Investing in the Future

It wasn't that long ago that "government spending" became something pejorative in public discussions. Sometimes, though, investing in our future is the right thing to do. And it is often the case that, if left to its own devices, the private sector has little incentive to invest on a scale necessary for the fruits of the investment to surface. Setting up the argument is this statement: The government would do well to help finance the next wave of energy delivery systems and sources. The argument will necessarily consider inefficiencies that often plague government spending. It should also attend to the likely technologies in the alternative energy marketplace. I hope to also consider the discussion from a national security angle, as well as from the perspective of our economic and ecological well being. Let's get started with some initial premises.

Governments spend money. Sometimes poorly, sometimes not. It should be troubling that the far right has successfully managed to demonize government spending to the degree that we no longer see it for what it is. At root, government spending is investment. Government investment has certain advantages over private investment, though it comes with baggage as well. One advantage is sheer scale. What private enterprise can/would invest $170 billion on an idea? It's an interesting counter-factual exercise to consider whether we would have a highway system as ours if not facilitated by government support in the 50's, or whether we would have visited the moon had Kennedy not committed substantial funding in the 60's. That being said, governments often make it easy for the Milton Friedman types to have sway. It is fairly easy to cast governments as inefficient machines that waste money as though it was in their DNA to do so.

With respect to renewables, here's a synopsis on where we stand: Population is increasing. Countries are developing, energy demand is increasing. Many of the traditional supply states are not exactly friends. Some of the demand states are gaining in global power, which will put additional stress on the negotiating position of the U.S. Previously, for instance, we had leverage when pushing our interests before OPEC etc., particularly relative to growing states like China. This is less the case today, and far less likely moving forward. From the basic standpoint of our national security, it seems evident, a no-brainer if you will, that we should consider alternative sources of energy.

Nuclear energy remains viable, though the cold war legacy of nuclear holocaust, along with the very real incidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Japan's Fukushima plant, continue to act as roadblocks to investment. Renewable energy, on the other hand, seems to be the most compelling solution to me. Wind, solar, biomass, and the like already account for upwards of 20% of the global energy supply. Countries are increasingly turning to renewables as their primary sources of energy (Brazil gets 85% of their energy from renewables, Iceland 100%). The U.S. has vast lands available for harvesting wind and solar energy, and we are on the front lines of tomorrow's technologies (nanotechnologies offering greater efficiencies in solar panels are currently being developed at research institutions like UC Santa Barbara).

The question for consideration is this: Given the many roadblocks to government investment in this sector (the Solyndra scandal being only the most recent), what arguments for increased funding in renewable energy can actually win in this environment?