Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Green Revolution

Scientia Potentia Est

Published: Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Updated: Monday, February 18, 2013 21:02

The role of the federal government’s involvement with green technology has faced intense scrutiny in recent years due to the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a manufacturer of solar panels that received a federal loan for $500 million.

In his book “Hot, Flat and Crowded,” New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman explains the three trends that will make green technology a thriving industry in the future. “Hot” refers to unusually high global increase in temperature that most scientists believe is due to the mass usage of fossil fuels. “Flat” refers to the increased globalization and technological advancement that has lifted hundreds of millions into the global middle class, increasing the demand for energy. “Crowded” refers to the major increase in the global population, from roughly seven billion today to 9 billion in 2050, with most growth coming from developing countries.

The new combination of hot, flat and crowded in the world will lead to more people requiring more energy, leading to a major strain on natural resources and a massive increase in the outputs that lead to global warming. To prevent this, America needs a “green revolution,” where it invests in, produces and buys energy efficient products that utilize clean sources of power. Working toward setting the conditions for a “green revolution” makes business sense and is a moral imperative.

Similar to the expansion of the railroad industry or computer industry, government investment in green technology is critical, which is why conservatives are wrong about Solyndra. The government should not cease its investment in green technology because one business failed. Not all government investments will lead to profitable companies, but government investment can help lead to scientific breakthroughs that allow the private sector to bring products to scale (the internet is the best example).  

Liberals are mistaken that government investment alone can deliver the green revolution. Government investment can help lower the costs of research and development and help drive early stage innovation, but it does not have the capability to create green products or bring them to scale. Only the private sector can accomplish this. However, the private sector currently does not invest much in energy efficiency because of the high costs of energy efficient products relative to non-efficient products.

If the price of dirty fuels could somehow be raised, then the private sector would have an incentive to invest more into green products because consumers would demand them in higher numbers. This pressure would increase innovation and help drive down the cost of green products, making them easier for consumers to purchase.

A carbon tax can help deliver this scenario. By raising the price of dirty fuels, companies and individuals will have an incentive to save energy and purchase energy efficient products. Innovators and businsess will then have an incentive to invest and spend time devising ways to increase energy efficiency using clean sources of energy. Venture capitalists and investment bankers with no concerns about the planet, climate change, clean air or future prosperity, only caring about money, will invest in green technology. This creates the best case scenario: The government setting the conditions of the marketplace and the private sector responding with increased investment and innovation. But this can only happen if green energy becomes more profitable, which can only happen if the price of dirty fuels is raised.

The most important green innovations probably will not come from Wall Street, a factory in Detroit, or a government office in Washington, but garages (where the personal computer was created) and universities (where Facebook was created). However, without the right economic conditions these life changing innovations may never have happened, depriving the world of perhaps two of the most important technological advancements ever. Imagining that the “green

Facebook” and “green Apple” (as Friedman calls them) don’t exist today because of the current market conditions is horrifying.

There is both a business case and a moral imperative for a green revolution led by America in a world that is hot, flat and crowded. If America can’t embrace it, then, as Friedman said, we will find ourselves buying less oil from Saudi Arabia and more hybrids and solar panels from China. So as both Democrats and

Republicans scuttle over the bankruptcy of Solyndra, both miss lessons that could help make America the leader of the most important industry of the 21st century.  


Adam Newman is a senior political science major. He can be reached at  anewman3@nd.edu    

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

4 comments

Anonymous
Mon Feb 25 2013 16:40
"Climate change" is a hilarious phrase! Can we at least agree on that? I would only support gas taxes if there were a ban on private jets and limousines. Force government officials, celebrities, and other rich liberals to fly efficiently via economy class and and use public transit.

Really, it seems like the goal of the Green Revolution is to ensure a lower standard of living for the middle class - to put only them in smaller cars, smaller homes, in more crime-ridden and crowded neighborhoods, and ensure they can never save enough to go on vacation, or retire. Why work when the green police ensure you will always be broke?

If I married into wealth like Thomas Friedman did, I would probably want higher gas taxes too - it keeps the plebeians off the road. Less traffic from the unwashed means my security caravan of stretch-SUVs can get from my private jet hanger to my winter home in the countryside as soon as possible. Gimme a break.

selkirks
Thu Feb 21 2013 00:29
@BSME02Irish:

1. Who is going to pay for increased healthcare to care for the additional people suffering from asthma and other contaminant-related diseases? Who is going to pay for the cost of cleanup from the larger storms and more frequent droughts caused by anthropogenic climate change (note: we're already seeing this issue with Sandy)? Who is going to pay for the gigantic economic impact that climate change will have?

2. Green energy has been in development for years, and they can compete with current energy sources if we make them competitive. In fact, last month, in January 2013, 100% of the energy capacity added in the United States was renewable. 100%. Clearly, something's working.

3. Gas prices increasing is definitely a regressive effect on the poor, because they shoulder more of the burden, by percentage, than those with money.

I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no reason that we aren't doing anything about climate change, and it disgusts me that something as simple as the continuity of our species in a diverse ecological environment has been construed into a political problem.

Anonymous
Tue Feb 19 2013 18:14
You're deluded if you think green energy is going to be the "most important industry of the 21st century." Maybe if you keep repeating it like Mr. Obama does, it'll actually come true. Natural gas is going to take over in America starting in the next twenty years. It burns cleaner than gasoline, there's a TON of it in various locations in the Midwest and closer to the East Coast, and, unlike "green technologies" (do they call them that because they cost so much money?), it'll actually be affordable.

Also, the Republicans did make a bigger deal out of Solyndra's bankruptcy than they should have, insofar as they wanted to emphasize the amount of money that was wasted (which was pretty much a drop in the bucket). What they should have emphasized about it was that it's proof that there is hardly a green energy industry at the moment. There's little demand for it, despite the constant browbeating we receive from certain parts of the media and certain companies looking to cash in on people who are fooled into thinking that they are somehow evil because they don't drive a hybrid.

Finally, to correct the first poster, the poor do pay for gas to drive their cars, and they'll be hit the hardest by rising "dirty" fuel costs. Wait until some white liberal (i.e. not Obama) is running for president and brags about raising the price of a gallon of gas by five bucks-- then you'll see just how popular green energy really is.

BSME02Irish
Tue Feb 19 2013 10:50
So who do you think is going to pay for the dramatic increases in cost when you raise the price of "dirty" fuels? You are. I am. The rich. Everyone except the poor, whose energy needs are already being paid for. How long do you want to pay these high prices? Do you ever see them coming back down? You show a lot of faith in something that is completely unknown. People have been working on these "green" technologies for many years -- and although I'll agree they've made substantial progress -- they simply cannot compete with current energy sources. You liberals are putting the cart before the horse on this one, and if you succeed in your quest, I see the economy being crippled for a long time to come.




log out