*[Enwl-eng] Feature: Energy Innovation Alone Will Not Get Us toWinning the Climate Battle
0 views
Skip to first unread message
ENWLine
Mar 4, 2013, 5:23:59 PM3/4/13
to "ENWL-uni"
*Why Innovation Alone Isn't Enough to Win the Climate Fight*
By Bryan Walsh
Feb. 25, 2013
Politics can be frustrating. Actually, it's more like politics ARE
frustrating, especially in America and especially in 2013, where a
constitutional system designed for maximum gridlock has met intense
partisanship fed by the nano-second news cycle of social media. Right
now the government of the United States seems wholly incapable of
getting out of a self-designed trap to needlessly slash billions of
dollars in spending and cut hundreds of thousands of jobs at a moment
when the American economy is beginning to pick itself off the floor.
(You may know this as sequestration.) And this comes just a few months
after we nearly tipped over the fiscal cliff, which at least had a much
snazzier name than sequestration. Meanwhile the nominated Secretary of
Defense floats in limbo at a moment when the world is, well, pretty
unstable, all because a few senators are in a snit. Political
dysfunction forms the backdrop of our days.
What does this mean for climate policy? Well, if the government can't
get itself together to deal with the much more immediate threats of
sequestration, properly responding to a long-term and highly complex
challenge like climate change has basically entered the realm fantasy.
This is especially true when one of two political parties refuses to
acknowledge the problem exists. There was a chance in 2009 and 2010 with
comprehensive climate legislation, but that died for countless reasons.
And while there are executive actions or EPA regulations that could
begin to address carbon emissions, we really need more ambitious
legislation. And that simply seems impossible.
So it shouldn't be surprising that in the wake of cap-and-trade's death
a few years ago, some climate advocates began to plot another line of
attack, one that wouldn't break the political deadlock so much as
sidestep it altogether. It's energy innovation---policy, to put it
simply, that focuses on making clean energy cheap, rather than making
dirty energy expensive through a carbon cap or regulations. You don't
have to worry about trying to outflank the coal industry or convince
that Midwestern Democratic senator that he won't lose his seat if he
votes for carbon pricing. Instead, by spending significantly more public
money on energy research and subsidizing clean power, you'll be able to
achieve carbon cuts---and build a new clean energy economy---without
engaging much in politics at all.
There's a certain subset of energy wonks---I'd include myself in that
category, except that I hate the term wonk---who seem naturally disposed
to innovation policy. This is especially true if you live in New York or
San Francisco, and if you prefer to don a gas mask whenever you deign to
visit Washington. But while there's a lot about innovation policy to
like---and I've definitely covered it favorably on this blog---it's not
perfect, and it's likely not enough alone to solve climate change. And
most of all, innovation policy is political, as much as we might wish
otherwise.
That's the conclusion of Michael Levi's new essay (PDF)
<http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/files/2013/02/The-Hidden-Risks-of-Energy-Innovation_Preprint.pdf>
in Issues in Science and Technology on the "Hidden Risks of Energy
Innovation." Levi, who directs the program on energy security and
climate change at the Council on Foreign Relations, punctures a hole in
the illusion that innovation policy is certain to succeed where carbon
pricing failed. Instead of sidestepping political fights, innovation
policy will create new ones:
Alas, the turn from regulation to innovation is not a magic recipe
for eliminating conflict over domestic or international policy, or even
for significantly reducing it. Instead, it will create new fights in new
spheres. This is not a reason to reject a big technology push as part of
a serious climate strategy; climate change needs to be confronted, and
conflict is almost certainly endemic to serious climate policy.
Nonetheless, before policymakers place their bets on technology policy,
they would do well to better understand the opportunities for conflict
that lurk there. If they do, they will realize the limits of technology
policy and will more likely pursue a modest but constructive approach.
If they do not, the more likely outcome is a drive that tries to do too
much with technology policy. But just like the maximalist efforts to
solve every climate problem with cap-and-trade and an international
treaty, that overstretch is likely to beget failure.
The problem is politics. Americans don't like regulation---usually---but
they're also not that fond of significant new government spending,
especially now. And, as Levi notes, "without new taxes, spending, or
regulation, government has no significant tools with which to promote
clean energy innovation." Whether you're forcing emissions cuts through
carbon pricing or using subsidies to force down the price of clean
energy, you need to divide up a limited pie. And that means a political
fight.
Levi isn't arguing that energy innovation policy is a waste, or that we
should simply go back to focusing only on carbon pricing. He'd like a
technology strategy that is "robust yet restrained in its ambitions."
That means investment in very basic energy research, as well as support
for more cutting-edge technologies, while avoiding big subsidies for
mature technologies. An agency jumpstarted by the Obama
Administration---the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)
is the perfect vehicle for that kind of funding. (I'll be attending the
ARPA-E conference in Washington this week.) That will look different
than the tends of billions of dollars that were spent on clean energy
during Obama's 2009 stimulus, but the point then was to jump start a
depressed economy---and as a side benefit, to do so while helping out
clean technology. But that's not politically viable for the long term.
This sort of humble climate and energy policy makes sense to me, but
it's likely too little, too late for those who view climate change as an
existential threat. But there's a practical benefit to taking it easy:
When faced with a massive problem, people naturally grasp for an
all encompassing solution that promises salvation. Yet such schemes
invariably reveal themselves to be mirages, and overwrought efforts to
realize them too often backfire. Wiser policy will involve modest moves
forward on multiple fronts, including technology. It would be tragic if
policymakers chose a different course and replaced one overburdened
climate strategy with another.
And don't worry---there will be political battles to fight even with a
relatively scale down climate and energy strategy. But this is one
environmentalists might just have a better chance of winning.
Bryan Walsh is a senior editor at TIME. Find him on Twitter at
@bryanrwalsh. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook
page and on Twitter at @TIME
http://science.time.com/2013/02/25/why-innovation-alone-isnt-enough-to-win-the-climate-fight/
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed, without profit, for research and educational
purposes only. ***
From: "Yahoo Newsgroups" <vasi...@ramapo.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 7:13 PM
Subject: Feature: Energy Innovation Alone Will Not Get Us to Winning the
Climate Battle
------------- * ENWL * ------------
Ecological North West Line * St. Petersburg, Russia
Independent Environmental Net Service: http://www.bellona.ru/enwl/
Russian: ENWL(discussions), ENWL-inf(FSU information), ENWL-misc(any topics)
English: ENWL-eng (world information)
en...@lew.spb.org, enwl...@lew.spb.org, en...@lew.spb.org, en...@lew.spb.org
Subscription, Moderator: vf...@lew.spb.org or en...@enw.net.ru
Archive: http://enwl.bellona.ru/pipermail/
and http://groups.google.com/group/enwl/
SEE ALSO: http://www.bellona.org (English)and http://www.bellona.ru
(Russian)
RSS: http://groups.google.ru/group/enwl/feeds?hl=ru
(C) Please refer to exclusive articles of ENWL
-------------------------------------
ONLY if your address is subscribed:
Enwl-eng mailing list
Enwl...@enwl.bellona.ru
http://enwl.bellona.ru/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/enwl-eng
By Bryan Walsh
Feb. 25, 2013
Politics can be frustrating. Actually, it's more like politics ARE
frustrating, especially in America and especially in 2013, where a
constitutional system designed for maximum gridlock has met intense
partisanship fed by the nano-second news cycle of social media. Right
now the government of the United States seems wholly incapable of
getting out of a self-designed trap to needlessly slash billions of
dollars in spending and cut hundreds of thousands of jobs at a moment
when the American economy is beginning to pick itself off the floor.
(You may know this as sequestration.) And this comes just a few months
after we nearly tipped over the fiscal cliff, which at least had a much
snazzier name than sequestration. Meanwhile the nominated Secretary of
Defense floats in limbo at a moment when the world is, well, pretty
unstable, all because a few senators are in a snit. Political
dysfunction forms the backdrop of our days.
What does this mean for climate policy? Well, if the government can't
get itself together to deal with the much more immediate threats of
sequestration, properly responding to a long-term and highly complex
challenge like climate change has basically entered the realm fantasy.
This is especially true when one of two political parties refuses to
acknowledge the problem exists. There was a chance in 2009 and 2010 with
comprehensive climate legislation, but that died for countless reasons.
And while there are executive actions or EPA regulations that could
begin to address carbon emissions, we really need more ambitious
legislation. And that simply seems impossible.
So it shouldn't be surprising that in the wake of cap-and-trade's death
a few years ago, some climate advocates began to plot another line of
attack, one that wouldn't break the political deadlock so much as
sidestep it altogether. It's energy innovation---policy, to put it
simply, that focuses on making clean energy cheap, rather than making
dirty energy expensive through a carbon cap or regulations. You don't
have to worry about trying to outflank the coal industry or convince
that Midwestern Democratic senator that he won't lose his seat if he
votes for carbon pricing. Instead, by spending significantly more public
money on energy research and subsidizing clean power, you'll be able to
achieve carbon cuts---and build a new clean energy economy---without
engaging much in politics at all.
There's a certain subset of energy wonks---I'd include myself in that
category, except that I hate the term wonk---who seem naturally disposed
to innovation policy. This is especially true if you live in New York or
San Francisco, and if you prefer to don a gas mask whenever you deign to
visit Washington. But while there's a lot about innovation policy to
like---and I've definitely covered it favorably on this blog---it's not
perfect, and it's likely not enough alone to solve climate change. And
most of all, innovation policy is political, as much as we might wish
otherwise.
That's the conclusion of Michael Levi's new essay (PDF)
<http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/files/2013/02/The-Hidden-Risks-of-Energy-Innovation_Preprint.pdf>
in Issues in Science and Technology on the "Hidden Risks of Energy
Innovation." Levi, who directs the program on energy security and
climate change at the Council on Foreign Relations, punctures a hole in
the illusion that innovation policy is certain to succeed where carbon
pricing failed. Instead of sidestepping political fights, innovation
policy will create new ones:
Alas, the turn from regulation to innovation is not a magic recipe
for eliminating conflict over domestic or international policy, or even
for significantly reducing it. Instead, it will create new fights in new
spheres. This is not a reason to reject a big technology push as part of
a serious climate strategy; climate change needs to be confronted, and
conflict is almost certainly endemic to serious climate policy.
Nonetheless, before policymakers place their bets on technology policy,
they would do well to better understand the opportunities for conflict
that lurk there. If they do, they will realize the limits of technology
policy and will more likely pursue a modest but constructive approach.
If they do not, the more likely outcome is a drive that tries to do too
much with technology policy. But just like the maximalist efforts to
solve every climate problem with cap-and-trade and an international
treaty, that overstretch is likely to beget failure.
The problem is politics. Americans don't like regulation---usually---but
they're also not that fond of significant new government spending,
especially now. And, as Levi notes, "without new taxes, spending, or
regulation, government has no significant tools with which to promote
clean energy innovation." Whether you're forcing emissions cuts through
carbon pricing or using subsidies to force down the price of clean
energy, you need to divide up a limited pie. And that means a political
fight.
Levi isn't arguing that energy innovation policy is a waste, or that we
should simply go back to focusing only on carbon pricing. He'd like a
technology strategy that is "robust yet restrained in its ambitions."
That means investment in very basic energy research, as well as support
for more cutting-edge technologies, while avoiding big subsidies for
mature technologies. An agency jumpstarted by the Obama
Administration---the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)
is the perfect vehicle for that kind of funding. (I'll be attending the
ARPA-E conference in Washington this week.) That will look different
than the tends of billions of dollars that were spent on clean energy
during Obama's 2009 stimulus, but the point then was to jump start a
depressed economy---and as a side benefit, to do so while helping out
clean technology. But that's not politically viable for the long term.
This sort of humble climate and energy policy makes sense to me, but
it's likely too little, too late for those who view climate change as an
existential threat. But there's a practical benefit to taking it easy:
When faced with a massive problem, people naturally grasp for an
all encompassing solution that promises salvation. Yet such schemes
invariably reveal themselves to be mirages, and overwrought efforts to
realize them too often backfire. Wiser policy will involve modest moves
forward on multiple fronts, including technology. It would be tragic if
policymakers chose a different course and replaced one overburdened
climate strategy with another.
And don't worry---there will be political battles to fight even with a
relatively scale down climate and energy strategy. But this is one
environmentalists might just have a better chance of winning.
Bryan Walsh is a senior editor at TIME. Find him on Twitter at
@bryanrwalsh. You can also continue the discussion on TIME's Facebook
page and on Twitter at @TIME
http://science.time.com/2013/02/25/why-innovation-alone-isnt-enough-to-win-the-climate-fight/
*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed, without profit, for research and educational
purposes only. ***
From: "Yahoo Newsgroups" <vasi...@ramapo.edu>
Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2013 7:13 PM
Subject: Feature: Energy Innovation Alone Will Not Get Us to Winning the
Climate Battle
------------- * ENWL * ------------
Ecological North West Line * St. Petersburg, Russia
Independent Environmental Net Service: http://www.bellona.ru/enwl/
Russian: ENWL(discussions), ENWL-inf(FSU information), ENWL-misc(any topics)
English: ENWL-eng (world information)
en...@lew.spb.org, enwl...@lew.spb.org, en...@lew.spb.org, en...@lew.spb.org
Subscription, Moderator: vf...@lew.spb.org or en...@enw.net.ru
Archive: http://enwl.bellona.ru/pipermail/
and http://groups.google.com/group/enwl/
SEE ALSO: http://www.bellona.org (English)and http://www.bellona.ru
(Russian)
RSS: http://groups.google.ru/group/enwl/feeds?hl=ru
(C) Please refer to exclusive articles of ENWL
-------------------------------------
ONLY if your address is subscribed:
Enwl-eng mailing list
Enwl...@enwl.bellona.ru
http://enwl.bellona.ru/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/enwl-eng
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages