Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Chu: U.S. needs to be the Wayne Gretzky of clean energy. Obama: “I hear that the Republicans were shouting ‘BTU’ on the floor…. that tells me those guys are 16 years behind the times.”

Posted on

"Chu: U.S. needs to be the Wayne Gretzky of clean energy. Obama: “I hear that the Republicans were shouting ‘BTU’ on the floor…. that tells me those guys are 16 years behind the times.”"

Share:

google plus icon

In the first half of his Sunday interview after the passage of the Waxman-Markey bill, Obama said he was confident the Senate will pass the climate and clean energy bill.  He also asserted “My strong belief is that innovation and technology are going to accelerate our process beyond these targets, and that we’re going to look back and say we can do even more.”

Then Obama invited Energy Secretary Steven Chu and climate czar Steven Carol Browner to chime in (transcript here).  Here is the rest of the interview:

Secretary Chu: Well, I just want to reiterate what the President said in terms of how do you prepare the United States for the future — with some reasonable certainty we’re going to be looking towards higher oil and gas prices 10, 20 years from today. I think what the contractors are finding out about the climate, especially in the last five years, we will be looking at a carbon constrained economy, whether it’s two years from now or 10 years from now.

So this is an opportunity for the United States to say that’s where the puck is going to be — to quote Wayne Gretzky — 10 or 20 years from now this is where it’s going to be, so why don’t we meet in this new industrial revolution, meaning that we’re going to get energy, abundant energy, the clean energy. So we have the ability to lead.

And if you send this long-term signal that there is a cap on carbon and it’s going to ratchet down, then industry has shown remarkable innovation over the years on everything we’ve done, whether it’s sulfur dioxide cleanup, whether it’s getting appliances more efficient. As soon as you say this is where we’ve got to go, we’ve always gotten there a lot faster, a lot cheaper. And so this bill with the cap and with the slowly ratcheting down will send a signal to industry that says, you know, get your engineers thinking about it, get your scientists thinking about it.

And once you unleash that great American research and innovation machine, it’s going to be — it’ll take us into this new future.

So the future part of it — this really hangs that the future part is greater in the United States; that, you know, Ford is now deeply committed, and I think GM and Chrysler are coming along, deeply committed — their future is not to lobby to sell big, heavy inefficient cars. They’re realizing now in a world 10 or 20 years from now their future will be in manufacturing light, energy efficient cars, because will have to want to buy those because the price of oil will be higher.

So this is really a bill that helps give industry a certainty that this is coming along, rather than depending whether you start now or five years from now — let’s start it now. I’ve seen over the last decade more and more industries that the United States used to have a leadership in — from nuclear power to power engineering of transformers to cars — just one by one going away, being off-shored. And we’ve got to capture back this high-value engineering, which is the future.

So this bill signals the ship has turned. And, you know, people can say about allowances yes, but there’s a transition away from allowances that — but the cap is still there and it’s still ratcheting down. So it gives industry and it gives regions time to make adjustments. But the long-term signal is very clear. So this is the heart of why it’s so important.

President Obama: And I just want to point out my Secretary of Energy used a very cool Wayne Gretzky metaphor. (Laughter.)

MEDIA:  There still will be ice in the future is what you’re saying? (Laughter.)

Secretary Chu: You know, here’s this skinny kid who is arguably the greatest hockey player in the world. And they say how — and he says, I position myself on the ice. Well, how do you do it? I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it’s been. And so for decades we’ve been trying to figure out how to — you know, this is where we wanted it — do we want it back to 1950? Well, it isn’t going to be back to 1950. And so this bill begins to say to America this is where it’s going to be and so why don’t we take the industrial lead on this.

President Obama: Carol.

Ms. Browner: Three quick points. The President talked about the 1990 Clean Air Act. During that debate industry projected that the cost per ton of sulfur dioxide reductions would be over a thousand dollars. It turned out to be a fraction because American innovation and ingenuity rose to the occasion and we found solutions that allowed us to do it more cheaply once industry had that certainty. And that story can be told time and time again about environmental rules, that’s probably the clearest — same thing for CFCs. The Senate decided to ban — the bill banned CFCs, there wasn’t a replacement via the guaranteed market — the investments were made, the replacements came forward, it was cheaper, much more quickly than we thought.

Secretary Chu: Catalytic converters –

MS. BROWNER: You can tell it over again. The second point I would make following on the President and Steve is what we see are industries eager to be a part of a clean energy future. The fact that the President was able to announce proposed car tailpipe standards, the first-ever greenhouse gas standards and have 10 CEOS stand with him, governors, the environmental community, I think it’s a testament to where industries are going. They see the future.

And finally, we had tremendous business support for the stimulus act, which was — your Department got the lion’s share of it — but it was a tremendous opportunity for new, clean energy jobs and we’re starting to see that happen as the money rolls out.

MEDIA. The House vote was obviously tough, 44 Democrats took a walk, voted against it. Are the Democrats that are voting for it going to pay a price at the polls, as the Republicans predicted?

President Obama: I don’t think so. It was interesting, I hear that the Republicans were shouting “BTU” on the floor.

For background on the BTU tax, read this Time story.

MEDIA. They were.

President Obama: Which I think is fascinating, because that tells me those guys are 16 years behind the times. I mean, here they are having an argument about the 1990s and we’re in 2009 — and they’re making the same argument on health care. They’re doing the same thing. They are fighting not even the last war, they’re fighting three wars ago.

The American people have moved forward. They are way ahead. And for all the fear-mongering I think that, as I said, there’s a recognition that the status quo is unsustainable. We have now an additional 15 to 20 years under our belts where we’ve seen energy prices continue with their volatility, the environmental consequences moved more rapidly than anybody had anticipated, our economy has not been strengthened — we’ve actually been — we’ve actually fallen behind other countries on this front. The same is true on health care, what we’ve seen is huge increases in health care costs, less satisfaction, decreases in quality.

And so we are not going to succeed by looking backwards. We’re going to succeed by moving forward. That’s what has always been true about America. Nobody ever looks back on American history and says — whether it was the transition from the agricultural era to the industrial era, whether it was the shift from the industrial era to the information era — nobody ever looks back on American history and says, boy, if folks had just kept things exactly the way they were, America would be wildly successful. Those arguments are always made. At every juncture in our history there has always been somebody who says: Be afraid of the future, this is a disaster, we can’t change. At every juncture.

But that’s not how we operate. What we do is we say, yes, the future is going to be tough, but we see opportunity there, along with challenge, and we’re going to meet it.

And it was interesting, just — because you’re talking about sort of I think a Republican congressional mind set that is looking backwards, because Republican governors and mayors have been largely supportive of all the steps we’ve taken on clean energy.

I had a lunch with a handful of corporate CEOs and they were talking about the ’90s — actually the ’80s and the ’90s, and they said back in the ’80s everybody was sure that Japan was going to take over — remember, they bought Rockefeller Center and we had these huge trade deficits, and everybody was certain that the American era was over. And what the best companies did was not shy away from this new challenge, but they embraced it and they said, how are we going to become more efficient, how are we going to cut our costs, how are we going to get more bang for the buck? In other words, how are we going to compete?

And what these CEOs all told me is that if we as a nation can make the same transition, take the same approach on the energy sector, on health care, on education — and frankly, on government, because government is not as efficient as it needs to be — but if we had that same mind set, then as a nation we’re going to be able to compete effectively.

So are there going to be nay-sayers? Absolutely. Are there going to be short-term instances where you can get political gain by scaring the bejesus out of people and telling them that their electricity rates are going to go up a thousand percent and this is going to be a tax of $3,000 — even though the studies that they cite the authors of say that these guys are just lying about these costs? Yes. Those political talking points will, in some cases, have some short-term impact.

But long term, I look at America’s history and that tells me that we don’t shy away from the future.

Media: Were those 44 Democrats not coming along with the future?

Obama: No, I think those 44 Democrats are sensitive to the immediate political climate of uncertainty around this issue. They’ve got to run every two years, and I completely understand that. As I said, our job is to make sure that we’re moving this thing forward and that as this thing gets implemented everybody starts realizing this is a jobs-producer, this is pointing industry towards the future, this is going to make our environment healthier for our kids, and that this is going to be one of those situations where people look back and say — they’re not going to worry about what the specific vote was in the House, what they’re going to be thinking about is how America decided to move forward.

MEDIA: The Clean Air Act got about 490 votes, because more people came to understand what that bill did.

Obama: At the end?

Media: Yes.

Obama: Yes. At the end, right. Well, like I said, once things work, everybody likes it. (Laughter.)

Media: Were you able to turn all the people you called yourself?

Obama: You know what, a lot of people I called, it wasn’t a matter of turning as much as it was just a matter of talking through specific concerns that people had. But, look –

Media: Did they all vote for it, or did you miss a couple?

Obama: Well, I’ll have to go back, I haven’t checked the roll call yet.

But, look, I just think that what we’ve been doing over the last six months is getting people back into fighting trim. This is a town where there was just a belief that nothing could get done. Steve used the Gretzky metaphor — I’ll use just the workout metaphor, and that is, you know, when you start training again and you’re pushing your body a little bit harder, sometimes it hurts. But if you keep on at it, after a while your body adjusts. And I think that’s what’s happening to politics in Washington. Folks have been sitting on the couch for a while, and now they’re starting to feel like, hey, you know what, I can run. And that’s why we’re getting stuff done.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t going to be times where it hurts a little bit. All right?

« »

9 Responses to Chu: U.S. needs to be the Wayne Gretzky of clean energy. Obama: “I hear that the Republicans were shouting ‘BTU’ on the floor…. that tells me those guys are 16 years behind the times.”

  1. Leland Palmer says:

    Wow, politicians talking sense.

    We must be dreaming. :)

    “Logical and reasonable” looks good on these people, they ought to dress up more often.

    But I still don’t think that carbon neutral energy production will avoid runaway global warming.

    We need carbon negative energy production.

    We need everything Obama, Chu, and Browner were talking about, plus we need to seize the coal fired power plants, convert them to biochar fuel, enhanced efficiency to pay for carbon capture, and carbon storage by deep injection or mineral carbonation.

    Carbon negative energy is “where the puck will be” in a decade or so, IMO. Why not skate directly to that point, right now, to use Chu’s metaphor?

    By doing this, we can actually start putting the hundreds of billions of tons of carbon we have poisoned our biosphere with back underground, put the genie back in the bottle, and live and do fine.

    The coal fired power plant owners should forfeit their ownership rights of these plants. They have abused those rights, by not running these plants in the public interest. It’s looking like gigawatt coal fired power plants are more dangerous than nuclear weapons, and should not be in private hands, at all.

  2. Gary says:

    How does obama plan to engage with Russia? I know it’s all good to talk about passing domestic legislation but climate change isn’t gonig to be affected if the US alone makes cuts. What about China, India and Russia? I have yet to see an effective negotiating strategy emerge from the Obama administration regarding how to gather international support for cuts.

    for more on this go to climatesecurity.blogspot.com

  3. John Stanley says:

    “The coal-fired power plant owners should forfeit their ownership rights of these plants. They have abused those rights, by not running these plants in the public interest…gigawatt coal fired power plants should not be in private hands, at all.”

    This is going to become a crucial issue, and not before time. Why should any sane and responsible society allow the coal industry to destroy the future of climate, agriculture and biosphere? Rather than arguing with a pathology like that, wouldn’t it be cost-effective for government, on behalf of the citizens, to buy a key block of shares and boardroom influence — for reasons of national health and energy security. Thus we could start to get these delinquent corporations into line with the future of the human environment and the human species. Frankly, big carbon corporations are now behaving like dangerous pandemic viruses on global society. Waxman-Markey and the GOP response to it show just how thoroughly they have subverted the democratic process in America.

  4. KenJ says:

    “My strong belief is that innovation and technology are going to accelerate our process beyond these targets, and that we’re going to look back and say we can do even more.”
    I believe that history will show — and already has shown — Obama to be absolutely right. Looking back, we’re going to say we can do — and could have done — much more.

    The clearest evidence that we can do more comes from the U.S. acid rain program, whose costs are estimated to be 40 times lower than quantified benefits. The EPA’s CAIR program would do more — it would motivate further reductions in acid rain costing 25 times less than the benefits. The acid rain program has been an outstanding success from the perspective of cost reduction. However, it has not succeeded in either solving the acid rain problem or motivating justifiable and achievable investments in emission-reduction technology.

    More evidence comes from the recently-announced EPA rules for vehicle emission performance. The rules will be comparable to California’s Pavley standards, which are expected to result in net savings of $361 per MT CO2. California plans to implement newer, more stringent rules, which would would do more. The new rules would yield estimated incremental net savings of $262/MT. Based on these (negative) cost projections, the vehicle regulations are undeniably “cost-effective” in the sense of being “economical to an owner or operator of a vehicle”. But they clearly fall short of the “maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles” that were required by the Pavley law.

    In the case of both acid rain and vehicle emissions, we can do — and could have done — even more. So why didn’t we? (Hint: As Ms. Browner pointed out, the 1990 Clean Air Act passed with the expectation that the cost per ton of sulfur dioxide reductions would be over a thousand dollars.)

  5. Mike D says:

    While we are at it, let’s ban all fossil fuels and petroleum-based products, seize all of Kansas and give it back to the bison, and institute a one-child policy. All of these things are equally likely to happen.

  6. James Newberry says:

    If the president is citing autocratic leadership in atomic fission such as mountains of irradiated uranium stashed around dozens of states and mounting public liability, corporate indemnification that no citizen can insure against, weapons proliferation potential, numerous other substantial historic subsidies and some of the biggest bankruptcies and public bailouts in the past quarter century, then I’m not sure which way he is facing.

    Since the capitalists of Wall Street have turned down new reactors for decades, I think his advisors have failed him in this regard. It is unfortunate that he advocates such a bankrupting scheme from the past.

  7. Leland Palmer says:

    Hi John Stanley-

    This is going to become a crucial issue, and not before time. Why should any sane and responsible society allow the coal industry to destroy the future of climate, agriculture and biosphere? Rather than arguing with a pathology like that, wouldn’t it be cost-effective for government, on behalf of the citizens, to buy a key block of shares and boardroom influence — for reasons of national health and energy security. Thus we could start to get these delinquent corporations into line with the future of the human environment and the human species. Frankly, big carbon corporations are now behaving like dangerous pandemic viruses on global society. Waxman-Markey and the GOP response to it show just how thoroughly they have subverted the democratic process in America.

    Hear, hear. The GOP response to Waxman/Markey is fascism, plain and simple. We need to face the fact that a lot of Americans have become authoritarian followers, who have totally sold their minds to paid propagandists on the right, with the ultimate source of that money being a financial elite made rich by profits from fossil fuels.

    The virus analogy is very apt, too, IMO. These fossil fuel industries are parasites on the biosphere, and are busily engaged in devouring it, even while it dies.

  8. Chris says:

    We finally have a President who can defend his priorities with logical thought. He needs to go FAR deeper into the liberal deep end, but you can’t always get what you want.

    Thanks, Obama; I voted for you to piss off a particular party for your entire 8 years. Do NOT stop.

  9. James Newberry says:

    Harvard researchers have recently indicated the wind energy potential in the USA at over an order of magnitude (ten times) higher than all electricity used in the nation. They said (on NPR) that a build-out to provide the nation’s power with this one type of clean energy would involve an investment of about three trillion dollars. This is in comparison with total US finance bailout, variously reported as over twelve trillion.

    What are the nation’s priorities, money for transglobal holding corporations or prospering workers and a livable planet?