Should the Government Invest in Green Energy? >
U.S. Investment in Clean Energy Production Is a Must
Handouts prop up nuclear, coal, and oil, so why not new technology?
January 18, 2012
About James Gerstenzang:
James Gerstenzang, who formerly covered the White House and the environment for the Los Angeles Times, is the campaign’s editorial director.
About Daniel Becker:
Dan Becker directs the Safe Climate Campaign, which supports strong action to fight global warming.
What do we get for the government's investment in green energy? A stronger economy, competitive industries, and, of course, a leg up against global warming pollution.
And if the government gives up? More oil wars, more pollution, and a continuing addiction to fossil fuels.
In short, U.S. investment in new, clean energy production and advanced transportation—whether wind and solar power or efficient cars—is imperative.
For already-delivered benefits, look to the nearest roadway. Ten years ago, tax incentives encouraged consumers to buy the new hybrid cars that automakers were just introducing to American drivers. Now, thanks to incentives, hybrids--while far from ubiquitous--are increasingly common on the nation's roads.
[See a collection of political cartoons on energy policy.]
In coming years, hybrids are expected to build their share of the market to become a majority of the new cars and trucks. They will get a boost from the government's strong mileage and emissions standards, which set automakers on a path toward vehicles that will be cleaner and cheaper to drive.
It's all about good choices and smart investments. A George W. Bush administration program funnels $25 billion directly to automakers and suppliers to support production of such clean, advanced-technology cars as plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, and the batteries on which they rely.
But if we step away from the challenge, we'll cede a once-thriving American auto industry to even stronger foreign competition than it faces today. If you don't believe us, just ask the homegrown entrepreneurs who are struggling to compete with China's solar industry.
Certainly not every government program that has invested in green energy has borne fruit. But critics are wrongly citing Solyndra as a reason to quash government support for any form of energy they oppose.
[Check out the U.S. News Energy Intelligence blog.]
Meanwhile, those who attack subsidies for new technologies are silent about tens of billions of dollars that prop up the coal, oil, gas, and nuclear industries. Subsidies for these mature technologies? Yes. Aren't depletion allowances, royalties, and plain old preferential capital gains treatment subsidies? Take the nuclear industry. Private insurers won't. So, it relies on the government for insurance. Handouts all. Where's the outrage?
Without subsidies helping green industry today, consider the options for tomorrow: Our advanced-technology cars and trucks will come from China—or we will rely on increasingly aging systems built by an uncompetitive GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Would you buy a car today that hasn't been improved since 1997?
The same goes for energy production. What worked to get hybrid cars off the starting line can work for wind and solar power now. Our children's futures depend on it.
- Read the U.S. News debate: Should offshore drilling be expanded?
- Join the debate on Facebook.
- Follow U.S. News Debate Club on Twitter
- Other Arguments
-
#26654
Yes — Green energy investments pay off in the long run
CHRISTOPH STEFES, Professor at University of Colorado, Denver
-
#38374
No — Market, not subsidies, should determine the role of green energy in U.S. economy
NICOLAS LORIS, Policy Analyst at the Heritage Foundation
-
#46864
No — Uncle Sam is a lousy investor and a terrible venture capitalist
DANIEL KISH, Senior Vice President for Policy at the Institute for Energy Research
-
#54950
Yes — Research, development are key to solving U.S. energy needs
MAUREEN RENO, Energy Economist at the Union of Concerned Scientists
-
#64851
Yes — Government has played an important role in supporting emerging industries critical to prosperity and security
STEVEN CHU, U.S. Secretary of Energy
-
#74665
No — If green energy is commercially promising, then profit-hungry capitalists will make those investments
JERRY TAYLOR, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute
-
#82951
Yes — Forget Solyndra: Conventional fuels get more handouts than clean energy does
ERIC POOLEY, Vice President for Strategy and Communications at the Environmental Defense Fund
Reader Comments Read all comments (2)
R.L. Schaefer of CA 12:50PM January 22, 2012
J. Russell of OK 12:24AM January 20, 2012