Rubens: Grim Times for Global Warming Believers

No wonder I lost two primaries for U.S. Senate in a row. In 2014, I was alone among 108 GOP Senate candidates to openly support published climate science. Despite these political clubbings (I got 22 percent of the vote), I continue to accept that fossil fuel combustion is the primary cause of observed global warming.

Atmospheric temperatures are up by 1.8 degrees over pre-industrial levels and, given current trends, will top the 3.6 degree danger level in about 35 years. We need an aggressive policy response, far more than anything accomplished to date.

But things are looking grimmer than ever for those who want federal action on global warming. The Republican Congress and President Trump (who I endorsed and support) are virtually certain to bury President Obama’s signature Clean Power Plan. Even in the off chance it survives, the CPP is “practically worthless” says James Hansen, former head of NASA’s climate data program. The CPP requires approximately nothing beyond what utilities are already doing in replacing coal with gas-fired power plants.

Al Gore and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon hail the Paris climate accord as a major victory. But climate scientists say the emission reductions pledged by 190 nations will barely change earth’s warming trajectory. “The pledges are not going to get even close,” said Sir Robert Watson, former chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “If you governments of the world are really serious, you’re going to have to do way, way more.”

Among “way more” policies, the revenue-neutral carbon tax is opposed by almost every Congressional Republican and even by the big environmental groups, who are willing to back a carbon tax only if revenues are spent on left-wing social engineering projects. Cap & trade, because of its byzantine 2,000-page complexity and susceptibility to regulatory capture by special interests, was justifiably buried by Congress back in 2009.

Given worldwide political realities, it’s clear to me that humans will not stop burning fossil fuels until abundant, convenient and cheaper energy sources hit the free market. Fortunately for my psyche, I am a technological optimist. I am highly confident that these energy sources are coming, but we do not know when or who will invent them.

A Manhattan Project for American clean energy

The political and technological solution to global warming is accelerated American energy innovation. Politically, we can build on the widely shared understanding that American prosperity is dependent on domestic innovation. Witness the strong and enduring support by Republicans and Democrats for tens of billions in federal funding for research in defense technology and health and biological sciences.

Annual defense R&D has averaged $80 billion over the past ten years, spinning off massive societal benefits like microprocessors, the Internet and GPS. An average of $34 billion supports federal grants for blue-sky health sciences research, with the US dominating the world in medical technology and biomedicine, gaining high-paying jobs and strong net exports. Our huge missed opportunity is energy, where basic science research gets only $3 billion per year, too little to ensure continued American energy technology leadership.

Over the centuries, increasingly abundant and clean energy have powered improvement in human prosperity and well-being. Let’s not stop now. We should start by phasing out all mandates, subsidies and tax preferences ($5.2 billion per year) for wind, solar, biomass, fossil and nuclear power use. Use these savings to phase in funding of $10-15 billion per year for high-risk, blue-sky research in more efficient photovoltaics (check out nanocrystals and charge hopping), quantum physics, modular thorium reactors, materials science or batteries.

If battery energy density or costs were improved by four times’ present technology and solar PV made 50 percent more efficient, global warming would be licked. On price advantage alone and without government subsidies or mandates, consumers and business worldwide would shift en masse from fossil fuel use. I want these products to be invented and made in America, sooner not later and not in China.

To be clear, federal energy spending must not be used to line the pockets of crony capitalist enterprises like Solyndra, where politicians take campaign money bribes to pick market winners. Subsidizing commercialization more than basic research, as we do now, corrupts government and distorts and freezes marketplace dynamics which otherwise drive down cost and accelerate commercialization. These distortions give us poorly located windfarms in New Hampshire and grossly uneconomic nuclear plants in Georgia.

Market libertarians object to my plan, preferring private over federal research spending. This is exactly the 50-year trend. Federal investment yielding long-term payoff such as infrastructure and R&D have been cut to pay for increased spending on current-year benefits such as retirement security and healthcare. In the private sector, activist investors have forced corporate management to make risk avoidance and fast payoff for R&D spending more important than the science breakthroughs that deliver order-of-magnitude gains. Net, America’s long-term competitive position has weakened, with US R&D spending as a fraction of our economy dropping to #11 in the world.

Regardless of your position on global warming, boosting blue-sky energy research and ending subsidies and mandates means smaller, less intrusive government and a stronger, more secure America. A Manhattan Project in clean energy research can power the next phase of American prosperity. We can reduce energy costs, bring jobs home, end free-world reliance on fossil fuels from hostile nations, and cut pollution and poverty worldwide. All good.

Jim Rubens is a former Republican state Senator who ran for U.S. Senate in 2014, 2016.