Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

Help Support EcoWatch

Clean Energy Subsidies Fall Short Without Putting Proper Price on Carbon

Energy
Clean Energy Subsidies Fall Short Without Putting Proper Price on Carbon

The Brookings Institute

Apart from basic research, most subsidies directed towards clean energy without a policy that charges for carbon dioxide emissions will produce little lasting environmental benefit, constituting de-facto “industrial policy,” according to a new paper by three Brookings scholars. In fact, with a reasonable price on carbon, most such subsidies are unnecessary, they conclude.
 
Policy Director of the Brookings Center on Climate and Energy Economics Adele Morris, Senior Fellow in Governance Studies Pietro Nivola and Senior Fellow Emeritus Charles Schultze, who served as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Carter and Director of the Budget under President Johnson, find little justification for government favoritism of one sector of the economy over others, as is current U.S. policy concerning “green” energy. Instead, they argue for a carbon tax as the most effective climate policy and one that would also spur energy innovation.
 
In Clean Energy: Revisiting the Challenges of Industrial Policy, the authors compare past industrial policy to today’s clean energy policy. They also carefully examine the usual arguments used in favor of federal subsidies for green energy: energy independence, competing with foreign countries, environmental benefits and job creation/amelioration of unemployment. They find that on each criterion, the current policy fails.
 
Looking at the last time the U.S. attempted so-called “industrial policy” in the 1970s and 1980s (when Japan was considered to be the top U.S. competitor), they note that environmental projects in the Carter administration through to the Bush hydrogen car expended taxpayer dollars while delivering few commercially viable products. Looking at the energy independence argument, they point out that the only fuel that the U.S. imports is oil and that 90 percent of the U.S. supply comes from outside the Middle East and Venezuela; oil is part of a global market; and that oil use is confined to the transportation sector and that no gasoline is produced by solar, wind or geothermal.
 
Turning to the foreign competition and jobs argument, the authors note that there is a churn in employment in the U.S. and that international trade tends to reallocate rather than add or subtract overall jobs in the economy. Furthermore, “pushing home-grown technologies at taxpayers’ expense offers no guarantee that the eventual products ultimately won’t be manufactured somewhere else,” they write. “The case for consigning clean-energy development to domestic manufacturers, many of which may be high-cost producers, can disappoint on environmental grounds as well. Minimizing the cost of abatement is central to achieving environmental goals. If other countries develop lower-cost clean energy, more of it will be adopted, here and abroad. Indeed, from the standpoint of environmental quality, the willingness of other nations heavily to subsidize their clean-tech industries, thereby lowering the costs of clean energy, may ultimately enhance, not lower, U.S. welfare.”
 
They then examine how stimulus spending on energy projects compares to other forms of fiscal stimulus, finding that the Department of Energy’s $32 billion from the ARRA included substantial sums for research, which given its long time-horizon is not a form of stimulus that’s typically timely, temporary, or targeted, hence that could create and/or save jobs in the near term. They also note that almost half of the nearly $40 billion in loan guarantees in the stimulus package went to solar power and electric vehicles–two sectors with some of the highest costs of carbon abatement and the lowest projected market shares.
 
“The functional equivalent of an industrial policy, explicit or de facto, is unlikely to spur an efficient or large-scale conversion of the U.S. economy toward cleaner energy,” they conclude. Instead, they advocate for policies that can help meet the challenge of climate change–putting an effective price on carbon.

Visit EcoWatch’s ENERGY page for more related news on this topic.

A meteorologist monitors weather in NOAA's Center for Weather and Climate Prediction on July 2, 2013 in Riverdale, Maryland. Mark Wilson / Getty Images

The Trump White House is now set to appoint two climate deniers to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in one month.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

A plastic bag caught in a tree in New Jersey's Palisades Park. James Leynse / Stone / Getty Images

New Jersey is one step closer to passing what environmental advocates say is the strongest anti-plastic legislation in the nation.

Read More Show Less

Trending

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) talks to reporters during her weekly news conference at the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center on Sept. 18, 2020 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

The House of Representatives passed a sweeping bill to boost clean energy while phasing out the use of coolants in air conditioners and refrigerators that are known pollutants and contribute to the climate crisis, as the AP reported.

Read More Show Less
Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington comforts Marsha Maus, 75, whose home was destroyed during California's deadly 2018 wildfires, on March 11, 2019 in Agoura Hills, California. Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times / Getty Images

By Governor Jay Inslee

Climate Week this year coincides with clear skies in Washington state for the first time in almost two weeks.

In just a few days in early September, Washington state saw enough acres burned – more than 600,000 – to reach our second-worst fire season on record. Our worst fire season came only five years ago. Wildfires aren't new to the west, but their scope and danger today is unlike anything firefighters have seen. People up and down the West Coast – young and old, in rural areas and in cities – were choking on smoke for days on end, trapped in their homes.

Fires like these are becoming the norm, not the exception.

Read More Show Less
Four more years will be enough to cement in place Trump's anti-environmental policies and to make sure it's too late to really change course. Enrique Meseguer / Pixabay

By Bill McKibben

To understand the planetary importance of this autumn's presidential election, check the calendar. Voting ends on November 3—and by a fluke of timing, on the morning of November 4 the United States is scheduled to pull out of the Paris Agreement.

President Trump announced that we would abrogate our Paris commitments during a Rose Garden speech in 2017. But under the terms of the accords, it takes three years to formalize the withdrawal. So on Election Day it won't be just Americans watching: The people of the world will see whether the country that has poured more carbon into the atmosphere than any other over the course of history will become the only country that refuses to cooperate in the one international effort to do something about the climate crisis.

Read More Show Less

Support Ecowatch