Why Green has Such a Tough Time in America

We’ve invented a lot of green technologies, but we’ve also failed to embrace them. Is it a cultural thing?

Why Green has Such a Tough Time in America

The U.S. has long been a leader in green technologies.

It has also long been a leader in fumbling that lead. Look at the historical record:

--Charles Brush built what is considered the first automatic wind turbine for generating electricity. The turbine, built in 1888 in Ohio, had a 50-foot diameter and 144 blades. The industry has since trimmed turbines down to three blades. It has also gone overseas. While the U.S. has more installed wind capacity than anyone else, the only top U.S. wind manufacturer remains General Electric: they got into the business by buying the wind division of disgraced, defunct Enron.

One of the most promising U.S. startups is Nordic Windpower, located in Berkeley by way of Sweden.

--Calvin Fuller, Daryl Chapin and Gerald Pearson created the first silicon photovoltaic cell at Bell Labs in 1954. It was only four-percent efficient, but Bell raised the figure to 11 percent soon after. First Solar and SunPower hail from the U.S. -- and we mint a lot of startups -- but the U.S. is a far smaller market than Europe, and Suntech and Yingli have begun to demonstrate that we don't have a monopoly on quality.

--A chemistry professor at the State University of New York Binghamton, M. Stanley Whittingham led a research team at Exxon that resulted in the first lithium ion battery. Whittingham's titanium sulfide battery, however, was not a hit -- Sony's lithium cobalt battery became the standard in the early 1990s. The battery industry is now based in Asia.

--In 1991, the Department of Energy kicked off the $90 million U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium to develop nickel metal hybrid batteries for hybrid cars, a car design championed a century earlier by Ferdinand Porsche. The effort scared Japan so much that Honda and Toyota began to develop hybrids. Before tangible results came in, the DOE shifted funding to hydrogen.

--In 1976, General Electric Ed Hammer invented something that many thought impossible: the compact fluorescent bulb. Although GE liked the idea, CFLs would require entirely new manufacturing facilities, which would cost $25 million. "So they decided to shelve it," Hammer told me in 2007. CFLs only came to market because the design leaked out -- others copied it before GE had a licensing program.  

"That's how it became widespread," he said.

So why do we suck so much at green commercialization, while excelling at transforming science projects like search engines, microprocessors and microbes into Google, Intel and Genentech? The reasons are:

1. Conservation = Being a Loser. Scrimping and saving has, for some reason, been enshrined as the national shame. Immigrants flooded here in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries tantalized by pictures of homes with running water and fridges that could hold an entire elk. Back in the '60s, what did kids know about the rest of the world? That someone halfway around the globe wanted to eat your leftovers. If you can't waste, you haven't made it.

And don't just blame it on conservatives: how many green advocates have tossed out perfectly serviceable handsets to get the latest iPhone?

Granted, during some historical eras, conservation has been a virtue. Popular oral histories abound about the Depression or rationing in World War II. (I still have my grandmother's food coupon book -- she needed it even though they owned a grocery store.)

But frugality is only fashionable in times of serious deprivation. Casual conservation just looks inept. Case in point: the '70s. You didn't see Dorothea Lange taking pictures of mom cooking Hamburger Helper or  buying knock-off Adidas. Jimmy Carter was a great ideas person, but the sweater just made him look like Mr. Rogers after an argument with King Friday.

2. Abundance. As the fourth largest nation in terms of land mass, the U.S. has enjoyed an abundance of natural resources and people have exploited them for their convenience. In the 1920s, solar hot water heaters blanketed Miami and southern California. The advent of natural gas piping and cheap natural gas, which could heat hot water any hour of the day, led to their demise.

The same happened with autos and public transportation. Cars are more convenient than street cars, gas historically has been cheap in the U.S. and so has farmland. Oil companies didn't kill public transportation in L.A. -- the desire for three-bedroom houses did.

It will take a bit of time to get used to the era of resource scarcity.

3. It's Not New. This is one of the principal dilemmas of the greentech market worldwide. Handheld calculators radically reduced the time needed to solve math problems. Word processing made a 5,000-year-old profession -- the secretary -- obsolete almost overnight. The internet put the world at your fingertips. Antibiotics saved your life.

Solar panels give you electrons that pretty much function like those from the power plant. To date, only electric cars and green homes seem to have an abundant "Wow!" factor for consumers. This will change, but it partly explains the slow ramp.  

4. Lobbying. The fossil fuel industry knows how to work Washington and the state capitols. They can discuss jobs and raise fears about the economic cataclysm that will surely ensue if people can't afford to drive Chevy Suburbans on a daily basis. The solar industry has improved on this score, but it's still got a long way to go to catch up. Remember: back in 2008, the investment tax credit was stalled in D.C. -- it was only after Washington showered the financial industry with cash via the TARP program that they agreed to alternative energy credits.

 4. Environmentalists as Scolds. The first Earth Day in 1970s drew millions into the streets. Just as important, it drew middle-class protesters in droves. It wasn't dominated by dirty, smelly, strident hippies.

Fast forward to 2010. Smelly is gone, but strident remains. Much of the opposition to Al Gore comes because he's Al Gore. I support his ideas, but let's face it -- he comes across as smug. Bill Clinton or Rachel Carson he's not. Environmental objections have forced BrightSource Energy to shrink its solar thermal plant, an uncompromising stance that really just encourages natural gas consumption.

Food advocates are getting better at public relations. In the past, most of the arguments revolved around making Twinkies the Great Satan. It was condescending but also absurd: even stoners don't really like Twinkies. Swapping out snooty gastronome Alice Waters for genial Jamie Oliver has made a big difference.

Still, like it or not, the posture of some green advocates has made it easier for the opposition.

---

How do we get around these problems. Alan Salzman at VantagePoint Venture Partners, among others, has suggested framing the issues in new ways. One of our principal forms of energy is coal. It is a rock men risk their lives to dig out of the ground using pneumatic hammers. It then gets cooked and most of the energy produced gets wasted.

 "It is a short distance away from gathering firewood," he said. "Do you think we could figure out a better way to boil water that doesn't kill people? There is no solution other than that that anyone can envision?"

Naturally, he's Canadian.

16 Comments

  • Scot Kelly 07/13/10 4:08 PM

    Every time I discuss solar on the East Coast I know that the objections are lurking. I never lead with “Green”. It has to make business sense or no one will listen. What amazes me is that even when I show an overwhelming competitive advantage to producing clean energy and eliminating a variable cost, many business owners still resist. My favorite objection is: “I can’t go solar because everyone will think that I am a Democrat!”. Granted we are in a recession and many companies can’t use the tax credits but these same people will put in double paned windows that take 72 years to recover their cost.

    Reply
  • sorebird 07/13/10 4:23 PM

    If green was great it would save the consumer money and not need billions of dollars of subsidies. If an industry is answering to Washington instead of consumers that industry is doomed to failure. Sales drive innovation not the government and not lobbyist. The wind and solar industry’s lobbyist should be lobbying to remove interconnection fees and regulations out of the hands of the utility monopoly and then they should concentrate on competing with utilities instead of sleeping with the enemy.

    Utilities are the bad guys in all of this green talk, they want us to build them their smart grid so that they won’t have to build power plants for peak power loads. Utilities control integration and interconnection fees and services, not the oil and gas industries. Utilitie control suppresses CHP, the only real viable solution that exist today.
    CHP Combined heat and power is green that delivers—saving the consumer money and paying for itself, while supporting the existing grid…..The DOE, EPA, WallStreet and utilities no these simple facts, but these facts won’t get big government subsidies and they won’t force the tax payer to build a smart grid for utilities and big tech company coffers.

    Reply
  • Jason 07/13/10 4:48 PM

    Look at where DoE resources go.  They are focused on labs (i.e. fundamental research) and driving end consumer demand.  US funding of commercialization is limited because there is a fundamental belief that this is best serviced by capitalism.  However, capitalism doesn’t always work and while our technologies collect dust (in published research papers) waiting for a capitalist; Korea, China, etc. are happy to make our research a reality.  We need to rethink how we drive innovation in US energy.

    Reply
  • Geoff Foulds 07/13/10 4:50 PM

    Good food for thought.
    Seems to me the US excels at bringing new computer hardware and software to market.
    However those skills and processes don’t work so well for green. See
    http://geoffreyfoulds.wordpress.com/

    Reply
  • creativforce 07/13/10 5:21 PM

    Sorebird, if oil and coal were so great they wouldn’t need billions in subsidies on top of monopolies that have a stranglehold on innovation and competition.  The only place in amerika where monopolies don’t control the energy supply, rural farm coops, you’ll find wind and solar installations going like gangbusters.  You are absolutly right that we need to level the playing field to allow competition, you just have facts and your history completely wrong.

    Reply
  • Paul 07/13/10 5:45 PM

    Creativforce,

    Any comments about Texas. There is a deregulated retail electric market with many plans offered (although large numbers have stayed with the former monopoly.

    Can you provide info on the subsidies big coal and oil get? 

    Certainly lax air pollution standards, coal ash disposal are two (but some what indirect).  Fast depreciation on wells for oil and gas. Regulatory preferences (such as the spill containment plans for GOM drilling). 

    Thanks!

    Reply
      • Jon M 07/14/10 9:55 AM

        On subsidies:

        The Environmental Law Institute compiled a list of all subsidies (direct spending and tax breaks for the black and green energy industries), summarized here. It shows total dollar magnitudes, so it doesn’t fully indicate the subsidies versus relative market size. Black subsidies are six times higher than green subsidies. Cumulating across time, the total subsidies for black energies would appear pretty large.
        http://bit.ly/3cgtwh

        New York Times did a recent piece on oil industry subsidies. Authors assert that oil industry’s total effective taxes is 9%, which is a pretty substantial incentive.
        http://nyti.ms/bsIF56

  • Dewita Soeharjono 07/13/10 5:56 PM

    You are spot on. There’s such a big gap here between those who worship green and those who don’t. And then to make things complicated, the conservatives - ahem, Republican in Congress - are so locked up with opposing any idea that touches the subject of climate change, environmental, etc. What they don’t realize is we’re in competition with other countries in the world. Hello globalization. Maybe they don’t understand that. Lawmakers in Congress are responsible in mapping out the foundation for the next generation with consequences that will stay here for generations to come. I would like to suggest that they go and check out the progress of other countries in the world, to see it with their own eyes. So they understand what we’re competing with. To scale things up, we need to talk in business sense. Change the language we communicate, instead of using enviro terms, let’s use dollars and sense. Just my 2 cents. http://dewita.biz

    Reply
  • cleantekki 07/13/10 9:27 PM

    We pay .09 kwh for power in FL,  run the air conditioners all day and can’t go out side because the sun’s so intense we’ll spontaneously ignite.  It’s brilliant.  Put a ginormous tax on hydrocarbons and watch everyone become stylishly green.  Case in point - nobody wanted to buy a rolling hybrid cockroach until gas was 4 bucks; financial pain is a great incentive.

    Reply
  • Joel Weingarten 07/14/10 12:18 AM

    Reason no. 4 (Fossil Fuel lobbying) should have been reason no. 1 ... and 2, 3, and 4.  It explains a lot.

    Reply
  • Mary Saunders 07/14/10 12:22 AM

    See Renewable Energy Catches on in Red America in OnEarth magazine.  It is patently not true that Red people don’t care about renewable energy.  They are just very careful not to be coercive about it.  Go to a Republican caucus in Oregon.  You will find as many Priuses and other efficient vehicles as at a D meeting.  This article on Kern County is a case in point.  While D’s are trying to mandate and subsidize, R’s are doing an inventory, finding the good sites, contacting the owners until they find those who want or need to get RE on their properties, lining up the permits, and getting the base installed.  You are going to look up, and ask how that happened if you are not paying attention.

    Reply
  • creativforce 07/14/10 9:47 AM

    “During the fiscal years of 2002-2008 the United States handed out subsidies to fossil fuel industries to a tune of 72 billion dollars, while renewable energy subsidies, during the same period, reached 29 billion dollars. Conducted by the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) in partnership with the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the research shows that the US government has heavily subsidized ‘dirty fuels’ that emit high levels of greenhouse gases.

    The funds provided to renewable energy sources plunges further when one takes into account that of the 29 billion dollars, 16.8 billion went to subsidizing corn-based ethanol, an energy source that numerous studies have shown is not carbon neutral and has been blamed in part for deforestation in the tropics and the global food crisis. The remaining 12.2 billion went to wind, solar, non-corn based biofuels and biomass, hydropower, and geothermal energy production.

    Of the 72 billion dollars given to fossil fuels, 2.3 billion went to carbon capture and storage. The rest of the funds went to oil and coal.”

    Reply
  • creativforce 07/14/10 9:59 AM

    Red people have no problem being coercive about hydrocarbons.  Don’t you remember the chanting and stomping at the Republican National Convention?  One day it was “Drill baby drill!”  the next day it was “Clean Coal! Clean Coal!” Red people think history and science can change just because they say so (and blue people aren’t much better). We see where unrestricted drilling has taken us. We also know that there is no such thing as clean coal.  How about taking a rational look at the future, the present, and the past ... stop chanting and start thinking.

    Reply
  • Ramesh Gopalan 07/14/10 2:01 PM

    You might think that the Deep Water Horizon mess might do something to finally change attitudes - this is the part of the US that is most wedded to Big Oil, and now is being most adversely affected by it.
      of course, Exxon Valdez didnt change much, and decades of conflict with the Middle East havent either…

    Reply
  • seamusdubh 07/15/10 8:22 AM

    Honestly, I think it comes down to the penalization of going green.

    For example when the gas prices hit $4 here people started honestly looking at, purchasing and demanding more fuel efficient vehicles. Of those that couldn’t they cut back on usage. This caused a dramatic drop in demand in turn a dramatic drop in revenue from taxes on such gas usage. Now government can’t have that so they proposed new taxes and or increased current taxes. This pissed of the people, “You wanted us to cut back now you what us to pay more for this. No.”

    Look at water conservation.  All my life I’ve been told to not run it as much, uses more efficient appliances, switch to low flow systems.  Now my local municipality is raising rates AGAIN to compensate for the loss of revenue due to lack of usage and to pay for over extended projects.

    Then there’s the “Smart Grid”.  In it proper form, used as a tool to help improve distribution, maintenance,  BASIC control of the grid and to help customers understand and improve their usage, is great.  But as you touched on its being used as an excuse to not build new and more efficient power generation plants to compensate for demand and to control how and when you can use power.  Which is not what the people want nor will they accept.

    Making my standard of living less costly and more efficient is fine. But giving it up to make someone else feel better or preventing others form obtaining it is simple wrong.
    When going green gets past the actual and perceived penalty, then it’ll be accepted.

    Reply
  • Jeff D 07/15/10 5:52 PM

    Green will be accepted when the masses are educated and the economic benefit is tangible.  Goods like aluminum, steel and cardboard are recycled because is make economic sense to do so.  When consumers demand homes that are super insulated and energy efficient the building industry will changed.  When a true electric vehicle is produced at an acceptable price consumers will buy them.  When solar panels provide the appropriate payback consumers will buy them and the utilities will have to be bailed out by the government when they fail.  There is a joke among water conservationists who want to get off the water/sewer grid - it will cost the last remaining grid user $1 billion to flush his toilet to cover all the fixed and variable costs of delivering that last gallon of water!!

    Reply
Need an avatar? Get one here: Gravatar