Breakthrough's rebuttal

Joe Romm’s strategy to lose the clean energy race 30

Jesse Jenkins and Teryn NorrisJesse Jenkins, left, and Teryn Norris.Breakthrough InstituteOn Monday, Joe Romm of Climate Progress publicly attacked us for publishing an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle—called “Will America lose the clean energy race?” (a longer version was posted here at Huffington Post.).  In that piece, we urged Congress to fully fund President Obama’s energy education initiative and scale up direct pubic investments in low-carbon energy to accelerate our transition to a clean energy economy.

Romm asserted that our op-ed “attacks” President Obama and Democratic leaders, when in fact it calls on Congress to support Obama’s RE-ENERGYSE energy education program and urges greater public investment in clean energy to compete with Asian challengers.  Yet Romm never mentioned the central focus of the op-ed—RE-ENERGYSE and our efforts to rally support behind it, including a recent sign-on letter with over 100 organizations—and instead criticized us for what he called “willfully misleading nonsense” about Asian countries’ planned investments in clean energy.

Romm proceeded to make several factually incorrect statements about Asia’s plans for clean energy investment that contradict research in publicly accessible reports and analyses, including those by the Center for American Progress (CAP), which employs Romm.  The Breakthrough Institute wrote a comprehensive fact check here to correct Romm’s numerous misstatements and clarify the details of public investment plans in China, South Korea and Japan.

Romm also criticized us for asserting that Congress must strengthen the Waxman-Markey bill with greater investments in clean energy to compete with Asian challengers and accelerate our transition to a clean energy economy.  Why?  Because Romm apparently believes the Waxman-Markey proposal—which would invest only $10 billion per year in clean energy and energy efficiency, a commitment of less than 0.1% of U.S. GDP—is sufficient to win the clean energy race. It is not.

“Waxman-Markey would complete America’s transition to a clean energy economy, which started with the stimulus bill,” reads the title of a prominently featured post on Romm’s website, a claim he has repeated multiple times.  “Waxman-Markey would generate more clean energy action than any piece of legislation passed by any country in the history of the world!” exclaimed Romm in another recent post as part of his consistent and ongoing cheer-leading for the legislation.

Romm supports his assertion by arguing that Waxman-Markey would invest $14 billion per year in clean energy.  This figure is in fact faulty.  Romm relies on a House Energy and Commerce Committee summary of Waxman-Markey (rather than his own independent analysis), which relied in turn on an EPA analysis in April of the early draft version of the bill.  However, according to the EPA’s more recent analysis of the actual bill, Waxman-Markey would invest only $8 to $10 billion per year between 2015-2020, as we explain in detail here and as we stated in our op-ed.

But regardless of whether the number is $10 or $14 billion annually, this pales in comparison to China’s planned investment of $44 to $66 billion per year and is clearly insufficient to “complete America’s transition to a clean energy economy.”  A group of 34 Nobel Laureates recently submitted a letter to President Obama urging $15 billion per year in Waxman-Markey for R&D alone, and the Brookings Institution calls for $20-30 billion per year in R&D.  The Breakthrough Institute strongly advocates a minimum investment of $30 to $50 billion per year in low-carbon energy research, development, demonstration and deployment, of which $15 billion should be for clean energy R&D, as recommended by President Obama and the nation’s top scientists.

China, South Korea and Japan are all redoubling (re-tripling or re-quadrupling may be more accurate) their efforts to spur domestic clean energy industries, building on their stimulus investments by launching major, sustained clean energy investment programs.  In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the United States allocated over $60 billion to be spent over two years building American clean energy industries—an excellent start.  Yet the Waxman-Markey bill would slash that level of commitment by two-thirds.  Romm is apparently content with letting U.S. investments in clean energy technologies and industries lapse.  The Breakthrough Institute is not.

Ironically, in the face of massive direct public investments in countries like China, South Korea and Japan, both the Breakthrough Institute and the real policy analysts at the Center for American Progress believe the U.S. is falling behind in the clean energy race.  A recent CAP brief noted that “competitors dominate green industries while America is left behind.”  CAP’s Julian Wong and Andrew Light were some of the first analysts to highlight China’s reported plan to invest $440 to $660 billion in clean energy over ten years.  And in a report titled “We Must Seize the Energy Opportunity or Slip Further Behind,” CAP analyst Ben Furnas argued that “when it comes to preparing our country to compete in the new energy economy ... we lag behind most of our competitors in the rest of the world.”

The Breakthrough Institute believes the gathering clean energy race demands a vigorous and sustained commitment to clean energy technology and industries and has called on Congress to strengthen U.S. climate legislation, boosting clean energy investments from its current level of $10 billion per year to at least $30-$50 billion per year.  In contrast, Romm ardently supports weaker legislation that would invest just $10 billion per year in clean energy and energy efficiency, less than one quarter of China’s planned investments.  That may be acceptable to Joe Romm—but it is no way to win the clean energy race.

This post originally appeared on The Huffington Post.

Jesse Jenkins is the director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute. He is also the founder and chief editor of WattHead: Energy News and Commentary and writes frequently at several other sites.

Teryn Norris is a Senior Advisor at the Breakthrough Institute, founder of Breakthrough Generation, and a student at Stanford University. He recently co-authored “Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant,” a major report on U.S. vs Asian competitiveness in clean energy.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. dannyspitzberg's avatar

    dannyspitzberg Posted 1:44 pm
    29 Jul 2009

    Cheers to the Grist editorial board for allowing room for debate!

    Permalink

  2. sunflower's avatar

    sunflower Posted 5:15 pm
    29 Jul 2009

    US solar innovation (sans support)http://www.harbornet.com/sunflower/mit.jpg   China copycat (beaucoup support)http://www.advanced-app.com.hk/MiscJunk/Guo_n_William.JPG

    Permalink

  3. kkloor Posted 9:14 pm
    29 Jul 2009

    I echo the sentiment of the first commenter. But I also lament Grist's new incarnation.

    Permalink

  4. Dave from Canada Posted 12:35 pm
    30 Jul 2009

    Why is it that most (all?) Breakthrough Institute forays attack environmentalists, environmental organizations and environmental initiatives?Aren't there a few other things out there worth attacking, like the tarsands (and the governments of Alberta and Canada), CCS, "clean coal," nukes, the GOP, blue dogs, Big Oil, Big Pharma, the Big Three, climate change deniers, George Will, Sarah Palin...OK maybe don't waste too much time on Palin.  But really, it's a big world out there.  There is a lot to do.  Let's try to raise our sights a bit... 

    Permalink

    1. dannyspitzberg's avatar

      dannyspitzberg Posted 5:46 pm
      30 Jul 2009

      Breakthrough is critical of big oil, blue dogs, and other beasts. The barbs directed at the environmental movement are purely constructive criticism. Here's why:At its core, global warming is an energy problem, for which energy solutions are need.Focusing efforts on clean energy puts us on the path to a low-carbon economy. To that end, many folks in the environmental movement practice the wrong kind of politics, most of which boils down to trying to prohibit, limit, regulate, and 'Just Say No' to dirty energy. This works to a degree - Sierra Club just celebrated the 100th cancelled coal plant plan. But where is the resulting tidal wave of clean energy technologies? It won't stem from the kind of politics in the mainstream environmental movement. Thus, the environmental movement deserves criticism, in my opinion.Breakthrough, in contrast, decides to 'Just Say YES' to clean energy.This is an important difference - efforts to make clean energy cheap will succeed where attempts at pricing up dirty energy may not succeed at the level necessary. Public investment in R&D and deployment will inspire a tidal wave of private investment to follow.

      Permalink

  5. Jay Alt Posted 8:41 pm
    30 Jul 2009

    The Chinese government has full authority over utilities and wields a strong hand in many investment decisions. That is not the case in the US, so here the amount of government spending isn't the key. The Waxman-Markey bill has emissions targets and a host of policy provisions. The private investments which they'll generate will be worth many times what the bill sets aside for the government to spend. Your piece frets that apples are not oranges; both can be used to make a fruit salad.

    Permalink

  6. Dave from Canada Posted 9:36 pm
    30 Jul 2009

    Public investment won't inspire major private investment.  Actually nothing will inspire major private investment other than a price signal (carrot or stick). Corporations and major investors are rational economic actors. If they can maximize profits, they'll do it.  If they can't, they won't.

    Permalink

    1. Teryn Norris's avatar

      Teryn Norris Posted 9:59 am
      31 Jul 2009

      Dave, what evidence do you have to suggest that public investment in clean energy won't drive significant private investment?  After the Breakthrough Institute co-founded the Apollo Alliance in 2003, an independent group performed an input-output analysis of our $30 billion/year public investment plan and found it would generate around $20 billion/year in private investment.   Even Romm admits as much, despite his apparent opposition to greater public investment in clean energy beyond the current level in Waxman-Markey, stating in his response that "I’ll just do a rough estimate that the bill leads to government
      spending in renewables, CCS, electric and advanced vehicles, and
      R&D of about $100 billion from 2012 to 2025 and that is matched by
      the private sector in research, development, demonstration, and
      deployment."

      Permalink

      1. Dave from Canada Posted 9:48 pm
        31 Jul 2009

        What I was calling out was the claim that public sector spending will "inspire" substantial private sector spending.It's a sad fact of the marketplace and corporate law, but big corporations and investment funds don't do anything because they're "inspired."  They only act in order to maximize shareholder value (or loosely, maximize profits).Surely nobody contests that.So if Joe Romm thinks public spending is going to spur private investment, he probably thinks there will be some carrots in the mix for the private sector, which there may be.You need carrots or sticks.  Unless you have one of those two, nothing serious in the private sector will ever get off the ground. 

        Permalink

      2. Dave from Canada Posted 9:48 pm
        31 Jul 2009

        What I was calling out was the claim that public sector spending will "inspire" substantial private sector spending.It's a sad fact of the marketplace and corporate law, but big corporations and investment funds don't do anything because they're "inspired."  They only act in order to maximize shareholder value (or loosely, maximize profits).Surely nobody contests that.So if Joe Romm thinks public spending is going to spur private investment, he probably thinks there will be some carrots in the mix for the private sector, which there may be.You need carrots or sticks.  Unless you have one of those two, nothing serious in the private sector will ever get off the ground. 

        Permalink

  7. sunflower's avatar

    sunflower Posted 2:46 am
    31 Jul 2009

    Risk is the issue.  Investors are easily frightened.  Public investments proving new technologies will facilitate risk adverse private investments.Delay and denial is a recipe to cook this planet.

    Permalink

  8. Billhook Posted 12:48 pm
    31 Jul 2009

    The idea that the US could win a clean energy race with China is surely wishful thinking.Compare the two nations' output of science graduates -Or the ease  of national co-ordination via Govt intervention in diverse forms -Or the current strength of work ethic in young & mature people -And as for the finance issue, why exactly would China lend the finance to allow US leadership in renewables ?No example comes to mind of an emerging empire being outrun in energy technology by a declining empire.If such an example exists, I'd be interested to consider its dynamics.Regards,Billhook

    Permalink

  9. Start Loving's avatar

    Start Loving Posted 8:45 am
    01 Aug 2009

    Grist, I just think this is a stunningly disingenuous article, and I am shocked and disappointed that you published it so prominently, as you did.  Honest, well intended disagreement?  Yes, publish such.  But deliberate disinformation, propaganda that this article transparently is?  Was air time to Hitler a good public service?

    Permalink

    1. Teryn Norris's avatar

      Teryn Norris Posted 1:34 pm
      01 Aug 2009

      What's truly shocking is that anyone within the Grist community would actually compare two young climate advocates to Hitler for working to promote President Obama's energy education initiative and strengthen U.S. climate legislation.  Stunning and saddening to see this happening at Grist.

      Permalink

      1. Start Loving's avatar

        Start Loving Posted 1:56 pm
        01 Aug 2009

        Mr. Norris!  Oh my goodness.  This is perfect!  What a disingenuous response!  "Oh, this is just a harmless, well intended article by "two young climate scientists!" "  What?!?!?!?!  Climate Destruction is an issue that threatens to destroy more life, and continue to unleash more horror than Hitler ever dreamed of.  So thank you Mr. Norris for revealing that either, A. You are too self absorbed to get this, and think that somehow it is yourself that is important in all this, or B. You have some motives, some agenda other than actually addressing this unfolding human Holocaust. Yes, thank you for showing your true colors, poor, little Mr. Norris.

        Permalink

    2. dannyspitzberg's avatar

      dannyspitzberg Posted 10:39 pm
      02 Aug 2009

      SL, your tone and language are far from the spirit of wholesome debate.

      Permalink

      1. Start Loving's avatar

        Start Loving Posted 3:43 am
        03 Aug 2009

        Danny, how disappointing if the purpose of this site is "wholesome debate."  It should be about a ferocious search for the truth in time to prevent as much suffering as possible as fast as possible from this unfolding holocaust.  But you suggest this site is merely for the comfortable, intellectual entertainment of we overprivileged intellectuals who are among the most removed from the ravages of climate destruction?  And I suspect you are correct in your implication - mental masturbation is what many (most?) seek here.  And you?

        Permalink

      2. dannyspitzberg's avatar

        dannyspitzberg Posted 6:49 am
        03 Aug 2009

        SL, you can call it "ferocious debate" if you like. Either way, your language is inappropriate. I am 100% in favor of uncomfortable challenges - that is what debate is all about. So, what do I suggest? I suggest you try to be constructive in your comments. If you want to spark a debate, dig into the arguments put forth. Insults are not debating.

        Permalink

      3. Start Loving's avatar

        Start Loving Posted 7:06 am
        03 Aug 2009

        Danny, I take your response as well intended.  Thank you.  I am certain that I neither intended nor conveyed any "insult."  It is conceivable of course that my comments could be inaccurate, although I think not.  I do not INTEND to be harsh, however I am willing to stray personally with my life, and in my words, in the direction of "harsh," because the reality is already, profoundly "harsh," for millions of our victims, the poor and uneducated, the victims of we American polluters.  While we "debate," they die.  Absolutely, I never intend hostility, "insult," "name calling," etc. and accept responsibility for avoiding these.  But I do intend to drive as quickly, effectively, honestly and committedly toward the immediate abatement of Climate Destruction, as I am able; and will continue in this attempt. However, should I conclude that my attempts at contribution here are either not constructive, or are generally unwelcome, I will not inflict myself further.  Your brother,  Start

        Permalink

  10. cleanwater&air; Posted 10:31 am
    01 Aug 2009

    most of the comment on this string are based on the "Big Lie" ; that the ghg effect exists.  The ghg effect Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. CO2 does not cause global warming. There is no need for "clean energy" We need more energy because we are going into Global Cooling for the next 30 to 40 years. The Waxman bill should be burned to help keep our houses warm.

    Permalink

  11. Russ Walker's avatar

    Russ Walker Posted 4:24 pm
    01 Aug 2009

    Hello Start Loving ...Kudos to you for engaging in the debate with Norris and Jenkins, but c'mon -- the Hitler reference was uncalled for. The day Teryn and Jesse invade Poland and start a World War, you can pull that analogy out of your rhetorical bag of tricks. Until then, let's keep the debate focused on policy and not on personal attacks.Critics of The Breakthrough Institute have many great points to make. Why resort to name calling? It accomplishes nothing.
    Cheers,Russ WalkerGrist.org

    Permalink

    1. Start Loving's avatar

      Start Loving Posted 4:53 pm
      01 Aug 2009

      Mr. Walker, as God is my witness name calling is something I do not have time for.  Being in front of the White House 9 hours per day, 7 days per week discussing the imperative of ending Climate / Environment destruction?  That I have time for and do, every day, every week, every month ( http://prop1.org ; yes at this 28 year Anti-Nuclear Peace vigil MY focus is ending Climate Destruction - a far greater threat even than today's 23,000 nuclear weapons).  Spending many hours per day combing the internet for strategically important articles on Climate Destruction ( http://HomeEarthSecurity.blogspot.com) I have time for.  Risking my life in a 34 day water only hunger strike on Capitol Hill beginning Christmas Eve 2008, occupying the Hill 24/7 within inches of where Congress walks - demanding a $200 B shift from War Making to Climate Saving ( newsblaze.com/story/20090214064644zzzz.nb/topstory.html ) - that too I have time for.  This is not academic for me, and should be academic for no man or woman.  The fate of civilization is at stake, as you know.  You are right, this is not an issue to be trivialized by name calling; it is not a time for nastiness but it IS a time for honesty, clarity, urgency, and measures both verbal and active commensurate with the human emergency.  This is my intent every waking moment.  No time for name calling.  No time for giving prime space to propagandists.  We have a muliti billion dollar main stream media (MSM) dedicated to the propagandists.  Your otherwise wonderful Grist.org is one of our few channels for honest scientific and humane efforts.  My intent here is to help protect its integrity and value, along with that of the heroic, brilliant and prolific Joseph Romm (yes, despite how pitiful my efforts may be).  Your brother, and the brother of Mr. Norris also,  Start

      Permalink

      1. dannyspitzberg's avatar

        dannyspitzberg Posted 10:38 pm
        02 Aug 2009

        SL, your tone and language are not in the spirit of wholesome debate.

        Permalink

  12. Peter Wood Posted 9:26 pm
    01 Aug 2009

    My understanding of the Breakthrough Institute's position (and people on this thread can correct me if I am wrong) is that governments should publicly fund research, development and deployment of low emission technologies, but not introduce any form of carbon price. Their reasoning seems to be that any policy (like a carbon price) that increases the price of energy will be politically impossible.This hypothesis is wrong for a number of reasons. Firstly, experience with petrol taxes, carbon taxes, and the EU ETS in Europe demonstrate conclusively that policies that include energy prices are possible. Secondly, just because there may be difficulties with policies that put a price on carbon does not at all imply that these policies should be opposed. Thirdly, there are also political difficulties with relying on public funding to reduce emissions -- the US fiscal situation, like that of many other countries, is pretty poor and there are other areas such as health and education that also need to be funded better, Fourthly, while more funding of R&D could increase the likelihood of technologies that reduce emissions becoming cheaper, it is too late and too risky to rely on that possibility. There is already too much CO2 in the atmosphere.
    We need carbon pricing as well as technology policy.

    Permalink

    1. Teryn Norris's avatar

      Teryn Norris Posted 2:32 pm
      02 Aug 2009

      Breakthrough Institute does in fact support a price on carbon, contrary to the unfortunate (and sometimes willful) mis-characterizations of our position.  We've made this clear in our two-page policy recommendations brief and our "Let the Record Stand."  We also strongly advocate for major public investment in the direct deployment of low-carbon energy technology, not only R&D, consistently advocating that the federal government invest $30 billion per year in the deployment of low-carbon energy sources (along with $15 billion per
      year in clean energy R&D). Unfortunately, Joe Romm repeatedly misrepresents our
      position on this front, falsely claiming that we are only for radical breakthroughs in technology driven by basic R&D. 
      Whereas the Breakthrough Institute strongly supports public
      investment in deployment, Romm consistently recycles his assertion that
      no significant technological breakthroughs are necessary to successfully tackle the
      global energy and climate challenge, contradicting the world's top energy experts, including Secretary Steven Chu and the International Energy Agency.  Jesse Jenkins highlighted
      this issue in a posted titled "Is Joe Romm an Energy Challenge Denier?" (It received no response or clarification from Joe.)
      Time Magazine published an article yesterday further highlighting the need for direct public investment in energy technology innovation, titled "U.S. Lags in Clean Energy Research & Development," highlighting Secretary Chu's energy innovation hubs proposal and echoing our call in the San Francisco Chronicle for greater public investment to drive the transition to a clean energy economy and win the clean energy race.  The Time article is just one more indication that federal investment is critical for driving this transition and the Waxman-Markey bill must be strengthened to meet this goal and win the clean energy race.

      Permalink

  13. sunflower's avatar

    sunflower Posted 6:19 am
    02 Aug 2009

    Greenwash is more dangerous than denial and delay. It seduces us to think something effective is being done. The price and availability of dirty energy was a strong motivator for alternatives, more so than the price and availability of clean energy. When oil was $147/bbl last year the market went nuts for new alternatives. Now at $60/bbl the market is flat. Cutting the cost of low-carbon energy in half does little to stimulate the market due to the resistance to change. The US spends something like $700 billion per year on fossil fuels, and that does not include the cost of burners. Doubling that cost with carbon taxes would make the government the enemy. And what about India and China? The one motivation we can all count on is making money. Demonstrating rich profits with clean energy would scale globally. A simple three year payback against today's fossil energy prices, without subsidies, using technologies that make 100% profits for suppliers would scale very fast around the world, especially Asia. Our lives depend on this. It is amazing what we can do when the government is involved developing new ideas, there are lots of historical examples.

    Permalink

  14. Billhook Posted 7:31 am
    02 Aug 2009

    Sunflower - there is a class of greenwash that is at least as dangerously seductive in fomenting inaction as the usual versionit is the claim that all problems will be solved via new inventions, so we need only to get govt focussed on encouraging them.It is bullshit of course.First, the largest owner of Sustainable Energy patents on the planet is not America, it is Saudi Arabia.Second, why would the vested fossil fuel interests allow a world-changing invention to be demonstrated and so  put them out of business overnight ?Third, why would developing nations, or developed nations for that matter, become clients of US tech, rather than holding out for their own inventions ?Since it ain't going to happen, I'll not bother with the further constraints, such as the fact that we need global agreement to peak global GHG output by 2015..I'd just point out that the techno-cornucopian outlook you promote is a classic ploy of the many fossil energy shills around here.Regards,Billhook

    Permalink

  15. cleanwater&air; Posted 8:51 am
    02 Aug 2009

    It is interesting to observe how many fools exist in this world,P.T.Barnam was right there are a million fools born every day and most of them are on web-sites like this.  There is more and more scientific information available that proves that the Man-made global warming is now going to become the global cooling histaria when people learn that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairly-tale.Intelligent use of all forms of energy is important but as long as supposedly intelligent people thing that CO2 at 320 ppm can cause Earth temperature to rise less that 1 degree over a 150 year period is important nothing of any value will be done.

    Permalink

  16. sunflower's avatar

    sunflower Posted 9:00 am
    02 Aug 2009

    Have you looked at the wind resource, the solar resource, the geothermal resource, the potential for efficiency. Hope is not greenwash. New is relative to the observer. My passive home would seem like new to the uninitiated. It uses 80% less energy (with no pv). During our Seattle heat wave 100+ F our home never went above 70 F (no air conditioners). All efficiency. To match $700b per year fossil energy we will need $700b per year of cost effective clean energy investments. Maybe less because clean energy is often cheaper. Saudi Arabia does not own most of the patents. I know the Sauds, they want the world to use clean energy and become less dependent on oil. I will agree that our government has been corrupted by large corporate interests, including oil, gas, and coal. Their most effective subversion ploy is to promote expensive alternatives and marginalize cost effective alternatives. That leaves most of the public convinced that clean energy is expensive. I know solar best. In Colorado climate one square meter (about 11 sq.ft.) of sunlight per year contains more energy than one barrel of oil. So, how much does one square meter of mirror cost? How cheap can it get?

    Permalink

  17. sunflower's avatar

    sunflower Posted 6:29 am
    03 Aug 2009

    America confronts three interrelated crises: an economic crisis, a climate crisis and an energy security crisis. We believe there's a fourth: a competitiveness crisis. This crisis is particularly evident in America's worldwide standing in the next great global industry, green technology.Energy in the United States costs more than $1 trillion a year -- for oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewables. This is on top of a similar sum spent on the things that use this energy -- our homes, shops, factories and cars. That means about $2 trillion a year is at stake right here.By John Doerr and Jeff Immelthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/02/AR2009080201563.html

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement