A new report by the Breakthrough Institute and Third Way argues that the United States needs to rethink its approach to manufacturing to incentivize and enhance next generation "advanced manufacturing" and worker training.
Stagnant and out-dated policy debates in Washington are the reason that advanced, high-tech products are mostly manufactured outside of the United States, according to a new paper jointly issued by two think tanks. The report, from the Breakthrough Institute and leading moderate think tank Third Way, argues that American manufacturing could experience a resurgence with a focus on complicated and technology-intensive manufacturing products.
"The Kindle has revolutionized how people read, but even though it was born in Silicon Valley, Amazon makes it in Taiwan," said Director of Third Way's Economic Program and the report's co-author, Ryan McConaghy. "When looking for the precision needed to build the e-reader, Amazon had to look abroad for experienced manufacturers because the technology was no longer available here. It's a huge missed opportunity."
Wednesday's news that California solar manufacturer and DOE loan guarantee recipient Solyndra will be declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy has government critics grumbling about clean tech boondoggles and failed government programs and has analysts worried about the ability of American clean tech companies to compete with subsidized Chinese solar exporters.
Amidst this week's dismal news that U.S. job growth is at a standstill, KQED's Forum hosts Breakthrough Institute Director of Energy and Climate Policy Jesse Jenkins to discuss Solyndra's failure and the future of U.S. energy and manufacturing policy. Listen to the program below...
A new report co-authored by progressive environmentalists, Friends of the Earth, and consumer advocates, Public Citizen, not only misses the mark, it "makes fundamentally misguided choices would be counterproductive to reducing the budget deficit and could potentially exacerbate America's climate and energy challenges".
This post was co-authored by Matthew Stepp, Clean Energy Policy Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), and Teryn Norris, President of Americans for Energy Leadership. Originally published at Americans for Energy Leadership.
In the aftermath of the debt ceiling crisis and as the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction seeks a second budget deal, many public interest groups are working hard to ensure that even while Congress cuts wasteful spending, it preserves vital public programs and expands smart investments in the nation's future. In the energy and climate policy community, a broad range of groups are fighting to defend clean technology investment programs - such as the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) - that have taken years to establish and offer a glimmer of hope amidst a largely bleak political and policy landscape.
Other organizations are taking a different approach. This week, two progressive groups - the environmental Friends of the Earth and consumer advocacy group Public Citizen - drew attention when they joined the libertarian Heartland Institute and deficit-hawk Taxpayer for Common Sense in releasing a spending cut plan. In a report called "Green Scissors 2011," the groups call for $380 billion in spending they identify as "wasteful government subsidies" and "environmentally damaging."
True, we must reduce low-priority discretionary spending, both defense and domestic; slow the projected growth of Medicare and Medicaid; and restore Social Security to fiscal soundness. But we also need to care for an aging population and invest in the skills, research and modern infrastructure that power economic growth.
Alice Rivlin, founding director of the Congressional Budget Office, former director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, former Federal Reserve Vice Chair, and member of the Presidential Debt Commission.
See also: "Losing the Future?" a Breakthrough Institute staff editorial, April 14, 2011
It's not too late for President Obama to return to the clear path to "winning the future" articulated in his State of the Union. But righting the nation's economic trajectory demands a concerted and consistent effort to help Americans understand and embrace the difference between spending and investment, and to recognize that a growing economy fueled by new innovations, new technologies, and new industries is an essential component of any strategy to tame the debt.
"The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation. ... We'll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology, an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people."
With those remarks at the heart of his State of the Union address - and a 2012 Budget proposal to back them up - President Obama drew a line in the sand and articulated a vision of American economic renewal fueled by key investments in the kind of public-private partnership that brought us the railroads and jet aviation, microchips and the Internet, countless biomedical breakthroughs and a portfolio of clean energy alternatives.
As we wrote in January, "Obama's [State of the Union address] was a rejection of proposals to cut federal spending across the board, as he finally made the case before the American people about why public support for innovation is critical for the country's long-term prosperity."
It was a plan to "win the future" and restore American prosperity that embraced the crucial distinction between government spending - consumptive, transitory, and sometimes even wasteful - and public investment - that small portion of our federal budget that catalyzes the enduring innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth that makes this nation strong. We hailed the speech as "Obama's breakthrough" moment.
But that was January...
Today, we're veering closer to a very different vision of America's budgetary future, one that seems to embrace the logic of "across-the-board" spending cuts proffered by Republicans, including decreasing budgets for major national research agencies and clean energy innovation programs.
Budget Deal Cuts Investment in Innovation
Late on April 8th, President Obama's negotiators gave his imprimatur to a compromise to fund the government through the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year that would see federal investments in energy innovation fall by nearly 11% (or $325 million) below 2010 levels while stripping over $1 billion from the budgets of the nation's major non-defense research agencies.
These cuts amount to a veritable funding cliff, when one considers the nearly simultaneous expiration of the temporary investments flowing to innovation agencies in 2009 and 2010 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
If this is the opening battle in the war to win America's future, it is a clear defeat.
Two more influential voices have joined the growing ranks of innovation hawks on both sides of the political spectrum in urging against cuts in federal investment in science and technology. Noted political commentator Mort Kondrake writes that the GOP budget would "torch America's seed corn," while Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers writes that Congress should increase funding for energy research to make clean energy cheap.
As the Congressional Republicans continue to push cuts to critical federal investments in innovation, two more prominent voices have joined a growing group of innovation hawks on both sides of the aisle seeking to preserve or even increase federal funding for science and technology.
The first is noted political commentator Mort Kondrake, who wrote recently in Roll Call that the GOP is threatening to "torch America's seed corn" by cutting federal technology investment. Kondrake, a long-time contributor to Fox News and Executive Editor of Roll Call, notes that the Republicans' budget bill would cut funding for scientific research agencies by more than 33 percent, at a time when countless science and technology experts argue that we must increase such investments to spur economic growth. As Kondrake notes, the GOP budget proposal would abandon the long, bipartisan history of federal investment in American innovation:
Republican priorities represent not just a repudiation of President Barack Obama's proposed increases for science -- 10 percent for energy, 13 percent for the NSF, 15 percent for NIST -- but of a bipartisan process started in 2005 to secure a doubling of hard science research.
Last week, a group of Senate Democrat leaders unveiled their plan to build off of the innovation-centered budget proposal released by the President two weeks ago, including several important investments in energy innovation, advanced manufacturing, and infrastructure.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced the proposal as an effort to simultaneously "create jobs, promote growth and help America win the future by making smart investments in education, innovation and infrastructure while cutting spending to live within our means."
The Senate Democrats' plan to judiciously invest in innovation and infrastructure while cutting wasteful spending elsewhere in the budget stands in sharp contrast to the Continuing Resolution bill passed by the House this weekend. The House bill budget would cut more than $60 billion from the federal budget to fund the government through FY2011, slashing several important energy innovation initiatives.
The House Republican's Continuing Resolution proposal to fund the government through the rest of Fiscal Year 2011 (FY11, ending Sept. 30) would slash energy innovation investments across federal agencies. The bill, H.R. 1, was introduced last Friday as the GOP's attempt to reduce the deficit and restore "fiscal responsibility," yet would nevertheless strip highly leveraged dollars from important federal programs, while representing merely a drop in the bucket of the $1.3 trillion federal deficit.
The Continuing Resolution as it stands would slice over two billion dollars from the DOE's budget alone and would have detrimental impacts on the state of American energy innovation. The budget cuts would force the layoffs of scientists and engineers, shrink the capabilities of laboratories and universities to perform the most critical cutting-edge energy research projects, and, by cutting funds for highly-leveraged loan guarantee programs, steer private sector funds away from American entrepreneurs and small businesses looking to demonstrate and deploy their innovative energy technologies on American soil.
The Continuing Resolution proposes cuts of at least 17% as compared to FY10 levels in each of the most innovation-oriented offices in the Department of Energy:
The agency which would be hardest hit would be the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), which funds both the riskiest and most transformative, early-stage energy innovation projects, and would lose a staggering 75% of its budget under H.R. 1.
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), which was responsible for roughly 34% of the DOE's energy innovation investments in 2010, would lose 35% of its FY10 budget.
The Office of Science, which funds critical early-stage energy innovation research, would see a 20% decline in its budget. Office of Science devoted 20% of its 2010 budget to energy innovation funding, while supporting additional fundamental physical science research.
The Office of Nuclear Energy, which devoted 41% of its funds to energy innovation projects in 2010, would lose 23% of its budget.
Meanwhile, the Office of Fossil Energy would see an 11% reduction in its budget. 43% of the office's 2010 budget was devoted to energy innovation efforts.
President Obama released his fiscal year 2012 budget proposal this morning, a solid endorsement of the necessity to increase public investment in energy innovation amidst proposals to indiscriminately cut discretionary spending across all federal programs. The President's budget proposal builds off of the innovation-centered economic growth strategy presented in the State of the Union Address last month and the White House Innovation Report released two weeks ago.
On the energy investment front, the budget proposal aims to increase the DOE's budget by 11.8 percent over FY2010's current appropriation levels, or $3.1 billion dollars, a comparatively small increase in an overall budget proposal of $3.7 trillion that proposes reducing the projected deficit by roughly $110 billion per year for the next ten years.
This budget increase is a vital step towards meeting the scale of the energy innovation challenge long-underlined by the Breakthrough Institute and by a general consensus of leading energy innovation experts, think tanks, and policymakers.
However, not all of these increases lie with funding for energy innovation. Using the Energy Innovation Tracker, a tool that compiles federal energy-innovation funding across nine federal agencies for the years 2009-2011, inclusive of ARRA, we've broken out investments in energy innovation (defined in the tracker as Basic Science, RD&D, and Education investments) from general energy investments in measures such as deployment, facility construction, and program management.
In a recent column, Innovation Conservative David Brooks calls out both Democrats and Republicans as perpetuating "mirages" for advocating cuts to discretionary spending as deficit reduction measures, and argues that those advocating for increased investments in productive areas need to band together to address entitlements, as growing entitlement spending will impose constraints on those investments in the future.
On December 15th 2010, hundreds of leading thinkers, scientists, public officials, and innovators gathered in Washington, DC for the Energy Innovation 2010 Conference to initiate a new conversation on a new energy policy paradigm for the 21st century
For 35 years, government and the market have been trying and failing to get energy policy right. Congress has failed to pass large-scale clean energy and climate legislation, while China and other competitors are moving aggressively to take the lead in new energy technology. And the market has failed to create needed low-carbon technology on its own. Meanwhile, the nation's dependence on oil and coal deepens and global temperatures continue to rise. To address these issues, we need to get past the old energy policy paradigm - and we just may be turning the corner.
On December 15th 2010, hundreds of leading thinkers, scientists, public officials, and innovators gathered in Washington, DC for the Energy Innovation 2010 Conference to initiate a new conversation on a new energy policy paradigm: one that recognizes the central role of innovation in resolving the world's looming energy challenges and boosting American competitiveness. Climate change aside, we can't rely on carbon-based fuels for the next 150 years the way we did for the last 150. And we can't create the transformational energy innovations we need without putting innovation front and center.
"Energy Innovation 2010" merely begins a new national energy dialog that must continue well into the coming years. Breakthrough Institute and our partners will continue to spearhead this conversation as we seek new strategies to address the multifaceted energy challenges facing America and the world.
In case you missed the conference, held before a packed house at the National Press Club, or if you simply want to revisit the top notch presentations delivered throughout the packed day, videos from the full conference can be viewed below.
From hybrid crops to blockbuster drugs, nuclear power to wind power, and microchips to the Internet, government support was critical to the productive public-private partnerships that spawned so many revolutionary American technologies.
This presentation was delivered by Jesse Jenkins (Director of Energy and Climate Policy, Breakthrough Institute) and Daniel Sarewitz (Director, Center for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, ASU; Breakthrough Institute Senior Fellow) at the Energy Innovation 2010 Conference, December 15th, 2010.
_____________
Apple, Amgen and General Electric. Bill Gates, Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell.
We are all familiar with these genius inventors and titans of industry.
Yet most of us remain unaware of the almost constant presence of a silent partner in American innovation: the federal government.
We might recall something about microchips and the space race, or know that the National Institutes of Health funds research into new drugs and treatments.
But most of us remain unaware of the depth and breadth of government support for technology innovation.
As we gather today to consider how to drive forward the dramatic innovation needed to deliver cheap, clean and massively scalable energy sources to power world, we would do well to pause and take a look back at the United State's long history of limited but energetic public investment in breakthrough technologies.
Where do good technologies come from? The history of American innovation shows that an active partnership between the public and private sectors has been key to developing breakthrough technologies, which have driven generations of economic prosperity. In an updated report, the Breakthrough Institute explores this partnership through a set of case studies in American innovation.
Driving directions from your iPhone. The cancer treatments that save countless lives. The seed hybrids that have slashed global hunger. A Skype conversation while flying on a Virgin Airlines jet across the continent in just five hours.
Where did these everyday miracles come from?
As soon as the question is asked we know to suspect that the answer is not as simple as Apple, Amgen, or General Electric. We might recall something about microchips and the Space Race, or know that the National Institutes of Health funds research into new drugs and treatments.
But most of us remain unaware of the depth and breadth of American government support for technology and innovation. Our gratitude at being able to video chat with our children from halfway around the world (if we feel gratitude at all) is directed at Apple, not the Defense Department. When our mother's Neupogen works to fight her cancer, we thank Amgen, not NIH or NSF.
Albert Einstein famously defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. ITIF's Steve Norton explores why we may be doing just that when it comes to the prevailing thinking on science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education.
Most Americans appreciate the fact that the world is a very competitive place. Policy makers and parents have long known that our kids, from grade school through college, need to step up their skills and understanding of science, technology, engineering and math - know in education circles as STEM studies - if they are going to compete successfully with their counterparts in China, India, Korea, and many European countries. For this reason, for nearly 40 years there has been a lot of interest in improving STEM education. While it is laudable that we are focusing on STEM education, we are running the risk of tethering ourselves to assumptions that might be a little faulty and outdated. We can't be truly innovative as a nation if we are not innovative in our thinking about STEM education.
The current assumption driving STEM education is that all students should get at least some STEM education at every step of their educational journey. Supply students with high standards, great teachers and get as many kids excited about STEM as possible. Call this the "some STEM for all" approach. It sounds appealing, right? Universal tech literacy for the 21st century.
Well, one problem with this is that most of us are not destined to be scientists and engineers - maybe five percent. Some of us simply don't have the acumen and the economy only needs so many engineers and scientists and actuaries. So why should state and local governments, many of which are in deep financial peril, lavish resources on the "Some STEM for all" approach? The answer is that they shouldn't.
Facing renewed international challenges to American technological and economic leadership, the United States "cannot cut back on those investments that have the biggest impact on our economic growth," including science, technology and education, President Obama declared at a speech in Winston-Salem, North Carolina this week.
Echoing his Secretary of Energy and chief science and technology advisers (as well as a pairof familiar op eds from 2008), President Obama told audiences in North Carolina today that the United States faces a new "Sputnik moment" - a challenge to American technology and economic leadership akin to the global race to dominate nascent aerospace, computing, and information technology fields during the Cold War Era.
The United States responded to the 1957 launch of the Soviet Sputnik satellite with a series of major investments in science and education, including the National Defense Education Act and the creation of the Apollo Space Program. Maintaining economic competitiveness in the 21st century similarly demands a renewed national commitment to invest in the building blocks of a dynamic innovation economy, the President said.
Despite rising national debts, would national governments be wise to borrow today to fund investments in infrastructure, clean energy, and innovation to be enjoyed by -- and paid back by -- a richer, more well-off generation tomorrow?
Here's an interesting argument from our friends across the pond at the UK-focused Political Climate blog, making the case that despite rising deficit concerns and austerity measures in the UK and elsewhere, borrowing from the future may still actually be an appropriate way to pay for clean energy innovation today:
Against this background, it may sound mad to argue for more public borrowing in order to pay for investments in low carbon technologies and infrastructure, but that is what I am going to do in this post.
Let's start with the rationale. ... The starting point is that in advanced economies successive generations tend to get better off over time. For example, at the depths of the 1930s depression Keynes observed that despite the general gloom, he was confident that 100 years in the future, people might be eight times better off in real terms. And indeed average GDP per capita in the UK is now already about 5 times what it was in the 1930s. By extension, we would normally expect future generations to be better off than us in GDP terms.
... [Furthermore, if] we in this generation mitigate climate change, we will allow future generations to have a higher standard of living than they would have if we did nothing. We are very slowly beginning to do this, with policies being introduced to encourage us to invest less in conventional capital (e.g. fossil fuel power stations) and more in investments that effectively maintain natural capital (like renewable energy).
At the moment we are paying for these more expensive investments through reduced consumption, in the form of higher energy bills. If instead we were to borrow a certain amount of money from future generations (who will have to repay through their taxes) and use this money to pay the extra cost of renewables, carbon capture and storage and so on, then the theory says it should be possible to make both our generation and future generations better off. ...
After decades of underinvestment, the United States faces a $2.2 trillion repair bill to modernize the nation's crumbling network of public infrastructure, from railways to airports and roads to sewers, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers.
With budgets at the state and federal level pinched by economic recession, and a surging Tea Party skewing American politics towards a new spendthrift mentality, America may soon face diminished economic competitiveness and more potentially dangerous failures of public infrastructure.
In the Independent, British commentator Rubert Cornwell offers a clear-eyed perspective from across the pond on "the silent crisis that is undermining America: the creeping decay of its public infrastructure."
Throughout American history, federal investments in areas like science and technology have been a long-term driver of national prosperity under presidents both Democrat and Republican.
Throughout American history, strategic government investments in areas like education, technology, infrastructure, and energy catalyzed the entrepreneurship and innovation that has paved the way for so many of the great American technological and economic successes of the 20th century. In the words of conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks, the American story is one of "limited but energetic governments that used aggressive federal power to promote growth."
[Originally published 10.28.10 in The New Republic.] President Obama's strategy for economic renewal through clean energy was flawed from the start, too over-reliant on cap and trade and public works programs to retrofit buildings for energy efficiency. To succeed, a new industrial economy requires large, sustained investments in innovation and manufacturing like the kinds that built America's information technology and biomedical industries.
An abridged version of this article appears in the October 28, 2010 print edition of The New Republic (and online here, subscription required)
In August 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama traveled to Lansing, Michigan, to lay out an ambitious ten-year plan for revitalizing, and fundamentally altering, the American economy. His administration, he vowed, would midwife new clean-energy industries, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and create five million green jobs. "Will America watch as the clean-energy jobs and industries of the future flourish in countries like Spain, Japan, or Germany?" Obama asked. "Or will we create them here, in the greatest country on earth, with the most talented, productive workers in the world?"
Two years later, the answer to that second question appears to be no. Obama's environmental agenda is in tatters. His green jobs plan has done little to make a dent in unemployment, which persists at close to 10 percent. Obama's signature environmental initiative, cap-and-trade, died in the Senate in July. And, during the first year of Obama's tenure, China massively outspent the United States on clean-energy technology.
The story of how Obama's green agenda came up empty is more complicated than the one conventionally told by Democrats and greens, who imagine that cap-and-trade would have been transformational had Republicans and global-warming deniers not gotten in the way. In truth, the president's strategy was flawed from the start. Cap-and-trade would not have birthed a domestic clean-energy economy -- indeed, it wasn't designed to. Meanwhile, the administration's green stimulus spending was split between short-term, if worthy, investments in green technology, to which far too little money was allocated, and over-hyped public-works projects that would never have delivered the new industrial economy Obama promised as a candidate.
At a time of continued economic distress, America should embrace regional innovation clusters as a new paradigm for collaboration, innovation, and economic prosperity.
As new reports confirm a stark decline in long-term U.S. economic competitiveness, the United States needs a new economic paradigm to refocus economic policy and rebuild its damaged economy. That new paradigm should focus on strengthening America's "regional innovation clusters," according to a new report authored by Mark Muro and Bruce Katz of the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program.
First defined by Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter twenty years ago, clusters--geographic concentrations of interconnected firms, suppliers, educational institutions and other supporting organizations--have staged a comeback in economic policymaking at different levels of government and are now widely viewed as important to accelerate innovation and therefore economic growth. According to the new study, The New Cluster Moment: How Regional Innovation Clusters Can Foster the Next Economy, clusters offer an attractive new economic paradigm for three particular reasons.
A new report by the National Academies paints a grim picture of U.S. economic competitiveness in the 21st century knowledge economy. Major and sustained public investments in education, research, and innovation are key to reversing a long-term decline in global competitiveness.
A new National Academies report released last week confirms what many concerned with U.S. economic competitiveness have warily suspected: America's competitive standing in the 21st century global economy has deteriorated markedly in the last five years.
The outlook has only worsened since the publication of the original report, according to the Gathering Storm committee, which includes leading academics, CEOs, and science and technology experts. For those concerned about America's ability to create lasting, high-paying, high-quality jobs in a time of economic distress, the report's conclusion is disheartening:
"America's competitive position in the world now faces even greater challenges, exacerbated by the economic turmoil of the last few years and by the rapid and persistent worldwide advanced of education, knowledge, innovation, investment, and industrial infrastructure. Indeed the governments of many other countries in Europe and Asia have themselves acknowledged and aggressively pursued many of the key recommendations of Rising Above the Gathering Storm, often more vigorously than has the U.S."
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has funded breakthrough innovation and new growth industries that are driving down the cost of clean energy and building the foundation for competitive 21st century U.S. industries, according to a new White House reportreleased today on the impacts of the U.S. stimulus bill.
Yet while the White House report highlights the considerable clean energy momentum established by the Recovery Act, it also inadvertently raises the specter of an impending clean tech funding cliff which risks sending U.S. clean energy industries into deep freeze as stimulus funds begin to expire over the coming months.
The "peak oil" theory may be false or misleading, but it does create a powerful motive for change: governments and businesses should make large-scale investments to reduce their exposure to the oil risk.
Many "peak oil" theorists suggest we will reach peak oil production by the year 2020. I argue that this peak is artificial, occurring only due to economic, technological and political limitations. While I contest the "peak oil" theory, I do believe that we can harness the real power of its assertions: governments and businesses should make large-scale investments to reduce their exposure to the oil risk. We can therefore get to the "End of Oil" without adhering to the "Peak Oil" theory. Today we need a new logic - one of environmental protection, energy security, and national prosperity - for ending our addiction to oil.
In 1956, M. King Hubbert produced his famous symmetrical exhaustion curve, forecasting a peak in global oil production. The curve that he constructed is both simple and logical, and appears to work well for the U.S. Yet this seemingly inescapable curve was wrongly fitted to the total, global oil resource. In reality the geological fact that oil, a finite resource, is depleting has thus far been estimated, as Stouteberg (2008) shows, with a wide range of uncertainty.
If Europe is to avert another Great Depression, we have to stop worrying about the imaginary climate for foreign investors and start doing something about the physical climate for our people. Only a comprehensive investment strategy in the green technology sector will pull the economy out of recession, creating millions of jobs and avoiding disruptive climate change in the process.
Europe has lost its mind. Just two years after the financial crisis pushed the global economy to the brink of collapse, we appear to have forgotten all historical lessons about the importance of stimulating aggregate demand in the face of an economic slowdown. All over the continent, deficit hawks have built their nests in the ivory towers of government, trapping the world's largest economy back into the shackles of the neoliberal straitjacket.
If we are to truly deal with the two overwhelming crises of our time - climate change and economic meltdown - we need to realize where these crises overlap and where their solutions could reinforce one another. History teaches us that the world did not emerge from the Great Depression until it mobilized for World War II and built the War Economy. Today, we need mobilization on a similar scale to build a Green Economy and avert the worst consequences of climate change. In the process, we can create millions of jobs and forestall a global depression.
By re-thinking how the federal government can foster innovation and competitiveness in clean energy, from education and research to commercialization and production, the United States can once again become a global leader in clean energy technology.
By Jesse Jenkins, Mark Muro, and Rob Atkinson, originally at the New Republic
Having passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 28th, the America COMPETES Act, America's flagship competitiveness legislation, will soon be debated in the U.S. Senate. The Act was originally passed in 2007 in response to mounting concern that the United States was failing to effectively compete economically with other nations, imperiling the nation's future prosperity.
Now, a new outbreak of anxiety has engulfed the nation's competitive standing particularly as regards the nation's fledgling clean energy industry. Presently, the United States lacks an effective strategy to compete in this high-growth industry, which is expected to surpass $600 billion globally by 2020. Fortunately, the America COMPETES reauthorization offers a key opportunity for Congress to strengthen U.S. clean energy competitiveness.
In a 2009 report, the Breakthrough Institute illuminates the stories behind the invention and diffusion of ten technologies that are everyday facets of our modern lives and offers a new look at government involvement in technological development.
In a report released in 2009, the Breakthrough Institute illuminates the stories behind the invention and diffusion of ten technologies that are everyday facets of our modern lives and offers a new look at government involvement in technological development.
The conventional wisdom on climate change -- from Thomas Friedman to the country's largest environmental organizations -- is that cap and trade regulation and carbon pricing is the best way to promote clean energy innovation. However, a growing number of experts, including Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, are challenging this assumption, recognizing the importance of direct, large-scale public investment to achieve developments in clean energy technology. The outcome of this debate and the correct emphasis on public investment and regulation may determine the course of U.S. and global climate policy.
Case Studies in American Innovation presents ten case studies showing that public investment and active government support has been one of the greatest forces behind the nation's technology development and economic growth. Indeed, public investment in the U.S. was largely responsible for railroads, airplanes, microchips, personal computers, and the birth of the Internet -- all of which drove long-term economic development. This evidence not only challenges conventional wisdom on climate policy, but also on national economic policy, which has been dominated for three decades by neoclassical economists.
If Obama aims to successfully achieve a transformational presidency and launch a new progressive age, he must offer a new economic governance model that gives America a fresh start.
On Tuesday, President Obama signed the historic American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to avoid a spiraling economic downturn. But is it enough?
No. The Congressional Budget Office projects the U.S. economy will lose $2.9 trillion in total economic output over the next three years (PDF). To close that gap, Obama would need to sign a bill with approximately $2 trillion in total spending. But the current plan is less than $800 billion, with almost $300 billion for tax cuts. A recent report (PDF) by the chief economist at Moody's Economy shows that while one dollar of public spending can boost GDP as much as $1.70, every dollar of tax cuts can increase GDP by only $0.30 to $1.00. In other words, spending is up to five times more effective than tax cuts at boosting GDP.
So we have a stimulus bill that contains about $500 billion of public spending and $300 billion of dubious tax cuts. Given the CBO's projected $2.9 trillion output gap, calling the bill weak is an understatement. This gap presents a danger not just to the economy. If the economy is still dragging in two years, and the stimulus is publicly perceived as a failure, Democrats could not only lose the mid-terms in 2010, but the role of public investment could be discredited for years to come.
A cautionary note about losing sight of climate objectives amidst all the fervor about green jobs and green stimulus. ... Jesse Jenkins and Teryn Norris in the Huffington Post.
The Huffington Post has featured an op-ed by me and Jesse Jenkins, "The Danger of Green Stimulus," which issues a cautionary note about losing sight of climate objectives amidst all the fervor about green jobs and green stimulus:
Barack Obama's final appointments in December indicate a strong commitment to action on climate change. Steven Chu as Energy Secretary, Carol Browner as Energy & Climate Czar, John Holdren as Assistant for Science and Technology -- just to name a few recent selections -- are all proponents of vigorous action to cut U.S. global warming pollution and take leadership on a new international climate treaty. And Hilda Solis, Obama's new Labor Secretary, is a champion of "green jobs."
All is well on the climate front, it seems. Except that it's not.
Carbon cap and trade regulation remains the top federal policy priority for the majority of environmental groups. But in June, cap and trade legislation failed in the Senate, and sixteen Democratic Senators from coal and manufacturing-heavy states voiced their opposition to high carbon pricing. The policy faces even greater obstacles in today's economic climate, since it would increase the energy bills of the American public.
A group of more than 300 economists led by three Nobel laureates submitted a letter last month urging Congress to deficit spend at least $300 billion to $400 billion per year to jump start the economy and avoid the possibility of a depression. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman is calling for $600 billion per year, and similar numbers are being discussed in Congress.
But rebuilding a strong economy will require more than short-term stimulus. One important but oft-neglected lesson from this crisis is that smart, long-term investments - as opposed to short-term speculation and consumption - are essential for creating new and lasting prosperity.
Investing in Oil Savings, Retiree Health Care, and a Revitalized Auto Industry for a Stronger America by Bracken Hendricks, Ted Nordhaus, Roland Hwang and Nick Shipley. (PDF)
Republicans in Congress recently made headlines when they proposed replacing President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the dime with Ronald Reagan. Putting a living former president on a coin would constitute a serious break with tradition, and the proposal soon lost momentum after Nancy Reagan made her opposition known.
We agree with the Republicans that it's time for a change in who is represented on our currency. But instead of Reagan, whose vision for America continues to divide the country, we propose an American whose tragic early death brought us together: Martin Luther King Jr.
