Teryn Norris 
More About Me
Teryn Norris is a leading young writer, researcher, and policy advocate. He is a Project Director at the Breakthrough Institute, founder of the young leaders program, Breakthrough Generation, and a co-author of the National Energy Education Act proposal.
Teryn Norris’s Posts
Breakthrough's rebuttal
Joe Romm's strategy to lose the clean energy race 30
Posted 3 months, 1 week agoOn 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.). Here's our response.
Teryn Norris’s Recent Comments
Click here to view comment in original post
"Most importantly, carbon pricing (whether carbon tax or cap-and-trade) cannot do the job on its own. If complementary policies are ruled out, we’re dooming ourselves to failure. (I’m going to make this point at much more length soon. Aren’t you excited.)"
Well said, David. Carbon pricing has an important role to play, but the neoclassical economists are dead wrong that a pollution externality can be solved simply by pricing the pollutant, just as many climate advocates are wrong that it can be solved by implementing a pollution "cap." As the World Economic Forum explained in a recent report:
"Carbon prices alone, however, will not be high enough -- at least for the next few decades -- to prompt a large-scale roll-out of renewable energy... Prices will be set for many years to come by cheaper sources of credit -- energy efficiency and project-based mechanisms in the developing world. So a carbon price is an essential driver towards a lower carbon economy, but additional policy interventions will still be required."
Looking forward to your longer review of additional policy strategies.
On Economist Greg Mankiw's bottom line on climate policy: Government can't do anything right posted 2 months, 3 weeks ago 10 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
Joe, at the end of your post you assert that William and I have "utterly misrepresented" the findings of the report in our post, which is here:
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/08/tony_blair_climate_group_and_c.shtml
Perhaps you can explain your assertion. Also, given that you've strongly endorsed and advocated for ACES, which would result in a low or modest price on carbon, and given that you're proposing a price collar, perhaps you can explain your assertion that you support a "strong carbon price." Maybe you have a new definition of "strong," similar to your definitions of "breakthrough" and "decarbonization"? As you know, the Breakthrough Institute supports a modest price on carbon, with the mass majority of all revenue dedicated to clean energy technology development and deployment.
On Tony Blair, Climate Group, and CAP call for strong technology deployment policy posted 3 months ago 2 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
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.
On Joe Romm's strategy to lose the clean energy race posted 3 months, 1 week ago 30 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
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.
On Joe Romm's strategy to lose the clean energy race posted 3 months, 1 week ago 30 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
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."
On Joe Romm's strategy to lose the clean energy race posted 3 months, 1 week ago 30 Responses