Check out the new home of Breakthrough Generation at http://thebreakthrough.org/youth.shtml

At the weekend, Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed called for increased direct action campaigning to encourage governments to act on climate change. “What we really need is a huge social 60s-style catalystic, dynamic street action,” said Nasheed in the Guardian. “If the people in the US wish to change, it can happen. In the 60s and 70s, they’ve done that.”

President Nasheed emerged from the last year’s Copenhagen Climate Conference with considerable clout among climate change campaigners, and rightly so. In the process of drawing attention to the plight of his homeland the Maldives, a chain of small islands threatened by rising sea levels and storm surges, Nasheed became a leading voice for the vulnerable and poor in the international negotiations. Nasheed has since received several awards for his commendable efforts.

The Maldivian President’s comments will no doubt be music to the ears of some climate advocates in Australia, however, the merits of such an approach should be carefully considered. Is direct action likely to be as effective for climate change as it was for social issues in the 1960s? Is Nasheed’s optimism that renewed grassroots action will compel governments to implement effective climate policies well founded?

Nasheed points to successful direct action campaigns that occurred in 1960s America as a model, and this provides a good starting point for exploring these questions. Let’s take a quick look at the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement used various types of direct action between 1955 and 1968 to overturn Jim Crow laws that permitted racial segregation and other forms of discrimination in the United States. The largest of the marches, the March on Washington in 1963 (where Martin Luther King Jr. delivered the historic “I have a dream” speech), is credited with helping build momentum to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The successes of American civil rights movement support the notion of grassroots movements driving change, but the world has changed since the 1960s, and so have the issues. While freedom and dignity where at the heart of the civil rights struggle, the role of freedom is not as clear-cut when it comes to climate change.

Climate change doesn’t readily lend itself to direct action campaigning for two reasons. Firstly, the impacts of unmitigated climate change do not affect citizens from the largest carbon emitting nations in a visible and direct way. Attempts to link climate change with specific storms, bushfires, and heatwaves, have been of limited use because these ‘natural disasters’ have been experienced throughout history and live in our social memory.

Unlike the civil rights movement, climate change has a complex causation. Its effects are indirect, systemic, difficult to perceive, and will increase over time. This is compounded by an absence of directly affected and disgruntled citizens in developed nations to demand action. The fact that future generations and people that are living in the developing world are, and will be, hardest hit by our changing climate, means that this crucial driver for effective grassroots mobilization is missing in the west.

Secondly, in contrast to the emancipatory civil rights laws, the dominant climate policies could be framed as limiting freedom to those in developed nations. The key climate change policies advocated involve carbon pricing in one form or another. Whether it’s a market price or carbon tax, a direct action campaign would require a critical mass of people to protest for measures that increase the cost of energy.

In this scenario it is possible for opponents to frame demonstrators as attacking freedom, rather than promoting it, as was the case in the protests of the 1960s. This framing would be achieved in a similar way that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott rebranded the government’s emissions-trading scheme as “a great big tax.”

Putting aside these challenges, we should consider that recent grassroots demonstrations in Australia have a mixed record.

In 2003, between 800 thousand and one million Australian’s demonstrated against the US-led invasion of Iraq and the Howard government’s commitment to send the Nation’s armed forces to war. This massive demonstration was the largest since the anti-Vietnam war protests of the 1970s, but was it enough to pressure the government to withdraw Australian troops? No. Was it enough to build a movement capable of voting out the conservative Prime Minister at the next election? No. Did it translate into a legislative victory that would ensure governments require the approval of the Australian Parliament to wage war? No.

On the other hand, in the lead up to the 2007 election a successful grassroots movement was formed in opposition to the Howard government’s unpopular industrial relations reforms.  In contrast to the anti-Iraq was protests years earlier, the reforms directly affected millions of Australian workers. The WorkChoices reforms threatened the rights of citizens and presented a risk to financial security. The effective campaign used direct action alongside other grassroots organising methods. A combination of intelligent campaigning by a galvanized union movement, progressive online campaigning, excellent messaging (‘Your Rights at Work’), and a revitalised Labor party deposed the Howard government.

President Nasheed’s brief comments pose interesting questions about the effectiveness of 1960s-style direct action for climate change campaigning, but are not detailed enough to adequately gauge the role it might play. Direct action will continue to perform a cathartic function for climate change activists, but its ability to lead to transformative change like the civil rights movement in the US, or more modest victory for Australian workers against the Howard government, is limited. It is good to look to the past for inspiration but we mustn’t be blinded by nostalgia.

.

It’s no understatement that last week’s Federal budget was bad for climate change. The Rudd Government, fresh from its emissions trading backdown, once again failed to live up to its rhetoric. It failed to act on “the greatest scientific, moral and economic challenge of our time”. And it failed to deliver the scale of investment needed to drive our transition to a clean energy economy.

There was a belief that the 2010 budget would include some big investments to combat the climate crisis. Rudd’s decision to delay the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) to 2013 coincided with a sharp decline in public support for the government. The Prime Minister’s own approval rating has collapsed in recent weeks, falling 14 points to 45 per cent – the lowest level since taking office in 2007. The budget was regarded as a way for Rudd to regain his edge on climate policy. He would have the opportunity to restore the confidence of voters suspicious of his government’s commitment to climate change.

As we now know, the government’s investment in renewable energy was markedly less than the year earlier. But should this come as a surprise? No. It shouldn’t.

There is almost nothing driving the Federal government to invest the common wealth of Australia in projects to address climate change. Australian climate policy has been dominated by green neoliberalism for years: targets and trading is the mantra. In the minds of many, carbon pricing, caps, targets, and markets are synonymous with climate action, while investment measures are reserved for the national health system, infrastructure projects (often to facilitate coal exports), or sports programs.

Industry bodies representing big business and some of the largest of the national environment groups have presented emissions trading as the best way to decarbonise. This has had the effect of obscuring alternative approaches. The emissions-trading orthodoxy had no competition in the mainstream debate until very recently, when a broad coalition of prominent Australians and organisations signed an open letter to the Prime Minister. This letter called for a massive increase in investment towards renewables and climate-friendly infrastructure in the 2010 budget. More broadly, the letter called on Labor to embrace a nation-building approach to climate policy.

“Australia needs a nation-building project for climate change with the scale and vision of a Snowy Mountains Scheme for the 21st Century,” states the letter. “Such an initiative will drive our transition away from fossil fuels towards a clean, renewable energy economy.” “This approach,” the letter argued, “will spur economic development and create good Australian jobs. It will put Australia on track to achieve the emissions reductions needed to protect the nation from dangerous climate change.”

The letter symbolises an attempt to broaden the debate. The ideas contained in the sign-on letter present a challenge to the green neoliberalism that has dominated national climate policy discourse.

While the Labor party bungled the budget, it still has the opportunity to reframe its climate change agenda. It can draw on Australia’s rich nation-building history to implement effective programs to mitigate and adapt to our changing climate. As the nation’s largest ever engineering project, the Snowy Mountains Scheme is the perfect model for moving forward on climate change.

Politically, the model provides the government with a narrative and framework for coherent policy. Nation building is in the political DNA of the Australian Labor Party; after all, it was Chifley Labor government who initiated the Snowy Mountains Scheme in the late 1940s. Opposition leader Tony Abbott will have a tougher time arguing against this type of policy. While he has successfully demonised emissions trading, branding it a “great big tax”, he hasn’t been able to do the same with Labor’s current nation-building project, the National Broadband Network. Abbott himself has committed the Coalition to investment-centred climate policy with “direct measures” and can’t afford to backflip on the important issue in an election year.

Culturally, the nation-building model provides Australians with a way of understanding the technological challenge at the heart of climate change. It also draws attention to the scale of engineering and can-do spirit required to transform the nation from a fossil-fueled economy to a renewable one. This approach will demonstrate the benefits of “green” jobs, making the concept a reality for thousands of Australians.

Nation building must occur before carbon-pricing measures are implemented. The combination of the political and cultural factors just mentioned paves the way for the reintroduction of CPRS, or implementation of the Greens’ interim carbon price. Only when Australians work in industries that benefit from decarbonisation will our government be able to apply a strong price signal. The core objective of climate change advocates should now be on changing the political landscape. To create the conditions for passing effective carbon pricing measures when the time is right.

It’s too early to tell whether the Rudd government will embrace this visionary nation-building approach to fill the void left by their decision to drop the CPRS. One thing is clear though: it is now the best way for Labor to salvage their reputation and stave off electoral punishment.

Published by the ABC, Australia’s national broadcaster. Cross posted at The Real Ewbank.

Australia needs a Plan B for climate policy. We need a nation-building project on the scale of the Snowy Mountains Scheme to invest in renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure. This is the fresh approach needed to drive Australia’s transition towards a clean economy and protect the nation from dangerous climate change.

The Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday that the government will delay its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme until 2013 is a tacit admission that pricing carbon is not viable in the current political environment.

Labor and proponents of emissions trading have been living a fantasy for too long. They have ignored the realities of politics to pursue a policy that had no reasonable chance of being implemented at a time when climate change experts agree we must act. Now, Australia is set for yet more inaction.

Community-led climate advocacy group Beyond Zero Emissions, in contrast, seeks to deal with the technological problem at the heart of climate change: how to power our nation while producing zero carbon emissions.

Our organisation has recently released the executive summary of its Zero Carbon Australia 2020 plan — a detailed blueprint for Australia to transition to 100 per cent renewable energy by the end of the decade.

Beyond Zero Emissions call for public investment in concentrated solar thermal power — renewable energy technology that is capable of generating electricity 24 hours a day — alongside a whole raft of infrastructure projects to decarbonise Australia. We believe our plan is capable of winning wide public support and delivering quantifiable carbon reductions.

Australia is a sun soaked continent, yet the great potential to power our economy from solar sources is unrealised. It should shock Australians that there is currently no operating baseload solar power anywhere in Australia. Deploying solar thermal technology should be at the centre of national climate policy. It is the best way to reduce the nation’s carbon emissions while continuing economic development. With political will and direct action, the Rudd government can spearhead the development of a national solar thermal power system to secure energy supplies and our climate.

Ideally, this direct measure would be coupled with the construction of additional climate-friendly infrastructure. This will include a renewable electricity grid connecting Australia’s population centres to our vast renewable energy resources, and creation of a high-speed rail network between our largest cities. The former will bring down the costs of renewable energy for Australians, while the latter will displace the carbon now generated by some of the busiest domestic air routes on the planet.

Without realising it, the Rudd government has taken a small step towards this framework. In last year’s budget, the Rudd government invested $1.5 billion to build up to four large-scale solar thermal power plants in Australia. The aim of the so-called Solar Flagships program was to establish up to 1,000 megawatts of solar power generation capacity by 2015. At face value the plan looks impressive, but when we consider that Spain is aiming to have 2,500 megawatts installed by the end of 2013 it is clear that this form of renewable energy is a low priority for the government.

Labor’s lack of commitment is more clearly demonstrated by the discrepancy in government investment between solar thermal projects and the national broadband network. The $1.5 billion Solar Flagship program pales in comparison to the $42 billion to be invested in the rollout of the national broadband network (NBN) over eight years. With a funding differential like this, it would be reasonable to assume that the Prime Minister considers slow internet a greater moral challenge than climate change. Government investment on sustainable infrastructure should match the investment in the NBN at a minimum.

The inadequate funding for the Solar Flagships program will stifle the emerging solar thermal industry. Despite Minister for Energy, Martin Ferguson having more than 20 fully costed and engineered baseload projects for consideration, he is planning to choose only one.

But why limit the prospects for the industry when we need decisive action to turn this winning technology into a serious power source for the nation’s future? The number one priority for Labor’s climate agenda should be ramping-up investment in concentrated solar thermal (CST) power. By pioneering CST Australia has the opportunity to create thousands of jobs and gain a competitive edge in the global growth market of the future.

We’ll soon know whether Rudd is ready to lead on climate change. On the second Tuesday of May the government will announce the 2010 budget. The Prime Minister has a choice: his government can abandon its responsibilities and put climate policy in the ‘too hard’ basket, or it can usher in a new era of climate policy by investing in nation-building for climate change. Let’s hope the Rudd government, having failed Australia with climate policy thus far, makes the right choice on budget night.

The Australian Greens have put high-speed rail (HSR) back on the national agenda. Greens leader Senator Bob Brown has called on the Rudd government to fund a study identifying the best route for connecting Australia’s two largest cities, Melbourne and Sydney, with HSR.

The ambitious project represents the type of nation building that should be at the heart of national climate policy. The project has the potential to reduce Australia’s ballooning carbon emissions, and kick-start the development of a larger HSR network that can one day connect all of Australia’s mainland capital cities.

High Speed Rail between Melbourne and Sydney would provide a viable alternative to flying. The carbon impact of air travel came to the fore this week when it was revealed that the European air industry is more carbon intensive than the Icelandic volcano that grounded European flights for a week (check out this infographic by Information is Beautiful). Given that the Melbourne-Sydney route is currently one of the world’s busiest, any reduction of flights between the two cities will deliver substantial carbon reductions over time.

Bob Brown’s request comes amid renewed interest in high-speed rail globally. The Obama administration invested $8 billion in last year’s economic stimulus—the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act—for HSR projects in Florida and California that will lay the foundation for a national network. And China has recently announced plans for HSR that dwarfs those of the US. The nation that built the Great Wall of China is set to spearhead the construction of the world’s largest ever engineering project: an intercontinental high-speed rail network connecting London with Beijing, and then to Singapore. China is now negotiating with several nations so it can complete the project by the end of the decade.

The rollout of HSR in North America and Asia is good news for Australia. These massive projects will lead to the increased production of HSR components and know-how. These economies of scale are capable of bringing down the costs of the HSR infrastructure, making it economically viable for Australia to undertake a nation building HSR project over the next two decades.

A national Australian HSR network will deliver larger carbon savings as domestic energy production shifts to renewable energy sources like wind, geothermal, andbaseload solar. And of course, there are social and economic benefits too. The construction of the network will create thousands of jobs and open up regional centres for sustainable development.

The Beyond Zero Emissions team look forward to the day when Australians can fly by rail. The Rudd government’s support for the HSR study will bring us a step closer to that dream.

China is building an ambitious “Solar Valley City” as a new national center for manufacturing, research and development, education, and tourism around solar energy technologies. as part of the Chinese government and industry’s efforts to promote clean energy technology and grow the nation’s global market share (see video below beginning at 10 seconds).

Solar Valley City is located in Dezhou, Shandong Province, where I visited last month as part of a delegation from Stanford University, and it is unlike any city you’ve seen before. The city houses over 100 solar enterprises including major firms like Himin Solar Energy Group Ltd, the world’s largest manufacturing base of solar thermal products, and Ecco Solar Group. According to reports, around 800,000 people in Dezhou are employed in the solar industry, or one in three people of working age.

“China’s solar thermal industry and Himin’s complete industrial chain are examples for the rest of the world. That sounds brash, but it’s true,” said Himin’s CEO Huan Ming in 2009, now one of China’s richest men. Himin specializes in solar thermal technology, producing over twice the annual sales of all solar thermal systems in the United States, and it is quickly expanding into solar photovoltaics and other technologies.

Himin’s portion of Solar Valley comprises nearly 1000 acres, where the company is currently constructing its manufacturing center, research and development center, education and training center, apartment complexes, and more. These facilities will host the 4th International Solar Cities Congress this year and boast a giant “solar architecture” hotel.

The Chinese government has offered substantial support for the project, including preferential tax benefits and other supporting policies, although the specifics are largely unknown. “The municipal government attaches great importance to the development of green energy,” said the County Level Inspector of Dezhou People’s Congress.

Our Stanford “China Energy Systems” class delegation visiting China’s Solar Valley City (I’m in the front row, fourth one from left)

Solar Valley City has similarities to China’s new “Electricity Valley” in the city of Baoding, which has consciously modeled itself after Silicon Valley. The city has transformed itself from an automobile and textile town into one of the fastest growing hubs of wind and solar energy equipment in China, housing nearly 200 renewable energy companies.

Overall, this project is yet one more example of how China is moving rapidly to lead the global clean energy industry while the United States falls behind. China is already the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels and wind turbines, and it is poised to lead in advanced batteries, high-speed rail, hybrid and electric vehicles, nuclear, and advanced coal technology.

As my colleagues and I documented in our “Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant” report last year, China and other Asian nations will out-invest the United States in the clean energy sector sector by over three to one over the next five years, a finding that was recently confirmed by a large Pew report, “Who’s Winning the Clean Energy Race?” As a group of ten U.S. Senators recently wrote in a letter to Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman:

“We know that other countries, in particular China, have already started to vie for leadership in the new clean energy economy. China has already become the world’s leading manufacturer of wind turbines and solar panels. This is a contest that America cannot afford to lose. Our nation’s economic future depends both on our global competitiveness and access to reliable energy sources. We must not allow our nation to become dependent on foreign clean energy industries or squander the opportunity to compete successfully in the global clean energy marketplace.”

What will it take for the United States to lead the global clean energy industry? Find out more in my article, “Winning the Clean Energy Race: A New Strategy for American Leadership,” and check out the full list of recommendations in our report.

Alex is an environmental economics major at UC Berkeley, and founder of the Energetics Blog.

Calling Young Leaders: Apply for Policy Fellowship with Americans for Energy Leadership

Americans for Energy Leadership, a new project of Scientists & Engineers for America, is now accepting applications for the position of Policy Fellow, seeking the nation’s brightest young adults to perform high-level research, development, reporting, and advocacy on energy and innovation policy. Full-time and part-time positions are available in Washington, DC and across the country.

The position is paid and designed especially for college students, graduate students, recent graduates, and young professionals, including a full-time summer track and a non-resident, part-time track. Applications will be considered on a rolling basis until May 2nd for the summer track, and May 23rd for the non-resident track. See http://www.leadenergy.org/our-team/positions for more information (also posted below), and for upcoming information on open positions.

Background

Americans for Energy Leadership (AEL) is the first national youth-led policy initiative focused on promoting U.S. leadership in the clean energy industry. We believe the global clean-tech race represents one of today’s greatest opportunities for American leadership, and we are committed to empowering young people to secure our position in this sector.

Launched in 2009, AEL has quickly become a leading youth energy group, spearheading a nation-wide effort to advance the Obama administration’s proposal for advanced energy education (RE-ENERGYSE), co-organizing a conference with Secretary of Energy Steven Chu at Stanford University, and providing ongoing news coverage. AEL also builds on the prior work of its director, who founded the Breakthrough Institute fellowship program, contributed to the creation of RE-ENERGYSE, and co-authored an authoritative report on the clean energy race, “Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant,” featured by Time Magazine’s “Top 10 Green Ideas of 2009.”

Position Overview

Policy Fellows will play a central role in supporting AEL’s mission, with unique opportunities for research, publishing, advocacy, education, and networking. For example, fellows will have opportunities to publish in outlets like the Huffington Post, Forbes Energy Source, Grist, The Energy Collective, and more. Policy Fellows will also have opportunities to access AEL’s growing network of experts in energy and innovation policy, collaborate on projects with larger think tanks and organizations, and meet with different policymakers.

Potential areas of focus include (but are not limited to) issues related to energy research and development, advanced energy education and job creation, intellectual property and energy technology transfer, global energy poverty alleviation, high-tech manufacturing, energy technology road-mapping, and more.

The full-time position is a 10-week summer fellowship in Washington, DC, from June to August, 2010 (exact dates negotiable), offering a stipend of $250 per week. The part-time, non-resident option is a 5-month fellowship, offering a total stipend of $500. All fellows will receive a travel scholarship to attend a special summit in Washington, DC and will have access to various career development opportunities.

Policy Fellows in the non-resident track will work with AEL’s leadership team and advisers to design a special project to develop throughout their fellowship, such as a policy report or ongoing news coverage and analysis. Projects could also involve creative forms of policy communication, organizing, and advocacy work, among others (applicants are not expected to have a pre-determined project, but ideas are welcome). Non-resident fellows will also write actively on our website and other energy news outlets, including one post per week or more.

Application Instructions

Applicants should have strong skills in writing, research, analysis, and personal communication, and should possess some experience or education in public policy issues. Additional skills and experience such as organizing, design, video, web development, and other relevant areas will be considered. As a start-up, we are also seeking individuals with an aptitude for social entrepreneurship and a flexible work environment.

Applications will be considered on a rolling basis until the final deadlines listed below; given the high level of expected interest, we recommend applying at your earliest convenience. Individuals may apply for both the summer and non-resident position with the same application, although only one position can be rewarded.

* Full-time summer program (June-Aug): May 2nd, 11:59pm
* 5-month non-resident program (June-Nov): May 23rd, 11:59pm

To apply, please submit a resume, cover letter, and three writing samples to info@leadenergy.org with subject line “Application for Policy Fellow.” Writing samples should include one research paper and one op-ed style piece (these do not have to be published). In your cover letter, please indicate (1) why you are applying, and whether you are applying for the summer or non-resident position, or both; (2) your experience and/or education related to policy, in energy or other areas; (3) any individual experiences or traits that make you diverse; and (4) any other summer job acceptance deadlines you must meet, if applying for the summer position. Personal recommendations are welcomed (two max), but not required. All questions can be sent to info@leadenergy.org.

##

Cross posted at The Real Ewbank.

Of all the news and commentary I read about Earth Hour in Australia, not once did I see a mention of the billions of people that now live in energy poverty. Event organizers and commentators failed to discuss the fact that while millions of people around the world symbolically switched off their lights for one hour, billions are desperate to turn their lights on.