Opinion: Trump's attack on renewable energy

June 20, 2017 by Steve Cohen, Earth Institute, Columbia University

Fossil fuels have long been subsidized by tax policies, such as the oil depletion allowance, and by infrastructure construction, such as the interstate highway system. In light of these long-standing subsidies, it's always a little ironic when fossil fuel industry advocates complain about tax expenditures and other subsidies promoting the renewable energy business. In my view, in their time, all of these subsidies played a positive role in the nation's economic development. The Tennessee Valley Authority and other New Deal programs subsidized rural electrification and brought the modern energy economy to a part of the country that the free market in energy might never have developed. No one seems to argue for the free market when they receive a subsidy, but if a competitor gets an incentive, suddenly the government is dominated by socialists determined to "pick winners."

At this stage in our economic history, the global economy has begun to make the transition to renewable energy. While the Obama Administration took some modest steps to participate in that transition, the Trump Administration seems determined to reverse those initiatives. It began in May with the appointment of Daniel Simmons to lead the Department of Energy's renewable energy office. According to the Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis:

"President Trump has appointed Daniel Simmons, a conservative scholar who sharply questioned the value of promoting renewable energy sources and curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, to oversee the Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), according to an email distributed to department employees. The selection marks one of several recent Trump appointments to top energy and environmental posts, which appear to repudiate the Obama administration's policies aimed at shifting the nation to low-carbon sources of electricity."

In a similar move, Trump and his Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry have closed a small office that worked to bring renewable energy to the developing world. Last week, Brad Plumer of the New York Times reported that:

"The 11 staff members of the Office of International Climate and Technology were told this month that their positions were being eliminated, according to current and former agency employees. The office was formed in 2010 to help the United States provide technical advice to other nations seeking to reduce . The small office also played a lead role preparing for the annual Clean Energy Ministerial, a forum in which the United States, China, India and other countries shared insights on how best to promote energy efficiency, electric vehicles and other solutions to climate change."

It is important to understand that most of the real action in energy efficiency and renewable energy is happening in communities, cities, states, corporations and large nonprofit institutions such as universities and hospitals. Even under President Obama, the Tea Party-dominated congress ensured that federal efforts to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency were relatively modest. We should not overstate the importance of these ill-advised actions by Trump team, but like the slow and persistent drip of a leaky pipe under the kitchen sink, the long-term effect will be corrosive and far from helpful.

The anti-renewable energy push by the Trump Administration is driven by a staggering degree of ignorance, as indicated by an astonishing statement by Secretary of Energy Rick Perry at a Bloomberg New Energy Finance conference in New York this past April. As reported by Time Magazine reporter Justin Worldand:

"During a question and answer period, Perry…suggested that increased reliance on like wind and solar might make the grid unreliable given they only work when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, creating national security concerns. The Trump administration might try to preempt state and local governments that use policy to encourage clean energy to address those concerns, Perry said. "There's a discussion, some of it very classified that will be occurring as we go further," Perry said. "The conversation needs to happen so the local governors and legislators, mayors and city council understand what's at stake here in making sure that our energy security is substantial."

No one pushing renewable energy is calling for an intermittent electrical grid. Distributed generation of energy is intended to allow renewable energy into the grid, but the use of renewables is being coupled with grid modernization and the development of smart, computer controlled grid technology. The entire dialogue around the smart grid and distributed generation of energy calls for the incremental construction of microgrids with renewable and fossil fuel sources of energy generation and substantial increases in energy storage. No one is advocating an unreliable grid. The goal is a more secure energy supply with a higher mix of renewables. By decentralizing the grid and diversifying the sources of energy, the goal is a more resilient grid, better able to compensate for interruptions due to extreme weather, human error or terror. The push for is simply an effort to continue to do more with less. Fossil fuels will be needed until renewable energy and battery storage is as cheap and reliable as fossil fuels. Renewable energy and smartgrids make our energy supply more, not less, secure.

The idea that the administration is even discussing pre-empting state greenhouse gas targets in the interest of national security is beyond absurd. Where does Perry get this stuff? Is this a serious conversation somewhere in the federal government? I can't imagine an executive order rescinding state energy targets that could possibly be upheld by a court, and I can't imagine any congress that would allow the federal government to preempt state standards.

The reason to pursue renewable energy and to modernize the electrical grid is that energy is central to every aspect of the modern global economy. We can't do without energy and we will need more energy in the future. Fossil fuels helped to develop this modern world, and they will not be abandoned overnight, but their long-term price and impact on the environment drive the search for lower cost, less destructive alternatives. The development of renewable energy and energy storage technologies will continue with or without Trump and Perry.

It would be much better if our national government played a leadership role here, but the ideological biases and ignorance of Trump's energy appointees ensures that it will not. This is not simply about climate change. It is about air pollution, toxics, and also about the long-term price of fossil fuels when compared to renewable energy. There are plenty of fossil fuels beneath the surface of the earth at the moment, but as time goes on they will become less plentiful and more difficult and costly to extract. The price of the sun will always be zero and will never change, and the price of harnessing and storing its energy will go down as technology improves. Our use of energy will continue to grow, especially as automated labor replaces human labor. Any economy that is able to lower the proportion of its GDP devoted to energy will be better able to compete with other economies. Any company that can lower its energy costs while increasing its output will have an advantage over its competition.

The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy will be long and difficult. Our investment in is massive and global and the industry has not been shy about converting its economic power to political power. Energy is as central to economic life as air and water is to human life. There are powerful economic, organizational and political forces at work resisting the transition to renewable energy. Yet, we live in an era of disruptive technologies and rapidly changing patterns of production and consumption. We carry computers in our pockets, drive cars that will someday drive us, and communicate and gather information at practically no cost. The powerful companies of the last generation are gone, and the powerful companies of the next generation are being invented in someone's garage. The companies that develop cheaper and more reliable renewable energy and storage technologies will drive fossil fuel companies from the marketplace. It would be better for the planet if that happened sooner rather than later. Since Trump's team won't help, let's convince them to end their attack on and stay out of the way of the change that is on the way.

Explore further: Economists find improved electricity storage leads to innovation, efficiency

Related Stories

Not enough investment in renewables: IRENA

January 16, 2017

Money invested in renewable energy is not enough to reach a climate goal of limiting global warming to 2.0 degrees Celsius, an Abu Dhabi-based green energy organisation said Sunday.

Costa Rica boasts 99% renewable energy in 2015

December 18, 2015

Almost all of Costa Rica's electricity came from renewable sources this year, making it one of a few countries in the world to eschew fossil fuels in energy generation, the state electricity agency said Friday.

Cutting fossil subsidies must to advance renewables: agency

September 8, 2014

Renewable energy, essential for meeting global CO2 emission targets, needs a stable regulatory framework, a cut in fossil fuel subsidies and more interconnected power grids to develop, a global energy agency said Sunday.

Trump's victory creates uncertainty for wind and solar power

January 22, 2017

President Donald Trump has disputed climate change, pledged a revival of coal and disparaged wind power, and his nominee to head the Energy Department was once highly skeptical of the agency's value. What this means for states' ...

Recommended for you

Volumetric 3-D printing builds on need for speed

December 11, 2017

While additive manufacturing (AM), commonly known as 3-D printing, is enabling engineers and scientists to build parts in configurations and designs never before possible, the impact of the technology has been limited by ...

Tech titans ramp up tools to win over children

December 10, 2017

From smartphone messaging tailored for tikes to computers for classrooms, technology titans are weaving their way into childhoods to form lifelong bonds, raising hackles of advocacy groups.

Mapping out a biorobotic future  

December 8, 2017

You might not think a research area as detailed, technically advanced and futuristic as building robots with living materials would need help getting organized, but that's precisely what Vickie Webster-Wood and a team from ...

17 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rderkis
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2017
Quote Article
"The 11 staff members of the Office of International Climate and Technology were told this month that their positions were being eliminated, The small office"


If its so small why doesn't the article's author pay for it?
gkam
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2017
Why don't you pay for your Bush Wars?
Thnder
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2017
Why don't you pay for Obama's military actions in 5 additional different countries over and above the Bush's wars? 8 years of bombs + deployments adds up as well. There are no innocents on either side, so quit the condescending hypocritical nonsense...
Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2017
Why don't you pay for Obama's military actions in 5 additional different countries over and above the Bush's wars? 8 years of bombs + deployments adds up as well. There are no innocents on either side, so quit the condescending hypocritical nonsense...


I'd like to see people like you quit your disgusting habit of fecal regurgitation.
MR166
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2017
"Fossil fuels have long been subsidized by tax policies, such as the oil depletion allowance, and by infrastructure construction, such as the interstate highway system."

Do I really need to read any more than the first line in this article? The interstate highway system is a fossil fuel subsidy, what a laugh. The sad part is that some of you will actually think that the author is correct.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2017
The simple point here is that fossil fuel economics requires far more subsidies than renewables. It's time for the fossil fuel advocates to start including those subsidies in their analyses and it's lying to pretend they don't exist.

An honest accounting would show that fossil fuel subsidies are far greater than those for renewables. The fossil fuel advocates will of course continue to lie about this, but no one should be fooled.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2017
Just who is going to do this so called "honest accounting", the author who is calling the most basic of civilized development a subsidy.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2017
And of course @MR steps up to do the lying.

It's just accounting, @MR. Only @MRs can't do accounting.
rderkis
2 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2017
Why don't you pay for Obama's military actions in 5 additional different countries over and above the Bush's wars? 8 years of bombs + deployments adds up as well. There are no innocents on either side, so


But I did pay for those wars. It's just a shame we are such a moral/ethical nation that we did not take their natural resources or colonize any of them.

quit the condescending hypocritical nonsense...

There you go trying to censor anyones ideas you don't agree with. Hitler did the same thing.

WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2017
"The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy..."
Intermittent wind/solar placebos cannot replace fossil fuels even in small scale, Greenpeace uses marine diesel instead of wind/solar/wave/tidal/algae to generate electricity to power their ships and motorboats.
The only real threat to fossil fuels' hegemony is carbon-free nuclear power.
"The competition between renewables and fossil fuel is an illusion. They actually support each other."
https://uploads.d...a1f1.jpg
"The popular delusion that achieving 100% renewable energy is "feasible and cheap" is scientifically debunked. Again." - June 19, 2017
https://www.washi...ic-grid/
https://www.nextb...wer.html
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2017
"Why don't you pay for Obama's military actions in 5 additional different countries over, . . "

Those ARE the Bush Wars. Wars are the Wildfires of Humanity, and once started will burn until everything good is gone.

Did you think you could just invade a sovereign nation on phony excuses, mass-murder its civilians and just walk away?

Did you?
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2017
"It's just accounting, @MR. Only @MRs can't do accounting."

Just accounting eh, one would have to be quite a federal tax expert to distinguish all of the different tax breaks and subsidies. Then one has to compare the results to what was and is available to other companies in various fields. Since the federal tax code is some 74,000 pages this would be quite an undertaking. Just accounting, right!

Then while you are at it compute how much these breaks cost per unit of energy delivered.
Lex Talonis
not rated yet Jun 20, 2017

GAWD BLESS MURIKA !

https://youtu.be/a8UgOvJVol8
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2017
@MR, my point exactly! The subsidies for fossil fuels are buried in there.
dirk_bruere
not rated yet Jun 21, 2017
The USA is yesterday. Every article like this should end with the words: Meanwhile, in China...
rderkis
3 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2017
The USA is yesterday. Every article like this should end with the words: Meanwhile, in China...


Make America great again is happening!
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2017
Yeah, derkis, here's proof:

https://www.bloom...country?

"America Is Now a 'Second Tier' Country
Some 17 others, including all of Scandinavia, outperform the U.S. by a wide margin when it comes to well-being."

Imagine what we will rate after they takeaway our healthcare for reductions in Capital Gains taxes for millionaires.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.