In Northern Virginia today, President-elect Barack Obama addressed the nation, introducing a few basic goals and guidelines for an economic stimulus package that could cost as much as a trillion dollars.

Well aware that the large price tag on the stimulus, referred to as the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan," Obama included language about setting a foundation for economic growth now in order to return to a place of fiscal responsibility as the economy gets back on its feet. However, Obama was not shy about the need for the government to step in and spend, now:

"It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy - where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending; where an inability to lend and borrow stops growth and leads to even less credit."

Continue reading "Obama's Stimulus Plan: A Foundation for Growth?" »

On January 21st, immediately after assuming office, Barack Obama's first priority will be passing an economic stimulus package that will provide the economic kick-in-the-pants necessary to avoid the next Great Depression. There's nearly unanimous consensus that a major stimulus investment is needed to stave off economic disaster. How the next administration plans to fit this stimulus into a larger economic revitalization plan, however, is still unclear.

So far, there's plenty of focus on traditional methods of stimulus: tax cuts to spur consumer spending and traditional infrastructure investments to rebuild roads and bridges. Unfortunately, a short-term focus on roads and rebates won't be enough to stave off a new depression or put our economy back on track. Instead, we must focus on investments that can both act as short-term stimulus and improve the long-term productivity of the US economy. And that means investing in innovation.

As Janet Rae-Dupree wrote in the New York Times on Saturday:

Continue reading "Forget Roads and Rebates: Why the Stimulus Should Invest in Innovation and Productivity" »

An efficiency stimulus plan seems at first glance to be an unadulterated good: it puts Americans to work, saves energy and money, and cuts greenhouse gas emissions, all with investments that should pay for themselves. But there are reasons to be nervous about the overwhelming focus on energy efficiency by green leaders and Obama's top energy and climate advisors. This narrow focus threatens to distract from the critical work ahead: overcoming the technology gap that exists between the current state (and cost) of today's clean energy technologies and fossil fuels.

An efficiency program will not create the new industries that the American economy needs to increase employment and productivity in the long term. An efficiency program will not create new exports that will bring global capital in to the American economy. And, equally as important as short term stimulus, America needs to have a plan to achieve those objectives as quickly as possible as well.

Obama's primary focus must be on making clean energy cheap -- what Google calls RE<C, renewable energy cheaper than coal -- not on reducing energy consumption.

Continue reading "Will Energy Efficiency Stimulus Distract America from the Real Task at Hand?" »

By Sunil Paul
Founder, Spring Ventures

Experience is a wonderful thing, but sometimes it leads to the wrong conclusion. We've all heard the chestnut about generals fighting the last war. Today in the cleantech world, the rules of government engagement that we learned from our proving grounds in information technology and biotech are hurting us. We have to reform our strategy if we're to build the clean-energy Googles, the green-business Amgens, and green-job Dells of the future.

When many of us built successful internet and computer companies we we avoided active government engagement. We didn't particularly want government as a partner or customer and certainly not as a regulatory agent. We thought government support was the kiss of death. When we did engage it was usually after our companies were large and profitable and then only after we perceived assaults like regulation, internet sales tax, export controls, intellectual property, and stock option accounting. Even today, if you are a software, computer, or internet startup, you can largely ignore the government other than obeying the law.

Continue reading "Forget What You Know: Why Cleantech Entrepreneurs Need to Forget the Lessons from the IT Revolution" »

The New York Times editorial board, including respected environmental writer Bob Semple, broke from its past focus on carbon pricing as the primary solution to climate change in an editorial about Obama's newly announced energy and climate team. The piece praised Energy Secretary-designate Dr. Steven Chu for his views on the climate challenge:

"What sets [Chu] apart is his fierce conviction that innovation is just as important as regulation, and that big energy problems, like climate change and the world's dependency on fossil fuels, will not be solved without major private and public investment in the development and deployment of nonpolluting technologies."

Continue reading "The Times, it is a-Changin'" »

By Jesse Jenkins and Adam Zemel

Barack Obama made public today his intentions to appoint Steven Chu, director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, as Secretary of Energy and Carol Browner, former EPA Administrator and current transition team advisor for energy and environment, as the administration's new "Energy and Climate Czar."

Breakthrough gives Obama's selection of Dr. Steven Chu a preliminary thumbs up, while the selection of Browner - who seems to see regulations as the primary driver of innovation - raises concerns about the kind of counsel Obama will receive from his new point person on energy and climate change.

Continue reading "Will the Academic and the Regulator Invest?" »

Last week in response to Michael and Ted's piece in The American Prospect, Bradford Plumer at The New Republic's "The Vine" wrote a piece called "Should We Forget About Carbon Pricing? (No.)" The post, which mischaracterizes the stances Michael and Ted take in the Prospect piece, also propagates the myth of successful emissions reductions in Europe.

Plumer writes:

"Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger have yet another essay arguing that environmentalists should abandon all hope of trying to cap or tax carbon emissions, and instead focus solely on subsidizing clean-energy sources if they want to avert drastic global warming.

...Simply having the Energy Department dole out $50 billion per year to clean-energy producers (as Nordhaus and Shellenberger suggest) will pale beside the amount of private-sector money that will flow to alternative energy and efficiency improvements if carbon is priced properly."

This characterization of S&N's positions in The American Prospect and the Breakthrough Institute in general is a strawman.

Continue reading "In "Vine" Veritas? (No.)" »

Gwin Pryns, author of "The Wrong Trousers: Radically Rethinking Climate Policy (pdf)," recently published "Time to Ditch Kyoto: the Sequel." The short pamphlet was handed out at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland.

Towards the end (pdf), Prins summarizes his point about a new direction for an international agreement on climate change:

"Poznan has an opportunity to... put in place the foundations and essential architecture for a radically re-engineered climate policy for adoption at the Copenhagen meeting next...That architecture will not depend upon carbon trading in the present form; it will not lead with emissions targets tied to specific dates (although benchmarks are part of the sectoral strategy for reducing energy intensity); it will not focus upon international legal agreements that are dubiously enforceable, if at all."

Continue reading "Prins to Poznan: Seriously, Time to Ditch Kyoto" »

Representative Henry Waxman of California defeated Representative John Dingell of Michigan in the battle for the gavel of the influential House Energy and Commerce Committee today.

Over the past two weeks, the two senior Democrats waged one of the most hotly contested challenges for committee chairmanship in recent Congressional history. Waxman was announced the victor today after a 137-122 vote of the full House Democratic Caucus, ending Dingell's nearly 28 year reign as Chair of the committee, which has jurisdiction over several key issues, including energy, interstate commerce and health care.

Continue reading "Waxman Bests Dingell in Contest Over Influential House Committee" »

With the election of Barack Obama, we are entering a new period of progressive governance in America, but not necessarily a new era of progressivism. Progressivism in this country is still defined by its opposition to conservatism. Opposition is easy. All a movement in opposition must do is deflate the reigning movement's intellectual principles and debunk that movement's narrative. All you have to do is criticize.

But now, as Barack Obama assumes the presidency, the time has come for progressives to create. We must build our own intellectual principles and or own defining narrative. This is the only way for a new progressivism to be born out of this political moment. We must build an identity that is more than "non-conservative."

Continue reading "Movement Building, the Market and a New Progressivism" »

From the Wall Street Journal Online:

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has accepted President-elect Barack Obama's offer to serve as secretary of Health and Human Services, according to an official familiar with the situation.

Atop HHS, Mr. Daschle is expected to play a key role in moving Mr. Obama's ambitious health care agenda through Congress...As a veteran of Washington and of Capitol Hill, he brings knowledge about how to move legislation through Congress. He has a particular interest in health care and is co-author of a book published this year, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis."

Its interesting how many of Obama's appointments are people who have experience in the legislative branch, including Joe Biden. With talk of either Clinton or Kerry at State, Rahm as Chief of Staff, and now Daschle accepting the HHS position, it is starting to look like many key members of the Obama administration will have spent significant time in Congress. Hopefully this points to Obama's willingness to work closely with legislators, a departure from the past eight years and Bush's less-than-Constitutional expansion of executive power.

From the Obama Campaign Health Care Plan FAQ:

"Q. Obama says his plan will save $2,500 annually for my family. How?

A. ...[By] ensuring every American has health coverage, which will reduce spending on the "uncompensated" care of uninsured people who end up in emergency rooms and whose care is picked up by institutions and then passed through higher charges to insured individuals."

The claim that we can reduce spending by reducing costly and inefficient emergency care by extending health care to more people certainly made the rounds this past campaign. Obama mentioned this fact in the debates and in his stump speech. It is an ultimate political winner--think about it: "we are going to lower everyone's costs by giving health care to more people." Is there anything that people would support more than this idea?

Continue reading "Health Care and Moral Hazard" »

As Barack Obama takes his place in the oval office, he will be working with the political mandate of an electoral landslide to work towards implementing the pragmatic progressive agenda that he set forth in his campaign. His bold push to expand health care coverage will be among the most scrutinized projects he embarks upon. Throughout the campaign and in the debates he consistently touted his plan to create a public health insurance plan available to every American, creating a large insurance pool that would help keep prices low, in turn making it more appealing to uninsured Americans. He also claimed that the plan would pay for itself by reducing the need for inefficient emergency care.

But are his policy goals realistic? And perhaps more importantly, would America be healthier if more Americans had health insurance (or better access to health care)?

Continue reading "Barack Obama: Health Care Nation?" »

This week, we've been writing about President-elect Barack Obama's powerful mandate to build a new, clean energy economy and revitalize our nation's ailing economy. A new post-election poll from Zogby Interactive confirms that Americans overwhelmingly view new investments in clean energy as critical to revitalizing America's ailing economy.

The poll found that more than three out of four voters - 78% - support clean energy investments to revitalize the economy, with 50% saying they strongly agree that clean energy investment is vital to the nation's economic future.

Continue reading "Post-election Poll Confirms Bipartisan Support for Barack Obama's Clean Energy Plans" »

This is the second post in a continuing series delving into Barack Obama's opportunity to capture this political moment and provide a direction for energy policy and economic growth in the 21st century. Part 1 is here.

As Barack Obama assumes the mantle of President-elect of the United States of America, we are witnessing an historic realignment of the American political landscape. With the election of our nation's first African-American president, record voter turnout, and a dramatically redrawn electoral map, it seems that anything is possible now.

However, while Obama clearly has a new mandate to lead our nation, electoral mandates are fickle and even this one could fade in time. President-elect Obama has just 76 days to prepare for his inauguration. Then the real work of governing will begin, and what Obama decides to do in his first 100 days will either cement or erase the wave of popular support the President-elect rides today.

His job won't be easy. On January 20th, President-elect Obama will inherit the White House along with a plethora of pressing challenges all competing for his attention. There will be no time for baby steps, and President Obama must show bold and effective leadership right out of the gate. Furthermore, while the economic crisis will remain his top concern in the short-run, Obama cannot afford to ignore longer-term challenges and must develop synergistic solutions that can tackle multiple problems at once.

Thankfully, Barack Obama has stated that building a new energy economy will be his top priority upon assuming office. If he fully integrates this effort with his shorter-term economic stimulus plans, Obama could effectively tackle several priorities - economy recovery, energy security, and global warming - simultaneously. And getting this job done right could cement Obama's electoral mandate and pave the way for a truly transcendent presidency.

Continue reading "President-elect Barack Obama's New Energy Mandate, Part 2" »

Energy policy has never featured more prominently in a presidential election.  Both candidates leaned strongly on their energy agendas during the campaign, frequently highlighting their plans to increase America's energy security, reduce energy prices and create jobs.

But while both candidates agreed that energy was a high priority and rhetorically supported an "all of the above" approach to new energy sources, the two candidates proposals actually differed sharply. 

Furthermore, Barack Obama enjoyed the most success when his energy proposals were linked to his plans for economic recovery and couched in the rhetoric of job creation.  That makes Obama's historic victory a clear endorsement of the President-elect's plans to invest in a new energy economy and argues for further integration of his energy plans into his economic recovery agenda. 

Continue reading "President-elect Barack Obama's New Energy Mandate, Part 1" »

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) plans to challenge venerable Representative John Dingell (D-MI) for chairmanship of the influential House Energy and Commerce Committee, according to a report from Roll Call.

"The move marks a major showdown between two Democratic powerhouses, with implications for a host of major legislation next year from health care to global warming to renewable energy. Waxman currently chairs the Oversight and Government Reform panel."

The House Energy and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over a wide range of critical issues, including energy policy, health care, interstate commerce issues and most likely global warming policy as well. The committee will no doubt be a critical player in the legislative implementation of President-elect Obama's policy agenda.

Continue reading "Waxman Challenges Dingell for Leadership of Influental House Committee" »

By Jesse Jenkins and Adam Zemel

The election of Barack Obama, an African American liberal with a Muslim middle name, will be remembered for generations as a historic moment in American history. Made possible by the financial crisis and economic recession, President-elect Obama will enter the White House in January of next year with a mandate to take bold action to revive the global economy and put American on the path to economic greatness.

It's hard to believe today, but back in early September, it looked like Barack Obama would lose. Senator John McCain was pulling away in national tracking polls as the chant, "Drill, Baby, Drill!" echoed across the nation. Record high gas prices were the top issue of the campaign, and as Republicans' united around a clear, powerful (yet disingenuous) call for expanded oil drilling, Democrats, including Obama, fumbled for a response.

Continue reading "The Obama Mandate and the 21st Century" »

Writing political and socioeconomic commentary for a legally non-partisan blog on the day of a presidential election is difficult. The election has been the bottom line for almost every political or socioeconomic story in the country for more than a few months. This is natural, as it is current events, along with our personal dispositions, political leanings and ideological commitments that inform how we will vote. But for the past few months, as it happens every four years, America has been looking at the world through an election-tinted lens.

But just as current events have shaped the course of the campaign for the White House and the 111th Congress, so has this election season shaped those events. Nowhere is that more apparent than the financial crisis, which, almost from the day Henry Paulson publicly announced his bailout plan, has been affected by the campaign almost as much as it has affected the campaign.

Continue reading "How did the Election Affect the Financial Crisis?" »

The recent bailout package passed by Congress, the Troubled Assets Recovery Program (TARP), was meant to restore confidence in the financial system and get money back in to hands of those who need it. Congress meant for the capital injections provided to the banks by the Treasury to be used for lending while these banks untangled toxic assets that were affecting their ability to gauge their own worth.

Continue reading "Will it Never Lend?" »

Over at CAP, Matthew Yglesias has coined the term neo-Hooverite to describe politicians like incumbent Senators Saxby Chambliss and Norm Coleman, or GOP candidate John McCain, who are proponents of reducing the deficit and cutting spending in a time of economic downturn. I completely agree with Yglesias' argument that focusing on a balanced budget in this economic climate is almost completely wrong headed. He captures the argument here:

"But if consumers cut spending at the same time businesses are reducing investment and state and local government are cutting spending and then the federal government also reduces spending well, then, everyone is going to be spending less and less. Which means everyone is going to be earning less and less. And things are just going to get worse and worse."

Continue reading "Cognitive Dissonance Among Progressives and Greens" »

The Breakthrough Institutes' position on carbon pricing and cap and trade is frequently mischaracterized. As sometimes vocal critics of cap and trade and regulation-centric approaches to climate solutions, we're all too often thrown together with real opponents of serious action that misuse similar arguments to sow confusion and inaction.

In stark contrast, the Breakthrough Institutes' criticism and concerns about cap and trade are motivated by the desire to see advocates and policymakers adopt successful strategies and policies that can truly put our nation and our planet on a path to climate stability and sustained prosperity. With the climate crisis increasingly urgent, our economy heading south, and a new president and congress soon to be elected, climate and clean energy advocates face a critical moment to re-evaluate our strategies and policies and ensure that we can successfully advance climate solutions in the coming year. In that context in particular, we remain steadfast in the position that our efforts are ill-served by continuing forward with a blinding focus on cap and trade that frequently obscures the critical technology innovation challenge at the true heart of our quest for climate stability (and continued and expanded global prosperity).

In a recent discussion with Eric Pooley, I tried to set the record straight and articulate as clearly as possible where the Breakthrough Institute stands on emissions caps and carbon prices and why. Since that piece was long and covered several subjects, I've reposted and reprised the section on cap and trade and carbon pricing here. So, let the record stand...

Continue reading "Let the Record Stand" »

It has taken astoundingly little time for elite consensus to build around the federal deficit. Those who don't actively advocate deficit spending like Robert Reich have at least agreed that now is not the time to try and shrink the deficit. With the financial sector close to collapse, unemployment rising and credit frozen, it has become increasingly important for the government to continue to spend, not only to extend unemployment insurance, but also for things like the bailout and a second round of economic stimulus.

In fact, some organizations whose core principle is to advocate for a balanced federal budget have even ceded the point:

Continue reading "Will Consensus for Deficit Spending Include the Technology 16?" »

Eric Pooley's recent piece in Slate, "Save the Economy, Save the Planet," sparked a lot of discussion and thought here at Breakthrough. Pooley is right that climate advocates would be best served finding a "Trojan horse" to advance climate solutions within an economic recovery framework. But his recommendations that the next president advance a cap and trade program sparked both my response, "Can Cap and Dividend Really Save the Economy or the Planet?" and a round table discussion with several climate and policy experts on the opportunities and challenges for new U.S. administration.

I invited Pooley to respond to my post, which was highly critical of the political chances of a Cap and Dividend scheme in today's political and economic climate. Below the fold you'll find our continued dialog on the political challenges and opportunities facing climate advocates in the coming year.

Continue reading "Cap and Trade Isn't the Only Game In Town - Continued Dialog with Eric Pooley" »