The following is an elaborated version of the brief talk I gave at my Netroots Nation panel.
The U.S. economy is in serious trouble, mired in a period of slow growth and high prices -- i.e., stagflation. Worse, high prices can largely be traced to escalating fossil fuel costs that are almost certain to continue rising for the foreseeable future.
Our trade debt is enormous, as we, in Gore's words, borrow money from China to buy oil from Saudi Arabia. We're shedding jobs -- according to economist Dean Baker, it's increasingly possible that total job growth under eight years of Bush will come in under the average single-year job growth under Clinton. Median wages have barely kept pace with inflation. The inequality gap is enormous and growing. Consumers are swamped in debt and losing confidence. This generation may be the first in a long while to leave the U.S. worse off than they found it.
It's grim. What should be done?
We have to attack both sides of the stagflation problem, by boosting growth and taking the sting out of energy costs.
Where can we find new sources of economic growth?
One obvious answer is energy itself, which according to VC guru John Doerr is a $6 trillion global business (makes IT look like peanuts). Right now that industry is almost completely dominated by fossil fuels (80 percent worldwide, 85 percent in the U.S.), and every country on the planet is looking to rapidly diversify. In other words, there's a market for non-fossil energy sources and energy efficiency that is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited.
And the shift away from fossil fuels is just getting started. That means there's a chance to get on board the rocket just as it takes off. Three strategies suggest themselves (sketched here in the most general terms):
- Seed the cutting edge. In the energy revolution, we're where the internet was in about 1995. There's an enormous wave of innovation coming. We should make sure a good chunk of it happens here by dumping big money into R&D, opening our absurd immigration system to engineers and entrepreneurs from abroad, and making our cities attractive to the "clusters" that foster innovation.
- Nurture nascent industries. Too many new ideas get stuck in the lab and never make the leap across the "valley of death" to market viability. Public policy can help remedy this problem in a number of ways. Directly, it can offer tax credits and subsidies that encourage nascent technologies (think Germany's feed-in tariff). Indirectly, it can create favorable market conditions by driving demand (public procurement, efficiency and output-based standards, RPS's) and internalizing fossil fuel externalities (carbon tax or cap-and-trade). Policy can also help foster rapid scale-up by sending money to community colleges, vocational schools, and job training programs, to help labor supply keep up with demand (it already isn't, and we're barely getting started).
- Drive down energy demand. There is no faster or more reliable way to help consumers get back on their feet than to help them reduce their exposure to volatile, rising energy prices that fluctuate based on events completely out of their control. And what helps consumers also helps the economy as a whole. Methods of increasing energy efficiency -- providing the same standard of living uses less primary energy -- are all but limitless. While the public generally thinks of efficiency in terms of individual products like lightbulbs and vehicles, there are also ways of making buildings, neighborhoods, and cities more efficient, with retrofits and higher building standards, more transportation options like car sharing and public transit, improved materials and water management, and smarter electrical grids. To wring these efficiencies out, we'll have to spend a great deal of money on infrastructure, thoughtfully remove regulatory barriers, and boost output-based standards in every sector.
These strategies will create new industries and new jobs, allow us to reduce the trade deficit, strengthen the dollar, and give the U.S. economy a stability and resiliency it can never achieve while its fate is tied to the vagaries of increasingly brittle international fossil fuel markets.
If you think of the U.S. "productivity recipe" as some mix of labor, energy, and capital, you can think of the way forward as using less energy and more labor. (The fossil fuel sector demonstrates extraordinarily low labor intensity. A dollar of investment moved from that sector to virtually any other -- in this case R&E -- yields up to seven times more jobs, according to Skip Laitner, an economist at ACEEE.)
Consider, for instance, retrofits: If we kick off a nationwide effort to retrofit the building sector for energy efficiency, we're trading a whole bunch of work (i.e. jobs) for a whole bunch of energy. With energy prices rising and a jobs crisis looming, that's an increasingly smart trade -- and as a bonus, money that would have gone to scarcity rents paid to foreign owners of oil will now go to productive domestic work. We'll be moving from a low-wage, high-waste economy to a high-wage, low-waste economy, and getting economic growth, security, and resilience in the bargain.
As economic development policy, as industrial policy, as urban policy, it's a no-brainer. And here's the punchline: Nowhere in the pitch do I use the word "green." Nowhere do I mention climate change or polar bears. You don't need them, and they don't help.
As Van Jones once told me, "For people with a bunch of opportunity, you tell them about the crisis. For people with a bunch of crisis, you tell them about the opportunities." America has a bunch of crisis. These are the opportunities.
Comments
View as Threaded
amazingdrx Posted 3:48 am
23 Jul 2008
And inflation, based in energy price and basic commodiity prices soaring and currency under pressure from huge national debt and trade deficit, stagflation takes over.
This is the job creating, stimulating, economic/energy policy Obama needs to hear about, from Gore, Lester Brown, Amory Lovins, Dave Roberts, Joe Romm,and others.
Get a good crew of advisors Barack. Cheney had his secret energy meeting with big oil, coal, and nuclear power industry execs.
Why not have a public meeting during the campaign, do the opposite. Take a cue from Larry David (George Costanza). Just do the opposite of everything McBush would do.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
gmobus Posted 4:36 am
23 Jul 2008
An Introduction to Ecological Economics
by Robert Costanza, John H Cumberland, Herman Daly, Robert Goodland, Richard B Norgaard. ISBN-10: 1884015727
I submit that our historic attitude that economic growth is a good thing is flawed. If you meant development, i.e. improvements in well being of all people without increasing the throughput of energy and materials, then disregard.
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Millstone Posted 5:12 am
23 Jul 2008
I think it is both admirable and neccesary to get away from such vague definitions. In my opinion green, renewable, sustainable etc. are becoming way too overexposed and are, if they haven't already, losing all real meaning.
Sitting at the Al Gore speech here in D.C last week I couldn't help but wonder if the majority of people supporting the environmental movement need those words though.
Most people don't want to learn the details behind cap-and-trade, electricity grids, PHEVs etc. Basically learning why something is "green" or whatever other similarly vague term you want to use. This is why the audience was overly impressed but many, many "experts" in the field were very skeptical.
They just want to know that it is, and then to talk about how great it is and hold it over friends and neighbors.
Perhaps I'm just being too cynical but it does seem like a lot of people are on board due to the status that comes with being associated "green" causes brings. Will people continue to be interested without buzz words and imagery?
Frankly I don't think we want people who are only in it for the image, since if they outnumber the rational thinkers, the risk of making poor decisions might be expected to increase.
Kudos on the plan!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:13 am
23 Jul 2008
Another place were this works is in agriculture. As Sharon Astyk and Richard Heinberg have argued, in a carbon-free economy, agriculture will have to become much more labor-intensive. But a carbon-free agriculture will provide better (organic, healthier,local therefore better tasting) food, thus health costs will go down, as will food costs, while job opportunities will rise.
Permalink