With interesting synchronicity to this debate, the mainstream media has suddenly in the past week realized the much bigger news, that technological innovations — the green revolution in agriculture and agrofuels — can have deadly and global side effects.

As long as the deployment / evaluation / use of technology is easily captured by business interests and politicians who are focused on their bottom-line, we would be fools to not focus on social change to change this fact, as well as reducing consumption, and of course working with the under used, well established technologies we already have like public transportation, permaculture, bikes, efficiencies, etc.

On the subject of “Dangerous Assumptions”, it is not a particularly complicated or interesting article. It just says that the IPCC models assume that innovation and market deployment are going to occur, regardless of market intervention, and that many of the advances we are seeing are just part of the business-as-usual scenario. Well, yes, that I know.

I’m not sure I understand the nonchalant attitude here, Richard. If the IPCC is making faulty assumptions about the scale of spontaneous innovation, then we’re facing an incredibly large technology gap and need to be calling for far greater efforts to bridge it. We’re going to need immediate and massive strategic federal investments in clean energy technology innovation — not just a price on carbon, a moratorium on coal, and other regulatory measures. So just to be clear, do you support major federal investments on the scale of $30-$80 billion in clean energy RDD&D?

“I want new investment models, community investment mechanisms, the elimination of perverse incentives, etc. I think that is what will propel the changes we need and finally launch a clean energy revolution.”

Richard, can you elaborate? I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about when you say “new investment models” and “community investment mechanisms.” Unless you mean community efficiency, something we could use a lot more of, but I don’t understand how residential efficiency projects is going to spark an energy revolution.

“S&N might be arguing for something new, but it fits into a pattern that Romm has seen again and again.”

Only if you’re maliciously misrepresenting our position (I’m defending my own work here, Richard, since I co-authored “Fast, Clean, Cheap”). We’re spending our lives fighting for a clean energy revolution. We’ve never suggested that regulatory action be delayed. What we’ve said consistently is that regulation isn’t enough. And we’ve never said that federal investment be limited to R&D. We’ve consistently called for these investments to be distributed along all stages of the innovation chain, including deployment. We said it in “Fast, Clean, Cheap” and again in the energy scientist sign-on letter that Breakthrough organized. Here’s what it read:

America should be ramping up to invest a minimum of $30 billion per year to develop, demonstrate, and stimulate the commercialization of a range of technologies and approaches that can provide affordable carbon-neutral energy and use that energy more wisely.

As long as we agree that such an effort is vital (although I’d like to see it be $80 billion), then I think we’re on the same page.

S&N have called for a “paradigm shift” in thinking…but they don’t present one. That is why I have been much more interested in Breakthrough Generation than the Breakthrough Institute, as I think that has the potential to create one, not just call for one.

On the subject of “Dangerous Assumptions”, it is not a particularly complicated or interesting article. It just says that the IPCC models assume that innovation and market deployment are going to occur, regardless of market intervention, and that many of the advances we are seeing are just part of the business-as-usual scenario. Well, yes, that I know.

However, this ‘bickering’ (and despite occasional calls for civility on both sides, it is that, bickering) is over the meaning of the word “Breakthrough” and the question of who will do the investment to reduce the cost of clean energy. The continuous and rapid decline in price of solar electric panels, in Joe’s world, is not a breakthrough but a result of deployment driving market investment. To S&N, if the curve was bent down further it might be a “breakthrough”.

All I have to say is: Markets are not continuous (except in graphs) and clean energy is massively cost-competitive right now, if you shift your thinking about where and how to deploy. Deployment drives investment, economies of scale, and market R&D. However, I think R&D is great, but it sure as hell isn’t going to get us to a carbon neutral world tomorrow. We know how to build Zero emissions buildings today, but that is because we decided to roll up our sleeves and build them.

I support large-scale government R&D, but even more, I want new investment models, community investment mechanisms, the elimination of perverse incentives, etc. I think that is what will propel the changes we need and finally launch a clean energy revolution.

I think Romm overreacted, because he has seen the deniers and delayers seize upon every excuse for inaction, as well as you have to understand his history. He spent years fighting for fuel economy for vehicles, while car companies trotted out ‘breakthrough’ technologies such as hydrogen cars, in order to derail action on CAFE. In those cases, he was right – we did have the technology – and the call for ‘breakthrough’ technology strategic to delay action now. S&N might be arguing for something new, but it fits into a pattern that Romm has seen again and again.

We’d certainly be interested in hearing your opinion on the substance of “Dangerous Assumptions.” Why do you think it evoked such fierce attacks from people like Romm and David Roberts of Grist? We all agree that we need to stick to substance. But we cannot afford to allow someone of Romm’s stature to make such malicious and misrepresenting attacks on a body of such important evidence for our climate future. If that means putting up a fight for what we believe in, then so be it.

As a movement, we have many necessary roles to play. We need to hold currently elected officials accountable to their actions and inactions. We need to elect officials who will be responsive to our leadership on climate, economic and social justice demands. We need to build and implement the solutions we are calling for. But most of all, we need to build the majority that demands action on real sustainability. With that (vocal) majority, our politicians will need to follow our lead – it is the nature of their jobs.

So it is necessary for us to continue and amplify our efforts engaging people in conversation around climate* issues. We must publicize and communicate our work and build that majority which actively calls for (and working on) climate solutions.

Juliana

*I use the term climate loosely in this context. For me this encompasses environmental, justice, technological, economic, social, spiritual issues. Unfortunately, we have yet found a way to communicate briefly the complexity of “climate issues.” This is something we need to work on. Any ideas?

I agree wholeheartedly that the only way to get those “innovative solutions” is to keep our focus on the issues. But to call what went on between Romm, Pielke, and the Breakthrough Institute “bickering” is simply misrepresentation. Romm attacked Peilke’s Nature piece, urging people to ignore it because it was “pointless” and an “embarrassment,” and implying that it was a bad-faith attempt to “delay” action on global warming. In fact, Pielke’s commentary raised important questions for the climate movement to consider — questions that could add more depth and balance to the conversation. Our response to Romm was to point out his attempt to undermine a dissenting voice and orchestrate the conversation based only on those perspectives he deems valid. We have no interest in misrepresenting Romm’s views, and we appreciate his apology for misrepresenting ours and Pielke’s.

I am a board member of Focus the Nation, and for me the most powerful learning from nationwide organizing on 1/31/08 was the depth of solutions-oriented leadership that now exists on campuses. That’s clearly where the Worldchanging thinking is emerging, and it needs to be networked, mentored, and celebrated at every opportunity.