As one the nation's leading think tanks advancing progressive public policy solutions to renew America, the Breakthrough Institute has earned increasing attention in the national and international media, particularly for its innovative policy positions on energy and climate change. Breakthrough analysis has been cited, and policy experts have been quoted, in major publications including National Public Radio, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and TIME magazine. Below is a roundup of Breakthrough's recent appearances in the media.
You can find summaries of our recent media coverage in chronological order below, and headlines grouped by subject area at the end of this section.
Reviewing President Obama recent State of the Union remarks, the Wall Street Journal notes a recent rhetorical shift away from the use of the term, "climate change," and toward language focused on federal investment in clean energy technology. They cite Breakthrough co-founders, Chairman Ted Nordhaus and President Michael Shellenberger as notable promoters of the shift:
"The new, 2011 Obama energy rhetoric appears to embrace the idea that the politically palatable way to cut greenhouse gas emissions is to make low-carbon energy cheaper, instead of using taxes or government-imposed limits to make coal and oil more expensive. That approach has been promoted by Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg and like-minded thinkers in the U.S. such as Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus of the Breakthrough Institute...
Messrs. Shellenberger and Nordhaus, in a statement, praised Mr. Obama for supporting energy innovation "for economic competitiveness rather than climate reasons."
In an New York Times Economix piece, economist David Leonhardt the role of government in a market economy, citing the Breakthrough Institute report, "Where Good Technologies Come From: Case Studies in American Innovation":
"In fact, the semiconductor -- the same product that government policy helped in the 1980s trade wars with Japan -- owes some of its initial success to Washington, too. As this Breakthrough Institute report on the history of innovation puts it:
The purchasing power of the federal government made the microchip an affordable and ubiquitous technology. Government procurement drove the price of microchips down by a factor of fifty in just a matter of years. Consider this: without these public investments in the semiconductor revolution, your iPod would cost $10,000 and be the size of a room!
An updated version of the Breakthrough report is here."
In a piece for Good magazine quarterly, Time's environment writer Bryan Walsh discusses the death of cap and trade and the UN climate talks quoting Breakthrough chairman and co-founder, Ted Nordhaus explaining the central obstacles to effective climate and energy policy:
As Ted Nordhaus, a co-founder of the centrist energy think tank Breakthrough Institute, said in a recent speech, Copenhagen marked "the end of the idea that the central obstacles that we face in addressing this issue are political, not economic and technological."
Walsh points to a bipartisan energy policy proposal, put forward by the Breakthrough Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Brooking Institution that could drive the innovation necessary to ensure sufficient energy supply while limiting climate consequences. He writes:
This fall, the Breakthrough Institute, along with representatives from the left-leaning Brookings Institution and the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, came out with a paper called "Post-Partisan Power" urging the government to spend up to $25 billion a year on energy innovation, divided among education, basic research, and even the military, which is both a locus for research (it did help invent the internet) and a major potential customer for clean technology. Finding the money will be a bigger challenge, but one option could be a very small carbon tax--perhaps as little as $5 a metric ton--specifically designed to raise revenue for research, just as the federal gas tax goes to building and maintaining highways.
In a piece evaluating the hand of the government in innovation, the Atlantic's Derek Thompson highlights the Breakthrough Institute report, "Where Good Technologies Come From: Case Studies in American Innovation":
"If you're wondering whether the U.S. government can help private enterprise, consider the 20th century. This report from the Breakthrough Institute (via Economix) breaks down Uncle Sam's helping hand in America's most famous technological achievements in the last 100 years."
American Enterprise Institute President Steve Hayward argues in a recent piece at "The American" that the much-touted "bipartisan consensus" is meaningless rhetoric, proclaiming, "Everyone says he or she is for 'bipartisan consensus,' but usually this represents nothing more than lowest-common-denominator compromise." Instead, he suggests open argument over disagreements, a long, but highly effective process that is not predicated on compromise but on continuously providing evidence for your points in order to persuade the other side. As an example, Hayward cites his experience working with Breakthrough Institute co-founders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, as well as Mark Muro, of the Brookings Institution to produce "Post Partisan Power,":
"Recently I was involved in a long effort that produced "Post-Partisan Power", a blueprint for energy innovation written in collaboration with Mark Muro of the center-liberal Brookings Institution, and Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus of the progressive-leaning Breakthrough Institute. How did these strange bedfellows come together to produce something bridging ideological lines? Well, we didn't do it by holding hands and singing "Kumbaya," engaging in typical horse-trading or the other low arts of compromise, or glossing over fundamental principles. Instead, we did it in the only serious way possible: long conversations (as in day-long, several times), and genteel argument. It took a year and a half in total. Rather than debating disagreements, we argued about them at length, which is not the same thing. It was more like an advanced graduate seminar, with everyone looking for academic literature and other evidence to illuminate problems and persuade others about a particular point."
Writing for the Financial Times, Ed Crooks reviews America's woefully underdeveloped energy policy and its harmful over-reliance on imported oil, citing a report jointly authored by scholars from the Breakthrough Institute, Brookings, and AEI called "Post Partisan Power".
Crooks points to the report as a "vision" for bipartisan energy policy:
"For the next few years at least, any new federal energy policy will have to win bipartisan support.
A vision of a such a policy was set out in a report in October from three think-tanks from across the political spectrum, called "Post-Partisan Power".
Acknowledging that measures to fight the threat of climate change were unlikely to make progress, the report focused instead on energy security, and in particular dependence on imported oil."
Andrew Revkin of the New York Times Dot Earth blog highlights a carbon pricing debate between Harvard's Robert Stavins and Breakthrough co-founders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, spurred by "Post Partisan Power," a report the two co-authored. Revkin re-produced Shellenberger and Nordhaus's argument:
"[N]o political economy in the world has been willing to raise energy prices sufficiently to drive new private investment toward low carbon technologies on any scale that is relevant to climate change. This was true before the recession, it is true today, and it appears likely to be the case for the foreseeable future...
"By contrast, direct public investment in new energy technologies has been the primary driver of deployment of new low carbon technologies all over the world." Shellenberger's urges analysts and advocates to seriously consider "a very different path for getting where we need to go" instead of "the approach that has failed globally and nationally for 20 years."
David Leonhardt of the New York Times features a debate between Breakthrough Institute co-founders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus and Harvard economist Robert Stavins, after Stavins criticized a recent report co-authored by the two, "Post-Partisan Power," which identifies the critical role of innovation in a successful energy and climate policy.
Leonhardt sums up Shellenberger and Nordhaus' argument:
"My sense is that Mr. Shellenberger's and Mr. Nordhaus's political analysis -- that cap-and-trade is a very tough sell -- has turned out to be more right than wrong. They also make an important economic point: that government funding has been crucial to many of society's most important innovations."
Writing for the Boston Globe, Atlantic Senior Editor Joshua Green discusses what he finds to be a compelling new energy plan capable of achieving "constructive bipartisan consensus" in "Post-Partisan Power," a report co-authored by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus of the Breakthrough Institute along with scholars from Brookings and AEI.
He quotes Shellenberger expounding on the partnership between the co-authors:
The group fundamentally agreed that "cap and trade would fail, and that what was really needed was what Energy Secretary Steven Chu has called 'Nobel-caliber' innovations in clean technology."
Bryan Walsh examines the political dimensions to an innovation-and-research-centered approach to America's energy policy in light of "Post-Partisan Power," a paper jointly published by the Breakthrough Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the American Enterprise Institute.
Walsh writes:
"It's not just that the writers behind "Post-Partisan Power" have serious doubts about how effective a carbon cap would actually be even if it could be passed--though they do. Rather, they believe that there will never be sufficient political and public support for a climate and energy policy that is fundamentally based around capping carbon, effectively raising the price of energy from fossil fuels...
For the "Post-Partisan Power" authors, a research focused energy policy--one based around making clean energy cheaper, not dirtier energy more expensive, wasn't just smarter, it was the only strategy that could ever get the support of some conservatives, along with Democracts."
In examining the emerging proposals to address climate change, Newsweek's Ryan Tracy highlights how Breakthrough co-founders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus's 2004 essay "Death of Environmentalism," provided the foundation for "Post Partisan Power," a bipartisan energy proposal co-authored by Shellenberger, Nordhaus, and scholars from Brookings and AEI.
Tracy writes:
"Well, back in 2004, political strategists Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus provided an answer. Their much-debated essay, "The Death of Environmentalism," argued that environmentalists are too often tone-deaf to political realities..."Who cares . . . if a cap-and-trade system is the most simple and elegant policy mechanism to increase demand for clean energy sources if it's a political loser?" they wrote...
"[S]cholars from the centrist Brookings Institution and conservative American Energy Institute published a joint paper (coauthored by Shellenberger and Nordhaus) declaring the need "to hit the reset button on energy policy." They suggested the U.S. make a $25 billion per year investment in energy innovation that would, among other things, create a new network of institutions to coordinate private and public energy research. Their belief is that if government investment paved the way for the Internet, which made it possible for millions of technology jobs to exist, a targeted investment in energy could create similar job opportunities centered on alternatives to fossil fuels."
Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute introduces "Post-Partisan Power," a report he co-authored with Breakthrough Institute's Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, that suggests a way for the government to "adopt an energy policy that avoids wasting money ... and could gain bipartisan support in today's bitterly polarized climate."
Hayward writes on how the report came about and highlights one of the foundational ideas:
"Shellenberger and Nordhaus broke with environmental orthodoxy with a blindingly simple insight that became the touchstone for our working group: The path to a green or clean energy future lies not in making fossil fuels artificially more expensive but in making new energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels, and on a large scale. In other words, innovation instead of taxation."
Since introducing the Breakthrough Institute's policy report "Post-Partisan Power" Ezra Klein continues to add to conversation about a new energy policy strategy focused on investing in clean energy and delves into the specifics of the policies discussed in the report:
"Now, is it hard to scrounge up $25 billion a year? Absolutely. But the National Institutes of Health manage it -- and more...We even got money for clean-energy research in the stimulus. You can spend money for popular things. And clean energy -- and dominating new, high-tech industries -- is a popular thing, or at least is more likely to be popular than taxing energy."
Jeff Tolleson reports on the unveiling of "Post-Partisan Power," a report co-authored by Breakthrough cofounders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus along with scholars from the Brookings Institution and AEI. Tolleson highlights the report's key features:
"Unveiled Wednesday by the Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute and the Breakthrough Institute, a new report dubbed "Post-Partisan Power" seeks to find center ground on an issue that has become wildly polarized (for more on that, see this week's election coverage).
The backbone of the proposal is a $25 billion annual R&D program for clean energy innovation."
David Leonhardt of the NY Times highlights "Post-Partisan Power," a joint report of the Breakthrough Institute, Brookings Institution, and American Enterprise Institute, in support of an approach focused on public investment in clean energy technology innovation instead of pricing incumbent energy sources. Leonhardt cites Breakthrough co-founder and President Michael Shellenberger, in explaining why it is important to focus on making clean energy cheap, not making dirty energy more expensive:
"We didn't tax typewriters to get the computer. We didn't tax telegraphs to get telephones," says Michael Shellenberger, "[w] hen you look at the history of technological innovation, you find that state investment is everywhere." A better organized and financed policy that focuses on innovation as the key -- an idea that has increasingly transcended party lines, and offers a realistic prospect for progress.
Politico covers the "Post Partisan Power" report co-authored by Breakthrough co-founders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, along with scholars from Brookings and AEI. Politico quotes Shellenberger commenting on the possibility of post-partisan energy policy:
"What we do now is we subsidize existing technologies and we hope that they improve." In contrast, Shellenberger's innovation-centered approach is something he believes "forward looking Republicans and Democrats will see as a top contender for an economic growth strategy."
Ezra Klein of the Washington Post considers the best strategies for addressing U.S. energy and climate policy in the wake of cap and trade. Klein prefers "applying industrial policy to global warming," to induce technological breakthroughs, citing the proposals in "Post-Partisan Power," a report co-authored by the Breakthrough Institute.
Klein writes:
"A new, bipartisan report from the Breakthrough Institute is calling for about $25 billion a year. The politics of that are much better. It's not a new tax (unless, of course, you fund it through a new tax). It focuses the conversation on cool new technologies and making sure America dominates a new industry rather than on making it more expensive for people to drive cars or get electricity from a coal-powered plant. It doesn't blame people, or make certain regions of the country terrifically uncomfortable."
Bryan Walsh of TIME calls "Post Partisan Power," a report coauthored by Breakthrough Institute confounders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus along with scholars from the Brookings Institution and AEI, the best new strategy to get climate policy moving again after cap-and-trade's demise in the Senate.
Walsh writes:
"[W]ith both left and right entrenched in old worldviews" Post-Partisan Power reminds Americans that "it is easy to forget how much reasonable liberals and conservatives can actually agree on...
The policy paper calls for focusing on greatly increasing direct government investment in energy research and development ... and paying or that research by reforming current energy subsidies and potentially adding a small direct price on carbon."
In a story covering claims that the U.S. is leading the race in developing of cutting-edge clean energy technology, E&E News cites the Breakthrough Institute's Project Director Devon Swezey's perspective on the state of clean energy investment in the U.S.:
"One such group, the Breakthrough Institute, said last year that the United States gets most of its wind turbines from other countries, makes only 5 percent of the world's solar cells and is "virtually non-existent" in advanced car batteries and high-speed rail.
Meanwhile, China, Japan and South Korea will spend three times as much on clean energy as the United States in the next five years, said Breakthrough Institute Project Director Devon Swezey.
'We are moving forward, but we're not the only ones," he said. "The notion that two short years of stimulus-funded investment alone could quickly return America to a dominant global position is wishful thinking.'"
John Fleck writes a piece on the rebound effect, a phenomenon which means that as energy gets more efficient, people want to use more of it, rather than less. Fleck cites Breakthrough Institute's Director of Climate and Energy Policy Jesse Jenkins on the rebound effect and the corresponding Jevons paradox:
"Jevons realized that, as the engines got progressively more efficient, society didn't use less coal. Instead, people found clever new uses for the energy tools they had harnessed.
Economists call it the rebound effect, and in the Industrial Revolution, 'the rebound was huge,' said Jesse Jenkins, an energy policy analyst with the Breakthrough Institute, a California think tank...
Taken more broadly, Breakthrough's Jenkins argues, the Jevons paradox means energy efficiency could give the world's poorest a leg up on the economic ladder, leading to more affluence and therefore more energy consumption, not less.
That means efficiency will not net the global energy savings its advocates sometimes argue, Jenkins argued. But that is not a bad thing.
You only have to see the Costa Rican villagers whose homes are better lit to understand why. 'We're going to have a richer world that consumes the same amount of energy, if not more," Jenkins said. 'It's a huge win from a human dignity and development perspective.'"
The Colorado Springs Business Journal, September 10, 2010
In a story on the decline of local government investment in alternative energy, transportation and economic development in Colorado Springs, John Hazlehurst cites the Breakthrough Institute Project Director Devon Swezey's article in Forbes' Energy Source Blog:
"The United States Mountain West has long been a hotbed of experimentation and innovation, due in no small part to a decades-long partnership between government, universities and private enterprise. Throughout the 20th century, the federal government invested in dams, transportation infrastructure and military installations that facilitated economic expansion and the emergence of new private industries."
This Time article covers Bill Gates' recent interviews and speeches calling for increased government investment in clean energy technology R&D. Bryan Walsh highlights similarities with the Breakthrough Institute's technology and innovation centered climate and energy strategy:
"But I sense the tide of the energy debate moving towards Gates--and others like the Breakthrough Institute--who are a pushing an R&D focused approach to climate change and energy, if only because the changing political landscape seems to make cap-and-trade hard to imagine."
In an article outlining Senate failure to pass a comprehensive energy bill, Carroll Vincent argues that cap-and-trade failed because of its costs to consumers and inability to spur clean energy innovation. Carroll cites Breakthrough Institute co-founder and president Micheal Shellenberger to explain that cap-and-trade did not simply fail because, as Democratic Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff suggests, senators did not have the power to take on coal companies:
"Unfortunately for Romanoff's thesis, 'In reality, cap and trade arguably had more industry support than any other environmental policy in history, yet was still unable to secure passage.' The authors of that line are hardly right-wing spin-doctors. They're analysts at the Breakthrough Institute -- founded, to quote from its website, 'to modernize liberal-progressive- green politics'...
"Maybe it's time for environmentalists and their political allies to consider a new strategy, one that might not only win votes in Congress but actually do some good. 'For a small fraction of the cost of the destructive cap-and-trade plan, this nation could concentrate on what the Breakthrough Institute's Michael Shellenberger describes as 'closing the price and technology gap between clean energy and fossil fuels' through greater federal support for research and innovation."
The Epoch Times reports that U.S. its losing its competitive edge in clean tech manufacturing based on testimony presented before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission and cites testimony from Breakthrough Project Director Devon Swezey:
"With clean energy manufacturing increasingly shifting abroad, it's little surprise that the U.S. is running a clean energy trade deficit," said Devon Swezey, project director at the Breakthrough Institute, before the committee...
"What is perhaps even more concerning is that as clean energy manufacturing has shifted overseas, particularly to Asia, research and innovation activities--the area that has historically been America's 'comparative advantage'--have started to follow," Swezey stated.
Swezey pointed out that the global semiconductor manufacturing giant Applied Materials Inc., based in California, is building "the world's largest, most advanced nongovernmental solar energy research and development facility in Xian, China," claiming that China will grow into the largest solar energy market in the future.
In a post-mortem on failed Senate cap and trade legislation at Dot Earth, Andrew Revkin suggests that policymakers consider a proposal to make clean energy cheap advanced by the Breakthrough Institute. Revkin highlights an interview with Breakthrough President and co-founder Michael Shellenberger, in which he explains why Breakthrough has written that cap and trade is not the right policy to combat the climate challenge:
The Breakthrough Institute has been fighting an uphill battle to get respect in Washington for an approach emphasizing innovation to make clean energy cheap, given the unbending political realities attending efforts to make polluting energy sources more expensive. Ezra Klein of the Washington Post interviewed one of the group's co-founders, Michael Shellenberger, on why a cap-and-and-trade system for emissions curbs was the wrong fit for the carbon problem.
Breakthrough co-founder and President Michael Shellenberger joined a panel hosted by KUOW radio to discuss the failure of the Senate climate bill, the death of cap and trade, and predictions for what could come next.
Breakthrough Director of Climate and Energy Policy Jesse Jenkins appeared on 88.9 KCRW Santa Monica and Public Radio International's nationally-syndicated show "To the Point" to discuss the recent withdrawal by Sen Harry Reid (D-NV) of a compromised Energy bill based largely on a cap and trade policy framework.
To listen to the roughly eight-minute discussion below, just hit play and skip to 45-minute mark for the segment.
Reporting on the true end to the possibility of passing cap and trade legislation through this Congress, Bryan Walsh cites Breakthrough President and co-founder Michael Shellenberger's opinion on why various incarnation of cap and trade legislation have never had the votes needed to pass through the Senate:
"The truth is there weren't enough Democrats willing to support a carbon cap, let along Republicans. Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute -- a think tank that is highly skeptical of cap and trade -- told me that his group spoke to environmental lobbyists back in 2008 who were working on a cap-and-trade bill in the Senate then, the Warner-Lieberman bill. Though it never went to a full vote, Shellenberger believes that a carbon cap bill in 2008 would have received no more than 35 votes. Now there are more Democrats in the Senate than there were then, and political realities change with a Democratic president in the White House -- but that's still a huge gap."
In a round-up of important studies and reports relevant to the contentious climate and energy debate, Bruce Bartlett highlights, "Strengthening Clean Energy Competitiveness: Opportunities for America COMPETES Reauthorization," a June report by the Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
"A June study by the Breakthrough Institute, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, and the Brookings Institution offered recommendations for improving innovations in clean energy. These include developing university education programs on energy studies, increases in government budgets for energy research and other initiatives."
Australia news outlet, ABC, hosts Breakthrough President and co-founder Michael Shellenberger its radio show, Late Night Live, to discuss the failure of last year's Copenhagen Climate Change talks, Australia's shelved plans for an Emissions Trading Scheme, and the emerging consensus that we need to look beyond the notion of cap and trade and instead focus on direct investment in clean technology.
Dot Earth's Andrew Revkin recalls a meeting in which Breakthrough President and co-founder Michael Shellenberger employs a joke to illustrate his predictions for China potential for global leadership. Revkin writes:
"At a meeting in Washington a couple of years ago, Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute told a variant of a slightly bawdy joke my sons enjoy. The standard joke simply involves adding the words "in bed" to the phrase in any fortune cookie.
In Shellenberger's variant, you need to add the words "in China" to any claim about the role of an energy technology or policy in fighting global warming and see if it still holds up. Actually, with India poised to be the next China -- doubling its population by 2050 even as it industrializes -- maybe Shellenberger's quip needs updating."
Breakthrough co-founder and Chairman Ted Nordhaus joined KQED's "Forum" to discuss clean energy policy, particularly in response to President Obama's Oval Office speech addressing the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Breakthrough co-founder and President, Michael Shellenberger weighed in, along with Brookings Institution's Mark Muro and Patrick Creighton of the Institute for Energy Research, on what President Obama should do to break the U.S. oil addiction:
"America will not significantly reduce its consumption or production of oil until there are alternatives -- whether new biofuels or electric cars -- that can compete with oil in terms of performance and price. Unfortunately, climate and energy legislation promoted by the president would increase funding for R&D and demonstration by just $2.2 to $4.2 -- a fraction of the $25 to $30 billion per year experts agree is needed to achieve the technological breakthroughs needed to make clean energy cheap and scalable.
"Last week Bill Gates and other high-tech leaders spoke out for increasing energy innovation funding. The president and Congress should follow their lead in pushing for a serious increase in energy innovation funding, not cap and trade's business-as-usual."
Politico questioned the Environmentalist response to President Obama's efforts to deal with the ramification of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, quoting Breakthrough Institute co-founder and Chairman, Ted Nordhaus:
"These guys have bet the farm on this administration," said Ted Nordhaus, chairman of an environmental think tank, the Breakthrough Institute. "There has been a real hesitancy to criticize this administration out of a sense that they're kind of the only game in town. ... These guys are so beholden to this administration to move their agenda that I think they're unwilling to criticize them."
Joining WNYC's "The Takeaway," Breakthrough co-founder and Chairman Ted Nordhaus offers a global perspective on the proposed moratorium of offshore drilling in the U.S.:
"We may decide that we want to ban offshore drilling or we don't want to ban offshore drilling, but I think we need to realize that oil is going to come from somewhere. As long as we are as dependent upon oil in a whole variety of ways in our economy, if we're not getting it from the Gulf, we're getting it from somewhere else."
Dot Earth's Andy Revkin covers Breakthrough Senior Advisor Teryn Norris and his new organization, Americans for Energy Leadership, for their work organizing university students to call on Congress to support President Obama's RE-ENERGYSE Initiative for comprehensive clean energy education:
"Last week, as cameras focused on Gulf coasts girding for an oil assault, 107 presidents of university and college student governments distribued a letter calling on lawmakers to get serious about energy education...The letter, initiated by Americans for Energy Leadership and Associated Students of Stanford University, noted that the country's energy-engineering workforce is rapidly graying, while "only 106 of the country's over 6,500 post-secondary institutions offer focused courses in renewable energy technology and efficiency."
The letter concluded: "American students are ready and willing to rise to this national challenge, and we need the federal government to support our education and training."
Breakthrough Project Director Devon Swezey and Information Technology and Innovation Foundation President Rob Atkinson published a joint Businessweek op-ed arguing that clean energy innovation is following manufacturing and markets overseas. The pair called for major investments in clean energy innovation to keep the U.S. competitive.
"To succeed, the U.S. must do two key things. First, it should prioritize major public investments in clean energy innovation, advanced manufacturing, and market creation, something it has been unwilling to do in any of the climate and energy bills currently before Congress. Second, it needs to significantly step up efforts to challenge Chinese mercantilism, whether in green industries or any high value-added industry critical to the country's future. Without these measures, the U.S. takes a big risk that the clean energy technologies of the future will not just be produced abroad, but invented there, too."
Breakthrough co-founder and President Michael Shellenberger joined WNYC's Brian Lehrer to discuss the future of off-shore drilling and the implication of the oil spill off the Gulf coast.. Shellenberger argued that simplistic solutions like banning off-shore drilling will only export environmentally damaging drilling to other countries, and that only a comprehensive strategy to make clean energy cheap will truly end our addiction to oil, both foreign and domestic.
WIRED's Alexis Madrigal makes the connection between Bill Gates' new high-powered organization advocating public investment in energy R&D and the Breakthrough Institute's policy agenda:
"Many independent groups like The Breakthrough Institute have been pushing for increased energy R&D funding, but none have the roster of heavy hitters of the council. The new organization lists a herd of other corporate leaders behind the effort including Ursula Burns, Xerox CEO, green tech venture capitalist John Doerr, and General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt. Also listed is Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin and head of the Obama Administration's blue-ribbon panel on NASA and the future of human spaceflight."
Breakthrough Institute co-founder and President Michael Shellenberger joins Kristin Eberhard of the National Resource Defense Council and Stanford University Professor Lawrence Goulder on a panel hosted by the Commonwealth Club's Climate One Series to discuss the effectiveness of cap and trade.
This Wall Street Journal feature points out that as climate concerns rise a number of environmentalists are rethinking their position on the viability of nuclear power, including Gaia Theorist James Lovelock and Whole Earth Catalogue pioneer, Stewart Brand. Quoting Breakthrough co-founder and Chairman, Ted Nordhaus, WSJ explains why it's becoming increasingly hard for environmentalists to be anti-nuclear power:
"If you're an environmentalist and you're arguing that catastrophic climate change is a serious problem that we have to deal with, it's increasingly hard to say that we're worried about nuclear power because of what's going to happen to nuclear waste buried inside of a mountain for 10,000 years," says Ted Nordhaus, chairman of the Breakthrough Institute, an Oakland, Calif., think tank. ...
"I'm much more optimistic about these next-generation designs," Mr. Nordhaus says. "If we're going to get serious about a new nuclear strategy, it's going to be with these smaller nuclear designs."
Highlighting China's clean tech progress compared to the U.S., John Fleck, cites the Breakthrough Institute/ITIF report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," and quotes Breakthrough Director of Climate and Energy Policy, Jesse Jenkins:
"Some 200 green energy firms are now located in Baoding, one Chinese clean energy cluster, according to Jesse Jenkins, an energy policy analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, a California think tank. Jenkins and his colleagues published a report last fall arguing that China and other Asian economic powers are 'set to dominate the clean-energy race by out-investing the United States...'
To achieve its goals, China is using its internal market to jump-start its wind and solar manufacturing base. In 2005, according to Jenkins and his colleagues, it approved a national renewable energy standard, a requirement than 10 percent of its electricity supplies come from renewable sources by 2020.
Two years later, the government upped that to 15 percent by 2020, and also set a goal of the equivalent of 40 new nuclear power plants by 2020. And, according to Jenkins and his colleagues, there are reports that the government may more than double the nuclear power goal."
Breakthrough's Project Director join's KPFA's "Morning Show" to discuss the clean energy race and its implications for American clean tech competitiveness. (starts at 22 min)
The Hill features an essay published at Yale e360 by Breakthrough's Founders that argues for energy policy independent of climate science:
"Leaders of a contrarian environmental think tank, The Breakthrough Institute, have a way to get beyond the climate science wars: Break the link between global warming research and the push for low-carbon energy. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, in a new essay in Yale Environment 360, argue that environmentalists are too eager to link natural disasters and dangerous weather to man-made climate change. They say this is a losing hand that has been made even weaker by the furor over the now-infamous hacked climate science emails, and controversy surrounding the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
The National Journal covers "Freeing Energy Policy from the Climate Change Debate" by Breakthrough's Founders and recalls why the two have been dubbed the bad boys of environmentalism:
"In 2004, Nordhaus and Shellenberger gained notoriety for a white paper called 'The Death of Environmentalism' that called on the greens to tear down and rebuild the environmental movement from scratch. Now the authors argue that the advocacy groups should forget about global warming as the rationale for transitioning the global economy toward less-polluting fuels."
In an essay on Yale Environment 360, Nordhaus and Shellenberger argue that "environmentalists and many scientists have overstated the certainty of climate disaster out of the belief that governments could not be motivated to act if they viewed the science as highly uncertain." The authors notes, however, that concerns about scientific inaccuracies found in the United Nations climate change studies could undercut public willingness to embrace greener forms of energy.
In a new essay at Yale Environment 360, Breakthrough's founders argue that energy policy must be considered independent of climate science. Nordhaus and Shellenberger write:
"Climate science can still usefully inform us about the possible trajectories of the global climate and help us prepare for extreme weather and natural disasters, whether climate change ultimately results in their intensification or not. And understood in its proper role, as one of many reasons why we should decarbonize the global economy, climate science can even help contribute to the case for taking such action. But so long as environmentalists continue to demand that climate science drive the transformation of the global energy economy, neither the science, nor efforts to address climate change, will be well served."
Breakthrough Co-Founder and President Michael Shellenberger comments in an MSNBC report on why energy efficiency efforts in the economic stimulus package have not delivered the jobs they supposedly promised:
"A very rosy picture was painted that energy efficiency would be a great way to create jobs and save money," said Michael Shellenberger, an energy expert who heads the Breakthrough Institute, an Oakland-based think tank that is financed by nonpartisan foundations and works on energy, climate change and health care issues. "The Obama administration risks overpromising again."
Breakthrough Chairman and Co-Founder, Ted Nordhaus, comments on the need for technology and innovation to become the political centerpiece of climate and energy policy and discusses how he became a post-environmentalist:
"I would describe myself now as a post-environmentalist. Post-environmentalism is what happens when we move old ideas about the environment out of the center of our basic political and philosophical proposition. If the environment doesn't include humans, then it's a scientifically unsound concept. And if it does include us, it becomes another synonym for everything. In post-environmentalism, ideas of nature and things being natural versus unnatural just go away."
Breakthrough's founders join Charlie Gay, President of Applied Solar at Applied Materials in calling for a large-scale federal investment in clean energy technology to close the growing investment gap in clean tech that is jeopardizing U.S. leadership in clean tech and future economic prosperity. The trio cites "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," a joint report by the Breakthrough Institute and ITIF:
"Asia's current momentum is not exclusive to solar power. A Breakthrough Institute report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," found that America lags behind Asia's rising "clean tech tigers" -- China, South Korea and Japan -- in producing virtually all clean energy technologies, from wind to nuclear power, from high-speed rails to plug-in hybrid cars and the advanced batteries that power them."
The Wall Street Journal quotes Breakthrough President Michael Shellenberger speaking at The Wall Street Journal ECO:nomics conference:
"The real challenge is: How do you make low-carbon energy really cheap--as cheap as coal is? I think the reality is that we are not going to get beyond a fossil-fuel economy, and I don't think we are going to impose big costs on the fossil-fuel economy either in the U.S. or in foreign developing countries like China, until the alternatives become a lot cheaper. I think while it is conceivable to have a carbon tax in the U.S., it will never be high enough to make fossil fuels as expensive as clean energy technologies are today."
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) President Rob Atkinson writes that America may miss the opportunity to secure new clean energy jobs for Americans as Asia's rising clean tech tigers -- China, Japan, and South Korea -- out-invest the U.S in the sector. Building off the findings of "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," a report he co-authored with the Breakthrough Institute, Atkinson explains that innovation policy is the impetus behind the competitive edge these nations are developing over the U.S:
"The report, Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant, also finds that between 2009 and 2013, the governments of these nations will out-invest the U.S. three-to-one in these sectors , or $509 billion to $172 billion...This competitive edge hasn't emerged out of some kind of Ricardian comparative advantage that Asia possesses in green energy. Rather, it arose from conscious green innovation policies."
Breakthrough Director of Climate and Energy Policy joined ABC's Diane Sawyer on "The Conversation" via Skype 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.
Fortune details what the U.S. must do to become clean-tech competitive and cites the Breakthrough Institute/ITIF report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," to explain how Asia's clean tech tigers -- China, Japan, and South Korea -- have positioned themselves to dominate the industry:
"A new report by the Breakthrough Institute, a progressive think tank in Oakland, argues that China, along with Japan and Korea, will dominate the clean-energy race by out-investing America.
"Asia's clean-tech tigers are already launching massive government investment programs to dominate this industry and, according to the report, have surpassed the U.S. in virtually all clean-energy areas, including wind, solar, and electric-car batteries."
In an interview with "Living on Earth" Breakthrough co-founder Michael Shellenberger explains to host Jeff Young why technological advancements that make clean energy cheap, and not carbon regulations, are the key to controlling climate change.
In summarizing the state of cleantech investments in Asia, Financier Worldwide, discusses Asian government investment in clean energy technology relative to the United States and cites "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant":
"According to a report called 'Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giants', published in December 2009 by the Breakthrough Institute and Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Asian countries are forecast to outspend the US on clean energy technology and infrastructure by a factor of three to one by 2013. The report also states that between 2009 and 2013, the governments of China, Japan and South Korea will invest $519bn in clean technology, while the US government would contribute $172bn in the same period. In the next 10 years, China alone will spend between $440bn and $660bn on cleantech investment."
CNBC explains that attempting to address both climate change and unemployment will require a long-term effort on the part of the Obama administration. Breakthrough's Director of Climate and Energy Policy comments on the need for long-term technology investment:
"'This looks more like the Cold War than the Manhattan Project,' says Jenkins. 'There are no short-term solutions to real problems.'"
"Jenkins and others in the renewable energy sector see the need for the right mix of long-term technology investment--in a sector where installed power generation capacity and electricity contracts are measured in decades--and short-term job creation to keep the issue at the top of the public's mind."
In attempting to make sense of the post-Copenhagen landscape and explain what's next for the climate movement, Bill McKibben, author and co-founder of 350.org, discusses the role of technology innovation in mitigating climate change and quotes Breakthrough co-founder Ted Nordhaus explaining why we don't have all the technology we need on the shelf today:
"We're techno-pessimists," says Ted Nordhaus, the chairman of the Breakthrough Institute and one of the loudest proponents of this argument. "We don't have good, scaleable, cheap substitutes for fossil fuels now," he contends. The Germans, he says, are leading the world in installing rooftop solar reactors--because they're paying what he estimates is the equivalent of $500 a ton to reduce carbon, "ten times what we're talking about in Congress."
He goes on to describe some of Breakthrough's proposals for long-term public investment in clean energy RD&D:
"More R&D spending (way more R&D spending--the Institute has used the figure $10.5 trillion-with-a-T as the minimum total cost of an energy transition, and thinks $30-50 billion a year is probably needed in research money) is therefore a chief priority. They've proposed a National Institute of Energy, much like the NIH; the Brookings Institution has talked about building Silicon Valley-like "energy innovation hubs" around the country. And as these new discoveries come to light, the government would have to drive demand by buying up the technology at a high enough price--much, Nordhaus contends, as the Defense Department did with semi-conductors."
Brookings Insitute's Mark Muro evaluates the need for $10.5 trillion of investment in global energy R&D, testing, demonstration, and infrastructure suggested by the International Energy Agency. Building on the work of Breakthrough's Jesse Jenkins and Devon Swezey and Senior Fellow Chris Green, Muro argues the $10.5 trillion figure is the right number to focus climate action on, instead of carbon regulatory targets and timetables:
"Ranging from the Canadian economists Isabel Galiana and Christopher Green to Jesse Jenkins and Devon Swezey of the Breakthrough Institute, these voices argued that the climate community's heavy focus on schedules and regulatory targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions has tended to crowd out adequate consideration of the means--technological and economic--for achieving such goals."
Writing on the development of clean energy innovations, WSJ reporter Russell Gold quotes Breakthrough co-founder Ted Nordhaus:
Even technology enthusiasts admit that innovation is slow, and costly. "If you want to speed up the innovation process, you are not going to do it on the cheap," says Ted Nordhaus, chairman and founder of the Breakthrough Institute, an energy think tank in Oakland, Calif. "You are going to do it with brute-force expenditure."
Emphasizing the importance of investment in clean energy technology policy to the climate negotiations in Copenhagen, TIME report Bryan Walsh cited a blog post by Breakthrough's Director of Climate and Energy Policy and Project Director:
As Jesse Jenkins and Devon Swezey of the think tank Breakthrough Institute wrote on Dec. 7, "Without measurable progress that dramatically increases global investments in clean energy, we can forget stabilizing global temperatures or atmospheric carbon dioxide at any level."
Walsh goes on to quote Breakthrough President and co-founder, Michael Shellenberger on the need to make clean energy cheap:
But technology offers the promise that with the right breakthroughs, we can keep growing. "Investing in R&D to make clean energy cheap is the most popular energy proposal there is," says Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute. That may be a global deal everyone can embrace.
Ranked 9th, TIME's Top 10 Everything of 2009 is China's Green Stimulus. TIME reporter Bryan Walsh cites the Breakthrough Institute/ITIF report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," to illustrate how the U.S. may cede the clean energy race to China:
"For the U.S., however, China's gains may mean losses at home. A recent report by the Breakthrough Institute warned that the U.S. could be lapped by Asia in the clean-tech race."
Bloomburg News quotes the Breakthrough's Jesse Jenkins in a story on the disparate imbalance of clean tech investments, particularly in countries which offer strong incentives like China and France to mitigate investment risks:
"Investors spent $16.7 billion on clean energy in China in 2008, excluding stimulus funds, topping the U.S. total of $15.2 billion for the first time, said Jesse Jenkins, director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute, an Oakland, California-based consulting firm.
Wind-energy producers in China get a premium for the electricity they supply to help make it competitive with cheaper power from burning coal or natural gas, he said.
U.S. companies are falling behind in clean technology because the country lacks a binding limit on carbon emissions, as would be required under a global treaty, said Ralph Izzo, CEO of Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., the owner of New Jersey's largest utility. "We are in conversations about a range of carbon-friendly technologies," Izzo said. "And the suppliers we talk to are from China, Japan and France."
Time Magazine's Bryan Walsh cites The Breakthrough Insitute's recent efforts to realign the climate debate by outing the McCarthyite tactics of some of its most vehement followers:
"Climate McCarthyism" -- as Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute have called the knee-jerk attacks by some climate-change advocates on those who deviate from the green mainstream -- must stop. That may not seem fair -- industry groups have played dirty for years smearing climate scientists -- but researchers will need to be above reproach. "Scientists need to consider carefully skeptical arguments and either rebut them or learn from them," wrote Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist and climate researcher at Georgia Tech, on the blog Climate Audit.
In a story covering China's announcement that its Export-Import Bank signed a $2.9 billion deal to support the exports of an energy efficiency and renewable energy project developer, the Wall Street Journal cited the Breakthrough Institute and Information Technology and Innovation Foundation report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant":
"One of the latest reports , from the Breakthrough Institute, says Asian countries including China, will outspend the U.S. three-to-one over the next five years, with potentially big implications for the early development of clean-energy industries."
The New York Times highlights a report co-authored by the Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, highlighting its findings on clean technology manufacturing in the U.S. compared with China, South Korea, and Japan, citing Breakthrough President, Michael Shellenberger:
"According to the Breakthrough Institute report, China is home to one-third of global solar manufacturing capacity. In wind, China has gone from having almost zero manufacturing output five years ago to having at least 70 turbine manufacturing companies today. Companies like BYD are also pushing ahead in the commercialization of plug-in vehicles.
"Without concentrated action and big investments by the U.S. government, we will be passed by in the clean-tech race," said Michael Shellenberger, president of the Breakthrough Institute, in a conference call on Wednesday. "We think the U.S. can catch up, but it won't be through modest research and development and legislation, but through massive investments."
E&E covers the need for government investment in clean energy technology, highlighting the Breakthrough Institute and Information Technology and Innovation Foundation report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant." The story quotes Breakthrough President Michael Shellenberger's commentary on how the U.S. government should be focusing its energy policy:
"This calcified ideology that the government should not be procuring cutting-edge technologies, the government should not be picking technological winners and losers, that is the ideology of American decline."
The Financial Times reported on the findings of the jointly-authored Breakthrough Institute and Information Technology and Innovation Foundation report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," noting:
"Asian economies look set to outstrip the US in the clean technology market by rapidly increasing investment in manufacturing capacity and research and development, said a report by two American think-tanks.
The US attracted about $52bn (EU35bn, UK31bn) in private capital for renewable energy technologies between 2000 and 2008, said a report from the Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation."
The Wall Street Journal covers the release of the Breakthrough Institute and Information Technology and Innovation Foundation report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant":
"The U.S. hasn't actually fallen too far behind yet. It's the future that the Breakthrough Institute is worried about. Specifically, the next five years, when China, Japan, and South Korea are expected to spend about $500 billion to directly promote clean-technology development and depolyment, compared with about $170 billion in the U.S.--and that's including energy legislation that passed the House and shoaled in the Senate...
What's interesting about the report, beyond its exhaustive analysis of what Asian countries are doing differently, is the link it draws between government investment in clean energy (which isn't the same as a cap-and-trade program) and private-sector investment. The former doesn't crowd out the latter--but attract it."
SolveClimate co-founder, Stacy Feldman, discusses the implications of a planned Texas wind farm that would import Chinese-manufactured wind turbines. Feldman cites a report co-authored by the Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation on clean energy competitiveness between the U.S., China, South Korea, and Japan:
"In a new report released today, the Oakland-based Breakthrough Institute writes that China, Japan and South Korea are all on track to blow the U.S. out of the water when it comes to reaping rewards of low-carbon technology development...
Of course, U.S. firms will benefit from the establishment of joint cleantech ventures overseas. But the jobs, tax revenues and other benefits of clean tech growth "will overwhelmingly accrue to Asian nations," the report finds."
Breakthrough's Director of Climate and Energy Policy announces the release of "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant: Asian Nations Set to Dominate the Clean Energy Race by Out-investing the United States," a report co-authored by the Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. According to Jesse Jenkins:
"The new report examines the competitive position of each nation in core clean energy technologies, including solar, wind, and nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, advanced vehicles and batteries, and high-speed rail, as well as the government strategies each nation hopes will strengthen their position in the competitive global clean technology sector."
Breakthrough Institute founders, Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, respond to a Pew Research Center poll of public attitudes towards global warming and analyze the psychological reasoning behind America's weak public commitment to substantive climate change action. According to the pair:
"The lesson of recent years would appear to be that apocalyptic threats -- when their impacts are relatively far off in the future, difficult to imagine or visualize, and emanate from everyday activities, not an external and hostile source -- are not easily acknowledged and are unlikely to become priority concerns for most people. In fact, the louder and more alarmed climate advocates become in these efforts, the more they polarize the issue, driving away a conservative or moderate for every liberal they recruit to the cause."
Americans like to think there is something about their culture that's especially conducive to innovation, [...] but could it be that American achievements reflect the past more than predicting the future? Fareed Zakaria examines the myths and truths of the American Innovation Story.
"As a study by the Breakthrough Institute notes, after the microchip was invented in 1958 by an engineer at Texas Instruments, 'the federal government bought virtually every microchip firms could produce.' This was particularly true of the Air Force, which needed chips to guide the new Minuteman II missiles, and NASA, which required advanced chips for the on-board guidance computers on its Saturn rockets. 'NASA bought so many [microchips] that manufacturers were able to achieve huge improvements in the production process--so much so, in fact, that the price of the Apollo microchip fell from $1,000 per unit to between $20 and $30 per unit in the span of a couple years.'"
Breakthrough Senior Fellow William Chaloupka, a political science professor at Colorado State University, discusses the political landscape in the West on CNN Politics. With a significant portion of unaffiliated voters, Colorado, in particular, is a region of the country that could be a major battle ground in upcoming midterm elections.
Fellow and director of policy at the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, Mark Muro, writes in The New Republic about the Environment and Public Works Committee's draft of the Kerry-Boxer climate and energy legislation. Muro cites Breakthrough Institute analysis to explain the main differences and similarities between the Senate draft of the bill and the version passed by the House in June - primarily the lack of sufficient investment in clean energy research and development allocated by both versions:
"As to the important allowances side of the ledger, now that we can see them, these too look very similar to the House schedule, with a few interesting differences, but not enough on the up side, as makes clear a helpful side-by-side comparison posted by the Breakthrough Institute."
Breakthrough founders, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger join other policy experts, climate scientists, and negotiators to comment on the importance of upcoming climate talks in Copenhagen in Prospect magazine. Nordhaus and Shellenberger write:
"The US senate will not pass climate legislation this year, maybe not even next. President Obama's climate tsar, Carol Browne, has bleakly declared: 'We will go to Copenhagen and manage with whatever we have.' This means moving away from unenforceable emissions targets towards shared investments in low-carbon technologies. The failure of some Kyoto-ratifying countries to cut their emissions gives the US a case for switching the focus from pollution regulation to technology investment."
In a piece looking at the influence the utility sector has over pending climate and energy legislation. Breakthrough's Director of Climate and Energy policy comments on provisions made in the bill simply to satisfy the interests of big utilities:
"They negotiated the deal they wanted and are now largely supporting the bill," says Jesse Jenkins, an expert on energy and climate change at the Breakthrough Institute, a progressive policy think-tank. "This is the PG&E, Duke Energy, GE bill. It's questionable whether it's even the environmentalists' bill anymore."
In a look at the critical need for Senator Sherrod Brown's (D-OH) support for pending climate and energy legislation in the Senate, Breakthrough's Director of climate and energy policy remarks:
"If we can't secure the support of somebody who is a committed progressive, who understands the potential of a clean energy economy and someone who understands the need to protect this country's manufacturing base, then I don't see this bill going anywhere," said Jesse Jenkins, director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. "Senator Brown is much more committed to finding a bill that can work than potentially some other senators.
"If we can't get his support, I don't see any route to 60 votes."
As panelists on the Washington Post's blog, "Planet Panel," Breakthrough's founders explain why the Copenhagen climate talks won't succeed unless plans for an international climate change agreement are focused on technology policy, instead of targets and timetables. Nordhaus and Shellenberger write:
"Such a tact will require moving the Kyoto process away from its focus on unenforceable emissions targets and timetables to shared investments in low-carbon energy technologies."
Wall Street Journal blogger Keith Johnson draws on Breakthrough Institute analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate bill that finds the proposed legislation would over-allocate emissions permits to businesses because the current economic recession is not accounted for when calculating the amount of necessary permits. Johnson cites Breakthrough analysis: "The resulting oversupply of emissions permits will allow regulated firms to continue business as usual emissions through as late as 2018," and dubs Breakthrough a "vocal advocate for more direct support for clean-energy technology."
Local Bay Area radio station, KPFA radio, hosted Breakthrough's Director of Energy and Climate Policy, Jesse Jenkins, and Dan Jacobson of Environment California to discuss the coming climate and energy policy debates in the U.S. Senate and the implications of U.S. decision making on the international stage.
The non-profit webpaper, Washington Independent, reports that Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) appeared at a summit hosted by the Breakthrough Institute and Third Way in order to discuss their call for $15 billion public investment in order to create a National Institutes of Energy, modeled after the National Institutes of Health. This appearance was part of Brown's larger effort to secure more manufacturing and clean energy technology incentives in the House-passed climate bill (ACES). "It more than piqued my interest," commented Brown with regard to the proposal.
ABC 7 reporter, Lyanne Melendez asks Breakthrough Project Director, Devon Swezey, to comment on the potential green jobs that could be created in the clean energy industry by the pending House-passed climate and energy bill, ACES. "The Chinese government is offering substantial support in terms of credit guarantees, loan guarantees, low cost financing to directly grow their solar manufacturing industry. The Chinese government is engaged in the proactive policy of support for this industry in the way the US is not or has never been," said Swezey.
Breakthrough reports that leading Washington, D.C. think tank, Third Way, and Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) are the latest political figures to join Breakthrough in calling for massive public spending and a new National Institutes of Energy to spur clean energy innovation and make clean energy cheap. Senator Brown remarks: "Clean energy is the future of our nation, but it can also create jobs now - in Ohio and across the Midwest," Senator Sherrod Brown said. "Done right, increased research and development of new clean energy technologies will drive innovation and reduce our dependence on foreign energy."
Joshua Freed, a Senior Policy Advisor at Third Way and co-author (along with Breakthrough's Director of Climate and Energy Policy, Jesse Jenkins) of Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy, explains why Breakthrough and Third Way propose a National Institutes of Energy modeled on the National Institutes of Health, a world leader in medical breakthroughs. Freed explains: "NIE's mission would be clear: to fund and conduct commercially viable clean energy research. This is important not only for researchers but also for the Congress, which needs to fund energy R&D and the public, which supports government-sponsored R&D when it's tied to institutions they trust."
Chicago Tribune reporter, Jim Tankersley draws on the Breakthrough Institute and Third Way's proposal for a National Institutes of Energy, modeled on the National Institutes of Health, as an example of a strategy that would strengthen the House-passed climate bill, ACES. Tankersley cites the report: "The lack of a sustained national commitment to clean energy innovation is already limiting our access to a major economic driver of the next century. Without immediate action to spur clean energy technologies and industries, the United States may also fall behind several Asian nations now aggressively positioning themselves to dominate the burgeoning clean energy sector."
The E&E News ClimateWire covers the release of Jumpstarting a Clean Energy Revolution with a National Institutes of Energy co-authored by the Breakthrough Institute and Third Way. ClimateWire cites an interview with Joshua Freed, Senior Policy Advisor at Third Way Freed: "NIE, like NIH, would oversee the landscape of public R&D. It would have its own director and advisory council to determine the country's energy priorities and where funding ought to go."
Breakthrough responds to excitement in the wind sector and on Wall Street, that ARRA-funded cash grants are stimulating private investment in wind by cautioning that the boom could go bust without a more long-term deployment strategy. Jenkins and Borofsky write: "Long-term deployment policies to drive strong domestic markets, continued innovation, and ever-more-affordable clean energy technologies will be central to the nation's longer-term economic strategy, helping drive a robust clean energy growth sector."
In a piece discussing the viability of carbon-capturing algae, artificial trees, and other geo-engineering innovations, the Financial Times blog covers an Institution of Mechanical Engineering report which argues that geo-engineering is legitimate interim solution for mitigating climate change, while the world attempts to make clean energy cheap. A Breakthrough Institute interview with Klaus Lackner was cited: Klaus Lackner, the scientist who designed these trees, told The Breakthrough Institute last year that he estimated they [artifical trees] might be able to capture carbon dioxide at a cost of $30 a tonne - not out of the ballpark for market price estimates in another decade or two.
A research associate for The National Center for Public Policy Research, Justin Danhof discusses the weaknesses in the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) and questions why the bill lost support among environmental organizations that would be expected to support it. Danhof cites Breakthrough analysis of the bill's offset provisions: "The Breakthrough Institute, a self-described progressive policy group, claims that because of Waxman-Markey's offset provisions, by 2030 carbon emissions will increase by 9 percent over business as usual."
Breakthrough reports on legislation proposed by Sen. Sherrod Brown, which would invest directly in building America's clean energy manufacturing industry. Jenkins and Peace write: "Direct public investment is necessary to jump-start a robust clean energy manufacturing sector that will ensure the US gains a secure foothold in a burgeoning (and lucrative) global industry. Otherwise, our wind turbines and solar panels -- like so many other products that sustain our economy -- will continue to bear the label "Made in China."
The article also appeared on Grist, and Jenkins has previously written about Brown's crucial position for climate policy at Huffington Post and Grist.
Harrabin, a BBC environment analyst, reports extensively on the policy positions of Breakthrough's Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, who spoke about cap-and-trade at a climate conference in London. Harrabin writes: "They believe that cap-and-trade will never produce the desired results. Its energies are subverted by the sort of political maneuvering which is hampering the Waxman-Markey Bill... Shellenberger and Nordhaus were also scathing about carbon offsetting. They argue that a straight carbon tax would send the correct market signals and would be less vulnerable to lobbying than cap-and-trade, whilst also raising the finance necessary for technological investment."
Bryan Walsh reports that the US is falling behind in the race toward a clean-energy economy, and highlights calls to support the nascent sector through large-scale investments in R&D. The report cites Breakthrough's director of energy and climate policy, Jesse Jenkins: "We need a much larger investment than what we're getting" to achieve the technological breakthroughs required to fight climate change.
British newspaper The Guardian published an op ed by Senior Breakthrough Institute Fellow, Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. In the piece, Pielke Jr. calls for policy makers to ditch symbolic efforts and embrace realistic climate policy that focuses on decarbonizing the global economy.
Prominent environment reporter Andrew Revkin discusses Breakthrough's vocal advocacy for clean energy education funding when he asks: exactly how will Obama's promised $150 billion for clean energy R&D be spent? Revkin writes: "The Breakthrough team warns that while deployment of today's technologies is vital, if money for deployment is included in the $150-billion pie, that dangerously reduces the amount of money for laboratories pursuing vital advances on photovoltaics or energy storage and for big tests of technologies that must be demonstrated at large scale -- like capturing carbon dioxide from power plants."
Breakthrough's Teryn Norris and Jesse Jenkins penned an op-ed warning that the US is falling behind in the clean energy race. They called for increased government investment in clean energy R&D and in STEM education initiatives like Obama's RE-ENERGYSE program. Norris and Jenkins wrote:
"To win today's clean-energy race, the United States must respond with the same vigorous commitment to education and innovation that won the space race four decades ago. Congress should begin by strengthening RE-ENERGYSE to the full $115 million requested and pass energy legislation that invests $30 billion to $50 billion annually in low-carbon energy.
If America does not take immediate action to bridge its energy education gap - and if we fail to make substantially larger investments in our own clean-energy economy - we will effectively cede the clean-energy race to Asia. A decade from now, we may still find the burgeoning clean-energy economy promised by Obama and Democratic leaders. It will simply be headquartered in China."
In an article making the case for substantial investment in science and technology education, Good Magazine's Ben Jervey cites the Breakthrough policy proposal that laid the foundation for Obama's RE-ENERGYSE program, and discusses Breakthrough's continued support for clean energy education: "Jesse Jenkins and Teryn Norris at the Breakthrough Institute -- who proposed a similar, if much more ambitious, National Energy Education Act last summer -- partnered with the Association of American Universities and rounded up a group of more than 100 schools, student groups, and nonprofit organizations to jointly submit a letter (pdf) to all senators urging full support of the President's RE-ENERGYSE proposal."
DotEarth reports on the letter drafted by Breakthrough Institute and signed by over 100 schools, student groups and nonprofit organizations. The letter urged Congress to fully fund Obama's RE-ENERGYSE initiative for clean energy education. Revkin writes: "The letter, drafted by the Breakthrough Institute and sent to Senate offices this week, comes after the education program was cut to zero by a Senate committee from Mr. Obama's $115 million request. In its markup, a House committee cut the request to $7 million."
South African newspaper Business Report draws on Breakthrough's coverage of the Asia's clean energy investments in an article discussing South Africa's low-carbon energy policies.
The Washington Post interviews Breakthrough's Director of Energy and Climate Policy in a report covering the growing dominance of Asian nations in the clean energy race. "If the Waxman-Markey climate bill is the United States' entry into the clean energy race," Jesse Jenkins said, "we'll be left in the dust by Asia's clean-tech tigers."
The San Francisco Business Times Blog, July 16, 2009
The San Francisco Business Times cites Breakthrough as one of several groups sharply criticizing weak US climate policy: "Today the Oakland-based Breakthrough Institute, a think tank pushing for real solutions to climate change, [supported] a letter signed by 34 Nobel Prize winners who think research dollars committed to finding real solutions to climate change included in the current version of the Waxman Markey federal climate change bill are insufficient... The Breakthrough Institute argues that the U.S. needs to direct far more dollars into research for solutions."
Gammon highlights the Breakthrough Institute's rigorous analysis of the proposed Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill. "If this bill passes the way it is," Shellenberger explains, "we're going to be stuck with bad legislation that actually includes incentives to increase emissions rather than decrease them."
Wall Street Journal blogger Keith Johnson reports on the joint Oxford University and the London School of Economics report How To Get Climate Policy Back on Course. Johnson highlights the report authors' endorsement of the Breakthrough Institute climate policy recommendations: "The core argument of the Breakthrough Institute is an elementary political truth, namely that clean energy will only advance radically when it is made cheaper than dirty energy at point-of-use by the consumer."
Breakthrough Institute President Michael Shellenberger is featured in TIME Magazine's coverage of the passage of the American Clean Energy and Security bill in the House. Shellenberger comments on the insufficient measures for driving the domestic clean energy sector contained in ACES: "It should be a key goal to see renewable energy get picked up under this bill, but it's not happening. That's pretty demoralizing." Shellenberger concludes that "[the ACES bill] won't get us to where we need to go."
NPR's 'All Things Considered' program featured a profile on the Breakthrough Institute in which founders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus make the case for innovation-based climate policy supported by an active government. Shellenberger and Nordhaus discuss the drawbacks of regulation-based climate policy and outline the benefits of making clean energy cheap through investment in innovation. They argue that such an approach will better resonate with the American national identity.
Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger comment in an LA Times article reporting that the ACES climate legislation would result in the US burning more coal a decade from now than it does today. Under the bill, offset provisions would allow heavy emitters to avoid reducing their own emissions by paying for reductions elsewhere.
"This is greens making a deal with the devil," Nordhaus said. Obama and House leaders "gave the coal guys everything they wanted," added Shellenberger. "The result is legislation that, when all is said and done, will increase coal generation and make it harder to move away from it."
The San Francisco Chronicle acknowledges the contribution of the Breakthrough Institute analysis of carbon offset provisions contained in the ACES bill. The Breakthrough analysis found that if polluters purchase the "relatively cheap carbon offsets ... emissions in supposedly capped U.S. sectors (could) rise by up to 9 percent between 2005 and 2030."
The Wall Street Journal references the Breakthrough Institute in an article exploring the effect the Waxman-Markey will have on international climate deal. The article notes that according to Breakthrough analysis, ACES won't even accomplish its own objectives:
"You could drive yourself insane plowing through the nearly 1,000 pages and try to work out how all the overlapping policies, regulators, giveaways, exemptions, and mandates actually affect U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions over the next four decades. Actually, folks at the Breakthrough Institute did that and came away horrified by how little the bill will really do."
Nordhaus and Shellenber explain why the green movement's anti-modernist reaction to global warming is building a "green bubble" that is compelling in the short-term but will ultimately fail to deal with the challenge of climate change.
"The idea that a common connection to nature might allow us to overcome our divisions and transcend the essential messiness of politics is an idea that is as old as it is fantastical," say Nordhaus and Shellenberger. "Politics will always involve conflict, contradiction, and compromise."
Breakthrough's chairman and president argue that making dirty energy expensive through cap-and-trade policies will not succeed; instead, we must make clean energy cheap. They write:
"Public investment in clean energy is what is needed today, because no effort to achieve deep reductions in carbon emissions, domestic or international, will succeed as long as low-carbon energy technologies cost vastly more than current fossil fuel-based energy."
As the Australian Government pursues a national cap-and-trade scheme as the centerpiece of climate and energy policy, Breakthrough Chairman Ted Nordhaus appeared on ABC Radio's 'National Interest' program for a discussion about alternatives.
The Age columnist Kenneth Davidson draws heavily on Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus' Emerging Climate Consensus to support his critique of the Australian Government's cap-and-trade agenda. Davidson characterizes the Breakthrough Institute's strategy to make clean energy cheap, as outlined in Emerging Climate Consensus, as 'a practical solution' to climate change.
Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant ... Asia is poised to dominate the fast-growing clean energy industry by outspending the United States by at least three-to-one on infrastructure and technology, according to a new report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," which was released today by the Breakthrough Institute and Information Technology and Innovation Foundation at an event hosted by the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee. (Nov 18, 2009)
Is Cap and Trade Enough? Why Reducing Emissions Depends on Technology Innovation, The Breakthrough Institute joins the Brookings Institution and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation to discuss the need for a explicit innovation policy to discuss the price gap between fossil fuels and clean energy, and what innovation policies are needed to overcome it. (June 10, 2009)
Michael Shellenberger, President
Ted Nordhaus, Chairman The Breakthrough Institute
436 14th Street, Suite 820
Oakland, CA 94612
510.550.8800
Email for more information: michael(at)thebreakthrough(dot)org
ted(at)thebreakthrough(dot)org)
BREAK THROUGH THE BOOK
Winner of the 2008 Green Book Award
"Prescient" - Time
"Could be the most important thing to happen to environmentalism since Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring.'" - Wired
Break Through: Why We Cant Leave Saving the Planet to Environmentalists
A new politics for a new century, one focused on aspirations, not complaints, human possibility, not limits. In stores now >>
