Cross-posted from Americans for Energy Leadership
In a major departure from conventional climate wisdom, Thomas Friedman argues in today’s New York Times that the UNFCCC framework is broken and should be replaced by a global competition in the clean-tech industry, which he says the United States can and should lead. “Let the Earth Race begin,” he declares, contrasting this with the long-dominant “Earth Day” strategy:
“This Copenhagen climate summit was based on the Earth Day strategy. It was not very impressive. This conference produced a series of limited, conditional, messy compromises, which it is not at all clear will get us any closer to mitigating climate change at the speed and scale we need…
Today, we need the Earth Race: who can be the first to invent the most clean technologies so men and women can live safely here on Earth… An Earth Race led by America — built on markets, economic competition, national self-interest and strategic advantage — is a much more self-sustaining way to reduce carbon emissions than a festival of voluntary, nonbinding commitments at a U.N. conference.”
Friedman is right. The race to develop competitive clean-tech industries is the critical element with the potential to motivate enough development and deployment of clean technologies – far more than any potential “legally-binding” global emissions treaty, as we’ve seen with the failure of the Kyoto Protocol and the inability of the UNFCCC framework to produce a meaningful treaty at Copenhagen. The International Energy Agency estimates that $10.5 trillion of global investment in clean technology and energy efficiency is necessary over the next 20 years to stay below 450ppm – an unimaginable sum under any UNFCCC treaty.
Moreover, building the long-term political support of a broad segment of the American public requires a national agenda centrally focused on competing in the clean-tech growth industries of the future. As Friedman explains, “If you start the conversation with “climate” you might get half of America to sign up for action. If you start the conversation with giving birth to a “whole new industry” — one that will make us more energy independent, prosperous, secure, innovative, respected and able to out-green China in the next great global industry — you get the country.”
Indeed, countries like China, Japan, and South Korea are already launching massive government investment programs to dominate this industry – not because their priority is reducing carbon emissions, but because they recognize the economic potential. In our recent report, “Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant,” we found that China, Japan, and South Korea – Asia’s “clean technology tigers” – have already surpassed the United States in the production of virtually all clean energy technologies, an advantage they are solidifying and expanding with direct, large-scale government investment strategies.
As his competitive solution, Friedman repeats his call for a price on carbon. “The goal of Earth Racers is to focus on getting the U.S. Senate to pass an energy bill, with a long-term price on carbon that will really stimulate America to become the world leader in clean-tech,” he writes. “All [Obama] needed to do in his speech was to look China’s prime minister in the eye and say: “I am going to get our Senate to pass an energy bill with a price on carbon so we can clean your clock in clean-tech. This is my moon shot. Game on.”
The Chinese prime minister might just have laughed in Obama’s face. Why? Because a modest carbon price is far too weak to regain American competitiveness in the face of Asia’s massive investment projects. These governments are set to out-invest the United States by three to one in these industries over the next five years – $509 billion compared to $172 billion in the U.S., assuming passage of the proposed American Clean Energy and Security Act and including current appropriations and stimulus measures.
No wonder Deutsche Bank recently concluded that “generous and well-targeted [clean-tech] incentives” backed by “comprehensive and integrated government plans” in China and Japan will create a low-risk environment for investors and stimulate high levels of private investment. In contrast, Deutsche Bank concluded, the U.S. is a “moderate-risk” country compared to the lower-risk environment of China and Japan, because we rely on “a more volatile market incentive approach and has suffered from a start-stop approach in some areas.” According to another recent report by the China Greentech Initiative, China’s national clean-tech market could eventually grow to $1 trillion annually.
Earth to Thomas Friedman! Winning the “Earth Race” requires major federal investments in clean technology development and deployment. “If the United States hopes to compete for new clean energy industries,” we conclude in “Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant,” “it must close the widening gap between U.S. and Asian government investments in research and innovation, manufacturing, and domestic market demand. Small, indirect and uncoordinated incentives are not sufficient to outcompete Asia’s clean tech tigers. 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.”
Winning the “Earth Race” also requires a national effort in high-tech energy education, and President Obama’s RE-ENERGYSE proposal is a critical first step, especially in the realm of higher education. As my colleague and I wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle, “To win today’s clean-energy race, the United States must respond with the same vigorous commitment to education and innovation that won the space race four decades ago. If America does not take immediate action to bridge its energy education gap – and if we fail to make substantially larger investments in our own clean-energy economy – we will effectively cede the clean-energy race to Asia.”
Yet instead of calling for an effort to actually strengthen the Senate bill to match what energy innovation experts say is necessary (including dozens of Nobel Laureates, Brookings Institution, Association of American Universities, Google, and others) – at least $15 billion per year for clean energy R&D, compared to $1.2 billion in the current proposal – Friedman simply calls for passing the bill in its current form. Indeed, he doesn’t seem to care whether the bill is strong enough to accomplish much of anything besides a modest price on carbon, as he explained in an op-ed after the passage of Waxman-Markey:
“It is pathetic that we couldn’t do better [than Waxman-Markey]. It is appalling that so much had to be given away to polluters. It stinks. It’s a mess. I detest it. Now let’s get it passed in the Senate and make it law.”
That is no strategy to win the “Earth Race.” Reflecting on the surge in Afghanistan, Friedman recently wrote, “China, Russia and Al Qaeda all love the idea of America doing a long, slow bleed in Afghanistan.” His point extends here as well: China, Japan, South Korea, and the rest of our competitors would love the idea of America settling on a “pathetic” bill with modest clean-tech investment and pricing.
The United States did not win the space race with a tax on airplanes. We did not invent the Internet by enforcing a cap and trade system on fax machines, nor did we create the personal computer by taxing typewriters. Those who suggest we can simply rely on indirect, market-based mechanisms to achieve a clean energy revolution – including Thomas Friedman – fail to understand the history of technology innovation and competitiveness, and they risk relegating our clean-tech industry to second-class status or worse.
Fifty years ago, in the wake of the launch of Sputnik, the United States launched a massive national effort to lead the space race and win the Cold War. Today, the clean energy race represents one of the greatest opportunities and challenges for American leadership in a generation. If we do not take immediate action to launch a national energy competitiveness project based on large, direct, and coordinated innovation policies, we will effectively cede the clean-energy industry to Asia and other competitors. The mass majority of exports, jobs, tax revenues, and other economic benefits will accrue to foreign countries, and we will miss a historic opportunity to achieve a new era of American leadership. The choice should be clear.
The biggest problem our country faced a year ago was how to begin tackling an overwhelming pile of serious problems. Today, for good or ill, another piece of the pile has begun to shift as the Senate prepares for its Christmas Eve healthcare vote. I’ve read Friedman’s article, I’ve read yours, and I’m pleased and optimistic today for the first time in many months…because I recognize the same process at work that has made tackling the pile even possible: smart Americans writing thoughtfully, thinking courageously, communicating broadly, and challenging each other fearlessly. An Earth Race feels right. Your response to Friedman is provocative. Shift happens. And 2010 will be an exciting, energizing year! Thanks for the Christmas present.
To: Mr. Teryn Norris
Re: “Open Letter to Bill McKibben: Blaming Obama for Copenhagen is Wrong”
Mr. Norris,
Your letter was confusing and inappropriate. Without addressing the concerns I lay out in this letter it seems that you will be the one who should publicly apologize to Bill and the 350 movement.
Your letter confuses me for the following reasons:
1. The 350 Reaction to the sham of Copenhagen seems to have personally offended you. Yet you don’t seem to deny that the most powerful political figures in the world (and their advisers)have failed miserably at addressing the greatest threat to humanity we have ever confronted. If you believe that the political power in Copenhagen was doomed from the beginning because of a terminal structural flaw in the framework of international environmental agreements does that mean you have abandoned any political solutions (or the assistance of political power in bringing about solutions) to attempt to address climate change? If you haven’t completely abandoned politics for the invisible hand, I’m confused about your concern for the Obama administration and why you think it is possible to solve a terminal structural problem in state policy WITHOUT the use of direct, confrontational and dramatic criticism. If you believe that state policy has a role to play in addressing climate change and yet you are asking for Bill to apologize, what would an appropriate and effective type of criticism of copenhagen and one of the most powerful political figures in the world sound like? I’m honestly curious, what does speaking truth to power sound like to you?
2. But you seem to deny that what Bill said is truth, which also confuses me:
“That is why I was shocked and disappointed when you so harshly blamed President Obama for the outcome of Copenhagen and accused him of undermining efforts to achieve a meaningful international climate treaty. Your accusations are false. I understand the disappointment of you and many around the world, but the Obama administration has done more to promote climate change solutions than any U.S. administration in history, and it has demonstrated a clear commitment to advancing international negotiations.”
Have you re-read this passage and regretted it yet? Do you have more to add to your case for ‘easing up’ on the criticism of Obama? Your basis for why it is false to say Obama had an unprecedented opportunity to powerfully effect the outcome of the talks and failed to do so is 1)Obama did more than anyone before him and 2)The Obama administration has demonstrated a commitment to advancing negotiations?
I’m confused because I must be missing something about how either of those claims are significant or even particularly persuasive. #1 shouldn’t require a rebuttal…The Obama Administration is not the Bush Administration and the United States government has not even directly acknowledged the problem of climate change for more than 30 or 40 years. To you that is a sufficient reason to ignore the potential power the current administration has to effect change and refrain from strong criticism of its inaction? #2 sounds like a claim that is both relatively easy to confirm and yet potentially lacking in significance. Something about the road to hell and what it’s paved with…more importantly I’m confused because it seems to me like demonstrating a commitment to advancing negotiations implies accepting responsibility for the outcome of negotiations. Failure to bring about an acceptable outcome seems to merit harsh criticism? Am I wrong?
3. And this is the MOST IMPORTANT point that confuses me about your letter (and your recent advocacy): What trade-offs between government regulation and increasing investment in profit-driven green technology are justifying what seems to be a very public and potentially pointless dialogue in the environmental movement that you have initiated with your letter? This is where I’m most honestly and sincerely requesting clarification because I’m sure there are many areas where time, energy and money cannot be simultaneously invested in increasing the effectiveness of political frameworks addressing environmental concerns while at the same time being spent on innovation and development of green industries. But I don’t understand your constant implication (that I’m yet to see you explain) that improving political frameworks is mutually exclusive with encouraging increased investment, education and development. If there isn’t some overwhelming or inherent trade-off between the two…you must agree we should be desperately striving for both, right? So I guess my question is: How does Bill’s criticism get in the way of green technology?
4. So that just leaves my confusion with your understanding of the implications or consequences you seem to think Bill’s criticism will have. Could you please explain how aggressive and forthright rhetoric is going to cause people to-I don’t know exactly what you imagine-give up on the environmental movement or the Obama administration or investing in green technology and education? I think it’s pretty clear those of us who follow 350 are dedicated to addressing Climate Change by almost any means necessary. Are you concerned about the political implications? I can understand that. Watching the health care debacle has terrified me that a Republican resurgence might be in our future. If that’s your concern you still have a substantial burden of proof in showing how that will come about because Bill called out Obama. Are you afraid Bill’s language is so powerful it will trigger an existential crisis in the environmental movement and we’ll start losing people to nihilism? I shouldn’t make light of it because I absolutely agree with you that Bill’s words have meaning…a great deal of meaning. As an individual Bill McKibben has proven himself beyond any measure of doubt to have a heroic commitment and incredibly deep compassion for life on Earth. With this proven commitment he has gained great power to influence the environmental movement. Power that I cannot understand you describing as being used ‘irresponsibly’. Why don’t you think it was Obama and many other world leaders who were irresponsible with the power they had to seriously address Climate Change and I’m appalled to even call it irresponsible when it is much more egregious a failure with potentially terrifying consequences…especially when compared to either the hurt feelings of Obama and his advisors or the potential ‘damage’ Bill did with his statement.
A statement that I think was dead on its inflammatory, angry and accusing tone. Someone has to use that tone. In fact many, many ’someones’ have to use that tone. There may be millions of people who will not have the choice or the capability to voice their condemnation of the people who have brought about (or failed to address) the catastrophic climate change bearing down on us and if you take that perspective (say, the perspective of a teenager watching their family starve to death as a result of food shortages resulting from climate change or flex your imagination in million other horrible scenarios) it looks more like Bill went pretty easy on the Obama administration and the ensuing death rattle of the power of the UN to truly confront global problems.
Look, I’m obviously a very confused person. I’m also obviously in strong disagreement with your letter but I chose to phrase my criticism in terms of ‘being confused’ because I do not know any of the details of the flaws in international environmental policy frameworks and I don’t disagree with you in terms of your advocacy to radically and massively increase our investment in profit-driven green technology. That’s great! We should! Let’s do it!
But I have presented 4 reasons your very public letter to Bill is inappropriate…unless someone can point out why my confusion or concern is unwarranted in each case.
Otherwise, consider this an “Open Letter to Teryn Norris to Apologize to Bill McKibben”. For many reasons, though this one resonates most with me: Did your letter say that the failure in Copenhagen was a failure of the framework 350 helped establish? Do you know anything about the 350 movement? Did you just suggest it was the exact same framework for addressing global climate change as the international political system? If so you owe an apology to not only Bill but every supporter of 350.
But let’s not give you an easy target to dismiss my request for you to apologize. You should apologize because you have 4 reasons that you shouldn’t have demanded an apology from Bill. Those should suffice.
It would be especially nice if you could make the apology very short and to the point because Bill appears to be already throwing himself back into the fight and i imagine could really use a break. I’m thinking something like “Hey Bill, I’m Sorry. Sincerely, Teryn Norris”
I doubt he would care at all…it sounds like he’d just get another Diet Coke, fire up the laptop and go back to what history may judge as the most noble and important pursuit ever undertaken by our species. And a short apology means you can do the same! I hope you appreciate I’m not trying to vilify you in any way and that I support your search for more environmentally sustainable energy solutions…I’m not trying to get in your way-I’m trying to keep you out of Bill’s way.
An apology on your part seems like the right thing to do.
Respectfully,
Mark Wesley Craven
Copenhagen was full of “Neville Chamberlains” who had no idea what to except not to do anything constructive. The best people to fix this are the people, not politicians.
Friedman is a
1. Greenwasher who supports coal:
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/opinion/10friedman.html?scp=2&sq=Friedman+green+lump&st=nyt
2. Supporter of U.S. imperialism aimed at continuing the murderous extraction of climate change causing fossil fuels in the Middle East:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/200/41165.html
and
3. Racist who regularly degrades Arabs and Muslims:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/NYT_Friedman_Herman.html
In case anyone was taking friedman too seriously…
Tom Friedman Checks into Five Star Hotel, Gets Idea for New Book
http://eggplantpost.com/2009/12/16/tom-friedman-checks-into-five-star-hotel-gets-idea-for-new-book/
I am sick of this green nationalism that Friedman spews constantly. This isn’t the Cold War. Friedman seems more intererested in maintaining US military and economic stranglehold on the world than solving the climate crisis.
If you think Friedman is nationalistic, check out Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He wrote a piece over the weekend at Huffington Post called “The New Arms Race.”
the same goes for him!
Right on Matt. We need to move past this Friedman worship. Do we really need to hear about it every time Friedman sneezes? Why exactly are there tons of blogs about this guy on IGHIH? The guy’s a NY Times columnist. He doesn’t need the support – and his venue should give us an idea where his allegiances lie. He supports bad policies which kill millions of people. That has no place in our movement.
The lines are being drawn in the sand whether we like it or not. Its time to leave the racists, imperialists, and nationalists behind. Solutions will only come through peace, solidarity and cooperation which crosses and disintegrates all borders. Not through capitalist monopolies and greed.
“Friedman worship”? This is a debate about how we motivate the type and scale of action we need to secure the future of human civilization. Friedman’s ideas in this op-ed are important and worth discussing. Only someone seriously blinded by ideology would dismiss this as an act of “worship,” or dismiss these ideas as something that has “no place in our movement.”