Build, Baby, Build needs to go global

The US election signals exactly why we need a pragmatic international energy abundance agenda too

One of the lessons that I’m drawing from the US election result is that wonks like me need to listen more to how policies we propose affect what people really care about. For me, this will mean more attention to energy costs, consumer choices, and energy security. And avoiding consumer sacrifice, clever carbon taxes, or technology mandates like bans on gas stoves and internal combustion engines. (If you missed it, listen to Democratic pollster David Shor presciently explain why electric vehicles are even less popular than ‘defund the police’.)

Energy abundance is popular. Austerity is not.

The American electorate voted for, in part, energy abundance. People want cleaner energy, but it has to be reliable, convenient, and cheap. It can’t slow down their lives or crimp their aspirations. It cannot come at the expense of wages or jobs. So those of us who want a smooth and rapid transition to a cleaner energy system, need to pay attention. If that’s true for Americans, it’s even more true for the world’s poor.

Arnab Datta makes a convincing case why “Climate Activists Need to Radically Change Their Approach Under Trump” in Sunday’s NYTimes. (If you don’t know Arnab, you’re missing out on one of our most creative policy entrepreneurs; see for instance his yeoman’s work to modernize the strategic petroleum reserve.) I recommend reading his entire oped, but the key extracts:

“We… need an approach to fossil fuels that moves beyond slogans like ‘keep it in the ground.’ Attempts to punish the fossil fuel industry by… blocking projects often backfire, creating price spikes with political backlash and price crashes that slow the clean energy transition. Instead, advocates should support stable oil and gas production for the near term…. It’s also misguided for climate activists to argue that issuing permits for new fossil fuel projects would put our climate goals further out of reach. In fact, fossil fuel development responds far more to market forces than to the regulatory environment.”

So he calls for a new approach aimed at technological innovation, linking energy to industrial jobs, balance on fossil fuels, and expanding the tent. It’s a direct plea against rigid purity tests. IMHO, this agenda makes eminent sense in America’s (not really so new) political reality.

@ArnabDatta321

What’s good for energy-rich Americans is even better for the global energy poor

This practical approach is even more relevant to energy and climate policy for the world’s poor countries. The average person in Africa uses less power than my family fridge. They emit only 1/14 as much carbon dioxide as an American. Yet many activists, funders, and policymakers have taken a strict renewables-only approach to energy investment for the poor. It’s become nearly impossible for projects like gas-fired power plants or cooking gas to get funding at the big development finance institutions that are essential for building new infrastructure.

As in the US, this has incited a political backlash. Poor Indonesians or Kenyans can’t vote out international climate policymakers. But many leaders across Asia and Africa see the West as hypocritically lecturing them on emissions. (Quick, who’s the world’s leading oil producer? 🇺🇲) This not only seems unfair, but has geostrategic costs: China, Russia, and others are seen as more realistic and development-friendly. The US and Europeans appear callous and out of touch.

This is why Arnab’s climate agenda for the United States fits globally too. Instead of defining energy goals down, picking only our favorite energy sources, and trying to block all projects with carbon, we should:

1. Aim for abundant cheap energy for everyone. This should be non-negotiable.

2. Connect energy investments to local industries, economic growth, and job creation. The global green economy cannot replicate old colonial trade patterns of extraction with little local benefit.

3. Invest aggressively in a broad range of technologies, including wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, storage, transmission, and lots more to fuel innovation and drive costs down.

4. In the near term, be pragmatic on fossil fuels, nudging toward cleaner options when possible but relying largely on market signals.

Start with the original aims of Power Africa

Power Africa is a good example how the US can reset. Launched in 2013 by Obama, the initiative aimed to help build 30 gigawatts of new power generation and make 60 million new connections. The original supporting law, which helped Power Africa endure through three (hopefully four) administrations, is explicit that it must be ‘all of the above’ on technology.

Source: Electrify Africa Act of 2015

Under Biden, much of the development agenda, including Power Africa, has become more like an extension of US climate policy. This has frustrated allies and undermined the effectiveness of the initiative. A successful course correction will need to link its projects to local industrial growth and be more technology flexible. Clean energy boosters should support it.

With the Trump administration coming back, the billions living in energy poverty can’t afford four more years of energy austerity. Advocates for clean energy need to listen to the people, both in the US and globally, and radically shift to an approach that prioritizes clean energy abundance for all – and pragmatism in how we get there.