What’s Driving the Move To CleanTech?
Here’s the first edition of Green Auto Digest for the New Year, from my colleague Jon LeSage.
The take-away is that the two most important trends in transportation, i.e., autonomous vehicles and alt-fuel, are both moving forward at an impressive pace, especially the former, but that all the action in both these spaces is happening at the hands of the multinational corporate giants.
Now, the corporate world does nothing for any other reason than profit. In fact, that’s guaranteed to be the case; corporate executives can face harsh legal consequences if they fail to take action to maximize the value of their shareholders’ assets.
But where does this leave us vis-à-vis the critically needed changes in our civilization’s activities at both a business and consumer level to support environmental stewardship? When we look at the various sectors of our economy: transportation, energy, nutrition, consumer packaged goods, etc., what level of progress are we making, given that all this is dictated by the profit motive?
Before we propose an answer, let’s contemplate the idea that a seismic shift in the direction of cleantech could happen via the public sector. Dozens of smart people over the years have commented that all this good stuff will come as a result of “policy.” I suppose that’s possible, but the notion sure does seem to have taken a tumble given the new regime in the U.S., being that every single nomination for the top cabinet positions is openly hostile to that given Department, and in no case is this more clear than the environment, i.e., the new Secretary of Energy has said repeatedly that he wants to shut the organization down, and the new Administrator of the EPA is a sworn enemy of environmental regulation.
What we further have to recognize about U.S. politics is how far they have shifted to the right over the last half-century. The EPA was formed under the (ultraconservative–at the time) Nixon administration in the late 1960s. 50 years later, “conservatives” are doing everything they can to eliminate the very last piece of regulation that would hold corporate interests accountable for the pollution that comes as a result of their activities.
Whether in the private or public sector, we know that nothing of any major consequence happens on this planet that doesn’t involve profit for someone somewhere, and any change towards environmentalism will happen if and only if it fits into that mold.
Fortunately, all this is happening. In particular, people all over the world are making staggering amounts of money in solar and wind. At the same time, literally all the ingredients to a rapid migration towards clean energy are falling into place. The cost-effectiveness of solar and wind is just the start; when we add in energy storage, efficiency solutions, electric transportation, and smart grid, we see that numerous different market forces are conspiring in many directions to drive the revolution far faster than most people realize.
The Trump administration, as regressive as it will be, is going to find itself powerless to stop the forward progress of cleantech.
Craig,
I hesitate to say this, but your critiques are steadily becoming less relevant about your chosen topis and increasing just a wildly exaggerated rant about an administration yet to be even inaugurated.
Global corporate funding in the solar sector in 2016 totaled $9.1 billion, a 64% decline from $25.3 billion in 2015, long before anyone anticipated the election of Trump.
This was part of a general 18% drop in worldwide clean energy corporate investment during 2016, down by $287.5 billion from a record high of $348.5 billion in 2015.
The drops in investment were across the board and the globe, although the largest drops were in Japan, India and China
For many years investment in both solar and wind has been driven by government guaranties of subsidies, tax credits, mandates and guaranteed returns.
Modifications to government policies sees dramatic drops in investment levels, as demand plummets.
Like all boom industries, the technologies start from a very low base, so “percentage” improvements always look dramatic. (after all, if you sell on unit per month an then sell two, it’s a 100% rise in sales ! If the competitors are selling 1 million and sell only 50,000 more, it’s only a 5% increase. It doesn’t necessarily show you are winning the race!)
More relevant to the article in Green Auto Digest, although the opines a cheery future for plug-in sales, it’s a little selective in definition. In fact, in the US sales of vehicles equipped with ‘green’ technology have been in decline for the last three years.
More worryingly, on a global basis, if government mandates, subsidies and incentives decline, sales of EV’s collapse.
Even the redoubtable Prius is not immune. Continuing low gasoline and diesel prices have shown the resilience of ICE technology, especially in the US market.
High end Tesla continues to defy the odds and EV, Plug-in and hybrid technology continues to spread as more manufactures incorporate adopt facets of the technology in a wider range of models, giving a greater illusion of progress than the sales figures suggest.
The appointment by President Obama of Gina McCarthy in 2013 to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was also controversial, her tenure has been marred by heavy-handed regulatory maneuvers, covert procedures, arrogance and ideologically/politically motivated, often illegal actions.
She has encouraged a culture of defiance and naked political partisan ideology to dominate a government agency.
Gina McCarthy’s initial response to the EPA’s responsibility for the Gold King Mine spill and resulting devastation was to deny responsibility. The unfortunate 2,000 Navajo farmers and ranchers, along with the Navajo nation, have been offered a settlement by the EPA for about 8% of the total loss !
McCarthy isn’t afraid to publicly attack dissenters or critics who question her methods or ideology.
“I don’t check out flat Earth society and I’m not talking to climate deniers,” she said in October. “That’s it. Sorry, I know I’m supposed to be for everybody, but my patience has worn thin over eight years. I feel only contempt for those who would interfere or try to restrict my mission.”
Well maybe she could be excused for a momentary lapse in etiquette or frustration with one or more extremists.
In her tirade McCarthy named all Republican members of Congress, the entire Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator John Barrasso, Senator John McCain, Navajo leader Russell Begay, Dr James Hanson, U.S. District Judge John Bailey, and many other individuals who had the temerity to criticize her or the EPA.
In a campaigning politician, such tirades may be forgiven as the excesses of campaign rhetoric. However, McCarthy is no a politician, she is accountable and responsible to the nations elected representatives. More importantly, as Judge Bailey ruled she and the EPA can’t ignore or defy the law.
McCarthy encouraged EPA civil servants to actively campaign for Hillary Clinton, and now advocates EPA employees actively operate a “guerilla” campaign to frustrate or discredit “by any means” the policies of the incoming administration.
(I still want to know why the EPA needs a couple of Tank squadrons!)
Government, Private enterprise, etc all have valuable roles to play within the dynamic of a society governed by representative government.
The principle of accountability and responsibility is the most important safeguard for t he ordinary citizen. It’s the reason why most nations organize their civil infrastructure in adherence to a strong Constitution.
The strength of any society depends on how steadfastly it’s people adhere to the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution.
The more inclusive the Constitution, the more successful the society.
As the idea of clean energy begins to lose initial hysteria and politically driven impetus, the various technologies will either succeed or fail based on public demand and growing awareness of suitability.
Ask the average German if they support “Green, renewable Energy” and the answer will be a resounding yeas by at least 80% ! But, try phrasing the question differently and ask if the average German is willing to accept the risk of unemployment, loss of industry, change of lifestyle to a simpler, less affluent, less secure, more uncertain future and see the popularity of “green energy” plummet.
The new Trump administration will rely heavily on the experience, shrewdness and flexibility of Rex Tillerson. The former Exxon boss will initially be the most dominant voice in cabinet.
The US, and much of the rest of t he Western World has spent much of the last decade reveling in a orgy of idealism, paid for by expanding debt.
Well, the party’s over. It’s time for the guests to go home to nurse hangovers and count the cost. Many will be reluctant to leave the happy illusion of the last decade and try to continue as if nothing has changed.
But change has occurred. The US and it’s allies are faced with a nightmare of debt, a powerful (if smaller) resurgent Russia, and a growing challenge from the increasingly nationalistic, expansionist Peoples Republic of China.
The PRC isn’t just a trade and economic competitor, it’s a political and cultural competitor. The Beijing regime is acutely aware of the Western World’s capacity for self-delusion and appeasement.
Over the last decades we have relied upon the concept that the economic principles of free trade and free enterprise would erode totalitarian doctrines and create political reform and evolution to democratic government.
Mostly, this proved correct.
The PRC is different. The PRC national culture has allowed popular economic reform and private enterprise, even general affluence, without general unrest for political reform and individual freedom. The PRC has adopted consumerism as a model for individual freedom, by-passing political and legal freedoms.
Lack of criticism from the West has lost Western political philosophy much of it’s impact. We are seen by the PRC as hypocrites willing to forgo principle for trade and economic considerations.
Appeasement never ends well.
President-elect Trump understands some of the dynamics better than anyone gives him credit, but his inexperience and nature makes him at best shrewd and opportunistic, rather than a deep long term strategist.
That’s why Rex Tillerson will be so important. The future of the Western World will rely increasingly on this 64 year old Texas conservative.
Over the years, Tillerson has revealed he can mix it with the biggest and baddest politicians, business rivals, even gangsters and terrorists. He’s successfully out-negotiated or out-maneuvered his opponents with skill, determination and tenacity.
Even occasional disappointments and defeats are contained, minimized while the moment for a counter-offensive is prepared.
He may turn out to be an American Otto von Bismark.
Rex Tillerson’s observation of America’s opposition to expansionist moves in the South China Sea, has sent leftist PRC apologists into a frenzied tizzy of alarm, demanding the Dragon be placated with more groveling.
Both Trump and Tillerson understand Beijing’s paranoia of Russia.
Beijing knows how to exploit Western weakness, but the threat of US-Moscow collaboration to isolate the PRC, would keep the lights burning late at CCP secret committee meetings.
Friday, Jan 20, will be the start of a new era. Hopefully, an era where pragmatism and principle can be combined.
When it comes to advancing “clean tech”, environmentalists must become more objective, focused and realistic. There must be less emotive political/ideological rhetoric, and more emphasis on the economic and empiric benefits of clean and cleaner technology.
The ‘perfect’ should no longer be the enemy of the merely ‘good’ or ‘better’.
The excitement of a “Grand Crusade” , reached it’s apex at Paris, from that moment on, enthusiasm began to wane. In reality the Paris Agreement achieved about as much as the Holy Alliance Treaty of 1815.
Whether the US adheres to the terms or not, is irrelevant since the terms were deliberately vague and can be defined to suit almost any changes in commitment.
I’m very optimistic for the future of clean tech. The next decade will see support for many impractical technologies disappear, while others will prove beneficial and replace older, less environmental Technology.
Unfortunately, clean tech is not always clean. Too much of it, although appearing clean in the U.S. and some other places, results in ghastly pollution in other places. That is true of hybrid and some electric cars, wind generators, throw away electronics, etc. etc. because of their use of rare earth elements which are mined and refined in China resulting in toxic pollution there. For more on this, check out this link:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth
Wind generators commonly use a few pounds of rare earth elements in their magnets. The reason lies in the difficulty in making generators which, while operating at only about 30 rpm, will generate large amounts of power. To be practical, that requires extremely powerful magnets and rare earth magnets can be from 10 to 20 times more powerful than other types of permanent magnets. Instead of using rare earth magnets, earlier wind generators used step up gears to get higher operating speeds.
The Toyota Prius uses rare earth magnets in both of its motor generators. Thus, the high fuel efficiency comes at a price. It is unclear that they actually need to use rare earth magnets. The Tesla electric car uses an induction motor so presumably the Prius could also.
The short life of our electronic gadgets, including phones, I-pads, computers, etc., is basically the result of planned obsolesce to maximize manufacturers’ profits. Because they use rare earth elements for their displays and in other places too, they also contribute to the heavy toxic pollution resulting from refining rare earth elements in China.
Actually, China does not have a monopoly on rare earth ores. They could be mined and manufactured here in the U.S. and in other countries. Apparently they reason they are not is that pollution restrictions make doing so uneconomic.
The is an area of environmental degradation that is considered by very few environmentalists, presumably because it is not occurring here.
Frank,
The term ‘Clean Tech’ should really be interpreted as ‘Cleaner Tech’ ,
No industrial process will always be 100% ‘clean’ ! But surely any improvement is to be welcomed. A new industries and production methods develop, economic, regulatory, technical and other factors combine and provide impetus for the industry or product to continuously improve.
The old saying, “never let the ‘perfect’ become the enemy of the merely ‘good’ is applicable to ‘cleaner technology’.
Marcopolo,
It not as though refining rare earth elements is less than 100% clean. The fact is that it’s extremely and horribly dirty, like 0.00001% clean. I suggest reading the article for which I provided the link.
Frank,
Of course you are quite correct, the mining practices in the PRC are unbelievable ! Even Africa at it’s worst doesn’t equal the environmental damage done by the states of the former USSR and the PRC.
But I was referring to the Prius as a whole, not simply one component, so my description of ‘cleaner’ is in that context.
It’s interesting to note that despite all the angst concerning Trump and the USA “losing leadership of the environment to the PRC”, no one bothers to mention the appalling Eco-devastation, loss of human rights, labour conditions, repression and every other kind of genuine ‘evil’ perpetrated every day by the PRC authorities in a bid to make the PRC an economic super power.
Not that the people of the PRC benefit greatly, most of these goods are bound for export to the West, or to buy influence to oust the west from the developing world.
It’s pathetic witnessing the abject grovelling of Western media and politicians in dealing with the PRC.
The Dragon has dined too long and too greedily at the expense of weak, gullible, hypocritical and greedy Western politicians and media.
If a trade war is inevitable (despite the wails of appeasers)it should be now, when the West remains militarily superior and still has firm allies.
It’s time to hold the PRC accountable.
It’s significant to note the deafening silence from the left when it comes to accepting responsibility for foreign policy hypocrisy, or defects and corruption among their own ranks.
( I’m still waiting for Craig, Cameron or Breath to explain why the EPA needs a Tank battalion ? Perhaps it could be deployed to Inner Mongolia )
Marcopolo,
Probably most of us are aware of the expansionist intentions of China and the power hungriness of Russia’s Putin. There is no need for the media to devote any more ink and ether time to that since we are already well aware of it.
Recently I rode in the Toyota Priapus owned by my sister and her husband. I was surprised that the Dynaflow has been resurrected. They tell me that they average > 50 mpg with it. Actually, I know several people who have a Priapus and they are very common around here. I noticed that at the Los Angeles airport practically every taxi was a Priapus. Although I haven’t seen statistics, from what I have seen, which certainly is not a random sample, it looks as though the Priapus is not losing sales.
Hi Frank,
Sales of Prius are still buoyant, although sales momentum has slowed slightly. Priusstill remains one of the most successful automotive models with 6 million sold over a 20 year run.
The humble Prius, in various guises, is Toyota’s second most successful model beaten only by Corolla and outselling the indefatigable Camry.
I’m not sure that Putin is all that much of a bogyman. More accurately he should be assessed within the context of the incredibly difficult and violent nature of Russian politics. Putin is a pragmatist, often forced to act for reasons of domestic politics, but essentially willing to do business.
Although I’m glad I’m not a citizen of Putin’s Russia, he is at least a strong leader of an otherwise chaotic nation. More importantly for nations doing business with Putin, is his ability to deliver on commitments.
There are risks with Trump’s foreign policy announcements. If he listens to his Secretary of State, the unpredictable nature of his strategy may prove successful.
Trump has identified the PRC as the biggest threat to the US. He probably believes Russia lacks any real economic capacity to threaten the US , but if contained may prove useful in curtailing PRC ambitions.
Marcopolo,
We know that Putin has invaded Ukraine, an independent country, and threatened other countries. That should not be discounted. However, I do not feel qualified to determine what American foreign policy should be. There are many factors to be considered and it is likely that those establishing foreign policy are privy to information that we do not have. Also, mistakes are inevitable because it is sometimes necessary to take action when some information is unavailable and because human behavior is not always predictable.
Old MacDonald Trumpet constantly shoots off his mouth before engaging his brain. He constantly flip flops. He is very impetuous. That should be considered every time he says something or chirps.
Hi Frank,
The problem you are having with Putin isn’t new, but typical of the the misconceptions American make when dealing with decolonizing nations.
As an Australian, I can sympathize with the bafflement of some growing up in a country with long established borders.
The nations of Europe, Africa and most of Asia lack defined borders. Borders, even the nations themselves are the products of treaties, often concluded by powers with no knowledge of local sensitivities.
In the course of history, these borders have changed many times. Often the local inhabitants have been subject to ethnic cleansing or simply ignored.
The question of sovereignty in eastern Europe usually lacks any moral or legal basis but is simply determined by military might. The borders of the Ukraine were decided by Stalin, and later by Brezhnev an ethnic Russian.
Putin would argue that he is in the same position as US Presidents annexing large portions of Mexico. (although Putin would have better legal and historic claims). Putin would argue, and with some validity, he’s simply bring peace and clarity to the region and removing sources injustice and conflict.
You can accuse Donald Trump of ‘flip-flopping’, but only if you judge him in the context of previous Presidents and politicians restricted by accepted doctrines or manifesto’s.
Trump has no such considerations ! Basically, he makes it up as he goes along. This could prove a weakness, or a strength, it depends on how he plays his hand.
It could prove to be a great strength since it allows flexibility and unpredictability. This may give the administration the edge by continually surprising opponents and not revealing his true agenda until it’s a fait-accompli. On the other hand, it could breed uncertainty and prevent long term planning.
One thing is for certain, Trump is a very different sort of President and one who expects people to get used to him, instead of trying to mould himself to conform to the expectations and image to please others.
It’s going to be an interesting four years !
Marcopolo,
Old MacDonald has flop flopped on many issues and not just on foreign relations. You right about his making things up as he goes along. His chirps seems to be made impetuously with little or no consideration for the consequences.
Frank,
Donald Trump is what you get when you don’t elect a professional politician to office.
What you call flip-flops and inconsistency, is quite normal behavior for fast moving business promoters, developers etc, where the nature of their business requires flexibility, adaptability and the ability to devise ‘policy on the run’.
Such abilities have made Trump a highly successful Wall street trader, but how that suits the complex, bureaucratic, slow process of government will be interesting to witness.
His willingness to jettison unworkable or outdated concepts could be a real strength, and his seemingly erratic behavior may simply be camouflage for a strategic objective.
Only time will tell.