The CLEAR Act targets a 20% reduction in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, relative to a 2005 benchmark, but the bill's emissions cap on fossil fuel emissions would require cuts just 5 percent below 2012 levels, making that target aspirational. If the most recent EIA projections of depressed emissions levels due to the economic recession prove accurate, those cuts could be in the range of 9% below the 2005 benchmark by 2020. The cap would apply only to CO2 emissions, and does not cover the non-CO2 greenhouse gases responsible for roughly 15 percent of U.S. emissions, when weighted by their impact on global warming. To achieve additional reductions necessary to hit the bill's 20% by 2020 target, the legislation directs the President to achieve additional emissions reductions in non-capped sectors of the U.S. economy by directly funding programs to encourage land-use changes that sequester carbon in forestry and agriculture or reduce emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as methane. The bill sets aside a portion of the cap and auction revenues in a trust fund that prioritizes spending on these additional reductions, but precise uses of that fund is subject to Congressional appropriations, and the 20% by 2020 target should be considered aspirational. See more here.
The CLEAR Act's clean technology investments fall far short of expert recommendations, amount needed to ensure emissions goals are achieved. Ensuring emissions reduction goals can be achieved at affordable and politically sustainable costs, without triggering the bill's cost cap (see below), will require proactive and aggressive investments in clean technology innovation and deployment to ensure a steady supply of affordable emissions reduction technologies. The CLEAR Act will raise an estimated $42-126 billion annually by auctioning 100 percent of the emissions permits created under the bill's upstream carbon cap, leaving sufficient funding for necessary clean technology investments. However, the legislation devotes three-quarters of the carbon auction revenue to sending monthly rebate checks to households on an equal, per-capita basis. That leaves just one quarter of the bill's revenue that is set aside in a "Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust Fund," for an estimated $10-32 billion annually at the outset of the cap and auction program, increasing over time as carbon prices rise to roughly $16-46 billion by 2020. CERT funds would be prioritized to meet additional emissions reductions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases to meet the bill's 20% by 2020 aspirational target, and the bill names a number of other competing potential uses for the fund. Breakthrough Institute estimates that the CLEAR Act could easily devote as little as $2.5-8 billion annually at the range of initial carbon prices to catalyze clean technology innovation, directly support clean energy manufacturing capabilities and domestic market growth, and spur the construction of critical enabling infrastructure, such as long-distance transmissions lines, smart grid technologies and electric vehicle charging stations. That level of investment in clean technology could grow to $4-11.5 billion by 2020 but falls far short of expert recommendations, which call for targeted investments to remove key barriers to widespread clean energy adoption totaling on the scale of $30-80 billion annually. See more here.
The CLEAR Act does not allow carbon offsets and is transparent about the emissions reductions the bill's carbon cap will drive. Fossil fuel importers and producers regulated under CLEAR are not permitted to use emissions offsets to prove compliance with the bill's emissions cap. Unlike otherclimate bills, CLEAR keeps emissions reductions in non-capped sectors strictly separate from efforts to transform the U.S. energy system through the bill's carbon cap. This enables a transparent debate over how quickly the U.S. energy sector can (or must) transition away from fossil fuels towards cleaner alternatives while ensuring that emissions reduction efforts in other sectors, including agriculture and forestry, are pursued in conjunction with, rather than instead of, the critical transformation of the energy system. Instead of relying on offsets to achieve reductions outside the cap at the expense of reductions under the cap, CLEAR pursues additional emissions reductions outside the energy-sector cap by using a portion of the bill's cap and auction revenues to directly provide incentives for land-use changes that sequester carbon in forestry and agriculture and fund programs to reduce non-CO2 gases such as methane. Competing climate bills, including the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill and the Senate Kerry-Boxer bill, allow regulated entities to rely heavily on emissions offsets for compliance with their emissions caps, despite widely documented difficulties (even outright fraud) in verifying the actual emissions impacts of many offset projects. Both of these competing bills permit regulated polluters to offset up to two billion tons of their emissions annually. That's a huge amount -- roughly one third of all U.S. energy-related emissions -- and is enough to completely negate any pressure on the energy sector to transition towards cleaner energy technologies for much if not all of the next two decades, rendering their emissions "caps" effectively non-binding for the foreseeable future.See more here and here
The CLEAR Act features transparent, predictable cost-containment. Public (and policymaker) tolerance for increased energy prices is a key constraint on politically viable carbon pricing policies. Mechanisms to constrain the cost of carbon are thus an inevitable component of any politically successful cap and trade policy. Securing passage of any carbon pricing proposal will require a clear and transparent debate over the costs (and benefits) of such a policy and political consensus that such costs are worth it. To date, the most prevalent cost containment mechanisms have been complex and opaque, including the massive reliance on offsets. Eschewing the traditional reliance on offsets, CLEAR offers a simple and transparent approach to cost containment that can help end these debates: the bill provides assurance that carbon prices will not rise (or fall) outside of a prescribed and predictable range of prices. This approach, sometimes dubbed a "cost collar," guarantees that auction prices for carbon emissions permits will fall between both a floor and a ceiling, initially set at $7 and $21 respectively in CLEAR, with each value rising steadily each year. If the ceiling is reached, additional permits will be auctioned at that price, increasing the supply of permits to contain prices, and raising additional revenues. Unlike complicated and unpredictiable cost containment measures in other bills which subject climate policy to an endless war of competing economic models, CLEAR's transparent approach to cost containment offers a predictable mechanism that enables a transparent debate about how high the body politic is willing to allow carbon prices to rise, or where we want to limit the economic damage in any worst-case scenario. See more here.
The CLEAR Act's transparent emissions cap calls the question on offsets. Until just recently, carbon offsets appealed to environmentalists, polluting firms, farmers, timber interests, and development agencies alike because they promised to hold down the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while promoting sustainable development. But things that seem too good to be true usually are, and the awareness that offsets all-too-often do not represent real emissions reductions is growing. Rather than resolving the political and economic tradeoffs inherent in reducing emissions, offsets obscured them. Such was the case with Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation, which passed the House last year. The bill's heavy reliance upon offsets obfuscated the fact that Waxman-Markey would not require emissions reductions by regulated firms for the first decade or two of the program. Thus, the bill would not result in the radical technological transformation required to make clean energy cheap and reduce emissions globally. By eschewing offsets entirely and featuring both a transparent emissions cap, the CLEAR Act would actually mandate greater emissions reductions in capped sectors of the U.S. economy than Waxman-Markey, and thus reveals the way offsets can undermine both the clean energy transformation and environmental objectives. The question now is whether policymakers, green groups and reporters will be able to continue representing offsets as real emissions reductions, and whether they will in the future continue to use them to mask two of the most unpopular elements of emissions trading legislation: higher energy costs and wealth transfers from consumers in developed nations to businesses in developing ones. See more here and here.
The CLEAR Act features a number of other streamlined features, each of which offers advantages. The CLEAR Act would establish a simplified "upstream" cap on the few thousand fossil fuel importers and producers that first bring carbon-laden fuels into the U.S. economy. Unlike competing climate bills, 100% of the emissions permits would be auctioned at a regular (monthly) basis, and only the fuel producers/importers regulated under the emissions cap would be able to purchase permits. Wall Street derivatives marketers, speculators and other interests can't buy or sell emissions permits or create and trade in carbon derivatives or other secondary products under CLEAR. See more here
The growing movement to make clean energy cheap, and to deliver that energy globally, has the potential to alleviate as much human suffering and injustice as some of the largest, concerted social movements in history.
"If you gave me only one wish for the next 50 years," declared the world's wealthiest man during last week's TED 2010 conference, "I can pick who is president, I can pick a vaccine - or I can pick that an [energy technology] at half the cost with no carbon emissions gets invented, this is the wish I would pick. This is the one with the greatest impact."
Bill Gates is right. And he is not just talking about the impact on climate change, which does of course present a major threat. He is also talking about one of the most critical global imperatives to make poverty history: making clean energy cheap.
"If you could pick just one thing to lower the price of to reduce poverty, by far you would pick energy," said Gates in his introduction. Gates should know as well as any development expert, since the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation - the world's largest transparent private foundation - has invested billions of dollars in extreme poverty alleviation since 1994.
Nearly 1.6 billion of our fellow human beings have no access to electricity, and around 2.4 billion people - over one third of global population - meet their basic cooking and heating needs by burning biomass, such as wood, crop waste, and dung. "Without access to modern, commercial energy, poor countries can be trapped in a vicious circle of poverty, social instability and underdevelopment," concludes the International Energy Agency.
Mike Riggs at the Daily Caller include several quotes from me in an article about climate skepticism. So as to avoid any confusion about my views on the subject, I post below the full text of the extended email correspondence from which Riggs pulled the quotes:
Mike Riggs: Do you see skepticism as a rational reaction to recent news about "climategate," inaccurate studies in the 2007 IPCC report, or criticisms of Dr. Phil Jones?
Ted Nordhaus: You have to ask yourself what you mean by skepticism. Are you talking about skepticism about the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures? Skepticism about whether temperature trends over the last decade are consistent with the predictions of climate models? Skepticism about the relationship between present day natural disasters and global warming? These skepticisms are not the same thing. One can accept the relationship between CO2 and global temperature increases and be skeptical of the predictions of climate models. One can accept that CO2 is warming the planet and even accept many of the predictions of climate models and still be skeptical of the claims that global warming is driving rising disaster losses in the present.
Despite the philanthropic focus of his foundation, Bill Gates confided to a rapt audience at the TED conference last week that if he could have one wish granted he wouldn't ask for "vaccines or seeds," he'd ask for clean, cheap energy, and fast.
Bill Gates wants clean, cheap energy more than he wants to pick the next 50 years worth of presidents, even more than he wants a miracle vaccine. At least that's how he ranked his number one wish while describing climate change as the world's greatest challenge to a rapt audience at the TED conference last week.
Just weeks after lending his voice to a growing "innovation consensus" by writing on his blog, Gates Notes, that innovation, not just insulation, must be the focus if we are serious about "getting to zero," Gates' TED speech expanded on what we need to get there:
"We need energy miracles. The microprocessor and internet are miracles. This is a case where we have to drive and get the miracle in a short timeline."
Gates emphasized the need for an energy miracle portfolio that includes carbon capture and storage and nuclear as well as wind and solar. According to CNN's coverage of the conference (the video is not posted yet), Gates showed particular interest in the potential for nuclear waste reprocessing as a source of clean, cheap energy.
Until just recently, carbon offsets appealed to environmentalists, polluting firms, farmers, timber interests, and development agencies alike because they promised to hold down the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while promoting sustainable development. But things that seem too good to be true usually are, and the awareness that offsets all-too-often do not represent real emissions reductions has now been recognized by both a new alternative cap and trade proposal (Cantwell-Collins) in the Senate and by the World Resources Institute.
Rather than resolving the political and economic tradeoffs inherent in reducing emissions, offsets obscured them. Such was the case with Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislation, which passed the House last year. The bill's heavy reliance upon offsets obfuscated the fact that Waxman-Markey would not require emissions reductions by regulated firms for the first decade or two of the program. Thus, the bill would not result in the radical technological transformation required to make clean energy cheap and reduce emissions globally.
Green groups like World Resources Institute (WRI) were complicit in the obfuscation, and major media outlets including The New York Times followed their lead, duly reprinting WRI's graph showing that the legislation would reduce emissions reductions 17 percent by 2020, even though all of those reductions could be purchased as offsets.
Two months ago, hundreds of world leaders and tens of thousands of activists gathered in Copenhagen to craft a new global treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. Green groups put on a spectacle - yes, Greenpeace even docked two of its famous boats nearby to "help in pushing the delegates" - and some observers declared it a make or break event in global climate history.
Today, there is strikingly little to show for the whole affair, momentum has slowed to a crawl and hardly anyone is discussing the aftermath. For good reason: the Copenhagen Accord is basically a voluntary agreement with obscure objectives, and its impact will be negligible. Michael Cutajar, the former chairman of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiation group, said that "Beyond the lack of clarity in its drafting, its main weakness is the lack of ambition and identifying responsibilities... Who should do what, and when, in order to limit warming to two degrees?"
What went wrong at Copenhagen? As I recently argued on BBC World View, the outcome was primarily the result of a flawed UNFCCC process and policy framework. The first and most obvious problem was imagining that 192 countries - some of which represent thousands of times more people than others - could produce a meaningful climate mitigation treaty. The UNFCCC process is kind of like the U.S. Senate (today one of the most dysfunctional national legislative bodies in the world) but at least four times as complicated.
A largely-symbolic freeze on domestic spending is the wrong route to trim the deficit. Along with real entitlement reform and winding down the wars, smart government investments in broad-based economic growth must be the keystone of a three-part strategy to truly balance the federal budget. Take energy as a case in point, where investments now to catalyze competitive clean energy technologies and industries will pay big economic dividends down the line.
With rising anxiety about mounting federal deficits, President Obama declared a freeze on all non-defense discretionary spending in his latest budget proposal. Heavy on symbolism and light on impact, the Administration's proposal attacks all of the areas of the government least responsible for the inexorable increase in federal deficits, while potentially starving key parts of the discretionary budget critical to America's economic prosperity.
Let's be clear: ballooning deficits do pose a real long-term threat to the United States' economic security. Under current forecasts, the accumulated deficit could total $20 trillion by 2020. That could hobble Uncle Sam with interest payments on the federal debt nearly as large as the projected total for all domestic discretionary spending. Efforts clearly must be taken to avoid such an unsustainable - and risky - financial future.
That said, curbing domestic spending is the wrong route to trim the deficit. The President's spending freeze applies to only a small fraction of the federal budget, while exempting both the mounting costs of two wars and the ever-rising bill for the nation's entitlement programs - Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
The $708 billion FY2011 military/defense spending budget is 33 percent larger than the peak of Pentagon budgets during the Vietnam War and 64 percent higher than the Cold War average.
By Breakthrough Fellow Danny Spitzberg and Stephen Collins
Earlier this week, fellow Daily Cardinal opinion writer Anthony Cefali posed a question:
"How do we inspire our science program to shoot for the moon, or at least our own modern equivalent?"
Well, we think we have an answer.
Look no further than clean energy. Some are calling it the biggest market opportunity in history. Experts of all stripes have repeatedly stated that the nation that wins the clean-energy race will be the nation that leads the 21st century economy. Discovering and implementing cheap, clean and reliable energy technologies is our generation's final frontier.
But, as Cefali asked, how do we get there? President Obama has proposed doing so by increasing funding for energy education and training through a program called RE-ENERGYSE (short for REgaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge). More than 100 organizations, including the University of Wisconsin-Madison, signed a letter last summer urging Congress to support the program, which would augment energy education in universities, training schools, community colleges and even K-12 teacher education. It's easy to see why: UW-Madison professor and energy policy expert Greg Nemet said that he thinks "maybe the biggest opportunity is to take advantage of the fact that we have tens of thousands of students here who could potentially be working on [creating a clean energy economy]." However, Congress ignored last summer's call to action by rejecting Obama's $115 million budget request for RE-ENERGYSE.
China is leading the global race to make clean energy, yet some observers are denying that there is a race at all. They are wrong. Neglecting to acknowledge the economic stakes in the clean energy race and failing to develop a strategy to compete are the reasons why the United States finds itself behind today.
Over at Green Chip Stocks, clean tech market analyst Nick Hodges asks, "Who's Winning the Clean Tech Arms Race?" The answer shouldn't surprise you. Nick cites the deficiencies in U.S. clean energy policy in relative to China's policies as a major reason that "the global clean tech game will be dominated by Chinese players for the foreseeable future."
With Chinese manufacturers poised to dominate emerging clean tech markets, where are all those green jobs that the Democrats have promised? Many of them are going to China, writes SUNY history professor Judith Stein in a recent op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Stein writes that green job rhetoric won't create green jobs without a plan to invest in clean energy manufacturing here in the United States:
"Green jobs are surely needed. But green Democrats simply echo the Atari Democrats of the 1980s, who concluded that traditional manufacturing was disposable and high technology was the wave of the future. During this era, the young Barack Obama attempted - and failed - to find jobs for displaced steelworkers in Chicago."
Stein also writes that China's manufacturing prowess has implications for clean tech innovation as well, as I argue below: "Meanwhile, the Chinese government offers huge subsidies to encourage green-technology manufacturers in the United States to move their production to China. And when manufacturing leaves, research and development operations follow. That's how China attracted battery and fuel-cell research formerly conducted in America."
By Devon Swezey
In his State of the Union Speech, President Obama issued what is now a familiar refrain: "the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy." If there were still doubts about which nation has the edge they were put to rest days later by a bluntly titled front-page article in the New York Times, "China is Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy."
Though the story is not new, the article is the latest indication of the alacrity with which China has emerged as a clean energy powerhouse in the span of just a few years. China now manufactures more solar cells than any nation in the world, and recently surpassed the United States as the largest market for wind turbines in 2009. According to "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," a recent study by the Breakthrough Institute, China is also a world leader in advanced transportation technologies and batteries, is increasingly localizing the production of nuclear power plants, and has developed some of the world's most advanced CCS technology.
Despite the mounting evidence, many have dismissed the idea that the United States is competing in a "clean energy race" with China, or that it matters.
Some critics assert that characterizing the intense competition as a "race" obscures the climate benefits of greater clean energy deployment throughout the world and the "win-win" nature of a global clean energy economy. The New Republic's Brad Plumer embodies this "it's all good" line of reasoning, writing:
If China zooms ahead and figures out how to make really cheap wind turbines, that doesn't hurt anyone--it just makes the enormous task of cutting global carbon emissions that much easier.
Plumer's casual attitude towards the economic consequences of ceding clean tech manufacturing leadership to China is a slap in the face to U.S. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). The pair has been working hard to secure the new clean energy manufacturing jobs that can help revitalize the industrial heartland.
At Yale e360, environmental journalist Christina Larson similarly suggests that the United States has little to lose if China dominates emerging clean tech industries:
The United States will still gain many new green-collar jobs in installation and maintenance, which can only be locally based, as well as sales teams, conference planners, and other positions already arising to support the growing green-tech field.
Forget about the export-oriented, high-value added, high-wage clean energy manufacturing jobs of the future that Democrats have promised will jumpstart the ailing American economy; the clean energy conference organizing industry is now open for business.
The New America Foundation's Reihan Salam mocks the idea of a "clean technology race," arguing erroneously that the barriers to entry in clean energy are low and that any established competitive advantage will be "ephemeral."
He compares China's clean tech policies to Japan's policies of the 1980s, as if the Japanese government did not succeed in supporting the development of what are still world leading high technology industries in automobiles, electronics, and high value steel manufacturing. While Japan was investing in high-tech industries the United States was simultaneously accelerating the financialization of its economy, creating trillions of dollars of paper wealth that has largely vanished over the last two years.
Indeed, Salam admits that federal investment in technology has spawned entire new industries like aerospace and electronics, but takes pains to paint similar investments that can catalyze the development of new clean technologies as "disastrous."
Apparently our surging clean tech competitors in Asia and the EU didn't get the message.
RE-ENERGYSE represents the nation's first comprehensive federal program for clean energy education, and it is a critical step toward regaining American leadership in the clean energy industry.
Last week, the Obama administration introduced a proposal that every college student in the country should know about. It represents the nation's first comprehensive federal program for clean energy education, and it is a critical step toward regaining American leadership in one of the most important industries of our time.
Over the past two years, a growing numbers of experts have called for federal programs to develop the country's clean energy workforce. In April 2009, President Obama took up these calls by announcing the first nationwide initiative to inspire and train young Americans "to tackle the single most important challenge of their generation -- the need to develop cheap, abundant, clean energy and accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy."
The proposal, called RE-ENERGYSE (Regaining our Energy Science and Engineering Edge), is part of the administration's 2011 budget request, which will be considered by Congress in the months ahead. With oversight by the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation, it would educate thousands of clean energy scientists and engineers, beginning with $74 million for energy-related programs at universities, community and technical colleges and K-12 schools.
"In order to make the leap in global energy technology leadership, the U.S. must also make the leap in energy education," states the Department of Energy's proposal (PDF). "This effort will help universities and community colleges develop cutting edge programs, with redesigned and new curricula to produce tens of thousands of other highly skilled U.S. workers who can sustain American excellence in clean energy in industry, trades, academia, the federal government and National Laboratories."
A three-part series in the San Jose Mercury News highlights the enormous economic opportunity in the clean-tech sector and warns that the U.S. is quickly falling behind.
A special three-part series inlast week's San Jose Mercury News, entitled "The Cleantech Revolution,"highlighted the enormous economic opportunity in the clean-tech sector and warned that the U.S. is quickly falling behind while Asia seeks to gain global market dominance.
In its analysis of the clean technology market, the Mercury's rhetoric is grand and its data convincing. The first part of the series begins:
"Cleantech is poised to be the valley's third great wave of innovation -- not just the next big thing, but perhaps the biggest thing ever. Confronting the peril of greenhouse gases and climate change happens to be a multi-trillion-dollar business opportunity."
The numbers provided support this claim: U.S. yearly utility bills exceed $1 trillion annually and the global energy and transportation market is estimated at $7 trillion. The wind and solar industries -- valued at $80 billion in 2008 -- are projected to triple in 10 years and employ 2.6 million people. Smart-grid technology, according to Morgan Stanley, will grow to $100 billion by 2030 and Cisco Systems believes smart-grid communications infrastructure could be worth $20 billion in the next 5 years.
Funding for more research on renewable energy is the most popular policy response to climate change across all respondents, netting 85% support, according to a Yale poll.
Yale just released the latest iteration of their "Climate Change and the American Mind" tracking polls. Once again (this has been a consistent finding), the poll shows funding for more research on renewable energy is the most popular policy response to climate change across all respondents, netting 85% support.
What did last week's State of the Union and Tuesday's "Lost" season premiere have in common?
If you guessed, "a drinking game," you'd certainly be correct, but if you also guessed, "more twists and turns than your small intestine" you'd be right on the mark.
Obama's address was not the stuff of Clinton-era small ball that we, and others, expected. That left Nancy Pelosi's exuberant clapping to be one of the most reliably predictable aspects of the evening (and happily, gave everyone playing at home a reason to drink).
A founder of Science and Technology Studies, the leader of Google's "Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal" program, the sociologist behind the concepts of 'risk society' and 'second modernity,' and three of the world's leading energy technology thinkers were named Senior Fellows in 2010 by the Breakthrough Institute.
The Breakthrough Institute is honored to announce its 2010 Breakthrough Senior Fellows. As leaders in the fields of sociology, science policy, energy, and technology, we are excited to welcome them to our unique team of multi-disciplinary experts and look forward to benefitting from their insight and collaboration on some of the most challenging issues of our time.
Bruno Latour
Bruno Latour A professor and vice president for research at the Institut d'etudes politiques in Paris, France, he did pioneering fieldwork on the subjective quality of scientific practice, and has argued for an ecological politics that transcends outmoded ideas of science and nature.
Bruno Latour is a founder of science and technology studies (STS) and was listed as the 10th most-cited intellectual in the humanities and social sciences by The Times Higher Education Guide. His 1979 "Laboratory Life" was a watershed ethnography of how science works in the real world. Latour studied scientists and found that subjective judgments that look unscientific to outsiders are central to the scientific enterprise. In his most famous work, "We Have Never Been Modern," Latour's argues that modernity is a kind of faith characterized by efforts to purify concepts like nature and science even as they become invariably mixed up in politics, society, religion, and tradition.
President Obama is right about the global energy race. Now his administration must get to work and advance a real strategy for global energy leadership.
One of the most powerful moments during last week's State of the Union came when President Obama warned that while Washington stalls, other nations are moving quickly to dominate the global clean-energy industry.
"China is not waiting to revamp its economy," Obama declared. "These nations aren't playing for second place... They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs. Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America... The nation that leads the clean-energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation."
Obama is right, and as always, his words were eloquent. Now his administration must get to work and advance a real strategy for global energy leadership.
The current proposals under consideration in Congress are far too weak. China, Japan and South Korea are launching massive, comprehensive clean-energy projects, investing a combined total of around $500 billion over the next five years. In contrast, the House-passed American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACESA), combined with the 2009 economic recovery package, poises the U.S. government to invest only $172 billion in this industry over the next five years, according to a recent report I co-authored with the Breakthrough Institute and Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.
That is hardly an effective strategy for energy leadership, and advocates should be careful about labeling the House and Senate climate bills as comprehensive solutions for U.S. clean-tech competitiveness.
Published by On Line Opinion, Australia's leading e-journal of social and political debate.
By Leigh Ewbank, Breakthrough Fellow
Recently, the Australian Greens challenged the Rudd Government to "break the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) deadlock" by implementing an interim price on carbon. The move no doubt stunned many with its pragmatism and has since won the backing of the government's former chief climate change adviser Ross Garnaut. While the move may give the Greens a PR boost, the proposal will work to strengthen the Coalition's recent framing of carbon pricing as a "great big tax". This of course has implications for Labor's climate policy agenda in an election year.
The Greens proposal would impose a $20 per tonne "price" on carbon emissions for two years, starting from July this year. According to the Greens, the interim measure would allow the nation to start addressing its ballooning carbon emissions and provide the Parliament with enough time to resolve differences over the government's emissions trading legislation. While this sounds like a sensible proposition, it plays into Abbott's strategy of framing Labor's emissions trading scheme and other carbon pricing measures as a "great big tax." Without the presence of carbon trading, Coalition MPs will have an easier time convincing the public that "carbon pricing" is in fact a form of taxation.
The Obama administration's 2011 budget request includes a proposal for the nation's first comprehensive federal education initiative focused on the clean energy sector.
In a promising development for aspiring clean energy scientists, engineers, and technicians, the Obama administration's 2011 budget request includes a proposal for the nation's first comprehensive federal education initiative focused on the clean energy sector, called RE-ENERGYSE (Regaining our Energy Science and Engineering Edge).
The initiative was originally proposed by President Obama in his April 2009 speech to the National Academy of Sciences, which he said would inspire and train young Americans to "tackle the single most important challenge of their generation -- the need to develop cheap, abundant, clean energy and accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy."
If appropriated by Congress, RE-ENERGYSE will be coordinated by the Department of Energy (DOE) and National Science Foundation (NSF), beginning with an initial investment of $74 million in clean energy-related education at universities, community and technical colleges, and K-12 schools. This will include a new $50 million program within DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (see full proposal), a $5 million program in DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy (see full proposal), and a $19 million program within NSF (see overview and fact sheet). A summary of each program is included below. DOE's well-known Solar Decathlon is also proposed to become part of RE-ENERGYSE in FY2011.
Jesse Jenkins joined ABC's Diane Sawyer on "The Conversation" via Skype today, to discuss clean technology competitiveness in the United States. In the interview, Jenkins emphasized the findings of the Breakthrough Institute/ITIF report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," explaining to Ms. Sawyer that a national strategy for clean tech competitiveness -- something China, Japan, and South Korea all have -- is the primary limiting factor for the U.S. in its effort to keep pace with rising clean tech tigers, as well as the E.U.
