Michael Levi explains why carbon caps, the Kyoto go-to solution, have been insufficient and why it is crucial that negotiators at Copenhagen focus on specific policies and measures, instead of empty promises, in order to control carbon emissions
If there's anything that's certain as the world draws closer to December's climate summit in Copenhagen, now less than 100 days away, it's this: so-called binding carbon caps aren't working. That failed model--which has created an unproductive air of tension between developed and developing nations in climate negotiations to date--is why chances of reaching a successful and effective global agreement in Copenhagen are "vanishingly small," as Michael Levi, Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment at the Council on Foreign Relations, states in the latest Foreign Affairs.
Levi writes:
"Americans accustomed to thinking about climate diplomacy within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol may assume that the obvious next step is to translate reduction goals into emissions caps, put them in a treaty, and establish a system for global carbon trading. But this would be problematic for three reasons."
Namely, any carbon caps are certain to be weak and insufficient (just look at the proposal currently being debated in Congress); compliance would be nearly impossible to monitor or verify; and a lack of punitive measures would mean countries could easily shirk on their promises without fear of consequences. In other words, the same reasons that Kyoto is failing now are certain to doom a newer climate deal that's predicated on the same idea.
A recent report, released by geo-engineering experts at the UK's Institution of Mechanical Engineering, highlights the viability of geo-engineered technologies, such as algae coated buildings, as a stop-gap solution for rising carbon emissions and imminent climate change
No - this is not an obscure Ghostbusters reference. According to the Financial Times, geo-engineering experts at the UK-based Institution of Mechanical Engineering (IME) have deemed "slime-covered buildings", along with artificial trees and reflective buildings, viable options for removing carbon from the atmosphere.
Although "slime" is a slightly hyperbolic reference to strips of carbon-consuming algae, a recent report by IME says the substance can be installed via bio-reactors on building walls to absorb carbon from the air. Before it decomposes (and really gets slimy) the algae is collected and either decarbonized or reprocessed as fuel. While "slime" carbon capture is still in the planning stages, it is an extremely attractive geo-engineering option because its waste could be used as a biofuel and it would require no additional land to deploy.
The report, entitled "Geo-engineering: Giving us Time to Act," is intended to advance acceptance of geo-engineering as a potential climate change mitigator and proposes a 75-100 year roadmap for countering climate that includes geo-engineering as part, not all, of the solution. According to the IME:
Geo-engineering is not an encompassing solution to global warming. It is however, another potential component in our approach to climate change that could prove the world with extra time to decarbonise the global economy, a task which has yet to begin in earnest.
Much of the resistance to geo-engineering innovations - such as faux-trees that capture carbon more effectively than the real thing - is based on the fear that these technologies will replace clean energy technology as the preferred solution to reducing carbon intensity. The report emphasizes, however, that geo-engineering is not the so-called silver bullet solution, it's a stop-gap measure that will help manage the world's carbon overstock while clean energy is being developed and deployed.
Thanks to US stimulus funding to nurture strong domestic clean energy markets, European wind giant Vestas is bringing money and jobs into the US as it opens more factories within American borders. But the US must follow the stimulus with sustained, substantial investments in clean tech development and deployment in order to avoid losing future foreign investments--and manufacturing jobs--to China.
It's strange to hear of "insourcing"--the transfer of manufacturing jobs into the United States instead of out--but that's exactly what's happening with Denmark's wind giant Vestas, according to a New York Times article yesterday.
According to the report, a combination of global recession and domestic stimulus spending on clean energy is adding up to a boon for the American clean energy manufacturing industry.
In Europe, Vestas has seen several nations slow down their rates of added wind capacity, and flagging government support combined with financial difficulties has impeded the construction of new projects. By contrast, the United States built 8,500 megawatts of wind capacity in 2008 to Britain's 500, and demand for turbine technology is high. So for opportunities in a more robust wind market, Vestas has begun to look across the Atlantic.
Ten African nations drafted a resolution calling for "rich countries" to contribute $67 billion annually in climate change compensation. If its accepted in Copenhagen, the U.S. will be expected to shoulder much of the burden, but short-term investments and a potentially weak climate bill may leave the U.S. unprepared to help
Recognizing the need for a united stance on climate change in preparation for international negotiations in Copenhagen in December, ten African nations issued a joint draft resolution calling for "rich countries" to commit $67 billion per year in compensation for the deleterious effects of unmitigated climate change, according to a report in Reuters.
Africa, which houses 15 of the 20 most climate-change vulnerable countries, will almost certainly endure the most severe negative consequences of climate change, yet it contributes relatively little to the problem.
This new proposal arrives on the heels of a flurry of Copenhagen related news. The Financial Times reported yesterday that both China and India blame developed nations, such as the U.S., for impeding the progress of a climate treaty. As developing nations, they are demanding financial and technological assistance from the major historic contributors to climate change in order to mitigate the effects of a problem they are not primarily responsible for causing.
In the clean energy race, China is quickly acting on its strategy to dominate the solar industry. By pushing down solar panel prices and building assembly plants on U.S. soil, American solar manufacturers may not be able to compete for long.
To some, recent discussion of the "clean energy race" is just the latest iteration of flashy climate change rhetoric, refurbished and repackaged as a do-or-die clean technology race between the U.S. and Asia. Yet, as a New York Times piece entitled "China Racing Ahead of U.S. in the Drive to Go Solar," testifies, the clean energy challenge is more than just verbal tap dancing, it's a dynamic economic competition - and China is earning its racing stripes.
While the U.S. is still floundering with ad-hoc investments in clean energy, China has developed a straight-forward, no-nonsense approach to achieving its 2GW solar capacity target by 2011 and gaining leadership in the solar industry: build market share. With the help of serious government investment, China is on the path to achieving that goal. Chinese companies like, Suntech Power Holdings, have succeeded in driving solar panel price reductions over the last six months by selling panels on the U.S. market below the marginal cost. Furthermore, China is circumventing protectionist legislation by constructing assembly plants in the U.S.
According to Steven Chan, Suntech president for global sales and marketing, the first plant will be located in Phoenix, Arizona and will allow China to tap into the portion of the market that wants to "'buy American' and things like that." The catch, however, is that even though the panels will be constructed in America, by Americans, the components will, of course, be made in China.
India's progress on building a domestic clean energy economy through investment represents a strategy that could also serve as a new approach to international climate policy. Unfortunately, Western nations that stall climate negotiations with their insistence on setting carbon caps continue to miss the world's best chance at forging a global agreement.
In New Delhi today, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that India must invest in both new and existing clean energy technologies in order to develop sustainably over the coming decades. This comes as the latest indication of India's progress on building a domestic clean energy economy through investment--a strategy that could also serve as a new approach to international climate policy. Unfortunately, Western nations that stall climate negotiations with their insistence on setting carbon caps continue to miss the world's best chance at forging a global agreement.
While the rest of the Obama family relaxes in Martha's Vineyard, the President must address an escalating battle over the fate of Cape Wind and the future of renewable energy
Like any savvy tourist trap that knows the President of the United States will be dropping in, Martha's Vineyard is prepared to play the gracious host to the Obama family this week. But a recent article in the National Journal highlights how local Cape Wind activists, including Breakthrough Senior Fellow Barbara Hill, the executive director of Clean Power Now, are intent on making sure President Obama addresses the offshore wind debate before he relaxes on the Cape Cod sand.
A proposed 130-turbine offshore wind farm located in the Nantucket Sound has been mired in the planning phase due to NIMBY-induced controversy since 2001. Both Clean Power Now, who is advocating for the wind farm, and its adversary, The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, are tapping grassroots support in an effort to convince the President to endorse their position.
At stake is not just the future of Cape Wind, but numerous other proposals slated for locations up and down the east coast, not to mention far-reaching impacts on the future of renewables in the United States. Cape Wind has become the designated representative of offshore wind projects as it is the farthest along in the permit process. According to Barbara Hill:
We are hoping for him [President Obama] to speak out about this issue specifically because of the national significance of this... [the project] could literally jump-start a new industry in this country. Once we get the first one out there, it's going to open up the gates.
Political opposition to the project is coming from some unexpected sources. Both democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Bill Delahunt have spoken out against Cape Wind despite its potential to be a national example of successful renewable energy deployment. Opponents like the The Alliance, who are concerned the wind farm will damage the quality of the environment (read: their scenic beach front views), would like the President to delay the decision until a new ocean zoning policy is enacted in December. Their hope is that Cape Wind will be replaced by projects proposed in other locations - not their backyards.
Not a day goes by that I read something I cannot believe has been said in the debate over global warming. It makes blogging easy, but it sure cannot help the case of climate policy making. In an interview, Nobel Prize winning economist Thomas Schelling explains to The Atlantic why politicians need to exaggerate the threat of global warming and why he hopes for massive disasters.
When asked how policies get put in place that mainly benefit people far into the future he explains that:
It's a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat. And you can in fact find ways to make the threat serious. I think there's a significant likelihood of a kind of a runaway release of carbon and methane from permafrost, and from huge offshore deposits of methane all around the world. If you begin to get methane leaking on a large scale -- even though methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere very long -- it might warm things up fast enough that it will induce further methane release, which will warm things up more, which will release more. And that will create a huge multiplier effect, and it could become very serious.
"Achieving deep reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at acceptable social cost will involve far-reaching technological change in the energy and in other sectors. Indeed, at present this seems one of the few things on which there is international agreement in relation to climate change ... [P]roperly understood, the economics of technology innovation offers a way forward between what seem very divergent international positions on climate change policy."
In a continued look at the role of nationalism in the clean energy race, Mother Jones' Kevin Drum applauds the rhetoric behind the clean energy race narrative but raises concerns about over-zealous nationalism and xenophobia towards Asia
A second piece on nationalism in the context of the clean energy race was published on Mother Jones' blog MoJo, and is evidence that the growing body of discourse around this issue has struck a very resonant chord. In the post, entitled "Harnessing Nationalism," Kevin Drum offers poignant, if somewhat veiled, criticism of the rhetoric behind the "clean energy race" narrative.
Inspired by The New Republic's Bradford Plumer, the post starts with a lengthy quote whose primary point is this: the clean energy race is not a zero-sum competition because everyone stands to benefit if China makes a significant effort to reduce emissions by investing in clean technology.
First, as Drum puts it, Plumer's commentary may be an attempt at "intellectual honesty," but honesty doesn't make it completely accurate. True, the whole world will benefit from advancements in clean energy no matter where it comes from, but China is not motivated to compete in the clean tech industry by emissions reductions - it is driven by the potential for economic gain.
As a (rapidly) developing nation, economic development, not emissions targets, is the highest priority. Thus, the race is not about emissions, it is about whose economy stands to benefit from leadership in clean technology.
Drum views the clean energy race through "green" tinted glasses, as well, preferring the "race" rhetoric to the alternative: the apocalyptic narrative that has clearly failed to motivate effective climate change action. Rhetorically speaking, framing the need to reduce carbon emissions as a clean energy race is both more engaging and more productive. As he aptly declares:
If this kind of thing got us to the moon, maybe it can save the planet as well. I say we go along.
The clean energy race, however, is more than just a new and improved framing mechanism or encouragement of America's honed nationalistic tendencies - it is an economic truth. What Drum misses when he writes off the recent proliferation of clean energy articles as hype, is that this issue could both be an effective rhetorical tool as well as a humbling reality.
In a Washington Post op-ed, Nobelist Henry Kissinger calls for the United States and China to avoid nationalism and embrace a new political framework based on cooperation, but would this new paradigm spur clean energy innovation?
When the Breakthrough Institute's Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus began advocating for a paradigm shift in the global approach to climate change in the early 2000's, they could not have predicted that a paradigm shift of another variety might occur simultaneously. That is: a shift in the balance of global power.
In an op-ed entitled, "Rebalancing Relations with China," published in the Washington Post this week, Henry Kissinger assessed the power shift occurring between the U.S. and China, calling for Sino-American cooperation in lieu of boisterous assertions of nationalistic superiority and hegemonic power.
A Nobel Peace Prize winner, former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State during the Nixon Administration, Kissinger is a known proponent of realpolitik. Although that term typically has a negative connotation in the U.S. and is often associated with power abuse, the word actually refers to a theory of politics grounded in the realistic assessment of power, rather than ideology.
In accordance with this theory, Kissinger's puts forth an ideology-free assessment of the current relationship between the United States and China. China's position as America's largest creditor and the economic crisis, in combination, have served to level the playing field between the two nations. Faced with increasing economic interdependence and China's conflicting interest in reducing that dependence, "ambivalence," Kissinger asserts, "is the inevitable consequence."
In Kissinger's estimation, a new political framework that recognizes China as a global economic power will be crucial to revitalizing the world economy. From this standpoint, there are three ways a Sino-American relationship could play out on the global stage.
Most developing countries stubbornly resist western admonitions on the need to cut carbon emissions. Until recently, that included China, but signs from what is now the world's largest emitter suggest a cultural revolution is afoot in its attitude to climate change policy.
For the first time, two senior climate change officials, Yu Qingtai and Su Wei, have left open the possibility that China will plan for an eventual peak in emissions. "Emissions will not continue to rise beyond 2050," said Mr Su.
The FT says with an apparent straight face that:
As a quantitative measure of China's intention to help fight climate change, the statement fails to overwhelm.
China's emissions have been increasing at around 8% per year. If China can somehow cut this rate in half and maintain it until 2050, then China's emissions in 2050 will still exceed the total global emissions in 2009.
Clean Skies TV profiles Breakthrough Senior Fellow and Professor Emeritus of Physics at NYU, Martin Hoffert, a proponent of space-based solar energy generation
The ARPA-E initiative is a project of the Department of Energy, its purpose is to fund "high-risk, high-payoff transformational R&D ... that can enhance the economic and energy security of the United States through reductions of imports of energy from foreign sources, etc." (more here)
Funded with money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, one would think that ARPA-E, being a semantic cousin of the Pentagon's well-known DARPA division, famous for its assisted walking suits, robotic espionage dragonflys and, of course, the internet, would have a slew of strange projects on their roster. However, one scientist, whose rejected space based solar program requested a modest $2 million dollars for further testing, feels the DOE's selection process was a bit lopsided.
Senior Breakthrough Fellow and Professor Emeritus of Physics at NYU, Martin Hoffert, has long made the case for space-based solar power as an alternative to earth-moored models. Up beyond the filters of pollution and the limits of daylight, the sun's energy is nearly constant and undiffused. Using solar panels affixed to a satellite or, say, the International Space Station, the idea would be to beam the energy back to terrestrial sources in the form of microwaves or some other heretofore undiscovered method.
Hoffert even has the PR effort down pat, as he explains in a segment for Clean Skies TV: "We've spent a fortune on the International Space Station, and people are still saying, 'What have we got from it?' Well, we could probably beam power from the International Space Station to various locations along its ground track, including some in developing countries that have no prospect of getting energy."
Now that certainly sounds "transformational"; and for $2 million dollars it's a no-brainer, right? But out of the 3500 applications the ARPA-E program received, only 40 - 60 (roughly 1.1%) will receive funding of between $3 to $5 million dollars. While Hoffert's program got the snub, in the approved pile is a project that aims to capture the heat trapped in asphalt parking lots and other paved surfaces via a series of tubes filled with water.
On his Dot Earth blog, NY Times science reporter, Andy Revkin, asks the $2 million dollar question: "Which project strikes you as more 'transformational'?"
Under the economic stimulus, DOE announces $2.3 billion in tax credits for advanced energy manufacturing projects in order to stimulate economic growth, create jobs, and secure American leadership in clean energy
Last Thursday, the Department of Energy announced a boost for the advanced energy manufacturing industry in the form of a $2.3 billion Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit (MTC). The MTC is authorized under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA), otherwise known as the $787 billion economic stimulus package.
Intended to expand the clean energy domestic manufacturing industry, the MTC provides a 30% credit for investments in advanced energy manufacturing facilities that either are new, expanded, or re-equipped. The $2.3 billion in MTCs will stimulate 7.7 billion in total capital investments in new renewable and advanced energy manufacturing projects. By fostering growth of the clean energy manufacturing industry, this investment will enforce and enhance ARRA's larger purpose - boosting economic growth, creating jobs, and securing "American leadership in the clean energy sector" - all while helping reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
According to Energy Secretary Steven Chu:
These tax credits will help create thousands of high quality manufacturing jobs in some of the highest growth segments of the economy. This is an opportunity to develop our global leadership in clean energy manufacturing and build a secure, sustained base of jobs for America's workers.
The application process to receive the tax credits began last Friday and the preliminary deadline is September 16, 2009. Applicants will be offered tax credits based on expected commercial viability, and rankings of expected job creation, reduction of pollutants and GHGs, technological innovation, and speed of project implementation.
US and EU climate negotiators keep pushing for an international treaty based on hard emissions caps, yet developing nations like China and India keep refusing to adopt them. A report by the Center for Clean Air Policy says it's time for a new framework: achieving direct decarbonization by setting targets for the deployment of clean energy technologies.
Here's the current climate stalemate: While US and EU negotiators keep pushing for an international treaty based on cutting emissions, developing nations like China and India keep refusing to adopt hard emissions caps. But according to a new report by the Center for Clean Air Policy, those emission caps are too hard to measure and monitor in developing nations, anyway. Instead, the report concludes, developing countries should adopt a new approach to increase efficiency in their most energy-intensive industries by setting measurable clean energy technology targets.
Dan Klein of CCAP, a co-author of the report, explained:
"To be able to say we're going to improve our emissions intensity by 5 percent, that's a nice concept. But to be able to actually do that means ... you have the ability to measure industrywide what you're doing now and what you're doing after."
On the other hand, "It's not such a difficult thing to count the number of plants that have a certain technology," Klein said.
A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor outlines China's strategy to surpass the U.S in the clean energy race and become the world's next economic powerhouse
Imagining China as a giant green frog seems a little ridiculous, but, as Peter Ford of the Christian Science Monitor reported last week in a piece entitled "China's Green Leap Forward," China's intent to "leapfrog" the United States in the clean energy race is far from ridiculous - it may soon be a reality.
While the U.S. languidly inches forward in clean energy RD&D, China's burgeoning clean and renewable energy industries are growing at an unprecedented pace for a developing nation. Much more than a response to the suffocating pollution clogging the airways of its major cities, the explosion of clean energy technology is part of a national strategy to dominate the industry. As Ford succinctly puts it:
"China price" and "China speed" are poised to snatch the lion's share of the next multitrillion-dollar global industry - energy technology... Indeed, China is pushing ahead on renewable technologies with the fervor of a new space race.
Indeed, China is approaching clean energy with a "space race" mind-set, however, the U.S. has yet to adopt the same sense of urgency. As Americans wait for a Senate decision on the significantly weakened American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), which will invest just $1 billion per year in clean energy R&D and $10 billion for clean energy investments broadly defined, China has already implemented a suite of clean energy policies beginning with the Renewable Energy Law of 2006.
By supporting the growing wind sector with subsidies, tariffs, and an obligatory renewable energy requirement for power companies, China now expects wind manufacturing to grow from 8GW in 2007 to between 12GW and 20GW by 2010. In comparison, the U.S. manufactured just 2.4 GW of wind turbines in 2007 despite having the largest wind market in the world.
A fair share of the global climate investments called for the UNFCC Secretariat would imply a commitment of $75-99 billion annually from the United States. The Waxman-Markey climate bill leaves us far short of that mark. Will that picture change before the Copenhagen climate negotiations this December?
The global community should be investing $300 billion annually to combat global warming, according to UN climate chief Yvo de Boer (pictured). De Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change, says the world needs to be spending $100 billion annually to help vulnerable communities adapt to the impacts of climate change, and another $200 billion each year to shift the global energy mix away from fossil fuels.
"The world will need a phenomenal amount of money to change its energy supply from fossil fuels to cleaner sources and to adapt to climate change," de Boer said Friday.
"Carbon prices alone, however, will not be high enough -- at least for the next few decades -- to prompt a large-scale roll-out of renewable energy, nor will they be sufficient to promote carbon capture and sequestration. Prices will be set for many years to come by cheaper sources of credit -- energy efficiency and project-based mechanisms in the developing world. So a carbon price is an essential driver towards a lower carbon economy, but additional policy interventions will still be required."
India reiterated its staunch refusal to adopt binding emission reduction targets today, when Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh blamed developed nations for failing to fulfill the promises they made under the Kyoto Protocol. He called this failure--not India and China's resistance to emission caps--the "single biggest issue" currently standing in the way of international climate talks.
Ramesh told a foreign press conference in New Delhi that India is committed to "a meaningful international agreement that all countries will take seriously and implement, unlike Kyoto where countries took on legal obligations and reneged on them."
"Just because we draw attention to the hypocrisy of the West does not mean that we are not conscious of our own responsibility," he said, adding that India has a right "to be recognised as latecomers and stepchildren of the Industrial Revolution."
This comes as the latest in a string of increasingly sharp criticisms from India and China as they maintain their opposition to an international treaty based on reducing emissions.
Recently, Senator Sherrod Brown refused to accept a climate bill that would simply send both emissions and U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas - inaccurately earning him a label as a "threat" to the passage of federal energy and climate legislation. This week, the Ohio Democrat formally introduced legislation to strengthen America's efforts to both cut emissions and build a prosperous clean energy economy: the Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology (IMPACT) Act of 2009.
"We can revive American manufacturing through investments in clean energy," Brown said. "This bill will help our manufacturers retool, put our auto suppliers back to work, and produce clean energy technologies."
The bill would create a two-year, $30 billion revolving loan fund to help small and medium-sized American manufacturers to improve the manufacturing process and increase their production of clean energy parts and systems. The IMPACT Act would also directly invest $1.5 billion over five years to help guide manufacturers into clean energy markets and streamline their implementation of new manufacturing technologies and methods through the Manufacturing Extension Program, a division of the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology.
100 miles southwest of Beijing, a green revolution is underway; and it began, as Peter Ford of the Christian Science Monitor reports, with a "bad case of smelly fish".
Yu Qun had only recently been elected mayor of Baoding, China when fish in the region's largest lake began to die by the thousands. In his mind, this could only be the direct result of pollution from the several hundred factories which lined the river's banks. So Mr. Yu took a drastic but, in the long run, incredibly fortuitous step: he closed the factories.
This move cost his city large points at first with the Central Government. His annual economic growth was down almost two percentage points; but Mr. Yu had a plan:
"Polluting first and cleaning up later is very expensive," says the boyish-looking mayor, a former college math teacher. "So we chose renewable energy to replace traditional industry."
In three years, Yu has transformed Baoding from an automobile and textile town into the fastest-growing hub of solar, wind, and biomass energy-equipmentmakers in China. Baoding now has the highest growth rate of any city in Hebei Province. Its "Electricity Valley" industrial cluster - consciously modeled on Silicon Valley - has quadrupled its business.
Thursday, 10 Senate Democrats sent a letter to the President Obama outlining their position on upcoming climate policy. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Russell D. Feingold (D-WI), Carl Levin (D-MI), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Robert P. Casey (D-PA), Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), Arlen Specter (D-PA), John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV), and Al Franken (D-MN) voiced their position to make sure that effective climate policy both reduces emissions and strengthens American manufacturing. The letter's signatories want U.S. climate policy to:
Include transition assistance as factories become more efficient and as they retool to make clean energy products in a more efficient way;
Set negotiating objectives around manufacturing that the U.S. can take to the Copenhagen climate negotiations in December;
Establish mechanisms to verify emissions reductions and hold countries accountable for meeting their goals; and
Establish a border adjustment (fee) on goods from countries with less rigorous climate provisions.
The New York Times headline editors were quick to ominously label the letter a "threat" to the passage of a climate bill, but that is hardly the case. This letter was not an ultimatum stating opposition to climate legislation, or even to the Waxman-Markey bill in particular. The letter states the Senator's support for climate action and provides a forum for addressing their clearly stated concerns that if anything, should enable the design of an effective and passable bill. If these critical swing Senators remain "a threat" to climate legislation, it is more due to failure of creative policy design than the evil machinations of industry-funded hacks from coal states. So before we vilify these ten Senators - every one of whom is likely necessary to secure passage of any climate or energy legislation - let's take a close look at what they are actually saying...
"short-term transition assistance in the form of rebates provided to energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries"
While it's unclear whether this is calling for additional emissions allowances for energy intensive industries, the simple fact is that energy is a primary input to our entire economy, making energy costs a major political and economic sensitivity. This is most pronounced in states reliant on coal for their electricity mix and/or reliant on energy-intensive industries for their economy (e.g. the states whose senators signed this letter). That's the simple reality of climate politics. It's long past time to internalize that and pursue good policy design that can still succeed in that political environment. Good climate policy should be able to support manufacturing in the clean energy economy. Let's make sure the details of policy design match the "green jobs" messaging.
In a recent speech at Harvard, energy secretary Steven Chu again supported an agenda to make the US a leading clean energy innovator. But Congress continues to reject strategic policies that would make this a reality.
In a speech yesterday at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, energy secretary Steven Chu again repeated his declaration that nothing less than a technological "revolution" is necessary to meet America's energy challenge and to ensure the US position as a leading global economic power.
Speaking alongside Congressman Ed Markey, Chu told his audience that future US prosperity depends upon widely deploying renewable energy, developing carbon capture and storage capabilities, and increasing energy efficiency--but most importantly, it depends upon becoming a leading innovator in clean energy technologies.
Chu minced no words when he described this critical juncture for the US in the
global clean energy industry:
"We're faced with the following choices: We can become the leader of a new industrial revolution and lay the foundation of our future economic prosperity ... or we can hope the price of oil will go back to $30 a barrel, deny climate change is happening and let other countries take the lead in energy innovation."
A recent Goldman Sachs report on the Waxman-Markey climate bill confirms it would result in one of the largest commodity markets in the world subject to significant speculation and have relatively marginal impacts on the renewable power industry.
A Goldman Sachs report on the Waxman-Markey climate bill, recently issued to Goldman Sachs' clients, confirms Breakthrough Institute analysis showing the legislation would result in one of the largest commodity markets in the world subject to significant speculation by financial firms, and would have relatively marginal impacts on the renewable power industry.
Titled "Carbonomics: Measuring impact of US carbon regulation on select industries" (not publicly accessible), the report concludes that "A new carbon market presents a major opportunity for exchanges and clearinghouses, especially as more allowances and offsets trade over time."
In a section titled "Carbon exchanges -- build it, and they will (must) come to trade," it estimates the bill would grow the global carbon market to become one of the largest in the world, with trading volume of 175 to 263 million contracts per year -- larger than the oil and gas markets combined and approximately the third largest commodity market in the world after U.S. interest rates and stock indexes. The analysts estimate the profit margin for financial firms resulting from this new carbon market could reach $2 billion per year globally.
The report also examines potential impacts of the legislation on the power sector, concluding that the carbon price expected from Waxman-Markey would not make most renewables competitive, and many regions might pay the compliance fee for the renewable electricity standard instead of deploying renewables:
Today, the U.S. Department of Energy announced $377 million in funding to establish 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) pursuing potentially path-breaking basic and translational research at the cutting-edge of clean energy innovation. Of this funding, $277 comes from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, otherwise known as the stimulus package) and $100 million comes from the DOE's FY2009 budget. The funding will be sustained over the next five years, with the DOE committing $100 million of its budget to the research centers each year.
"Meeting the challenge to reduce our dependence on imported oil and curtail greenhouse gas emissions will require significant scientific advances," said Energy Secretary Steven Chu as he announced the new funding for EFRCs. "These centers will mobilize the enormous talents and skills of our nation's scientific workforce in pursuit of the breakthroughs that are essential to expand the use of clean and renewable energy."
The majority of EFRCs are based in universities, with several harnessing the skills and resources of the national laboratories, and just three awarded to non-profit organizations and private corporations. Over the course of the program, these centers will employ over 1,800 people in research into four primary realms: Renewable and Carbon-Neutral Energy (including Solar Energy Utilization, Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, Biofuels, and Geological Sequestration of CO2); Energy Efficiency (Clean and Efficient Combustion, Solid State Lighting, Superconductivity); Energy Storage (Hydrogen Research, Electrical Energy Storage); and Crosscutting Science (Catalysis, Materials under Extreme Environments).
Two new studies published last month -- one by the Office of Tony Blair and the Climate Group, the other by the Global Climate Network and Center for American Progress (CAP) -- strongly advocate a climate policy strategy based on direct government investment in energy technology development and deployment.
The studies independently reach conclusions similar to the Breakthrough Institute's and are yet another indication of "The Emerging Climate Consensus," which recognizes the limits of carbon pricing and advocates major increases in federal funding to deploy low-carbon energy technologies and drive down their costs through direct public investment in RD&D (research, development, and demonstration), deployment, and supporting infrastructure.
"Governments should adopt a strategic top-down approach to ensure that critical technologies arrive on time and provide investment in disruptive options to allow radical transformation in the future... The reality is that carbon pricing does not address many other market failures along the innovation chain."
The study argues that direct public support is crucial to develop and deploy new technologies: "Market failures along the innovation chain require public spending to drive technologies down their cost curve to a point where the carbon price can take over and accelerate their deployment." Echoing the Breakthrough Institute, International Energy Agency, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu (and defying critics like Joseph Romm), the report once again concludes that energy technologies must undergo major developments to meet emission reduction targets:
"Although we have the technologies we need through to 2020, new technologies -- many available but not yet commercially proven -- will be needed to meet the more challenging long-term goals. Therefore, at the same time as we deploy existing solutions, we must invest in future options."
Despite President Obama's call for an energy revolution, it is up to Congress to provide funding. The Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-e) made a recent call for research proposals into "high-risk, high-payoff transformational energy-related R&D," for projects that "(1) translate scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations and (2) accelerate transformational technological advances in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake because of high technical or financial risk."
Over 3,500 research teams submitted proposals for a slice of the available $150 million. As a result, over 98% of applicants we "discouraged" from submitting a full application.
Sure, some of the applications were "undoubtedly unrealistic, fundamentally flawed, written in crayon, or the like," as Andrew Revkin aptly noted at Dot Earth. But with 98% of all proposals rejected, there's got to be another explanation for the high rejection rate as well. Surely at least 5%, 10%, maybe even one third of these proposals are worth further consideration. Remember: this round of project proposals was simply to get into the next round of consideration where ARPA-e program managers would being the real project grant selection process. No, the reason so many proposals were rejected has more to do with the fact that there is simply not nearly enough money to fund all the good, potentially game-changing clean energy ideas out there.
This problem is not unique to this ARPA-e or this round of research proposals. It is a chronic symptom of this country's (under)commitment to clean energy.
In yesterday's Washington Post,
prominent U.S. business leaders John Doerr (from Kleiner Perkins) and
Jeff Immelt (CEO of GE) joined the growing chorus calling on
the nation's leaders to prepare America for the clean-energy race. They
warn that the U.S. is quickly falling behind in "the next great global
industry" -- green technology -- with the risk of damaging America's economic
competitiveness.
Doerr and Immelt's observations mirror recent reporting by the Breakthrough Institute and several major news sources -- including Time, Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal -- that
show the U.S. trailing Asia in terms of clean-energy investment and
deployment. On the question of which nation is leading the U.S. in the
clean-energy race, Doerr and Immelt don't mince their words:
"We are clearly not in the lead today. That position is
held by China, which understands the importance of controlling its
energy future. China's commitment to developing clean energy
technologies and markets is breathtaking.
Consider: Chinese cars are more than one-third more
fuel-efficient than U.S. cars. China is investing 10 times as much on
clean power, as a percentage of gross domestic product, as the United
States is. China is on track to create 150,000 jobs through the
deployment of 120 gigawatts of wind power by 2020 -- an amount
equivalent to today's global total and nearly five times America's."
Though the Senate rejected RE-ENERGYSE in its budget for FY2010, student groups and youth leaders will continue to demand funding for the energy education program, which would drive America's clean energy economy and global competitiveness
Designed to usher in a new generation of young clean energy innovators by improving education in math and science, RE-ENERGYSE (REgaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge) was a crucial part of Obama's plan to drive our nation's transition to a clean energy economy and maintain global competitiveness in the race for clean energy. Unfortunately, the Senate roundly disregarded Obama's vision to meet the clean energy challenge when it appropriated none of the $34.3 billion in energy spending last week towards the program. Meanwhile, the House only appropriated $7.5 million to perform an assessment study.
By providing necessary educational resources and research opportunities, RE-ENERGYSE is precisely the kind of program the United States needs in order to inspire students to pursue careers in clean energy fields. Had it received funding, the program was slated to prepare approximately 8,500 talented young scientists and engineers to enter the clean energy workforce by 2015 - just for starters. What Congress has failed to recognize is that this fundamental investment in our nation's youth is critical to facilitating a rapid transition to a clean energy economy.
According to a recent op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle by the Breakthrough Institute's Jesse Jenkins and Teryn Norris, only around 15% of undergraduate degrees in the U.S. are awarded in the fields of math and science. And as Wall Street investment firms aggressively recruit the nation's top students -- not just in economics and finance, but in math, engineering, and physics -- more and more of our nation's best and brightest scientific minds are directed away from clean technology innovation and into the financial sector.
Policymakers should employ a portfolio of policies that "supports a broad range of initiatives from basic research through demonstration" of clean energy technologies, the National Academies' Committee on America's Energy Future recommends.
The United States needs a new "sustained national commitment" to improving energy efficiency and accelerating both the development and deployment of clean energy technologies, according to a major new report from the National Academies Press (NAP).
Authored by the National Academies' Committee on America's Energy Future, the recently released paper is the first part in a longer report, titled America's Energy Future: Technology and Transformation. The result of a major study initiated in 2007, the report is designed to inform policymakers about the state of development, costs, implementation barriers, and impacts of current energy technology and potential options for the future and presents eight key findings (summarized below).
Policymakers should employ a portfolio of policies that "supports a broad range of initiatives from basic research through demonstration," the Committee recommends, adding the typical cautionary note, that policymakers should strive to avoid "select[ing] technology winners and losers,"
America's Energy Future explains that the scope and scale of the U.S. energy challenge requires that the U.S. take advantage of available energy efficiency improvements, deploy emerging clean energy technologies, and fund long-term investments in research and development of new technologies. No single component of that strategy is sufficient. According to the report:
"'Business as usual' approaches for obtaining and using energy will be inadequate for achieving the needed transformation. The efforts required will involve not only substantial new investments by the public and private sector in research, development, demonstration, and deployment--in virtually all aspects of the energy infrastructure--but also new public policies and regulations on energy production, distribution, and use."
The authors also acknowledge that the "the U.S. energy system has developed in response to an array of uncoordinated market forces and shifting public policies," the result of the fact that the United States has never before advanced a comprehensive set of national energy policies. The report calls for a concerted, coordinated and sustained suite of federal policies and investments to advance clean energy technologies and transform the U.S. energy sector, such as the Breakthrough Institute's proposal to make clean energy cheap and abundant.
