Debate Club

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.

Tags:
energy
Other Arguments
#2

Yes — Green energy investments pay off in the long run

CHRISTOPH STEFES, Professor at University of Colorado, Denver

#3
#3

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

#5

Yes — Research, development are key to solving U.S. energy needs

MAUREEN RENO, Energy Economist at the Union of Concerned Scientists

#6
#7
#8

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

About Debate Club

A meeting of the sharpest minds on the day's most important topics, Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. Read the arguments, then vote. And be sure to check back often to see who has gotten the most support—and also to see what's being discussed now in the Debate Club.

Have ideas about what the Club should be debating? E-mail it to dclub@usnews.com.

You can also join the debate on Facebook or follow Debate Club on Twitter.

Advertisement
Cartoons
Thomas Jefferson Street Blog
IRS, AP and Benghazi Show the Failure of Obama's Big Government

Giving an inefficient organization like the IRS more responsibility makes it more likely to screw up, not better able to solve this nation’s problems.

Coburn Wants Oklahoma Tornado Aid Offset With Budget Cuts

Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn wants spending cuts before aid is sent to tornado victims in his own state.

Crowdfunding Zack Braff's Film And Robert Griffin's Gifts Is a Mistake

Rich people don't need donations from the public.

Poll Shows Americans Find Obama's IRS Story Barely Believable

There is still something fishy about the scandal at the IRS.

Do Benghazi, AP and IRS Scandals Reflect Obama’s Leadership Style?

It may be that a flawed leadership style is filtering down to the rest of the government.

In Marine Umbrella Incident, Republicans Still Deny Obama Is President

Umbrellagate is more proof that Obama's critics cannot acknowledge that he is, indeed, president.

Obama Isn't Nixon, but Needs More Friends in Washington

President Barack Obama needs to make more friends in Washington.

Republicans Can't Forget the Economy During Obama Scandals

Scandals provide good fodder for the GOP, but it can't forget about fixing unemployment.

Advertisement