The United States and Australia have inked a new partnership to pursue joint solar energy research designed to make solar energy cheap enough to compete with fossil fuels.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the announcement in Melbourne on Sunday, with the Australian government set to commit up to $50 million towards the program.
Ms Gillard said the aim was to make solar power as cheap as conventional energy sources.
"One of the greatest barriers to a broader commercial take up of solar power is its cost and that is specifically what this joint research initiative will address," Ms Gillard told reporters.
"The joint project with the United States is part of an aggressive effort to bring the sales price of solar technology down by two to four times."
Ms Clinton said the program aimed to make solar power competitive with conventional energy sources by 2015.
The price had dropped by 50 per cent in the past three years but there was more work to be done, she said.
"Under this initiative our two governments will share both the costs and the benefits of research and development which will speed up innovation," she said.
Secretary Clinton also pledged a $500,000 grant from the U.S. State Department to support a global survey to identify opportunities to reuse carbon dioxide emitted by power plant and industrial processes, headed up by the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, a recently established research center co-funded by the Australian government.
Solar Powerhouse? Solar irradiation in Australia is among the highest in the world, as this color-coded map from NASA illustrates (darker red areas have the most incoming solar energy). Source: The Age/Reuters
Australia, with perhaps the greatest solar energy potential in the world, has an obvious interest in pursuing affordable, scalable solar power solutions, and has also maintained several long-standing solar research efforts. Can the two new partners accelerate efforts to make solar energy cheap?Read more!
I appeared last Friday 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 on largely on a framework of Cap and Trade.
After more than $100 million in lobbying by green groups and allied industry players, and the bill's eventual watering down to a "utility-only" cap, Majority Leader Reid confessed that there was still no way he or the party would be able to muster the sixty votes necessary for the beleaguered legislation to pass.
This is the fourth time in seven years that this cap and trade strategy has been shot down. This time, with the Democrats just one seat shy of a super-majority and with the White House occupied by a president who came to office promising to make climate change a top priority, perhaps the latest episode in the serial failure of cap and trade indicates that it is time to bury the failed policy and develop an entirely new strategy -- one capable of overcoming the political obstacles that doomed cap and trade while successfully making clean energy cheap enough to sustainable power an energy-hungry planet.
You can listen to the roughly eight-minute discussion below. Just hit play and skip to 45-minute mark for the segment.
Breakthrough Institute Project Director (and my friend and colleague) Devon Swezey testified last week before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission on China's clean energy technology policy and the steps the United States must take to remain competitive in the growing clean energy race.
The key to competitiveness, said Swezey, is not a low price on carbon--as proposed in current congressional climate bills--but a robust and long-term investment strategy in critical areas such as research and innovation, advanced manufacturing, market creation, infrastructure, education, and new industry clusters.
Commissioner Bartholomew, Commissioner Brookes, and members of the Commission, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Devon Swezey, and I am Project Director at the Breakthrough Institute, a climate and energy policy think tank based in Oakland, CA. Since its founding in 2004, the Breakthrough Institute has advanced an innovation and investment-centered policy framework for addressing climate change, energy security, and U.S. economic competitiveness in clean energy.
It is my great pleasure to discuss with you China's comprehensive strategy for developing a domestic clean energy economy, and the various policies and investments that the United States must prioritize to mount an effective response to the competitiveness challenges it faces today.
As the United States searches for new sources of growth amidst a sluggish economic recovery, the rapidly growing clean energy industry represents an important job creation and export market opportunity. Global private investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies is estimated to reach $450 billion annually by 2012 and $600 billion by 2020.
Unfortunately, the United States risks losing out on this opportunity, as it lags behind economic competitors in Asia and Europe in the production of virtually all clean energy technologies. The United States produces only 5 percent of the world's solar cells, relies on foreign-owned companies to manufacture the majority of its wind turbines, and is losing ground on hybrid and electric vehicle technology and manufacturing. Measured by market capitalization, only four of the world's top 30 solar, wind, and advanced battery companies are American.
At the same time, other nations are moving quickly to implement comprehensive clean energy investment strategies, which will allow them to gain first-mover advantages ahead of the United States and capture a majority of the economic benefits--in terms of jobs, tax revenues, and growth--associated with this burgeoning industry.
China in particular, has emerged as a clean energy powerhouse. It is now the world's largest manufacturer of solar cells and wind turbines and has also taken the lead in commercializing plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles, as well as manufacturing the advanced batteries that power them.
China is not out-competing the United States through some inherent comparative advantage, but through targeted and comprehensive public policy characterized by large and sustained public investment across the entire industry.
China's investment strategy includes major funding for clean energy research and development; subsidies and tax incentives for domestic manufacturers; ambitious clean energy deployment targets and incentives and procurement policies to develop its domestic market; and major investments in enabling infrastructure.
Local and provincial governments are also offering clean energy companies free land, tax breaks, and other subsidies to facilitate the development of clean energy clusters--dense regional networks of investors, manufacturers, suppliers, universities, and other actors that can confer lasting competitive advantage to the region as a whole. One prime example of this is the city of Baoding, which has transformed into the fastest growing hub of wind and solar energy equipment makers in China. The city is home to "Electricity Valley," an industry cluster modeled after Silicon Valley, composed of nearly 200 renewable energy companies.
To make matters worse, the Chinese government is set to massively out-invest the United States over the next five years, even assuming passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. We documented these clean energy investment estimates in our November report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," written with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Already, China's public investment strategy has helped the country attract the bulk of private investment in clean energy. Last year, China attracted $34.6 billion in investment, nearly twice the $18.6 billion invested in the United States.
As clean energy manufacturing and investment shifts overseas, research and innovation activities -- America's historic "comparative advantage" -- have started to follow. Perhaps the highest-profile example is Silicon Valley giant Applied Materials, the global leader in supplying the manufacturing equipment used to make solar cells, which recently decided to construct the world's largest, most advanced solar R&D facility in Xian, China.
Applied Materials is not alone. IBM has announced that it will invest $40 million to create the company's first "energy-and-utilities-solution lab" to develop innovative new technologies for smart grid and other applications. The new lab will also be located in China. These decisions follow those of leading U.S. companies such as GM, Dow Chemical, and Intel, which have all constructed high-tech research labs in China, and show that high-value R&D is starting to follow manufacturing abroad, threatening America's historic leadership in innovation.
We believe that the decisions the United States government makes in the next five to ten years will largely determine whether the country can emerge as a global leader in these new growth industries. Unfortunately, proposed legislation in Congress would not be enough to keep the U.S. competitive.
Some say that pricing carbon is the most important policy the U.S. can adopt to become a leader in the global clean energy industry. But it is important to understand what a price on carbon would and would not accomplish. For political reasons, the carbon price established by both the House and Senate climate bills would remain much too low to substantially increase demand for clean energy technologies. A low carbon price also would not be sufficient to support growth in domestic clean energy manufacturing.
To develop a globally competitive clean energy industry, the United States needs a comprehensive investment agenda that prioritizes large and sustained public investment in clean energy technology. Today, clean energy is still too expensive to be widely deployed at scale around the world, and most governments are unwilling or unable to impose high carbon prices or sustain large subsidies to make clean energy cost-competitive. Therefore, the overarching goal of a new clean economy strategy should be to make clean energy cheap in real, unsubsidized terms.
Accomplishing this goal will require robust and long-term investments in areas such as research and innovation, manufacturing, market creation, education, and the development of industry clusters. The primary role of carbon pricing should be to raise the revenue needed for these critical investments.
We don't have to look far for examples of past public investment strategies that created whole new industries and unleashed waves of economic prosperity. In the 1950s, the Defense Department's procurement of microchips facilitated market development and dramatically reduced chip costs. Today's vibrant IT sector exists largely thanks to early, sustained public investments in R&D, computer science, infrastructure, and procurement. Government investment was also crucial for the development of railroads, radios, computers, the Internet, and many other technologies.
We believe America can still lead the global clean energy industry. The U.S. remains one of the most innovative and entrepreneurial countries in the world. But without a comprehensive clean energy investment strategy, America will lose out on one of the greatest economic opportunities of the 21st century.
Thank you very much, and I'm happy to take your questions.
Accelerating U.S. clean technology innovation, manufacturing, and market creation has become not just an environmental necessity but an economic imperative. A recent Pew study showed that the global clean energy industry has experienced rapid investment growth over the last five years. New clean tech investments in 2009 reached $162 billion, which is expected to grow 25 percent to $200 billion in 2010. With the global clean energy economy emerging as one of the largest economic opportunities of the 21st century, government policy and public investment will be critical determinants of which countries come out on top in the race to attract private sector investment in clean energy technologies.
The United States is currently behind other nations in this race, and lacks an effective national strategy to compete. Climate legislation proposed in Congress to date, with its low price on carbon, ineffective renewable electricity standard, and collection of efficiency regulations, will not be enough for the United States to catch up to countries like China in building the clean energy industries of the future. To regain leadership in the global clean technology industry, the United States must enact a comprehensive clean energy competitiveness strategy that prioritizes major public investments in clean energy innovation, manufacturing, market development, education, and infrastructure.
This was the topic of a presentation we gave at the World Energy Technologies Summit in New York City last month. The theme of the conference, which was sponsored by TIME Magazine, was providing a "Reality Check" on the current state of energy technology and policy. The two of us therefore presented a wake-up call about America's lagging position in the global clean energy race, uncovered the realities behind several common myths about U.S. clean energy competitiveness, and outlined what the United States government must do to truly compete for the clean energy industries and markets of the future. After the video of our presentation below, this post summarizes each of these three key topics.
If you are having trouble viewing this video in your browser, you can head here to watch it (scroll down to the 4:40 pm time slot to find our presentation)
The State of the Clean Energy Race
As we concluded in Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant, our comprehensive report on the competitive cleantech positions of the United States, China, Japan and South Korea, the United States lags its economic competitors in the production of virtually all clean energy technologies, from solar cells to wind turbines, nuclear reactors to high-speed rail, and advanced vehicles and the batteries that power them. China currently leads the world in the production of solar cells and wind turbines, and China, Japan, and South Korea collectively control over 90% of the advanced battery market. These Asian nations are also quickly commercializing and deploying clean energy technologies. China has doubled its installed wind capacity each year for the past five years, including in 2009, when it installed 13GW of new turbines, surpassing the United States as the largest wind market in the world. South Korea has recently become a major market for solar PV cells, increasing its new annual installed capacity six-fold to make it the fourth largest PV market in the world.
And while the U.S. has historically been a global leader in energy innovation, other nations are moving quickly to close the gap. The United States government now invests only slightly more than Japan in energy R&D, and as a percentage of GDP Japan and South Korea both invest far more. China is also rapidly developing it's capacity for "indigenous innovation," and recently announced the creation of 16 new energy R&D centers to develop wind, grid, nuclear and other technologies.
Each of these nations employing comprehensive government strategies to build domestic clean energy industries, which include major public investments in R&D, manufacturing, infrastructure, and market deployment. Indeed, the governments of these three nations will out-invest the U.S. government by three to one over the next five years, even if the United States enacts into law the House-passed Waxman-Markey climate bill.
One emerging features of the clean tech race is the development of clean energy clusters in countries around the world, and China in particular. Clusters act as regional "innovation ecosystems" that connect research and innovation activities with manufacturing scale-up, commercialization, and policymakers. Research has shown that such clusters can create enduring competitive advantages at both the regional and the national level. One example of an emerging clean energy cluster is the Chinese city of Baoding, which is composed of nearly 200 renewable energy companies and operates as a platform that links China' clean energy manufacturing industry with policy support research institutions, and other social systems.
Myths and Realities About the Clean Energy Race
Since the publication of our report last November and a number of later reports confirming the decline in U.S. competitiveness in the global clean tech industry, a few myths have proliferated about the reasons that the U.S. is behind and what it must do to compete in this critical economic sector.
The first myth is that China has a command and control economy, and their economic system is no match for the liquidity of U.S. private capital markets and the entrepreneurialism of the U.S. economy. The U.S. therefore shouldn't lose too much sleep over mounting cleantech competition from China.
In reality, however, the public policy environment created in China has allowed China to attract more private investment in clean energy than the United States. And while the U.S. still leads in VC funding for clean energy technology, Chinese companies dominated clean tech IPO proceeds in 2009, with 69% of capital raised, and attracted more overall private sector investment in clean energy sectors in both 2008 and 2009.
The second myth is that all the United States needs to do to compete with countries like China is to put a price on carbon. Public figures like New York Times columnist Tom Friedman and venture capitalist John Doerr routinely argues that putting a price, any price, on carbon, is the most important thing to building a clean energy economy.
But the reality is that China, Japan, and South Korea are all out-competing the United States without a price on carbon. Instead they are implementing comprehensive clean technology investment strategies. Even in European cleantech leaders like Germany and Denmark whose power plants and factories fall under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, it is the much more targeted and substantial feed-in tariff policies and other direct public investments and incentives that are driving clean energy deployment and giving European solar and wind companies a competitive edge. Indeed, the carbon price established by the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill would provide an effective subsidy of just 1.5 cents per KWh, which doesn't even match the production tax credit driving wind power adoption in the U.S. and is a much smaller incentive than any targeted deployment incentives of our competitors, such as China's feed-in-tariff or wind, or Germany's feed-in-tariff for solar.
[Caption: Not All Carrots Are Created Equal: Waxman-Markey's carbon price does less to close the clean tech price gap between clean energy and fossil fuels than more targeted policies in other nations.]
The third myth is that as the United States continues to slip further behind its economic rivals in the production and deployment of clean energy technologies, American will still, as Tom Friedman has written, "specialize in research and innovation."
In reality, other governments are quickly closing the innovation gap with the United States and developing national innovation policies to boost their internal competitiveness. There is also little reason to believe that innovation leadership won't follow market and manufacturing leadership. Private companies are already starting to re-locate clean energy R&D activities near to areas with the most manufacturing and the strongest markets. Case in point is U.S. firm Applied Materials, which built the world's largest solar R&D facility in Xian, China.
A Clean Energy Competitiveness Agenda for the 21st century
In the face of aggressive foreign competition in the clean energy industry, the United States urgently needs a comprehensive competitiveness strategy of its own to accelerate the development of a domestic clean energy industry and take advantage of emerging export opportunities. Such a strategy should prioritize large and sustained public investments in clean energy R&D, advanced clean energy manufacturing, innovative deployment, and clean energy education.
Clean energy technologies today are still too expensive relative to fossil fuels to be widely deployed at scale around the world. In the long term, relying on either high carbon prices or permanent ongoing subsidies to make clean energy competitive will effectively close off export opportunities to developing nation markets that will be unable to impose either high carbon fees or sustain large ongoing subsidies for clean energy sources.
If the United States wants to tap the multi-trillion dollar export opportunity that lies in meeting the rapidly growing demand for energy in the developing world, we much therefore focus on making clean energy technologies cheaper in unsubsidized terms. The overarching goal that should permeate all aspects of a new clean energy competitiveness strategy should be to make clean energy cheap.
In light of this goal, there is strong expert consensus around the need to dramatically boost public investment in energy R&D by at least $15 billion per year in order to invent new breakthrough technologies, and improve existing clean energy technologies and reduce their costs.
The U.S. government must also invest in the creation of a robust clean energy manufacturing industry in the United States, and should adopt an explicit manufacturing agenda. They U.S. government has consistently lacked a set of policies to help U.S. clean energy manufacturers scale up, reduce costs, and stay at the cutting edge. The government must help provide the financing necessary for the creation of expansion of clean energy manufacturing facilities here in the United States.
The government must also rethink the way that it structures its clean energy deployment policies. Currently policies like the wind production tax credit (PTC) are designed simply to drive more wind turbines into the ground. Rather, we need a set of policies that treat deployment as part of the innovation process and rationalize deployment around reducing the real costs of clean energy technologies. One proposed institution, the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA), would help achieve this goal, and has explicit technology and cost improvement goals as part of its mission.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the United States must inspire and train a new generation of scientists and engineers and equip them with the tools necessary to solve our long-term energy, climate, and economic challenges. U.S. students consistently trail their peers in leading science and math education indicators. Securing long-term economic competitiveness will require major new investments in our energy workforce as clean energy emerges as one of the most promising economic opportunities of our time.
America can still be the world leader in new global clean tech industry. We remain one of the most innovative and entrepreneurial countries in the world. But without a comprehensive clean energy competitiveness strategy that can compete with those implemented around the world, America will lose out on one of the greatest economic opportunities of the 21st century.
The climate blog It’s Getting Hot in Here featured an excellent post on the framing of climate change at the weekend. Taj Schottland, a senior at the College of the Atlantic, has developed three frames for communicating climate change and associated policies to political conservatives. To appeal to conservative audiences, Schottland recommends:
Replacing the term ‘climate change’ with ‘climate security’ to better explain the ways in which the changing climate adversely affects America’s economic health, national security and prosperity.
Highlighting clean ‘energy advancement’ as a way to avoid the negative connotations associated with reducing emissions and by implication economic growth.
Emphasising the objective of cap-and-trade policies to ‘harness the power of the market.’
Regardless of whether you agree with Schottland’s suggestions, it is encouraging to see that climate advocates are examining the ways in which climate change is framed. And perhaps more importantly, that they are developing new frames to communicate the impacts of the phenomenon to a wider audience. Given that the construction of one capture-all frame is virtually impossible, we need multiple frames to appeal to people across the political spectrum, and build the broad public support needed for government action.
How to frame policy responses effectively is another challenge for climate and renewable energy advocates. Take the Australian Government for example. It frames its climate change policy as a carbon pollution problem and has proposed a cap-and-trade scheme as the appropriate policy response. Unfortunately for the Government, the policy is poorly understood by the public and has failed to gain the support necessary to pass the Australian Senate.
I have presented ‘nation building’ as an alternative way to frame climate and energy policy in Australia.
The idea of nation building is not unique but Australians have a particular admiration for government projects that strengthen the nation. Investment in renewable energy and associated enabling infrastructure are central to our response to climate change and its ability to be framed in terms of nation building is a strategic leverage point. It is capable of winning a greater degree of public support than the complex market mechanism the Rudd Government—and many climate advocates—seek to implement. This approach demonstrates the potential to mitigate and adapt to our changing climate without the phenomenon being the central frame for policy responses.
An American version of the approach is most visible in the work of progressive think tank the Breakthrough Institute, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, and others who present a global ‘clean energy race’ as a national challenge worthy of national attention. This strategic lever is reminiscent of the USA/USSR ‘space race’ of the 1960s. The ‘race’ narrative guides action by drawing attention to the important role of public investment, and America’s ability to develop advanced technologies to overcome the Soviet challenge. The clean energy race appeals to those who want the United States strive towards greatness and have a keen sense of national competitiveness. Engaging in a clean energy race will require the US to invest in deploying clean energy and fully utilise its capacity for innovation.
Of course, the clean energy race is more than just an intelligent narrative. It is a reality. A recent report by the Breakthrough Institute and Information Technology and Innovation Foundation finds that the United States is lagging behind Japan, South Korea and China on several key measures of clean technology competitiveness. The potential for gaining public support and action from Congress is greater with the clean energy race narrative than policies centered on reducing carbon emissions.
Getting the United States to engage in the clean energy race is a win win in terms of climate change. It will ensure the increased innovation and deployment of clean energy, decarbonising our global economy and reducing the price of renewable energy for all.
I joined ABC's Diane Sawyer on "The Conversation" via Skype today, to discuss clean technology competitiveness in the United States. In the interview, I emphasized the findings of the Breakthrough Institute/ITIF report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," which I co-authored, 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.
Looking beyond today's immediate economic crisis, the road to long-term economic recovery requires a major reinvestment in American innovation, R&D, and education to restore the nation's crumbling economic competitiveness, according to a terrific recent CBS Evening News report.
As Justin Rattner, Chief Technology Officer with the semiconductor giant, Intel, explains, you don't save your way out of recession, you invest your way out. And now is the time to launch a new national project of reinvestment in innovation, research and development, and science, math, engineering and technology (STEM) education that can get America back on the road to shared economic prosperity.
A new info-graphic from the New York Times, released today as UN climate talks begin in Copenhagen, looks at the "Lessons from Kyoto," the global treaty that's ongoing fate will be the focus of UN climate negotiations beginning today in Copenhagen, Denmark.
The graphic gets the lessons pretty much dead-on, including how little actual progress any nations have made towards meeting their Kyoto “obligations.” As the Times notes, "The legacy of the Kyoto Protocol is mixed." Of the 36 wealthy nations who agreed under the 1997 treaty to cut their emissions by an average of 5% below historic 1990 levels, just 18 are on track to meet their targets, almost all of them in Europe.
As the graphic illustrates, the bulk of these "successful" nations are former members of the Soviet bloc, and almost all saw deep economic declines after the fall of the Soviet Union, which conveniently occurred after the 1990 emissions baseline year used in the Kyoto treaty. Deindustrializing Eastern bloc nations, including East Germany, saw big cuts in their emissions and made compliance with the Kyoto protocol easy. Better yet, for these nations, exceeding their Kyoto "obligations" left them with excess credits under the treaty framework that they could sell to other nations struggling to cut their own emissions.
As the Times notes, 19 other nations subject to the Kyoto treaty are not on track to meet their emissions targets. Most have seen emissions grow with little hope of complying with Kyoto due to surges in economic growth and activity, including Canada (where emissions shot up through development of the Alberta tar sands for heavy oil extraction), Spain and Portugal (who's economies boomed over the last decade) and even green-minded Ireland and New Zealand (who's growing economies drove emissions up roughly 20% above 1990 levels).
The United States, meanwhile, never ratified the Kyoto Protocol, yet saw emissions grow at a slower rate than many Kyoto countries, including each of those mentioned above.
Emissions have soared in rapidly developing China and India. Major developing nations were not subject to any requirements to cut emissions or drive clean development under the Kyoto treaty framework.
Essentially, as the Times info-graphic clearly illustrates, the "Lessons from Kyoto" are clear: economic trajectories, and little else, determined emissions outcomes under the targets and timetables focused Kyoto Protocol.
Without a proactive and massive shared global effort to sever economic growth from emissions by accelerating clean technology innovation and deployment, the Copenhagen summit now underway shouldn't be expected to produce a dramatically different outcome than it's Kyoto predecessor, despite likely "participation" from the U.S. and big developing nations like China this time around.
The United States may be stuck in the middle of a climate conundrum. A proposal to establish border tariffs to account for the carbon associated with the imported manufactured products, like steel, looks critical to securing the support of key swing Senators interested in protecting the competitive position of American manufacturing. ... Yet ... those same tariff provisions that could win passage of a U.S. climate bill are firmly opposed by China and other developing nations and could both damage Sino-American trade relations and fissure international climate negotiations.
Breakthrough's Yael Borofsky wrote that back in October, and this climate conundrum continues to present perhaps the thorniest negotiating point as world leaders prepare to meet for international climate talks in Copenhagen next week. Indeed, on the eve of the global climate talks, the negotiating positions of the United States and major developing economies, including China and India, appear to remain at loggerheads.
In a letter to President Obama today, nine moderate Democratic Senators, all key swings for climate legislation or ratification of any international climate treaty, reiterated their demands that any international climate framework U.S. negotiators sign in Copenhagen must include comparable action from all major economies and allow tariffs to adjust prices on imports from any nation that does not agree to bindings agreements to reduce emissions "in specific trade- and energy-intensive economic sectors."
"Climate change is a serious and growing threat to the United States and the world," the Senators wrote. "Smart climate change policies would guard against these risks while also spurring clean energy investments that promote economic growth and create good domestic jobs."
"Importantly, however, poorly designed climate policies could also jeopardize U.S. national interest," the Senators warned, "by imposing burdens on U.S. consumers, companies and workers without solving the climate challenge."
To address these challenges, the U.S. should seek to negotiate a new international climate agreement under which, "All major economies should adopt ambitious, quantifiable, measurable, reportable and verifiable national actions" to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
Furthermore, U.S. climate policy, the Senators wrote, should include provisions to implement border adjustment tariffs if necessary to help shield domestic industries facing international competition from countries that have not implemented carbon reduction requirements for their industrial sectors.
Here's the key excerpt from the letter, signed by Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Mark Begich of Alaska:
"Climate and trade policies should be designed to encourage all major emitting nations to take climate action and to deter the migration of polluting activities from one nation to another. Internationally, the United States' preferred and primary strategy ... should be to negotiate effective bilateral or multilateral agreements on reducing emissions in specific trade- and energy-intensitve economic sectors. Collectively, these new agreements -- whether negotiated under the United Nations, World Trade Organization or elsewhere -- should not only ensure emissions goals are reached but they should also integrate climate objectives into the international trade system, such as through border adjustments on imports from nations that have not yet adopted sufficient emissions control measures. ... Indeed, to promote equitable and effective global action any new U.S. climate change laws should establish a national system of border adjustments, in concert with emissions allowances or rebates to trade- and energy-intesnsive sectors of the economy. Any border adjustment policies should take effect by a date certain if appropriate international agreements have not entered force.
Simultaneously, two Indiannewspapers reported over the weekend on a pre-Copenhagen summit in Beijing that included leaders of Brazil, South Africa, India and China, a group collectively dubbed the "BASIC" countries that includes the largest four emitters among the developing world.
The four BASIC nations reportedly agreed on a new draft of a negotiating position that sets all four nations up to collectively walk out on the Copenhagen negotiations if any of their "non-negotiable" planks are violated.
According to the Times of India, the four nations, along with Sudan as the head of the G77, a larger bloc of developing nations participating in the climate talks, agreed on a new draft negotiating position that argues that the Copenhagen framework should largely consist of an extension of the current Kyoto Protocol framework for a second commitment period running from 2012-2020. This seems to suggest that the carbon intensity targets recently announced by China and India would be voluntary goals, not binding commitments.
That runs counter to the U.S. negotiating position, which has remained adamant that the Kyoto Framework, which excluded commitments for developing nations including the big emitters amongst the BASIC countries, is not a workable framework. The United States rejected the Kyoto Protocol and has not participated in the international treaty's current commitment period set to end in 2012.
Furthermore, the BASIC nations' "non-negotiable" planks include a pledge to stand opposed to any global deal in Copenhagen that does not explicitly reject the use of carbon border tariffs or other measures to restrict trade in the context.
The Times of India reports (emphasis added):
Besides the elements of the Kyoto Protocol, there are "significant new features" in the draft proposal worked out by BASIC countries-Brazil, South Africa, India and China-at a meeting here on Saturday, Jairam Ramesh, minister of state for environment and forest said.
These countries have decided not to allow rich nations to make climate change an excuse to set up trade barriers or resort to trade protectionism. Rich countries should be ready to contribute funds for stopping the process of forest degradation including the one in Amazon valley in Brazil and also invest in the process of creating new forests.
The developing nations will also not accept any pressure from developed countries to establish legally binding emission targets at Copenhagen. Developing countries want to be allowed to reduce emissions voluntarily and take what they consider to be "nationally appropriate actions" he said.
Ramesh said India will under no circumstances accept the concept of a peaking year under which each country will have to indicate on what date they will reach the highest level of pollution before beginning to come down.
India will also not accept any unsupported mitigation actions without any effort by developed countries to provide funds and technology support to improve environment in developing nations.
New Delhi has also set its face against any international measurement, reporting and verification of the work done in India for environment protection.
The Indian minister said that China, Brazil and South Africa were also in agreement on these issues.
I have to note that China, India and the other BASIC countries' position on the border adjustments and emissions related to their exports is entirely inconsistent. They have continued to simultaneously argue that they should not be responsible for the emissions associated with the products they produce for export to developed nations and that the developed nations who buy them should be responsible. That's a fair and arguable point. But at the same time, the BASIC countries vehemently object to any border adjustment tariffs which would be a clear way for importing developed nations to take responsibility for the emissions associated with their imports (e.g. by internalizing the price of pollution associated with them).
The key, of course, is that China, India, Brazil and South Africa each put their economic development first and foremost, and border tariffs equal less exports. That's simply unacceptable to them (for easy to understand reasons).
I'm not exactly sure how this issue resolves, and it seems nearly impossible to imagine a U.S. Senate ratification of a treaty, let alone passage of a climate bill, that does not address the tariffs issue. At the same time, I can scarcely imagine China, India and the BASIC countries backing down on this issue given the central role exports play in each nation's economy.
Stay tuned. I don't envy the negotiators now embarking for Copenhagen...Read more!
The new report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," is the first to thoroughly benchmark the clean energy competitiveness in four nations: China, Japan, South Korea and the United States. The report analyzes clean energy investments and policy support for research,, manufacturing, and domestic demand, with a particular focus on six key technologies: wind, solar, nuclear, carbon capture and storage, hybrid and electric vehicles and advanced batteries, and high speed rail.
At a briefing hosted by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Breakthrough Institute and ITIF outlined the key findings and their significance for U.S. energy and economic policy. The report's co-authors were joined by Congressmen Ron Klein (D-FL) and Rush Holt (D-NJ) who make remarks underscoring the critical role an effective clean energy economy strategy robust enough to counter Asian challengers will be to America's short-term recovery and long-term economic progress.
Event: Is the U.S. Losing the Clean Tech Race? Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 Time: 10:30 AM – 11:45 AM Location: Senate Energy Committee Hearing Room 366, Dirksen Senate Office Building
Moderator and Presenter Robert Atkinson (bio) President, The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Presenter Michael Shellenberger (bio) President, The Breakthrough Institute
Jesse Jenkin (bio) Director of Energy and Climate Policy, The Breakthrough Institute
Special Guests Member of Congress Ron Klein (D-FL) (bio)
Member of Congress Rush Holt (D-NJ) (invited) (bio)
Asian Nations Set to Dominate Clean Energy Race by Out-Investing the United States - New Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Institute report.
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.
Core findings of "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant" include:
Asia's rising "clean technology tigers" - China, Japan, and South Korea - have already passed the United States in the production of virtually all clean energy technologies, and over the next five years, the government's of these nations will out-invest the United States three-to-one in these sectors. This public investment gap will allow these Asian nations to attract a significant share of private sector investments in clean energy technology, estimated to total in the trillions of dollars over the next decade. While some U.S. firms will benefit from the establishment of joint ventures overseas, the jobs, tax revenues, and other benefits of clean tech growth will overwhelmingly accrue to Asia's clean tech tigers.
Large, direct and sustained public investments will solidify the competitive advantage of China, Japan, and South Korea. Government investments in research and development, clean energy manufacturing capacity, the deployment of clean energy technologies, and the establishment of enabling infrastructure, will allow these Asian nations to capture economies of scale, learning-by-doing, and innovation advantages before the United States, where public investments are smaller, less direct, and less targeted.
Should the investment gap persist, the United States will import the overwhelming majority of clean energy technologies it deploys. Current U.S. energy and climate policies focus on stimulating domestic demand primarily through indirect demand-side incentives and regulations. Should these policies succeed in creating demand without providing robust support for U.S. clean energy technology manufacturing and innovation, the United States will rely on foreign-manufactured clean technology products. This could jeopardize America's economic recovery and its long-term competitiveness while making it even more difficult to reduce the U.S. trade deficit.
Proposed U.S. climate and energy legislation, as currently formulated, is not yet sufficient to close the clean tech investment gap. In contrast to more direct investments by Asia's clean tech tigers, current U.S. policies rely overwhelmingly on modest market incentives that are viewed by the private sector as more indirect, create more risks for private market investors, and do less to overcome the many barriers to clean energy adoption. The American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed by the U.S. House of Representative in June 2009, includes too few proactive policy initiatives and allocates relatively little funding to support research and development, commercialization and production of clean energy technologies within the United States. Including investments in clean energy R&D, demonstration, manufacturing and deployment in both U.S. economic recovery packages and the House-passed climate and energy bill, the United States is poised to invest $172 billion over the next five years, which compares to investments of $397 billion in China alone, a more than four-to-one ratio on a per-GDP basis.
If the United States hopes to compete for new clean energy industries it must close the widening gap between government investments in the United States and Asia's clean tech tigers and provide more robust support for U.S. clean tech research and innovation, manufacturing, and domestic market demand. Small, indirect and uncoordinated incentives are not sufficient to outcompete China, Japan, and South Korea. To regain economic leadership in the global clean energy industry, U.S. energy policy must include large, direct and coordinated investments in clean technology R&D, manufacturing, deployment, and infrastructure.
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.
The summary and full report, "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant: Asian Nations Set to Dominate the Clean Energy Race By Out-Investing the United States," can be downloaded here:
The report comes at a time of rising anxieties in the U.S. about a jobless economic recovery, and new reports showing that over 85 percent of President Obama's economic stimulus clean tech grant program went to foreign firms. Recently Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wrote to Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu opposing a $1.5 billion Texas wind farm to be built with Chinese turbines. In response, China's A-Power Generation Systems wind manufacturer announced plans to open a factory in the U.S.
"Should the investment gap persist," the report warns, "the United States will import the overwhelming majority of clean energy technologies it deploys."
"Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant" is the first report to comprehensively benchmark clean energy competitiveness and government investments in cleantech by China, Japan, South Korea, and the United States. These Asian governments will invest $519 billion in clean technology between 2009 and 2013, compared to $172 billion by the U.S. government. Climate and energy legislation, which passed the House in June, would contribute $28.7 billion of the $172 billion five year total. China alone will spend $440 billion to $660 billion over the next ten years on clean tech.
The direct, immediate, and coordinated nature of Asian government investments stands in contrast to the sporadic regulatory approach pursed in the United States. The report suggests that government investments will allow Asian nations to create innovation "clusters" of manufacturers, universities, R&D labs, suppliers and other firms, much as the Pentagon helped create Silicon Valley in the fifties and sixties. These clusters will be attractive to U.S. firms, the report argues, which are already making large investments in China. Indeed, the United States' traditional prowess in attracting venture capital and other private funding could soon be eclipsed by Asia. China and other Asian nations, the report concludes, are offering a better business and investment climate than the United States. And China's share of private sector clean tech funding is growing rapidly. Between 2000 and 2008, the United States attracted $52 billion in private capital for renewable energy technologies, but China alone attracted $41 billion. China secured more private investment in renewables and efficiency technologies than the U.S. for the first time in 2008.
Investment bank giant Deutsche Bank recently concluded that "generous and well-targeted [clean energy] incentives" in China and Japan will create a low-risk environment for investors and stimulate high levels of private investment in clean energy because those nations rely on a "comprehensive and integrated government plan, supported by strong incentives." In contrast, Deutsche Bank says, the United States is a "moderate-risk" country since it relies on "a more volatile market incentive approach and has suffered from a start-stop approach in some areas."
"While some U.S. firms will benefit from the establishment of joint ventures overseas," the report warns, "the jobs, tax revenues, and other benefits of clean tech growth will overwhelmingly accrue to Asian nations."
New pollution regulations, a national renewable energy standard, and efficiency regulations in the U.S. will not, the report finds, be sufficient to close the technology investment gap between the US and Asia. New climate pollution regulations will not be strict enough to send much private investment to clean technologies, and large infrastructure barriers such as the need for new transmission lines stand in the way of greatly expanding solar and wind.
"Small, indirect and uncoordinated incentives are not sufficient to outcompete Asia's clean tech tigers," the report says. "To regain economic leadership in the global clean energy industry, U.S. energy policy must include large, direct and coordinated investments in clean technology R&D, manufacturing, deployment, and infrastructure."
Michael Shellenberger is the President and co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute and a co-author of "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant."
A week of preliminary UN climate talks in Bangkok come to a close today with little concrete progress to show for it. With just two months left until much-anticipated negotiations in Copenhagen, it will be "extraordinarily difficult" for the U.S. to agree to specific emissions reduction targets in an international climate treaty, warns the United States' deputy climate envoy Jonathan Pershing (pictured right).
[T]he chief U.S. negotiator acknowledged that the United States may not agree to cut greenhouse gas emissions in a treaty this year until Congress passes its climate legislation.
"It will be extraordinarily difficult for the U.S. to commit to a specific number in the absence of action from Congress," State Department deputy climate envoy Jonathan Pershing said. "The question is open as to how much we can do. It's not really possible to answer."
Some progress was made in Bangkok, said Kim Carstensen, leader of the global climate initiative at WWF. But "on issues that require political breakthroughs, they've not made any real progress," she said. "That means targets, finance, institutions and the legal form of the outcome in Copenhagen."
While efforts to drive towards global agreement on binding emissions targets stall and both the United States and key developing nations, including China and India, balk at such proposals, a series of recent recommendations are establishing a growing consensus for an alternative to the targets and timetables approach that has repeatedly failed to make either political or substantive progress.
Recognizing the need for a united stance on climate change in preparation for international negotiations in Copenhagen in December, ten African nations issued a joint draft resolution calling for "rich countries" to commit $67 billion per year in compensation for the deleterious effects of unmitigated climate change, according to a report in Reuters.
Africa, which houses 15 of the 20 most climate-change vulnerable countries, will almost certainly endure the most severe negative consequences of climate change, yet it contributes relatively little to the problem.
This new proposal arrives on the heels of a flurry of Copenhagen related news. The Financial Times reported yesterday that both China and India blame developed nations, such as the U.S., for impeding the progress of a climate treaty. As developing nations, they are demanding financial and technological assistance from the major historic contributors to climate change in order to mitigate the effects of a problem they are not primarily responsible for causing.
Ironically, China and India may be responsible for the majority of future carbon contributions. Meanwhile, most African nations are in an even less culpable position, despite their heightened vulnerability to the threats of a changing climate.
Additionally, last week UN climate chief Yvo de Boer announced that the world's nations must spend $300 billion to mitigate climate change: $100 billion to help vulnerable communities adapt to the threats of climate change and $200 billion for clean energy. Upon hearing this news, Africa may have seen its window of opportunity to ensure that its needs will be seriously considered at the climate talks.
Like China and India, Africa and other developing nations are adamant that richer countries are to blame for lack of efficacious climate action. They further suggest that developed nations are remiss in neglecting to adequately compensate the developing countries that will bear the most arduous climate burden.
As one of the most significant contributors to global carbon emissions and the world's wealthiest nation, there is significant pressure on the U.S. to provide a proportionate share of the funding to aid African adaptation efforts. If the African joint resolution is accepted as the necessary level of aid, the U.S. may be responsible for tens of billions of dollars in annual contribution to global adaptation efforts. Yet, judging by recent congressional climate debates, the U.S. is not preparing to meet African and global expectations.
Although the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) invests roughly $60 billion annually in the domestic clean energy economy, these are short-term investments. Coupled with ACES, which would allocate approximately $1.6 billion for domestic adaptation and just $1.9 billion for international technology transfer, the U.S. will come up disappointingly short in its provision of adaptation aid for Africa and other developing nations.
As Copenhagen approaches, U.S. climate action (or lack thereof) will not only be scrutinized by China and India, but also by Africa and other vulnerable nations that will require far more than emission target commitments to manage the repercussions of climate change. They will be looking for real money on the table, both to directly mitigate U.S. emissions and to aid necessary international adaptation efforts.
In New Delhi yesterday, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that India must invest in both new and existing clean energy technologies in order to develop sustainably over the coming decades. This comes as the latest indication of India's progress on building a domestic clean energy economy through investment--a strategy that could also serve as a new approach to international climate policy. Unfortunately, Western nations that stall climate negotiations with their insistence on setting carbon caps continue to miss the world's best chance at forging a global agreement.
Speaking at a national conference on environment, Singh emphasized the importance of clean energy investment for India's development:
"...We need access to new technologies that are already available with developed countries. We must also make our own investments in new environment-friendly technologies," he said.
Developed nations might perceive India as uncooperative when it comes to setting carbon caps, but already, India has shown its commitment to making clean energy cheap and abundant. The Indian National Solar Mission, unveiled in June, sets the ambitious target to reach 20 GW installed solar capacity by 2020--more than the entire world's current capacity for solar generation. Though India expects to pay for the $20 billion plan primarily through international financing, the government will also implement direct measures such as taxes on gasoline and diesel, feed-in tariffs, solar power purchase obligations, tax breaks for manufacturers, and exemptions on tariffs for imported equipment.
Prime Minister Singh's comments prove that the highest levels of Indian government are prioritizing investment in clean energy. Here in the US, President Obama has also signaled an initial commitment to public investment in clean energy. By allocating an unprecedented $65 billion--or more than $30 billion per year--for clean energy in the nation's $787 billion stimulus package, he took the first step toward securing America's prosperous clean energy future.
But unfortunately, the ACES climate legislation before Congress threatens to derail these efforts. Instead of building upon the substantial foundation of Obama's two-year stimulus funding, ACES would invest just $10 billion per year in low-carbon technology and energy efficiency measures combined. That's nowhere near the $30 billion annual clean energy investment urged by Breakthrough, Brookings, International Energy Agency, Apollo Alliance, and numerous other energy experts--and it's far below the foundation set by the stimulus plan.
If a developing economy like India can make clean energy investment a national priority, developed nations like the United States can and must do the same. Not only that, but they must also make clean energy investment the focus of an international agreement on climate change.
India has helped set the pattern for a new approach that may be the only hope of reaching consensus in international climate negotiations. It's an approach based on investments to accelerate clean energy R&D and deployment to decarbonize the energy supply, along with direct efforts to improve the energy intensity of heavy-emitting industries.
India's neighbor China is also implementing a massive investment-centered strategy within its borders. Meanwhile, the US and EU remain tied to a failed carbon-capping model in both domestic policy and international negotiations. But the answer to a successful climate treaty lies not in forcing the issue of targets and timetables, while bullying the developing world over what it has yet to do. Instead, Western nations must wake up and look to what India and China have already done. Read more!
PRESS CONTACT: Jesse Jenkins (510-550-8930 x465 or 503-333-1737) jesse@thebreakthrough.org Teryn Norris (510-550-8930 x464 or 510-593-3716) teryn@thebreakthrough.org
A group of over 100 universities, professional associations, and student groups joined the Breakthrough Institute yesterday in submitting a letter urging the U.S. Senate to fully support the Obama administration's national energy education initiative. The initiative, named "RE-ENERGYSE" (REgaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge), would produce thousands of highly-skilled U.S. energy workers and develop new energy education programs at American universities and K-12 schools.
The Senate is poised to reject the proposal in its FY2010 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill by cutting the RE-ENERGYSE program's funding to $0 from the $115 million requested in President Obama's FY2010 budget. Mr. Obama announced the initiative in a speech to the National Academy of Sciences in April, stating, "The nation that leads the world in 21st century clean energy will be the nation that leads in the 21st century global economy... [RE-ENERGYSE] will prepare a generation of Americans to meet this generational challenge."
According to the Department of Energy, the program would develop between 5,000 and 8,500 highly educated scientists, engineers, and other professionals to enter the clean energy field by 2015, which would rise to 10,000 -17,000 professionals by 2020. The Technical Training and K-12 Education subprogram would create between 200 to 300 community college and other training programs to prepare thousands of technically skilled workers for clean energy jobs.
The letter, which was distributed to every Senate office on Tuesday, urged lawmakers to fund RE-ENERGYSE at the full $115 million request. "America is in danger of losing its global competitiveness and the [global] clean energy race without substantial new investments in STEM education," wrote the signatories, which included 53 colleges and universities and dozens of student and youth groups. "RE-ENERGYSE... will train America's future energy workforce, accelerate our transition to a prosperous clean energy economy, and ensure that we lead the world's burgeoning clean technology industries." "The issues of energy and climate change are inspiring the interest of students on university campuses across the country," said Robert Berdahl, president of the Association of American Universities. "RE-ENERGYSE is the kind of program we need to capture that enthusiasm... Just as NASA inspired students to take an interest in science and space, the Department of Energy should develop and support new education programs aimed at encouraging and supporting students in energy-related fields."
"Young people across America need Congress to act today and help prepare our generation to confront the nation's energy challenges," said Jessy Tolkan, Executive Director of the Energy Action Coalition, a coalition of 50 youth organizations.
Teryn Norris, Director of Breakthrough Generation and a Junior at Stanford University stated: "If the U.S. had responded to the Soviet launch of Sputnik the way Congress is responding to today's national energy challenge America would not only have lost the space race, we would have been left behind in the technologies and industries that fueled a half-century of economic progress."
"Students across the nation are passionate about studying and confronting our energy challenge, but the educational resources are nonexistent or critically underfunded," said Marc Perkins, President of the Johns Hopkins University student government.
Nineteen year old Kelsea Norris, a student at the University of Georgia and Chair of the Sierra Student Coalition, echoed that sentiment: "So many young people like me are willing to devote their time and energy to solving this energy crisis... What we need is the education and training to do it, but our high schools, colleges, and universities aren't offering that to us."
The letter supporting RE-ENERGYSE comes on the 40th anniversary week of the Apollo 11 moon landing and as Asian competitors are launching major investment projects in clean energy. Last summer, Norris and his student colleagues at Breakthrough Generation proposed an initiative similar to RE-ENERGYSE, a National Energy Education Act, modeled after the National Defense Education Act of 1958 that helped train young scientists and engineers to win the space race. "The question our Congress faces today," said Norris, "is this: will they rise to this challenge and invest in a new generation to win the global clean energy race?"
From St. Louis and Philadelphia, to Columbus and Denver, Focus the Nation's Clean Energy Town Halls bring youth, community members and elected officials together to find clean energy solutions and plan sustained action.
Forget Seattle and Berkeley. Move over Portland and Boston. When it comes to deciding America's energy future, it's place like Akron and Pittsburgh, St Louis and Detroit that deserve the spotlight right now. While many leading cities in the traditionally green bastions along America's coasts are showing what's possible, the American 'Heartland' is where the nation's clean energy future must be built. What's more, the Heartland is where the political fate of climate and clean energy legislation being debated in Congress will be decided.
It's good timing then that Nationwide Town Halls for Clean Energy Solutions are happening all around our country right now. In community centers, college lecture rooms, and church halls all across the nation this week and last, elected officials from all levels of government are joining young leaders and community members to focus on what it will take to build a clean and prosperous energy economy and tackle climate change. The ongoing Nationwide Town Halls for Clean Energy Solutions are sponsored by the youth-empowerment organization, Focus the Nation, and organized by hundreds of committed community leaders both young and old.
The nationwide town halls kicked off on Monday, April 13th in Philadelphia, where swing Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) joined Drexel University students, community members, and business leaders for a discussion on tackling climate change and seizing the opportunities of the new energy economy. With the help of Focus the Nation's young and talented central staff, youth leaders around the country have successfully engaged over 70 members of Congress and scores of state and local elected officials in open discussions about clean energy solutions. [See video statements from several of those elected officials here]
Focus the Nation paid particular attention to members of Congress like Senator Specter, who still need to be convinced to back strong climate and clean energy legislation. The town hall events engaged 24 of these swing senators and representatives, mostly from Heartland states, according to Focus the Nation's civic engagement director, Alex Tinker.
"It's usually our leaders who call town halls on pressing issues," said Lindsey Berger, a student organizer of a clean energy town hall hosted in Springfield, Missouri last Friday featuring State Representative Sarah Lampe and local elected officials. "Well this time we're inviting them to our town halls because our generation knows we don't have time to wait to build a clean energy future."
The event in Springfield brought students from across the Show-Me State together. "A lot of us, a great combination of college students from across Missouri who rallied together at Power Shift 2009 in Washington DC, worked together to put together this big statewide town hall in Springfield," Berger explains.
Across the state in St. Louis on Saturday, another Clean Energy Town Hall kicked off, featuring State Senator Jeff Smith and a representative of U.S. Congressman Russ Carnahan. The event spotlighted local clean energy technology businesses, featured a question and answer forum with elected officials, and concluded with the development of community action plans to help transform St. Louis into a model of the clean energy future.
"We set out to find St. Louis businesses that are working in clean energy fields," explains Will Fischer, a student at Washington University and an organizer of the St. Louis town hall. "What we found was a number of small businesses working here to get set up in this new and growing field. This is really exciting because these businesses are working on exactly the kind of solutions we're going to need as a country to build a clean energy economy."
Fischer is hoping the new networks WashU students are building with local business and community leaders, and the sustained engagement and activism sparked by the St. Louis town hall, will catch the attention of Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill. McCaskill is a Democrat and a critical swing vote on climate and clean energy legislation this year.
"This can't just be one event," Fichser says passionately, "It needs to be the start of a collective, organized, and motivating movement." Focus the Nation's Alex Tinker echoes that sentiment, saying, "It's really what comes next that's most exciting."
"Focus the Nation Town Halls are catalysts for action," Tinker explains. "Organizers and participants will begin charting community action plans unique to their locality and will implement them with Focus the Nation's support over the coming year."
The community action plans will focus on overcoming roadblocks, sharing solutions from other regions of the country, and identifying opportunities to accelerate momentum along the path to a clean energy economy.
In Denver, Colorado, Eric Kornacki is helping organize a town hall event that will bring together college students as well as a diverse cross-section of Denver's communities, for a true multicultural event. This recent graduate of the University of Denver says the community is planning to regroup at a follow up event in October to gauge progress on the action plans they will draft at the town hall, chart next steps, and continue a dialog with elected officials.
"I think that this forum for dialog is so unique and it's really urgent right now, particularly in Colorado," Kornacki says.
He's right. In Colorado and Ohio, Pennsylvania and Missouri, and states all across the American Heartland, it's exactly these kinds of conversations about clean energy solutions that are so urgent.
Led by committed and energized young leaders like Kornacki, Berger, and Fischer, the nationwide Focus the Nation town halls are just the beginning of the clean energy revolution that must quickly sweep across the United States and help catapult the nation into a clean and prosperous energy future.
WattHead.org delivers news, original analysis, and opinionated commentary on the critical transition to a clean and prosperous energy future, featuring writing from some of the web's smartest young thinkers.
By Jesse Jenkins, originally at the Breakthrough Institute
