How to achieve energy independence? Invest, baby, invest
By Jeff Bridges
The Colorado Independent
September 17, 2008
As reported in the
Colorado Independent today, the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) thinks 32,000 jobs would come to Colorado through a $100 billion
government investment in the “greenvolution” (I made that word up, not
NRDC, though it does get
338 hits on Google). With all the renewable research already taking
place in Colorado I think that number could go way higher, but more
importantly an investment in new energy technology would put America on
track for continued economic dominance in this next
major world industry.
During a recent
conversation between two of my favorite authors/analysts, Thomas
Friedman and Fareed Zakaria, neither of them held back when describing
the expected scale of this new industry. They agreed that the new
energy economy will be “enormous,
it’s actually going to dwarf all the others,” calling it “the next
great global industry.” The way Friedman put it, whichever nation takes
the lead will “enjoy more national security, more economic security,
more economic growth, a healthier population, and
greater global respect, for that matter, as well.”
From their discussion:
Friedman: What I said to
young Chinese most recently when I was just in China is this: Every
time I come to China, young Chinese say to me, “Mr. Friedman, your
country grew dirty for 150 years. Now it’s our turn.” And I say to
them, “Yes, you’re absolutely
right, it’s your turn. Grow as dirty as you want. Take your time.
Because I think we probably just need about five years to invent all
the new clean power technologies you’re going to need as you choke to
death, and we’re going to come and sell them to you.
And we’re going to clean your clock in the next great global industry.
So please, take your time. If you want to give us a five-year lead in
the next great global industry, I will take five. If you want to give
us ten, that would be even better.
But neither Friedman nor
Zakaria believe America currently has the mechanisms in place to
dominate this industry. I’m usually all for the free market doing its
thing, but sometimes we need a political push to overcome entrenched
interests. As Zakaria and
Friedman put it:
Zakaria: The rhetoric we
hear is that the market should produce new energy technologies. But the
problem is, the use of current forms of energy has an existing
infrastructure with very powerful interests that has ensured that the
government tilt the playing
field in their favor, with subsidies, tax breaks, infrastructure
spending, etc. This is one area where the Europeans have actually been
very far-sighted and have pushed their economies toward the future.
Friedman: I would say
that’s exactly right. It’s the Europeans — and the Japanese as well —
who’ve done it and they’ve done it because of the government mechanisms
you’ve highlighted. They have understood that, if you just say the
market alone will deliver
the green revolution we need, basically three things happen and none of
them are good: First, the market will drive up the price to whatever
level demand dictates. We saw oil hit $145 a barrel, and when that
happens the oil-producing countries capture most
of the profit, 90% of it. So, some of the worst regimes in the world
enjoy the biggest benefits from the market run-up.
The second thing that
happens is that the legacy oil, gas and coal companies get the other
ten percent of the profit — so companies which have no interest in
changing the system get stronger. And the third thing that happens is
something that doesn’t happen:
because you’re letting the market alone shape the prices, the market
price can go up and down very quickly. So, those who want to invest in
the alternatives really have to worry that if they make big
investments, the market price for oil may fall back on them
before their industry has had a chance to move down the learning curve
and make renewable energies competitive with oil.
…Bush and Cheney may say
the oil market is “free,” but that is a joke. It’s dominated by the
world’s biggest cartel, OPEC, and America’s biggest energy companies,
and they’ve shaped this market to serve their interests. Unless
government comes in and reshapes
it, we’re never going to launch this industry. Which is one of the
reasons I argue in the book, “Change your leaders, not your light
bulbs.” Because leaders write rules, rules shape markets, markets give
you scale.
From what I’ve read, it
looks like the NRDC plan would go a long way towards answering the
criticisms above and putting America at the head of the new energy
economy. So how would our state benefit? At a Colorado Conservation
Voters luncheon last week
(full disclosure, I’m on the board) Governor Ritter said that when he
traveled to Spain recently and bragged that Colorado has the best
renewable energy research and development in the world, they replied,
“Yeah, we know.”
So even without strong
support from the federal government Colorado leads the world in
creating new energy technologies. Imagine where we’d be with a
President who actually made this a priority!
For less than what we
spend on just a year in Iraq, Americans could eliminate our dependence
on foreign oil and build the technologies the rest of the world will
use for generations to come. As Governor Ritter likes to say, our
children will consume energy
in a very different way than we do today. Colorado and our country can
choose to lead this revolution, or we can get left behind.
Whoever wins the White
House, I hope they take a good long look at the NRDC proposal and put
boosting America’s new energy economy at the top of their priority list.

