Energy-Geek: Obama’s Algae Biofuels Communications Problem (i.e. Leaving Out Global Warming)

When did “innovation” turn out to be a dirty word in American politics?

I suppose it was proper about the time when university aspirations became snobbish, when electing a presidential candidate could magically reduce the international value of oil, or when environmental safety became a “phony theology.”

Welcome to the 2012 campaign circus, arguably the most bizarre in background.

And now, adding to the lengthy checklist of oddball attacks, Republican politicians and media pundits are launching an assault on President Obama’s offer of $ 14 million for study on algae-based biofuels — calling for a “pond scum czar” and providing the President “the algae in my fish tank” for this “goofy gasoline.”

Actually? Yes, truly. A $ 14 million grant for an revolutionary, abundant fuel that could probably displace 17% of petroleum use in the country is now the focus of a coordinated political attack. It seems innovation is now turning out to be a politically untouchable word.

Well, not totally. Innovation just indicates various issues to diverse men and women.

For those concerned about finite resources and keeping a liveable planet, innovation implies finding totally new, clean sources of vitality. And placing $ 14 million towards study that could spur revolutionary modifications in our fuel use is a full no-brainer.

But those concerned with preserving the status quo — specifically those who really don't feel that worldwide warming is a problem — see innovation inside an totally diverse context. To them, innovation indicates tar sands, oil shale and unconventional gasoline. Certainly, due to the increasing price of standard oil and the changing economics of these unconventional fossil sources, there are a lot of advances taking spot in these sectors.

And that is why the Obama Administration is finding hammered on algae. By speaking about these technologies from an innovation and jobs point of view and failing to deal with them inside of the context of international warming, Obama sets himself up for criticism from these who just want to entry a lot more unconventional fossil fuels. They ask: what’s wrong with innovation in oil and gasoline?

This presents a significant contradiction in messaging that wants to be remedied.

Severin Borenstein, co-director of the University of California Vitality Institute, recently published an op-ed piece that illustrated this point nicely:

Sure, the price of low-carbon vitality technologies — wind, solar, biofuels and other folks — is coming down. But improvements in technologies for extracting fossil fuels are making it more difficult for renewables to reach expense parity. Scientific breakthroughs are hard to predict: still, the most most likely scenario is that domestically developed fossil fuels will be the lowest-cost way to meet most of our energy wants and attain better vitality safety for years to come.

The employment argument also falls short. Throughout a recession, it makes sense for the government to promote job creation with subsidies and federal expenditures, some of which could be targeted at certain industries. In the lengthier run, nevertheless, economists are virtually unanimous that the economy generates far more and much better jobs when businesses operate in the most expense-efficient way. If we do not count the price of environmental harm, that’s possible to mean carbon-primarily based energy for generations.

The only compelling argument for policies to increase renewables and lessen fossil fuels is the atmosphere. The huge majority of climate scientists feel that carbon-dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the primary cause of climate alter. Most think there is a actual danger that the alterations could trigger key ecosystem disruptions, such as more frequent droughts, floods, hurricanes and wildfires, as effectively as growing sea ranges, far more conflicts over sources and accelerated species extinction.

I surely really don't feel the “only compelling” argument for renewables is the setting. Renewable sources of energy have an extraordinary diverse variety of positive aspects: they can offset fossil fuel value swings they can localize power production they help generate substantial-paid, export-hefty jobs and yes, they, offer you new innovation problems to firms and universities close to the country.

I also feel it’s clear that renewables (primarily electricity technologies) are even now chasing the record-very low rates in normal gas and will not be killed off. (See: Top Three Motives Low cost Normal Gas Will not Kill Renewable Energy).

Ultimately, simply because unconventional fuels like tar sands and oil shale require substantial amounts of water and normal gasoline for extraction, there are very true concerns about how water shortages and an enhance in normal gas charges will influence the financial viability of these resources.

But ultimately, I agree with Bornstein’s fundamental point. Offered the surge of political interest in unconventional fossil fuels, sticking simply to innovation and task-creation talking points while totally sweeping aside worldwide warming and other environmental difficulties is a terrible strategy.

Confident, global warming is a politically dirty word nowadays also. But that is because the President and other political leaders failed to speak about it, allowing the deniers an chance to hijack the word. If you seem at the polls showing an rising quantity of Americans concerned about international warming, now is the excellent opportunity to make the situation a centerpiece of our energy method.

If Obama fails to make the worldwide warming situation for clean power, technologies like algae will just be yet another “weird” specific interest — not an environmental crucial.

This article was originally published on Climate Progress and has been reposted with permission.