Clean Tech: The Truly Conservative Choice

We need to move fast to clean tech and we need to start now.

I just finished watching Matt Damon in The Green Zone.  The movie’s story was drawn from events surrounding the justification for the US invasion of Iraq. 

Agitating a fear-frenzy after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration “found” its evidence for huge stores of chemical and nuclear weapons held in Iraq (weapons of mass destruction).  Their only problem was with the source of this evidence.  The informant named “Curveball” was deemed unreliable by the Germans, and this person was never even interviewed by the US, much less ever identified.  Then came the unsubstantiated assertion that Saddam was aligned with Al-Qaeda and therefore a grave threat to the United States.

It is truly amazing how the American people and the American Congress fell for these coercions, albeit during a state of shock.  Yet we can understand how fear works.  The consequences of deciding to invade Iraq are no less shocking.  Looking at the war from an economic standpoint, it will end up costing $3.4 trillion dollars, or about $30,000 per average US household.

This is an unacceptably high price for American families to shoulder, considering that not a dime of it was lying around in excess cash.  Debt had to be sold to finance the war.  That spending had no visible return on investment and was therefore irresponsible.  It was by no means “conservative”.  If anyone calls himself or herself a Conservative, check the facts first. 

Another bogusly fabricated agenda is being introduced in the US today by some of these same wolves in sheep’s clothing, and it is about to cost the US more jobs and money.

I am talking about the whole pro fossil fuel movement.  Its lobbyists are attempting to tell you that clean technology is a weapon of mass (financial) destruction, and that the federal government and states better do things the same old way, even burn more oil and coal.  They are basically capitalizing upon people’s shock about our Great Recession to bolster Big Oil (arguably the same root interests that acted to create a post-9/11 frenzy).

But we have heard from the pro fossil fuel folks many times.

In 1970, before Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act, these naysayers predicted that entire US industries would collapse.  Here 40 years later, it has been estimated that the benefits of the Act have outweighed the implementation costs by 40:1.  In effect this was a very conservative piece of legislation.

Behind the current headlines of “drill, baby, drill” lies the subtext of “subsidize, baby, subsidize”.  It is estimated that the US subsidizes oil and coal 10:1 over clean technology.  Why businesses that have been around more than a century need any subsidies at all, is baffling.

The US needs to be supporting the future, not the past.  That’s the American Way, after all.

The past is dirty skies, mercury-laden oceans, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide, respiratory complications and noise pollution.  These all cost society dearly in real dollars.

The future is clean.  Clean air, clean water, nearly silent electric motors inside automobiles and machinery. The future belongs to our kids, and our grandchildren.

Everyone knows it will take a concerted effort to get there.  Government itself needs to set the example by working in concert with industry to get clean.  This is happening in places as diverse as China, Ethiopia, Germany, and Brazil — all of whom have faster GDP growth than the US.  It is interesting to note that the countries scorning investment in clean tech include Russia and Venezuela — run by petrol-dictators and known for corruption and government repression.

Initiatives like Proposition 23 in California (“the dirty air proposition”) need to be squashed, because this is not the time to take steps backward.  The US needs to be competitive by retaining and attracting talent, on an ever-shrinking planet where quality of life and sustainable growth are crucial for our prosperity.

The time is now to get out of the fear-based mentality and keep on the clean tech path.  This responsible and economically sound approach to both domestic and international policy is how I suggest “conservative values” should be (re)defined.  Obviously, every American, regardless of political affiliation, has a natural stake in this conservative outlook: sustainability is not a political question at all.

Fortunately, sustainability is much simpler — it’s about our common stake in continued life on earth.  

I see the recent rise of Tesla Motors as historically significant.

One of the most striking indicators that clean tech is approaching its tipping point is Tesla’s (TSLA) recent public offering. This IPO was one of the few this year in which the offering price was bumped up during road shows. It is miraculous for this to happen against the backdrop of a weak market, and the pall hanging over the US automotive business. In fact, the last company to go public making automobiles was Ford in 1956. After all, Tesla has lost money, sells only one product to the public (the Tesla Roadster), and has little experience manufacturing vehicles in significant quantities after selling only about 1,000 Roadsters around the world. So, why are investors bidding up the price for Tesla’s stock?

For one thing, Toyota invested $50 million in the company a few months ago and just announced Tesla will be supplying drive trains and batteries on a future Rav4 EV. Also, Daimler and Tesla have a development contract that has Tesla making battery packs and drive trains for Daimler’s electric car called Smart for Two, due for release next year in Europe. Certainly there is a trend here. Tesla is inspiring confidence that it can become dominant in a new era of personal electric transportation. Yet, Tesla also seems to be demonstrating the branding potential not only of a clean sexy car, but of the entire clean tech movement: I would wager that the general public is eager to buy the principle of smarter as well as cleaner.

Whether this startup becomes the Edsel of electric cars or more akin to the Apple of computing really doesn’t matter. Tesla is a harbinger of how clean technology will be commonplace in a future that forces naysayers to give up trying to stymie the march of progress.

Subsidizing Electric Vehicles?

Should the government subsidize electric vehicles?  I say YES, at least in the short term.

In my opinion, government should not subsidize any business venture for more than 5 years.  The US government has been subsidizing the oil business for 80 years, which is obviously far too long.  Not only do we subsidize Big Oil with direct credits, grants and reduced fees on drilling offshore, but we subsidize the oil industry by putting our military weight in places like the Middle East.  We subsidize oil by giving companies who produce and distribute oil-related products a free ride by not paying for the health impacts of their business. 

Right now, you are getting a discount of about $1.50 on every gallon of gasoline because you do not pay for the true costs of transporting the fuel and burning it.  No wonder renewables need subsidies to compete with heavily subsidized oil.

But hey, when you can get a discount, and push the cost off on someone else, even if it is your kids, in the form of a growing national debt, why not? — pardon the sarcasm, but this is basically what is happening when we remain oblivious about the true cost of fossil fuels.

Why Be Green and Clean?

Are you someone who keeps your house clean and organized?

If so, then why not do things that keep our global “house” clean, too?

Just imagine: when you get rid of that junk coming out of your tailpipe, your garage will never stink again.

Try an electric car this year, like a Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt.