“You get the sense that this country is straining against the leash, eager for a new wave of energy development. There will be excess, stupidity and greed along the way. But it would be simply amazing if, through some set of narrow political gamesmanship, Washington continued to stand in the way of all this.
It’s hard to find many conservative pundits willing to take on the right-wing orthodoxy that opposes any action to advance clean energy or reduce greenhouse gas emissions (see “Honey, I shrunk the GOP, Part 1: Conservatives vow to purge all members who support clean energy or science-based policy“).
David Brooks is one of the few exceptions, saying recently, “I totally accept the scientific authorities who say that global warming is real and that it is manmade.”
So while I don’t agree with everything he wrote in his NYT piece, “American Power Act,” his overall analysis is certainly worth excerpting at length:
In 1860, Samuel Curtis, a Republican congressman of Iowa, sponsored a bill to create a transcontinental railroad. The debate over that public-private partnership was long and messy. Democrats said the proposal was unconstitutional. Others rightly argued that it meant huge giveaways to the rich.
But the railroad effort, backed by Abraham Lincoln, swept forward. “Nations are never stationary,” Representative James Campbell told the House. “They advance or recede. We cannot remain inactive … without the loss of trade, of commerce, and power.”
After the legislation was approved in 1862, there were continual setbacks. The Union Pacific Railroad languished. Scandals mounted. Yet despite it all, the final spike was hammered into place at Promontory Point, Utah, in 1869, linking the nation and heralding a new burst of prosperity.
When you read that history, you’re reminded that large efforts are generally plagued by stupidity, error and corruption. But by the sheer act of stumbling forward, it’s possible, sometimes, to achieve important things.
Energy innovation is the railroad legislation of today. This country is studded with venture capitalists, scientists, corporate executives and environmental activists atremble over the great opportunities they see ahead. The energy revolution is a material project that arouses moral fervor “” exactly the sort of enterprise at which Americans excel.
[Insert some standard conservative rhetoric questioning whether "the benefits of the most ambitious global warming bills really outweigh the costs.]
Nonetheless, the vision is certainly right. To remain the world’s pre-eminent nation, the U.S. is going to have to develop energy sources that are plentiful, clean and don’t enrich the worst people on earth. That means in the short term, the U.S. has to unleash the tens of billions of dollars of potential energy investments now being pent up by uncertainty and regulatory hurdles. To make a difference in the long term, the U.S. is going to have to invest more and differently in energy research and development.
Technology companies spend 5 percent to 15 percent of revenue on research and development. Energy companies, on the other hand, spend only one-quarter of 1 percent. The federal government spends $30 billion on health research, but only $3 billion on clean energy research.
It’s clearly going to take legislative action to catalyze private investment and to increase federal research to where it should be “” about $25 billion a year, according to Mark Muro of the Brookings Institution. It’s going to take some equivalent of the Pacific Railroad Acts to kick this into gear.
The best vehicle now is the American Power Act, drawn up by John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. The bill, like all politically plausible bills these days, is larded with special-interest provisions and public giveaways to defuse opposition and win votes. But it does perform a few essential tasks. To boost innovation, it raises the price on carbon and devotes some of that money (though not nearly enough) to research and development.
In addition, it establishes a predictable price for carbon. Lew Hay, the chief executive of the power provider FPL Group, e-mailed me on Thursday to say that if he can get that certainty on the carbon price and if there can be a renewable energy standard to create a market for carbon-free energy, his company could boost investments right away:
“Regarding wind energy investment at our NextEra Energy Resources subsidiary, we think we might invest about $1.5 billion to $2 billion more per year. Regarding solar, we think NextEra Energy Resources might invest $500 million or more per year outside of Florida and that our Florida Power & Light subsidiary might invest about $1 billion a year inside Florida.” Last but not least, he wrote, a new law would be a “huge factor” in deciding whether to move forward with new nuclear units.
Similarly, David Crane, the C.E.O. of NRG Energy, wrote that with a new law, his company could double the number of clean energy projects, from 17 to 36; it could triple the megawatts of clean generating capacity it is planning to add; it could produce three times as much nuclear power and 40 times as much coal with carbon capture and sequestration.
You get the sense that this country is straining against the leash, eager for a new wave of energy development. There will be excess, stupidity and greed along the way. But it would be simply amazing if, through some set of narrow political gamesmanship, Washington continued to stand in the way of all this.
Well, maybe not amazing, maybe just business as usual for the movement that Brooks is a part of (see “Will anti-science ideologues be able to kill the bipartisan climate and clean energy jobs bill?“)
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Well David Brooks, Welcome to the club. It has been a long time coming and you have fought all the way kicking and screaming in my opinion. You have much atonement to make up for. However, moving right along.
It is truly pathetic that Society must make more billionaires out of millionaires in order to move forward on efforts to save humanity and Earth’s very life support systems. The thinking that it is inevitable that society must accept this graft to move forward is just self fulling prophecy. Just what is the function of LAW if not to protect the many from the greed of the few? Humanity is poised to step across the doorstep of doom and has been lead by these same immoral bastards that you, David, are willing to enrich yet again.
Why, just this once, can humanity not move toward sustainability with capitalism and corporate blessing and shared enthusiasm? The wealthy top 5% currently control ~95% of the world wealth. Society NEEDS to give them yet more to prevent collapse? BS. That wealth MUST be returned to reward the sweat and blood of the masses that generated it in the first place, not the already privileged few.
Joe, are you sure this was from David Brooks (NY Times, NPR, PBS)? Yes, Leif, “much atonement to make up for” continuously and with much thunder! Louder David! I can’t hear you!
Welcome to reality.
From The American Chemical Society’s Position Statement on Global Climate Change:
“Recommendation 2a— The U.S. should immediately adopt nationwide goals for rapid and deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions and develop effective economic drivers to achieve these goals.”
The full Position Statement can be found here, on the ACS’s website:
http://portal.acs.org:80/portal/PublicWebSite/policy/publicpolicies/promote/globalclimatechange/WPCP_011538
Let’s get with it, people.
Cheers,
Jeff
I take this as a very good sign. If we get ourselves out of the hole we’ve dug while extracting and burning fossil fuels it’s almost certainly to come from large scale industrial efforts. We need the major manufacturers (in addition to GE) to become involved in producing equipment for and installing wind, solar, and geothermal.
Will some people make a fortune? Probably.
Should that risk keep us from going forward? Absolutely not.
Let’s get the transformation away from fossil fuel going full speed ahead. We can deal with changing human nature at another time, sometime when disaster is not breathing down our necks.
Joe: the energy companies seem to think some new nuclear power is inevitable. I believe you agree with that assessment. How about a post on the various new nuclear plant designs and whether or not they will be safe (and affordable). Is the rare yet inevitable ongoing offshore well blow out a metaphor for the nuclear power industry? Does Chernobyl signify that the occasional massive nuclear power disaster is a bit of collateral damage we must accept if we use nuclear power?
“To remain the world’s pre-eminent nation, the U.S. is going to have to develop energy sources that are plentiful, clean and don’t enrich the worst people on earth. That means in the short term, the U.S. has to unleash the tens of billions of dollars of potential energy investments now being pent up by uncertainty and regulatory hurdles. To make a difference in the long term, the U.S. is going to have to invest more and differently in energy research and development.”
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that to conservatives “energy” means oil/coal/gas. Aside from the single occurance of the word “clean” this entire paragraph is right-wing boilerplate for rampant deregulated oil and gas exploration. “It’s abundant” and “it’s right here at home, not in some evil foreign empire” are the tag lines from every “energy” company ad for the last 5 years.
I call BS on DB.
Andy –
“the energy companies seem to think some new nuclear power is inevitable”
I don’t believe that is true. Several major energy companies, including Entergy and Exelon, have announced that new nuclear is not likely to be part of their future. Other companies such as Florida Power and Light have dropped their plans to build nuclear. Duke Power shelved their North Carolina plant plans. None of the CA utility companies are pursuing new nuclear.
And at the same time all those companies are building wind farms and installing solar on significant scales.
The only company that is going forward with building new reactors is Southern Company. Everyone else who has looked at the numbers has said ‘No thanks’….
Rockfish – What part of “clean ” do you not understand?
Did you actually read the article?
While it is easy to get discouraged by all of the difficulties and slow movement on comprehensive measures to address climate change here in the U.S. (and internationally), one piece of news that will probably get overlooked by the media deserves some attention.
On Friday, the U.S., Canada and Mexico offered an amendment to the Montreal Protocol that proposes including HFCs under the international agreement. While HFCs do not deplete the ozone layer, they are increasingly being used as replacements for substances that are convered under the Montreal Protocol, and have global warming potential up more than 10,000 times that of CO2. The proposal (which is an update to one submitted last year)offers an innovative way to utilize an existing international agreement to address climate change while we wait for real action on the part of the international community and the U.S. Congress to materialize.
Here is the State Dept. Press Release – http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/04/141074.htm
Here is the Climate Wire release – http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2010/05/03/5
David Brooks has been a consistently thoughtful and pragmatic conservative who fits well with PBS. It’s good to have him as an advocate. Hopefully, those conservatives who recoil against the developing concensus on energy policy will find the soil eroding from under their feet.
Ah! David “frisson” Brooks has said on PBS several times…”I was a Democrat”some time ago. David and I share this epiphany self dope slapping
moment. However, here we parted paths. I joined the Green Party approximately 20 years ago and we all know where David ended up..a dead
end. As much as I hope daily that the two competing political parties
can and will do the “right thing” at the end of the day……nothing