Governor Ed Rendell said that we're in an "ongoing battle" to get America to concentrate on renewable and alternative energy. According to Rendell, we are facing four major challenges - the need to boost our economy, improve the environment, better withstand natural disasters, and enhance our foreign policy/national security - all of which can be addressed by going green.
In Rendell's opinion, this is an issue of will, we need a Manhattan Project and we need to make up for valuable lost time from the Bush administration. The short-term economic recovery plan should include a green energy/green jobs component, but this is a long-term program. We can't let the financial crisis deter us. In fact, a lot of what we need to do - such as renewable energy and fuel portfolio standards - won't require federal money. Others, such as federal investment in energy research and infrastructure, will require money (but will be worth it). We definitely need to make renewable energy tax credits permanent. We also need to invest in research on carbon capture and sequestration, as we are the "Saudi Arabia of coal" and this is a potential path to energy independence.
On infrastructure, Rendell believes we should invest in a way that helps us become greener (e.g., high-speed heavy-load freight trains). We need mass transit, light rail, inter-city rail, city-to-city high-speed rail (we're the only developed country without one, and it's a disgrace). It all starts with leadership, the federal government can do this, but we've got to do it in a big way and not get "sticker shock."
Tom Friedman says that we've lost our groove as a country, that we need to get it back, and that energy is the way to do it. This country is exploding with innovation from the ground up, but Washington hasn't been helpful. It's time for an energy technology (ET) revolution on a planet that is increasingly "hot" (global warming), "flat" (more people entering the middle class and consuming like Americans) and "crowded" (population has exploded since Friedman was born).
Today, we've gone from 2 1/2 "Americums" (the equivalent of 300 million Americans consuming like Americans) to 9 "Americums." This has fueled the "raging fire" of five global problems: 1) booming energy and natural resource demand; 2) the rise of petrodictatorships in Russia, Iran, etc.; 3) climate change; 4) energy poverty; and 5) tremendous loss of biodiversity, mass extinction.
How to look at this list? Either we're "toast" or it's a list of "incredible opportunities masquerading as insoluable problems." The thing is, the five global problems all have the same solution: abundant, cheap, clean, reliable electrons. The country that builds this next, great global industry will be the most prosperous and secure. That country HAS TO BE the United States.
Friedman concluded by asserting that we need to redefine "green" from being wimpy, tree hugging, etc. to being geostrategic, patriotic, capitalistic, a source of national power, the pathway to renew America, the "new red, white and blue." We need to build a coalition that can lick this problem in the time frame needed.
Carol Browner asked Rendell and Friedman how we can engage Congress on this issue, given that "time is of the essence."
Rendell responded that when he speaks to people about energy, the biggest applause line is "not having to buy oil from the Arabs." Rendell says we should "ride that baby." The #2 applause line is jobs, but we need to spell out clearly for people where "green jobs" will come from. The key is presidential leadership, which is why this was an election "we couldn't afford to lose." Whatever we do, "it has to be big" and "bold."
Friedman responded to Browner's question by emphasizing the urgency of the situation, pointing out that mother nature is "all about chemistry, biology and physics," that it doesn't take a break, and that "it always bats last." The power of the bully pulpit is key. Unfortunately, Carol Browner's successors at EPA have been in the witness protection program.
The floor was then opened to audience questions. Here are a few highlights:
*Browner was asked about challenges for the next EPA head. She pointed out that the EPA is filled with excellent public servants, and that they'll get the job done once the EPA reasserts its historical focus.
*Rendell said he will NOT be the next Energy Secretary, in part because he's got a conservative Republican as his lieutenant governor.
*Rendell said we need a National Energy Council because the issue cuts across so many agencies.
*Browner said there is tremendous interest on the Hill in putting a significant green component in the economic stimulus package.
*Rendell said that tomorrow, the National Governors Association will meet with President-elect Obama and "offer our help" on the energy issue. Governors can be "enormously helpful" in selling this to the American people.
*Freidman said that we need a price signal (e.g., a carbon tax, gasoline at $3 or $4 per gallon). Without it, our chances of getting a green revolution going are "de minimus."
*Friedman said he's had it with all the Earth Day concerts and other gimmicks. Instead of Facebook, we need to be in peoples' faces in the cloakrooms where the rules are written. That's more important that 1,000 Earth Day concerts.
*Rendell said that Obama should use his enormous list of supporters to "get in the cloakroom."
Controlling consumption presents its own problem. Something like 70% of our GDP is consumer driven consumption. If our economy does not grow by this consumption based model we rely on now, how do we raise peoples' living standards and keep people employed?
I agree with Friedman 100% on setting price signals. I like a carbon tax more than cap & trade (the more complex carbon tax), but cap & trade is what we are going to get and I can live with that. We need to find the willpower to set the gas tax at a level that keeps retail prices of gasoline steady and at a level that encourages alternatives and conservation. But I doubt in either Washington or Richmond there is that willpower.
All that said, changing how we power the economy still leaves a lot of other issues to deal with. After oil and coal, there will still be a finite amount of minerals that can be mined to feed increasing demand. There will still be only a finite amount of arable land, grazing land, and potable water. There will still be the issue of how cheap Cashmere from China is growing the size of the Gobi Desert. Energy will certainly greatly contribute to solving the greenhouse gas issue (though you still have those factory hog farms in North Carolina producing all that methane which is far more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, do they have to buy emission credits?). However, it is not a panacea.
There are just a ton of problems. It's hard to see how you address all of these adequately.
Tackling our energy problems won't solve everything, but it is by far the biggest part of the equation. Almost everything we do in modern life is tied to energy production and consumption.
Ultimately, renewable energy will be cheap -- the sun or wind don't charge us anything for use -- but the dilemma is that we have to get over an enormous speed bump of infrastructure investment before we get to that idyllic future. (Needless to say, if we had continued the programs Jimmy Carter started in the '70s, we would be much of the way there today, but don't get me started...)
Re: consumption, we need to radically rethink it. What people demand and want is quality of life. The problem is, that they've been trained to think that they can find it at Wal-Mart and Chuck-E-Cheese. The question is, how do we create value that is non-destructive? There are examples out there, from "negawatts" to community-supported agriculture to the growing market for green goods and services. A new economic model is possible.
You're absolutely right that it won't be easy. But tackling this mega-complex of problems requires taking the bold, caution-to-the-wind approach of youth, not the furrowed brow approach of the worried elder. We need to plunge into the deep end and start wrestling with all of these problems enthusiastically and without hesitation.