Next Generation Energy is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them Okay ladies and gentlemen............. Let's get ready to rumble! Two candidates. Two possible administrations. Energy policy. Doesn't get much more relevant than that.
Both are Senators who say they'd like to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil, fight global warming, and cap greenhouse gas emissions with increased focus on nuclear power. What partisan politics? Time to dig a little deeper...
Well let's start with Barack Obama. It's easier that way considering there not much conjecture involved. Obama recently answered 14 questions posed by ScienceDebate2008 (a group where I am proud to sit on the steering committee) laying out his perspectives on arguably the most important decisions we face globally--including energy:
3. Energy. Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?
America's challenges in providing secure, affordable energy while addressing climate change mean that we must make much more efficient use of energy and begin to rely on new energy sources that eliminate or greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My programs focus both on a greatly expanded program of federally funded energy research and development and on policies designed to speed the adoption of innovative energy technologies and stimulate private innovation.First, I have proposed programs that, taken together, will increase federal investment in the clean energy research, development, and deployment by $150 billion over ten years.
(read details outlined below the fold)
Second, it is essential that we create a strong, predictable market for energy innovations with concrete goals that speed introduction of innovative products and provide a strong incentive for private R&D investment in energy technologies. I will also work closely with utilities to introduce a digital smart grid that can optimize the overall efficiency of the nation's electric utility system, by managing demand and making effective use of renewable energy and energy storage.I will also encourage communities around the nation to design and build sustainable communities that cut energy use with walkable community designs and expanded investment in mass transit.
And now onto Senator McCain--who hasn't responded to ScienceDebate2008 yet--so I'll summarize:
McCain isn't big on developing technologies to reduce emissions or alternatives to fossil fuels arguing "unintended consequences" can result from wrongheaded interference in the marketplace. He's been reluctant to support government incentives such as tax credits for wind and solar energy and supports Yucca Mountain as a nuclear storage site. McCain wants to extend incentives for nuclear development and aims for a 60% reduction of emissions from 1990 levels by the mid century. He also supports a temporary suspension of the federal gasoline tax and is proponent of offshore oil drilling.
Reporters have to maintain objectivity. Bloggers do not. Generally I'm nonpartisan and there are members and candidates on both sides of the ticket I support. However, I do have very strong opinions on that last point. As Craig McClain rightly explains:
The current supply of drilling ships will put a seven year hiatus on any offshore oil making it to the market. Second, our offshore oil reserves are insufficient to meet our consumption for more than a handful of years. These are not my opinions, not a liberal or conservative view, but rather fact. X divided by Y equals Z. It's math.
Exactly, and this plan sounds like fuzzy math. Look folks, a U.S. energy plan that addresses supply rather than demand will not work.
So presently, this blogger has developed a more favorable view of Obama's intentions. However, perhaps McCain will elaborate more when he provides a response to ScienceDebate2008. But I'm not holding my breath.
Senator Barack Obama has outlined he will work to support research that will cover:
- Basic research to develop alternative fuels and chemicals;- Equipment and designs that can greatly reduce energy use in residential and commercial buildings - both new and existing;
- New vehicle technologies capable of significantly reducing our oil consumption;
- Advanced energy storage and transmission that would greatly help the economics of new electric-generating technologies and plug-in hybrids;
- Technologies for capturing and sequestering greenhouse gases produced by coal plants; and
- A new generation of nuclear electric technologies that address cost, safety, waste disposal, and proliferation risks.
Concrete goals include:
- Increasing new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade, and taking other steps that will reduce the energy intensity of our economy 50 percent by 2030;
- Increasing fuel economy standards 4 percent per year and providing loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers to build new fuel- efficient cars domestically;
- Extending the Production Tax Credit for five years and creating a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard that will require that 10 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025; and
- Ensuring that regulations and incentives in all federal agencies support the national energy and environmental goals in ways that encourage innovation and ingenuity.
Environment
Comments
McCain is right: subsidizing the "wrong" solution may allow it to gain to much market share and prevent better solutions from emerging. That doesn't mean there is no role for regulation and subsidization.
Regulation can spark market innovation. It's not realistic to assume that all opportunities to lower costs and make a profit are being realized by companies, because managers do not have complete information, and they are imperfect. The government is not perfect either, which is why regulation should be focused on outcomes, with a phase in period, with strict penalties later. Focusing on a two year implementation of best available technology -- which is how regulation and subsidization often works in this country -- is guaranteed to fail. Focus on outcomes, allow companies to choose from competing options from the market to meet those options, rather than force them to choose right away and then be locked in. That is sound regulatory policy.
On subsidies, it is true that if you subsidize the "wrong" solution to greatly, barriers of entry will exist for competition that may be better. This is another reason to focus on outcomes. Create a policy that focuses on the outcome of renewable energy, and assist those who try to meet that outcome, allowing them to choose which way they try to meet it.
If you do those things, you work with markets, not against them, and you allow innovation in the market.
Posted by: Jonsi | September 3, 2008 10:52 AM
Ok, who defines "wrong?" What is the definition of "wrong?" Leaving that strawman (which resembles the "we need better science" strawman used to deny AGW) aside . . . . .
Look, companies exist to make profits by minimizing costs and maximizing price. Regulations interfere with that, because they force companies to think about other things (like clean air and clean water). I'm as liberal as they come, and I get that.
One way to minimize costs is to not do new things - i.e. continue to sell SUV's and trucks instead of selling hybrids and fuel cell cars. But doing new things can mean new markets and new profits, so risk taking can be good. That's why the Japanese automakers beat us to the punch with their hybrids (which is also how they beat us to the punch with small fuel efficient cars in the gas crisis of the 70's).
The bottom line for me is that a large part of the U.S. economy is innovation and risk averse, which seems to suit the Republicans just fine. Tax breaks, subsidies, and other programs advocated by Obama can overcome some, if not most, of that risk aversion. SO the question is - do you want the innovation to be done by American companies and therefore American workers, or do you want the innovation done by others in other countries who don't have U.S. best interests at heart? Answer that question, and you answer whose energy policy you should support.
Posted by: Philip H. | September 3, 2008 11:30 AM
This snippet says it all about McCain:
"He's been reluctant to support government incentives such as tax credits for wind and solar energy....McCain wants to extend incentives for nuclear development..."
So he's against incentives (for renewables) but for incentives for nuclear projects. To me that smacks of same old same old - push incentives for corporate interests who lobby for them. This is not a real energy policy, it's just more fed handouts to the nuclear industry.
I have nothing against nuclear in principle, but please lets level the playing field. As Jonsi said: subsidizing the "wrong" solution may allow it to gain to much market share and prevent better solutions from emerging". Though i'm not sure why that was prefaced with "McCain is right" - seems like he's wrong to me.
Posted by: darth | September 3, 2008 11:36 AM
I look forward to learning more about the GOP Energy Plan tonight. I do hope they share with the American people a clear roadmap for helping Americans realize Energy Independence.
Posted by: David | September 3, 2008 12:35 PM
I don't get it. McCain says that he wants to address global warming, sets a target that is not going to really do the job, and then comes out with a list of policies that guarantees the fact that we will never achieve the target.
And not one calls him on it?
The Republicans complain about liberal bias in the press and then the press lest him get away with this. Complain about liberal bias, arrest Amy Goodman, and you can get away with saying anything as long as you sound sincere.
I am waiting for a journalist with a real understanding of the science to drill down though the muck and make both of these candidates explain the inconsistencies in their public statements.
Posted by: Wes Rolley | September 3, 2008 1:45 PM
Jonsi makes a few reasonable general points. The answer to relying less on subsidies and specific regulations is to institute a substansial carbon tax. Of course, a carbon tax is quite arguably completely just/fair since fossil fuel consumption has such massive externalities (just leveling the playing field).
Though a lot of the subsidies Obama proposes are intended to provide predictability, not really shift the demand curve (which a carbon tax is for).
Posted by: travc | September 3, 2008 5:59 PM
If you've lived up-close to two hurricane impacts in the last three years (I'm not writing from home), you clearly understand that the world is utterly and entirely dependent on fossil fuels. Technologies are wonderful, but are totally inadequate as substitutes for liquid fuel or replacements for carbon emitters which support the electrical grid. There is an unbelievable disconnect between those suggesting that alternative energies can replace hydrocarbons and the gargantuan scale of our current fossil fuel dependence and infrastructure. Not that such suggestions are without merit--they simply are too distant to avert the coming crisis of petroleum depletion and peaking of both natural gas and coal.
Neither political party has a handle on, or solution to, this looming discontinuity.
Posted by: Eric the Leaf | September 3, 2008 8:51 PM
Clearly liquid or gas fuels beyond petroleum or nat. gas will be energy storage and transformation mediums, not energy sources. All raw energy we produce will start as electricity, either from solar, wind, nuclear, tides, hydro, or whatever else.
We need to put big $ into research to manufacture fuels cheaply with as little energy loss as possible.
Also I don't get what hurricanes have to do with fossil fuel dependence? Care to elaborate?
Posted by: darth | September 3, 2008 10:00 PM
When your survival depends on gas in the tank and electricity in the home, you will understand more deeply the nature of fossil fuel dependence.
Darth, you say "we will" and "we need." I agree with latter, but do not have confidence in the former. Don't get me wrong, I do not have an issue with alternative energies, but for the foreseeable future they would appear to be "alternative." In my opinion, they will not be built-out in the time frame or in the scale necessary to substitute for shortfalls in fossil fuels. Even if a magical new source of energy were to immediately alleviate the coming energy crisis, that in itself would not solve the intensification of resource exploitation brought about a burgeoning human population.
Too many bellies.
Posted by: Eric the Leaf | September 3, 2008 11:04 PM
I object strongly to characterizing McCain as being against subsidies. He is not only strongly in favor of subsidies, he is totally committed, with no possibility of a reversal, to handing over untold billions in subsidies. It's just that the parties he would hand them over to are the oil and coal companies that are getting them today.
Obama would also subsidize them to almost the same degree, but might divert a little bit of it to others.
Posted by: Nathan Myers | September 4, 2008 1:43 AM
Eric,
You're looking at it the wrong way. Your car, today, needs fossil fuels to run. Saying "When your survival depends on gas in the tank and electricity in the home, you will understand more deeply the nature of fossil fuel dependence." is just a propagation of the status quo. A hundred years ago your statement would just as easily have been "When your survival depends on grass for your horse and wood in the home, you will understand more deeply the nature of fossil fuel dependence." That's not an answer, that's a cop-out.
You want solutions? Let the price of oil ride as high as it wants! That is the best way to incentivise the market, and it keeps the anger pointed right where it needs to be.
Posted by: Richard Hendricks | September 4, 2008 12:46 PM
Richard,
I disagree. I think I'm looking at it correctly--at least realistically (by the way, just got electricity and internet connection). Yes, my car today needs fossil fuel--and cars probably for many, many years will need fossil fuels before any other vehicle becomes common on the road. The problem is that oil may very, very expensive, or very, very scarce. But just because there is incentive doesn't mean the situation changes overnight, or in time to make a difference when it is needed. I have no problem with a high price of gasoline--I think it is going to happen far sooner than many suspect. And when that happens, I'll be screwed, along with everybody else. I don't share the optimism behind the alternative energy/free market solutions--though I have never expressed an antagonism toward them.
Posted by: Eric the Leaf | September 7, 2008 7:51 PM