Jobless Recovery or Serious Solar Power (I)

The US economy was reported to have grown 3.5% in the last quarter, an indication that the recession may be over; if only it also grows in the next quarter (or two). At the same time, unemployment continues to be close to 10% (officially) and is probably getting worse. (It indeed rose to 10.2% since I began this post). If low unemployment were still regarded as an important positive feature of a healthy economy, it would mean that growth, as defined, may not be as good an indicator of prosperity as it is made out to be.


Barack Obama was elected (a year ago) after a campaign that promised bold action leading to change, real change you can believe in. Before the impressive growth announcement, it seemed to many early supporters that it really required faith to believe claims of progress in diverse areas, rather than informed judgement.


It is true that Bush-Cheney left him a country with a broken economy, which continued to deteriorate fast before he took office this February, as well as an odious international reputation. The new president maintained that if Recovery Act legislatipon to approve his stimulus spending were approved promptly, as it then was, the economy would take off, even though there may be some further decline first. The most consistent promise was that millions of new jobs would be created.


Topping his domestic agenda were health care reform and a serious commitment to clean energy; initially also education, especially in science and technology. At least with respect to job creation, that seemed confined to retrofitting windows with superior energy features, thus classifiable under energy. Hiring many more teachers, for smaller class size, could itself accomodate millioms of new jobs, though hardly any by the private sector; which is preferred. That could also apply to jobs resulting from the health care reform, if it comes with a public health insurance option. Yet most clean solar energy is intrinsically job intensive rather than requiring the huge initial capital and continuing fuel expenses of the current polluting energy industry. And the bulk of it is to come from the private sector.

Throughout this period, the President has said very little on his energy policy, while his exceptional eloquence and his personal charisma were utilized liberally on other parts of his agenda. It has also been difficult to find out what, if anything, has actually been done. Does that show a lack of real interest in, or rather inadequate understanding of, energy (or what?). The latter looks less serious and more likely to me. He admitted ignorance of details on what was involved in the financial breakdown last year, later showed that he learned fast, enough to comment confidently. Couldn't that be the case here? To different extents, we have all been dis-and-mis-informed. There may not be anything with so much powerfully administered disinformation as on US energy practices. Can he cut adequately through the resulting confusion? Let's hope he can.

--------------------------

Energy comments by both the President and other major officials have just been published, at least under the heading of climate change, evidently in anticipation of the December Copenhagen summit on that. Barack Obama spoke at MIT, and the New York Times had a transcript.To try to summarize briefly a long speech covering many energy technologies, not always consistently, I'll borrow from Helene Cooper and John M. Broder, the Times reporters who got paid for it (and a related article).

Obama wants legislators to help the push toward greater use of renewable energy. Since rising energy use imperils the planet, nations everywhere are racing to develop new ways to produce and use energy. The nation that wins the race will lead the global economy, and that has to be the US. “It's that simple. (Applause.)”.

I can't join in that applause. Has there really been a need to turn this into another peaceful war against others; who also are concerned about the future of the planet and their energy supply. What has been needed is determined defense of the public good and democratic norms from corruptive assault of lobbies for excessively profitable outfits. I know from rich personal experience some of what their networks in the federal civil service could accomplish in the 1970s. Can they now?

Especially with respect to direct solar power, a less captive US government could have been way ahead of others simply based on its superior resources; most probably still could be, if the extra-constitutional overreach of the status quo forces could be curtailed. Those need not be identical with the organizations President Obama now “chides” for opposing new legislation that includes “cap and trade” provisions to help finance clean energy at the expense of fossil energy, while limiting emissions now ; an apparent reference (the Times people believe) to the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

That the ultimate aim is supposed to be a transition to the clean “renewable” energy sources is affirmed by explicit references to it; like “debate as to how we transition from fossil fuels to renewable fuels” or ”legislation that will finally make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America”. That does not fit well with the details of the spending of $80 billions in the January stimulus bill: “developing new battery technologies for hybrid vehicles; modernizing the electric grid; making our homes and businesses more energy efficient; doubling our capacity to generate renewable electricity”. If it is not even 1% of total generation now, one might think (2x0=0) that that's no change at all. It really isn't "change I can believe in". Nor is it just this pitiful number that is worrisome.

If that was to be the (first term) achievement of “the largest investment in clean energy in history”, made just after assuming office, it was disappointing, but understandable for a brand new team in a rush to stem the fast economic breakdown inherited. Could the added stimulus from a new Senate bill he was advocating (by Senators Kerry and Boxer) be the answer? It is about “ making the best use of resources we have in abundance, everything from figuring out how to use the fossil fuels that inevitably we are going to be using for several decades,.... as cleanly and efficiently as possible; creating safe nuclear power; ...... sustainably grown biofuels and then” (i.e. not before or at the same time) “the energy that we can harness from wind and the waves and the sun”. If the solar energy sources, the most abundant by far, clean and safe without having to await new developments that may make practical sense (like “clean coal”), if they have to come last, then their earlier emphasis can't be taken seriously. I'm not ready for that conclusion.

Pending further discussion, let us note that one positive effect of climate change has been that the President and top aides finally began to at least talk about action on energy.