now for a sustained national effort to make clean energy sources a reality. Transforming our nation's entire energy economy will require a level of expertise, innovation, and generational effort unlike any before, and it will take a lifetime to achieve. The Breakthrough Generation is ready for this challenge.
Links to posts in the series are below the fold...
This developing technology could solve our global warming woes as it tucks away the world's carbon away for thousands of years. The biggest barriers to exploring and scaling up this solution are economic. Let's break through them and fully utilize this powerful earth and climate scrubber.
This month's issue of Plenty Magazine put a spotlight on biochar, a type of charcoal produced from plant matter that could revolutionize our farmland and curb global warming emissions on a global scale.
We've asked our friend, UMD student, and occasional Washington Post editorialist Max Epstein to contribute his thoughts on carbon pricing to the blog. Our response, by Breakthrough Generation Fellow Zach Arnold, is here.
In the wake of the failed Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, there has been a widespread reevaluation of whether Cap & Trade is the most effective strategy to avert catastrophic climate change. At first many promoted a carbon tax instead, but recently there has been a call to reconsider the central focus on pricing carbon itself. Following Lieberman-Warner's abrupt death in the Senate, Michael Shellenberger wrote that the new way forward should focus on making renewable energy cheap, not polluting sources expensive. In "Scrap Kyoto," Shellenberger and Nordhaus call for a massive public investment in clean technology research and deployment. Joseph Romm in Nature calls for massive subsidized deployment of existing renewable technology, relegating R&D to the "longer-term effort aimed at a new generation of technologies for the emissions reduction effort after 2040." However, such efforts would be insufficient without a price on carbon as well.
By investing in clean technology, Canada will not only reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions, it will make it possible for developing nations to emit less while continuing on the road to prosperity.
-------
Canada is beginning a three-day round of talks between the nation's premiers addressing climate change. In an op-ed piece in today's Ottawa Times, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus also presented their stance on how Canada can, and should, deal with climate change. Their insight can hopefully shed some light on how Canada can not only solve climate change, but become a global leader.
In a landmark speech on July 17, Al Gore called for the country to produce all its electricity from renewables within the next ten years. He finally embraced large public investments to make clean energy cheap, and in doing so, may reframe the debate for climate activists worldwide.
In a landmark speech on July 17, Al Gore called for the country to produce all its electricity from renewables within the next ten years. He finally embraced large public investments to make clean energy cheap, and in doing so, may reframe the debate for climate activists worldwide.
From the Department of Obscure But Telling Anectdotes, Breakthrough Generation Fellow Adam Rodriques presents you with the cases of the Zheleznogorsk and Seversk. These represent a case study of why we need to approach any sort of large-scale problem holistically: as we have seen repeatedly, if we act myopically, we rarely (if ever) end up making things any better in the long run.
From the Department of Obscure But Telling Anecdotes, I present you with the cases of the Zheleznogorsk and Seversk reactors. These represent a case study of why we need to approach any sort of large-scale problem holistically: as we have seen repeatedly, if we act myopically, we rarely (if ever) end up making things any better in the long run.
-------
It's obvious that Al Gore means well. Frustrated with the U.S. gridlock on climate and energy, he made a speech yesterday calling for the country to produce all its electricity from renewables within the next ten years. But Gore's speech assumes solutions will be much simpler than they can possibly be given the realistic state of energy tech. It's convoluted and nonspecific, promising things that are nowhere in the pipeline.
Going to the moon was almost a purely technological project. A single agency had to produce an event for one client who would give the agency almost any budget it wanted.
-------
This blog is painful to write. Al Gore is a skilled communicator with a very visible platform. Seeing him call for a major program of investment in renewable energy is great, and having him talk in terms of trillions of dollars might push the discourse about our future energy system away from the nickel and dime sorts of policies that we've seen so far. What's not to like?
...and investment takes center stage, I think. Al Gore can become a major ally in our ongoing effort to build consensus around an investment-centered approach to solving our energy crisis and inspiring our nation. His rallying cry to the American people was incredibly strong, and his ambitious plans vague. Much more will be revealed when he lays out the details.
Today, Al Gore became a major ally in our ongoing effort to build consensus around an investment-centered approach to solving our energy crisis and inspiring our nation to tackle the energy challenge as the defining task of our era.
Gore issued a truly ambitious challenge for America "to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years." The organization he leads, the Alliance for Climate Protection, estimates the cost of making such a "moon shot call" a reality at 1.5 to 3 trillion dollars of public and private investment over 30 years. He issued this call to "all Americans - in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and every citizen."
Gore's bold take on the energy and climate challenge is the public call we at the Breakthrough Institute have been both issuing for years, and waiting for. The energy challenge can and will be the "lynchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America." Finally!
Reducing emissions in Canada, however laudable, is irrelevant to fighting climate change unless doing so results in creating clean technologies to help power the developing world
Al Gore has finally embraced large public investments in clean energy, after years of insisting on a paradigm focused centrally on pollution regulation. Unfortunately, he doesn't address how to deal with the energy tech (and price) gap between dirty energy sources like coal and clean energy sources like solar. The question is: will the Google Gore be able to trump the Gaia Gore?
In his first major speech on global warming since he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, Al Gore today finally acknowledged the need for major public investments to make clean energy cheap, rather than simply increase the cost of dirty energy through pollution regulation. This represents a major step forward in his own thinking, and a break from the dominant environmental approach to global warming.
At the same time, Gore failed to address the central concern of policymakers in Washington: what to do about rising energy prices.
Early reporting on Gore's "reset" button speech on climate says he will call for the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years.
Early reporting on Gore's "reset" button speech on climate says he will call for the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years.
Reported from the AP this morning:
"I have never seen an opportunity for the country like the one that's emerging now," Gore told The Associated Press in an interview previewing a speech on global warming he was to deliver Thursday in Washington.
Gore said he fully understands the magnitude of the challenge.
The Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan group that he chairs, estimates the cost of transforming the nation to so-called clean electricity sources at $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion over 30 years in public and private money. But he says it would cost about as much to build ozone-killing coal plants to satisfy current demand.
"This is an investment that will pay itself back many times over," Gore said. "It's an expensive investment but not compared to the rising cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels."
...
To meet his 10-year goal, Gore said nuclear energy output would continue at current levels while the nation dramatically increases its use of solar, wind, geothermal and so-called clean coal energy. Huge investments must also be made in technologies that reduce energy waste and link existing grids, he said.
Andy Revkin at Dot Earth has an annotated copy of Gore's speech, to be delivered later today in Washington D.C. Stay tuned for additional commentary on Gore's landmark call for a clean energy investment agenda...
Energy experts in Europe predict that the U.S. can recapture its lost leadership position as the world's leader in solar manufacturing and development, but only if government investment continues. What we need, what we must demand, is investment to give American innovators the tools they need.
The U.S. market, once the leader in solar energy manufacturing and development around the world, has fallen in recent years. But, there is renewed excitement and hope brewing for the U.S. as energy experts in Europe predict that the U.S. can and likely will surpass Japan and Germany in solar power market share in the years to come. Energy experts also agree that in order for the U.S. to successfully reclaim its leadership position, continued government investment is required.
Over the past week we've explored how the personal electric vehicle is an important step along the path to energy freedom. The next step is constructing electric rail on a national scale. Not only does electric rail require no new technology, it is a vital step towards maintaining economic and social security, and international competitiveness.
Here at the Breakthrough blog, we've been exemplifying the personal electric vehicle as a step along the path to energy independence. The next step is to electrify our railroads and ramp up infrastructure so that freight that is currently driven thousands of miles by gas-thirsty trucks can be carried by electric rail instead.
France set itself a goal in 2006 to electrify "every meter" of its railroads within twenty years; Switzerland has been building a defensive non-oil transportation system since the 1920s; Germany has been building on their urban rail network since WWII. Japan, Sweden and Italy have all electrified over 50% of their rail; even Azerbaijan has 1,278 km of electrified rail (60% of its total). It's time for the United States to invest in an oil-free transportation system, which will be clean, safe, and efficient.
Last Saturday marked the first day that the U.S. spent $1 million per minute on oil. At the same time, the dollar is trading at a record low vis-a-vis the euro. Now, more than ever, it is time for a new American energy.
Last Saturday marked the first day that the U.S. spent $1 million per minute on oil. At the same time, the dollar is trading at a record low vis-a-vis the euro. Storm's a brewin'! According to Jack D. Hidary, chair of SmartTransportation.org and the Freedom Prize Foundation, these "milestones" indicate America's need to invest in a clean energy transportation future.
The Aptera will become available to the public in 2008, and bring with it a renewed vision of sleek, sexy future. While the Aptera cannot fly, its name literally means "wingless flight" in Greek and its aerodynamic appearance further suggests it could take to the air.
The NYTimes' Andy Revkin debates Joe Romm who claims the time for R&D has passed. But as Revkin knows, any push to transition to a clean energy future must put money across the board into Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment.
Andy Revkin has blogged today on a debate he is engaged in on the threads of Joe Romm's climateprogress.org.
It's almost unclear what they are debating over before I remember that
Joe Romm categorically rejects any calls for public investment in
energy technology R&D as the machinations of climate
deniers/delayers -- or at least as "misguided" efforts.
Romm is probably right that this is the Debate of the Decade as it concerns the best way to transition to
a clean energy system. Revkin posits that we need public investment in
R&D in order to make scalable and bring down the price of clean
energy. Romm himself admits that he has called for R&D for the past
twenty years, but claims that the time when this research would have
helped has passed. It is now time to focus primarily (if not entirely) on deploying the technologies currently on
hand.
Market Fundamentalism has infected both sides of the debate on climate change. It's time to move past the myth of "the Free Market" when it comes to energy technology and recognize the role of government leadership and investment in history's successful innovations.
A paper by political scientist Glenn Fong starts out with a 1998 quote by Bill Gates:
"The PC industry is leading our nation's economy in to the 21st century...There isn't an industry in America that is more creative, more alive and more competitive. And the amazing thing is, all this happened without any government involvement."
Fong goes to on describe the myriad ways the federal government--mostly through its Advanced Research Project Agency (ARPA) --was involved in nearly every aspect of the development of the personal computer, from the human-computer interface (HCI) to the graphical user interface (GUI), to picture icons, to computer networking. Bill Gates, brilliant as he might be, seems deluded about the history of the computer.
"Deconstruction," that much maligned philosophical move that began with Heidegger and was turned into an art form by Derrida, was never as complicated as its pro/opponents made it seem. Take an ordinary seeming concept -- Nature, say -- and demonstrate the ways in which it rests on a nonsensical binary opposition (i.e., nature doesn't include humans). The deconstruction "that happens" (Derrida wanted to emphasize that nobody "does" deconstruction -- it occurs when old concepts no longer make sense) goes like this:
1. Humans aren't superior to Nature. (This, notably, is where most greens stop.)
2. Come to think of it, there is no "Nature" separate from humans.
The great American comedian George Carlin, R.I.P., gave a very funny twist to this deconstruction (tip o' the hat to the Times' Andy Revkin for blogging on this).
Tesla Roadster represents the American quest for excellence: no complaints or mediocrity, but the creation of something that's simply the best. In a car like the Tesla, America can certainly zoom gloriously into the future.
This post is part of our week-long Special Issue exploring ways to sever the link between transportation and oil by electrifying transportation. Stay tuned for more...
The coolest car of the 21st Century doesn't go "vroom!"...
...it goes "whizz!"
Tesla Motors,
an innovative electric car start-up straight from the heart of Silicon
Valley, is now producing its 2008 Roadster, an all-electric sports car
than can go 0 to 60 in under 4 seconds. High-tech and emissions-free,
the Roadster celebrates a future that is not only sustainable, but sexy
and fun. (Sports car enthusiasts may find it disconcerting, however,
that when you hit the gas, the only noise from the engine is an
electrical "whizz!")
As automakers scramble to respond to rapidly shifting customer preference driven by spiking fuel prices, we now have an unprecedented and urgent opportunity to help Re-charge Detroit!
This post is part of our week-long Special Issue exploring ways to sever the link between transportation and oil by electrifying transportation. Stay tuned for more...
Toyota Motor Company announced today it's intention to retool two U.S. manufacturing plants currently building giant, full-size trucks and SUVs to instead build hybrid-electric vehicles. Meanwhile, Ford is expected to reveal more details this month on their plans to retool several plants to build the more fuel efficient models they currently sell in Europe.
As automakers scramble to react to rapidly shifting customer preference driven by spiking fuel prices, isn't it time for the United States government to make investments that help re-tool and re-charge the American auto industry?
We must foster the production of both highly functioning and attractive consumer goods as we look to break our addiction to oil and transform our energy system. Volkswagen's new plug-in hybrid electric Golf may do the trick. What else do innovative auto engineers have in store?
This
post is part of our week-long Special Issue exploring ways to sever the link
between transportation and oil by electrifying transportation. Stay
tuned for more...
Last week, Volkswagen announced it will roll out a demonstration test fleet of 20 plug-in hybrids by 2010, with plans for mass production soon after. The most exciting part about their announcement is that this electric-diesel beauty will debut in a familiar form: the fast, fun, one might even say flirty, VW Golf.
Finally! Function AND fashion. Now that is something that I feel most consumers can really get behind, and a tactic we must employ in order to create scalable solutions for our energy challenge.
What is happening in Australia is further evidence of this increasingly well-documented failure. Record-breaking gas prices, and waning public concern about emissions do not signal success for market-based approaches now, or in the future. Perhaps it is time for a new approach?!
The Australian Workers Union and business groups are exerting pressure on the Government to more carefully consider the economic consequences of implementing an emissions trading scheme. Public support for an emissions trading scheme in Australia is also waning, and in response the Australian government announced it could delay the introduction of such a plan.
Evidence concerning the failure of market-based approaches to reducing carbon emissions continues to mount... perhaps it's time for a new approach?!
Yesterday's announcement by the G8 that the world will reduce its emissions 50% by 2050 is yet another example of the folly of emissions targets and timetables. The G8 adopted a big goal -- 50% reductions by 2050 -- and trumpeted it victoriously from Hokkaido. The target, however, is meaningless, and it should serve as a warning to anyone concerned with the climate.
Yesterday's announcement by the G8 that the world will reduce its emissions 50% by 2050 is yet another example of the folly of long-term emissions targets and timetables. For years, climate activists around the world have believed that one of the highest priorities of the climate movement should be to pressure political leaders to adopt large emissions reduction targets. "80% by 2050" became the mantra of the movement. In the run-up to the current G8 meeting, the EU piled political pressure on Japan and the US to adopt a 2050 target, and after yesterday's announcement the EU President Jose Manuel Barroso called it "a strong signal to citizens around the world."
As China's car culture comes of age in a post-cheap oil world, will the rapidly developing nation leapfrog to new, innovative transportation technologies like plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles? Do they have another choice?
This
post is part of our week-long Special Issue exploring ways to sever the link
between transportation and oil by electrifying transportation. Stay
tuned for more...
There may be a pretty mournful tune
coming out of Detroit these days, but over in China, everyone's gone
car-crazy. Consider this: in 2000, the private vehicle stock numbered
about ten million automobiles. A McKinsey report out in June projects that ten million cars will be sold in 2008 alone. China is now the second-largest automobile market in the world after the U.S.
China's romance with the automobile is reminiscent of America's back
in the mid-twentieth century: a personal car means comfort,
convenience, and tangible proof of newfound wealth to the millions of
Chinese entering the ranks of the middle class (the New York Times ran
a piece on this phenomenon back in April). The big difference is that China's car culture is coming of age in a post-cheap oil world.
By plugging in to new, clean American energy sources we can re-charge our economy, secure our energy future and win true Energy Freedom. This series of posts explores the power of Electrifying Transportation.
Breakthrough Blog's week-long Special Issue exploring ways to sever the link between transportation and oil by electrifying transportation. By plugging in to new, clean American energy sources we can re-charge our economy, secure our energy future and win true Energy Freedom.
Links to posts in the series are below the fold...
Jefferson and Franklin knew where to look for good ideas: France. Even today, France continues to provide a model for American policy with the world's first electric car sharing program. Viva la France!
This post is part of our week-long Special Issue exploring ways to sever the link between transportation and oil by electrifying transportation. Stay tuned for more...
"The French are most advanced in all manner of Arts, and refined Conversation, and in the Use of electric Cars." - Thomas Jefferson, personal correspondence, 1786*
In honor of Independence Day, let's take a moment here at the
Breakthrough Blog to reflect on two of our greatest Founding Fathers -
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
Brilliant and energetic men, Franklin and Jefferson were responsible for some of the greatest advances of their time, such as bifocals and the armonica. And the Declaration of Independence.
What's more, these two giants of American history shared an abiding
love and respect for France. Having served as America's ministers to
France in the late 1700s, both saw Paris's grandeur firsthand, and saw
in its creativity and intellectual ferment a model for their own
fledgling nation.
Just think - an electrified Detroit, pumping out the world's best electric cars and manufacturing the solar panels that will power them on top of it. That's the stuff that will get the American economy going.
This post is part of our week-long Special Issue exploring ways to sever the link between transportation and oil by electrifying transportation. Stay tuned for more...
In a city known for hardcore rock and hardcore auto manufacturing,
some serious blues are the music of the week. Detroit, whose top 3 automakers have been closing plants left and right in the face of skyrocketing gas prices, is looking for a quick fix to a 10 year strategical failure. The NY Times grimly reported:
"G.M. is temporarily halting the assembly lines at
seven truck factories in North America before closing four plants
permanently within the next three years... Sales were down 28 percent
at the Ford Motor Company, 18 percent at General Motors and Nissan. Hardest hit was Chrysler, whose sales fell 36 percent after it discontinued some models in a bid to increase profit margins. Ford
says it will build 25 percent fewer vehicles and that it now expects to
lose money in 2009, the year it had set as a deadline for returning to
profitability."
As we begin Breakthrough Blog's week-long series of posts exploring ways to sever the link between transportation and oil by electrifying transportation, Jesse Jenkins drills down into the concept of energy independence and explores what it will really take to secure true Energy Freedom.
Another July 4th has come and gone, accompanied by the usual cries for a new "Declaration of Energy Independence." Continuing a longstanding tradition hearkening back to the 1970s -- the last time both energy prices and American concern with our energy future were as high as they are now -- the punditry and politicos again used Independence Day to declare that the time is now to secure our independence from foreign oil.
Unfortunately, while perennially popular, the tired political narrative of energy independence is stuck in the past, rooted three decades ago in the oil shocks of my parent's youth and resting on a fatally flawed diagnosis of our energy ailments. What we need isn't another call for independence from foreign oil. What we need is a new American energy agenda that secures our Energy Freedom -- one that recognizes that to become truly independent from foreign oil we must free ourselves from oil. Period.
At the latest round negotiations, the G8 nations are at a classic standstill over a post-Kyoto international climate agreement framework. The United States does not want to commit to anything serious unless China and India also do so, and China and India won't move until the United States does. So what will break through the stalemate?
"There is chaos under heaven, and the situation is excellent."
-Duke in Doonesbury, doing a parody of Mao
NPR reports this morning that negotiations at the G-8 over climate
change are stalled. The United States does not want to commit to
anything serious unless China and India also do so, and China and India
won't move until the United States does, a classic stalemate.
The temptation, of course, is to just wait until the next
administration takes office, on the hope they will be more
accommodating in reaching an international agreement and committing the
United States the major cuts in greenhouse gases. Most climate
watchers assume that is why the Conference of the Parties want to wait
until the negotiations scheduled for Copenhagen in December 2009 for
reaching a post-Kyoto climate agreement. But if the negotiations are
just trying to create another Kyoto-type treaty, their wait may be in
vain.
Promoting the low-tech small-scale agrarian model is neither necessary nor sufficient to solve problems like global warming. Instead, we should use consumption as a tool to encourage new and innovative technologies, like solar energy, wind energy, electric vehicles, biotechnology, etc.
Over the last few weeks at the Breakthrough Blog, there has been some discussion and debate over consumption and anti-consumption (see my post "Is Consumption Evil" here and Michael Shellenberger's post "The UnGandhi Generation" here). This post is intended to be a continuation of this discussion.
"Any successful program of action on climate change must support two objectives--stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) and maintaining economic growth."
The McKinsey Global Institute's Climate Challenge Initiative released a report last week entitled "The Carbon Productivity Challenge." It is a prime example of how to analyze climate change--not solely or even primarily an ecological crisis, but also a social, economic and developmental problem. The conclusions they draw are astounding, and inspiring. In my opinion, the relevancy and appeal of their analysis relies on a fundamental assumption: "Any successful program of action on climate change must support two objectives--stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) and maintaining economic growth."
On Monday, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh unveiled a new national climate plan that balances environmental and economic interests. First and foremost, the report highlights a need for increased energy efficiency and renewables. Special attention was paid to solar technology, which has the potential to displace coal and petroleum with India's 250 to 300 sunny days per year. At the same time, however, Singh recognizes that a hard-and-fast emissions cap could cripple his country's economic development. The plan thus avoids limiting emissions in order to sustain a nine percent annual growth rate.
The BLM will lift an insane moratorium blocking development of the abundant solar energy reserves on federal lands. This refreshingly smart move clears the way for further development of this untapped and vast American energy resource.
Yesterday, we called on the federal Bureau of Land Management to stop being an Energy Delayer and lift a moratorium that locked up the vast reserves of solar energy located on federal lands. Today, the BLM announced that they would lift the planned twenty-two month moratorium on land it stewards in six southwest states rich in solar energy. The BLM had claimed that an extensive environmental impact review was necessary before solar development on federal lands could move forward and called for the moratorium on May 29th.
Today's refreshingly smart move from the federal government clears the way for over 130 solar energy development projects already submitted to the BLM to move forward and opens up the possibility of further development of this untapped and vast American energy resource.
"Years of academic research suggest that, beyond some fairly low threshold, successful innovators are not really more gifted or creative than the rest of us. Rather, they simply better exploit the networked structure of ideas within unique organizational frameworks. [S]trategy too often neglects the question of how to get there. Yet, especially when innovation matters, the strategy is the organization."
"Years of academic research suggest that, beyond some fairly low threshold, successful innovators are not really more gifted or creative than the rest of us. Rather, they simply better exploit the networked structure of ideas within unique organizational frameworks. [S]trategy too often neglects the question of how to get there. Yet, especially when innovation matters, the strategy is the organization."
-- Kathleen Eisenhardt, "Foreword to How Breakthroughs Happen by Andrew Hargadon
Quoted in a new report, "Climate Choreography: How Distributed and Open Innovation Could Accelerate Technology Development and Deployment," by Clean Energy Group and the Meridian Institute.
Breakthrough Institute co-founder Michael Shellenberger stopped by Fox News last night, facing off against Competitive Enterprise Institute talking head Chris Horner in a Hannity and Colmes segment on the solutions to rising energy prices. As Michael noted in his appearance, domestic drilling for oil and gas will have a tiny, far-off impact on fuel prices; what we really need to solve our current energy crisis are clean, cheap, next-generation technologies like wind, solar, and electric vehicles. Here's the full clip:
We all get trapped by our assumptions. One of the main points of the Breakthrough Institute is to challenge old assumptions in order to find policies that will work. That can get uncomfortable, but two reports out this week show us how important it is for everyone in the energy policy game.
We all get trapped by our assumptions. One of the main points of the Breakthrough Institute is to challenge old assumptions in order to find policies that will work. That can get uncomfortable, but two reports out this week show us how important it is for everyone in the energy policy game.
The National Intelligence Council weighs in on global warming, marking the first time that the American intelligence community has officially spoken on the subject.
Taking a break from its everyday responsibilities, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) took a noteworthy step yesterday when it delivered a briefing on climate change to the House of Representatives' Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. The briefing, given by Thomas Fingar, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis, represents the first time that the American intelligence community has weighed in on the issue of climate change.
Now, these guys are not physicists, nor were meant to be: Fingar explicitly stated that they "did not evaluate the science of climate change per se," choosing to focus instead on analyzing the national security implications of existing predictions (their chosen model was a mid-range IPCC prediction). Nevertheless, the mere fact that this briefing was given at all is hugely significant...and on top of that, they have some very interesting and insightful things to say.
The BLM is citing environmental concerns to put a two-year roadblock in the way of new, solar energy development on federal lands. That's bad news for the solar industry -- and bad news for the American economy.
Just as the time becomes ripe for a major push towards clean, cheap sources of electricity, the Bureau of Land Management threw a two-year stumbling block in the path of solar power development last Friday.
As solar power ramps up--the Bureau has received 130 proposals solar
plants since 2005--the Bureau decided to put a hold on further development, claiming that that an exhaustive environmental impact
report must be completed before solar plants can be installed on
federally owned lands. Meanwhile, the push continues for oil drilling
in protected offshore areas and the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (an endeavor that really merits an environmental impact assessment!).
Timed as it is to coincide with the expiration of critical renewable energy incentives,
this new road block is bad news for the solar industry-- and actively
blocking the advancement of new sources of clean, American energy is
bad news for the economy as a whole. Now more than ever, as the
price of oil continues to rise, buoying inflation and economic
insecurity along with it, the transition to new clean sources of
American energy is critical to secure continued economic prosperity.
