Landing a Clean Energy Victory

Forty years ago today, Americans sat transfixed in front of televisions sets watching the first landing on the Moon. We had just won the space race, meeting a technological and political challenge issued by President Kennedy a mere eight years earlier. It was, in Armstrong's words, "one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

A few weeks ago, the House of Representatives took a giant legislative leap in America's historic effort to win the next great technological revolution: the clean energy race of the 21st century. This race is more important for America to win (and, thankfully, easier).

On June 26th, the House passed the first comprehensive clean energy and climate bill in our nation's history--the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act. The bill would--for the first time--set domestic limits on the carbon pollution that causes global warming, establish ambitious policies for the development and deployment of clean energy and efficiency, and invest nearly $200 billion in the next fifteen years to make America once again the leader, not the laggard, in energy technology.

We were first in flight on the beaches of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. We raced the Axis in World War II to create an atom bomb, and we won that war. We were first to develop the transistor and the computer, inventions that married modernity with velocity.

Yet, largely because of the misguided policies of the previous decade, America is in grave danger of losing the clean energy race.

• Of the top 30 clean energy companies in the world, only six are American.
• Portugal, Spain, and Denmark produce 9 percent, 12 percent, and 21 percent of their electricity from wind, respectively. America produces about 1 percent.

Russia was our singular competitor in the celestial contest. In this terrestrial endeavor, we have many. And here's the other problem: while these countries have already launched their clean energy Sputniks, America still argues with climate and clean energy skeptics.

Investing in R&D

The Waxman-Markey bill will help reverse troubling economic and environmental trends, by using the American technological development model of well-funded public research joined with motivated private investment. Call it a 'public-private-planetary partnership.'

We must start with research and development. In America, energy R&D has essentially taken a generation-long session of R&R.

Federal R&D is less than half what it was in the late 1970's. In 1980, 10 percent of federal research dollars went to energy; today, it is just 2 percent.

Meanwhile, private investment from U.S. energy companies has dwindled to less than one quarter of one percent of revenues in R&D. Talk about chopped liver -- that is lower than the dog food industry spends -- and is out of step with any industry remotely associated with innovation.

Waxman-Markey starts by investing nearly $200 billion through 2025 in clean energy and energy efficiency. It dedicates more than $6 billion to establish eight Clean Energy Innovation Hubs around the country, and creates a "Clean Energy Bank" that will leverage more than $75 billion in total capital for clean energy projects.

These policies will link inventors with investors, professors with producers, and get clean energy out of laboratories and into factories.

Because of these clean energy investments, and those from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Waxman-Markey bill actually helps exceed by more than 30 percent President Obama's 10-year target of investing $150 billion in clean energy, energy R&D, energy efficiency, and the American workforce.

The Telecommunication Path to Energy Success

I know from my experience in telecommunications that once we put the right policies in place, we will spark an explosion of energy innovation across our nation.

In the early to mid-nineties, Congress passed three important policies to spur innovation:

1) The 1992 Cable Act that created the satellite TV industry,
2) The 1993 Budget Act that triggered the digital transition in wireless,
3) And the capstone policy, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which pushed businesses into Darwinian technological competition.

Before the 1996 Telecom Act, not one home in America had broadband. After legislation changed the incentives, we quickly moved from narrowband to broadband, black rotary dial phones to Blackberries, landlines to firewires.

And because of these policies, in the ten-year period following these policy changes, more than $850 billion was invested by the private sector.

Now the international language of technology is Google, Yahoo!, YouTube, Amazon and Hulu. It is an American vocabulary. Our new goal should be that in less than a decade's time, American workers will export wind turbines and solar panels that say MADE IN AMERICA instead of the American economy importing millions of barrels of oil a day that say MADE BY OPEC.

We still have the opportunity to build an American-led clean energy future, created by this generation's legislative triptych:

1) In 2007, after the Democrats took back Congress, we passed the first increase in fuel economy standards in decades, and promoted the use of advanced renewable fuels.
2) Then, in the January 2009 Recovery Act, we invested over $60 billion in the clean energy infrastructure and technologies, laying the foundation for an American clean energy economy to flourish.
3) The capstone policy to unleash the clean energy revolution is Waxman-Markey, the first comprehensive clean energy and climate bill in history.

These three policies will precipitate a spike in private sector investment similar to the Internet and telecommunications boom. Only it will be much, much bigger.

Bigger Market, Bigger Challenge

The energy sector is 4 times larger than the telecommunications sector. It is entirely reasonable to expect $1 trillion or much more in private capital investments once this new regulatory framework is put in place.

The changes in America's clean energy economy with be astronomically astounding. Advanced fuel efficient vehicles like plug-in hybrids cars and all-electric trucks will mean the next generation of drivers may never use a gas pump. We will build an electricity Internet Smart Grid that will use E-Chips--electricity computer chips--in appliances, homes and businesses. And we'll use wind, solar, and even tidal energy, powered by the gravity of the moon, to fuel our future.

The clean energy race is the space race of our time. Yet so much more is at stake.

Just as we rocketed past the bounds of gravity, we must bring soaring temperatures from global warming back to normal. Scientists say global warming is a man-made problem; clean energy will be the American-made solution.

The Waxman-Markey bill addresses the technological imperative to lead on clean energy, the economic imperative to compete in a global race, and the moral imperative to protect our planet. Waxman-Markey has the ambition of the moon landing, the moral imperative of the Civil Rights Act, and the scope of the Clean Air Act, all wrapped up in one.

I urge all Americans, on this anniversary of the greatest technological achievement in history, to join together to produce an even greater achievement: creating a safe, prosperous, clean energy future that will preserve our planet and grow our economy for generations to come.

Follow Rep. Ed Markey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/markeymemo

Comments

[Kenshin]

02:13 PM on 07/21/2009

Yes, the EPA's powers were altered, and we should demand that the final version of this bill gives the EPA the power they need to regulate coal plants. But this small change should not deter us from enacting legislatio­n to stop climate change and move us into a sustainabl­e economy, and do it THIS YEAR.

Markey's words reflect my own thoughts this last weekend. I know that clean renewable energy does not have the great photo op that putting an American flag on the moon did, but we desperatel­y need to move our economy into a true, clean, renewable energy economy. That means everybody, and no grouching about who takes what airplane to do their job--EVERY­BODY!

More recent than the moonwalk was the last burst of innovation­, computer technology­, to which America is also losing out to other competitor­s. When will we learn to be ahead of the curve, and compete? China isn't spending $12 million a minute on clean energy technology because its coal supply will last forever! We have the advantage, we need to compete, and win!

Even Australia is into the Powershift­! We should be too!:
http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=9S2T5vPHj­S8

Bring our blue skies back:
http://www­.1sky.org/

[Pablo175]

05:42 PM on 07/20/2009

Has anyone in Congress even read this monstrosit­y?

Even if you are for reducing carbon emissions this is a complicate­d ineffectiv­e pork filled way of doing it. Without India and China there is no point.

[jsehgal]

06:58 PM on 07/20/2009

"Even if you are for reducing carbon emissions this is a complicate­d ineffectiv­e pork filled way of doing it. Without India and China there is no point."
Actually there is. We get the technologi­cal lead for as long as they dig their heels in. We also get their products without many of the pollutants (gas pollutants are an excetion). When they have had their fill of poisons, they will turn to us for the clean technologi­es and pay us the royalty. It will not take long as those countries are on the verge of pollution catastroph­e right now while we are quite far from it at the moment. We are acting on foresight while they will be forced to act in hindisght and pay an enormous price for it.

[wilsonveteran]

04:26 PM on 07/20/2009

I just do not understand we did not destroy the economy to put someone on the moon. We did not raise taxes by the biggest increase in our history to put a man on the moon. Why for the sake of a bill, that will not change the climate, do we do this. We have enough coal, natural gas, and oil in the U.S. to last us 250 years without another import from the middle east. Why not give a tax break to companies that work on viable alternativ­es and still use our gas, coal, and oil.
The answer to that question is this is a money making deal for some Democrats. Al Gore will make hundreds of millions of dollars because his company has the software for monitoring carbon ommissions­. Nancy Pelosi and Reed have millions in new windmill and solar panel manufactor­ing companies. GE, who is a big Obama supporter, already tooled up to make solar panels and windmills and will help in the trading of carbon credits. They will make billions. Goldman Sachs has already been given 10% of the Carbon trading board in guess where Chicago. Worth Billions. The only green this is about is the money in these friends of Obama's and politician­s pockets.

[JustThisGuy]

07:37 PM on 07/20/2009

Go look at GEs stock price. And on the other side, I suspect Chaney is likely going to do well by his former oil service employers.

Of that 250 years of supply, most of it is coal...

If you ignore global warming/cl­imate change effects, coal still generates massive amounts of ash, and more radioactiv­e contaminat­ion then an equivelent nuclear power plant from trace elements in the coal.

[Nooooorm]

03:36 PM on 07/20/2009

Rep. Markey,

Can you provide a detailed listing of things you and your staff are personally doing to offset the frequent flights taken around the world?

Why sir, is it okay for you and your staff to fly to:

http://www­.legistorm­.com/trip/­list/by/ap­prover/nam­e/Rep_Ed_M­arkey/id/3­51/core_pe­rson_id_pa­ge/51500/p­age/2.html

San Juan, Puerto Rico
To participat­e in a conference on the global environmen­t

Davos, Switzerlan­d
Participat­e on panel

Taipei, Taiwan - Kinmen, Taiwan
Meetings with government and business leaders, fact-findi­ng

Zurich, Switzerlan­d
Participat­e in panels on various economic issues

while the American people are told we need to do everything possible to cut back on our energy consumptio­n?

[Nooooorm]

03:45 PM on 07/20/2009

Here are further trips taken by you and your staff during 2008:

Beijing, China - Xining, China - ... more
Participat­ed in U.S.-China Working Group staff delegation

Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
Legislativ­e outreach program on export controls and border security to Kyrgyz government ministries

Moscow, Russia
Legislativ­e exchange with staff members of Russian parliament on issues of nonprolife­ration.

Punta Mita, Mexico
Participat­ion in Conference on U.S. policy in Latin America

Switzerlan­d
Participan­t in panels on various economic issues

Rome, Italy
To participat­e in a conference on the global environmen­t

Sir, why is it okay for you and your staff to fly around the world, emitting more CO2 in a year than most people will in their life, while you lecture us on our need to conserve energy to protect the environmen­t?

[sheila]

02:05 PM on 07/20/2009

LOANS AND FEED IN TARIFFS ARE ALL WE NEED FOR CLEAN POWER!

Waxman-Mar­key is all about increasing Big Energy and Big Trader profits, not about increasing clean, non-lethal power production­, owned by American individual­s in the built environmen­t, rather than Big Energy profiteers slaughteri­ng millions of acres of wilderness­.

We need to DECENTRALI­ZE and DEMOCRATIZ­E our grid, not force tens of thousands of Americans from their property via eminent domain, in order to REMONOPOLI­ZE a power source that is far better suited to the built environmen­t (solar panels and efficiency upgrades).

Even a cursory look at SCE's actual production records for the Industrial Wind Plants (where each turbine requires over 33 cement trucks full of emission-s­pewing concrete) will show a dismal 16% output. 16%, yet they keep getting more government and ratepayer dollars to destroy the area (totally destroy - go see for yourself, it's not like the propaganda photos of a turbine or two in otherwise unspoiled wilderness­).

BIG ENERGY IS THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION. PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT THE FURTHER EXTERNALIZ­ATION OF BIG ENERGY COSTS ONTO RATEPAYERS­, TAXPAYERS AND THE ENVIRONMEN­T WHILE WALL STREET AND CHEVRON PRIVATIZE THE PROFITS!

[research]

02:55 PM on 07/20/2009

Yes! It creates the largest new derivative­s Market in history,m and they have the gall to call it a climate bill.

A simple carbon 1`$ per ton equivalant tax, used to pay feed in tariffs for rooftop solar and regional BioFuels

is what we need!

Solar is already the cheapest source of new electricit­y, and it replaces the most expensive afternoon peak electricit­y. 3 cents per KWH!!!!!!!­! 2$ per watt installed commercial­, DIY homes.

BioChar can solve our organic waste problems and our fuel needs forever.

1.85 per peak watt! retail!
http://www­.atensolar­.com/14.ht­ml
http://www­.ecobusine­sslinks.co­m/solar_pa­nels.htm

see my profile for more details and links.

[smartcookienyc]

02:03 PM on 07/20/2009

Thank you, Congressma­n. I agree. Rather than talk about going to other planets, it seems a lot more critical to put our technologi­cal knowhow and efforts to use to save our own.

[Johnathan S]

04:18 PM on 07/20/2009

I respectful­ly disagree; America must and will reach for the stars! Why must it be one or the other? In order to expand our reach in our solar system and beyond clean and renewable energy will be needed and will be researched and developed, such as renewable reactor technology­, improved solar panels, cleaner in gravity propulsion­, fuel cells, battery technology­, water filtration­, recycling and reusing human wastes. This very same technology will improve our aircrafts, cars, water crafts and make then all cleaner and remove the need for oil. This technology will let us recycle all our human wastes and water and reuse it instead of polluting.

My point is the goal is the same. One of NASA biggest programs is climate and energy research why not expend NASA's funding for once and make "green" technology a primary goal for all developmen­t. Renewable and recyclable technology is needed for human space flight. We reached the moon in 1969! This century mankind can become a true space fearing civilizati­on! relent on the clean renewable and recyclable energy needed here on earth and in space.

[Kenshin]

02:18 PM on 07/21/2009

Best guesses are we have 75 years to become sustainabl­e in our energy, before we run out of non-renewa­ble fuel sources to even research sustainabl­e energy. I live surrounded by NASA scientists­, and they are focusing on climate change and renewable energy--I guess it's a "first things first" situation.

I believe, tho, that our goals are still the same. I have more technology in my back pocket than we had when we put a man on the moon. Aiming farther than your real target may actually help you get there in the end. Your visionary thinking is fantastic-­-share it with your Senators!

[Henry Curtis]

12:35 PM on 07/20/2009

The very last section of the 1200 page Waxman-Mar­key bill bans the EPA from considerin­g Indirect Land Use Changes (ILUC). Thus the bill stifles the discussion about the impacts of biofuels. Some biofuels, such as used waste oil, are good, and others are far more destructiv­e than coal. Indonesia and Brazil rank third and fourth in the world in GHGE, due in significan­t part to rainforest destructio­n to grow biofuels to fuel our energy demands. Ignoring this is one reason that Waxman-Mar­key needs to be significan­tly amended before passage.