... continued from page 1
And there’s no way that can be delayed?
Right. They can’t show up in 90 days and scuttle it. So it has to be a smooth handover. All these things are in motion, these programs.
Maybe that’s overconfident or immodest, but we try to manage this without partisanship and remove the political elements of it and I think that will remain. Now the politicians themselves will all get their sound bites and speaking events, but the actual fundamental programming and policy making will stay.
You mentioned diversifying the nation's energy portfolio. The U.K. just announced plans to review its biofuel policy (see UK biofuel policy review "not terrible thing," say analysts.) Will the U.S. be reviewing its stance on biofuels also?
No, I think the U.S. should be substantially affecting the global dialogue on biofuels because we are undoubtedly the technology leaders bar none.
There is a great deal of politically-motivated disinformation, there’s a corporate-motivated misinformation and I think we need sunlight to be the greatest disinfectant on an intelligent global discourse for biofuels and the role of biotech.
I hit that yesterday at the biofuels conference [in Orlando, Florida]—we welcome anybody into these discussions.
There were some compelling-for-their-superficiality reports released in Science magazine a few weeks ago that are not even debatably wrong, are patently wrong with very bad assumptions, poor modeling, worst-case scenarios extrapolated with media amplification [ed.: want an alternative take on the Science reports? See Cleantech.com's Biofuel industries call studies "naïve".]
Ask me if I feel strongly about it.
So no, these are things the United States will lead on. We incorporate sustainability into every bit of our programmatic approach. We’re working with conservation international on land use, direct and indirect. We’re investing in the science to do this sustainably. The law itself mandates the sustainability aspect.
The whole idea of modeling scenarios beyond the law is incredible. You’re ultimately affecting the profitability of the world’s largest energy source, so expect there to be a vigorous dialogue as more market share goes to renewable fuels and sources.
The federal government will weigh in and ensure that the whole totality of facts and science and reality is tabled and not have shallow discussion about it.
Getting ready to hand off the baton in 300+ days
Going back to your keynote speech, you mentioned that President Bush mentioned the need for a global cleantech fund in his State of the Union address. How much will the U.S. contribute?
Two billion dollars. There's an ongoing discussion with the U.K. and Canada and others. It is part of the G8 and the Gleneagles [in Scotland, where the July 2005 G8 meeting was held] process. So you have multiple global processes working through these discussions—the G8 process, the Gleneagles process that came out of the G8 a few years ago, and the G8 itself called on a major economy process that the president kicked off in September.
The leaders of those countries said, "Let’s go through Bali and see if we agree." We did go through Bali, we did agree. And in Honolulu last month the DOE actually hosted the first major economies’ meeting post-Bali and we continue to press on things on that.
The world’s leaders—China, Britain, France—commend the U.S. for its leadership in climate change dialog, which really is a refreshing turn of events.
There are critics who say this is too little, too late. What would you say to them?
I don’t think the problem’s gone away and I don’t think its time to sit on our hands and the whole idea of sit and wait until you get a political preference is just a little bit silly.
This problem is large enough to be with us for many generations and it doesn’t matter what party comes and goes in four year increments. The work has got to be continuous, nonpartisan, bipartisan and so it's not too little, too late.
The government is in the game, all other countries are watching our leadership that has to be successfully transitioned, and any strategy that says pause, wait, get my leader and my preferences is one that is not serious about the urgency of the problem.
The government of tiny Abu Dhabi just allocated $15 billion to accelerate clean technologies (see Abu Dhabi, the next cleantech hub?). Japan just earmarked $10 billion (see Japan to set up $10B climate change fund). Is $2 billion from the U.S., by comparison, meaningful?
It’s $2 billion in that pool, it's $38.5 billion in the loan guarantee pool. It’s $7 million in this [the DOE's newly-established Entrepreneur in Residence program].
The U.S. and Japan together constitute 80 percent of global energy R&D cumulative, with the rest of the world making up 20 percent. So we agree with you that the equation of money needs to start being considered by those with the loudest voices on the problem that money needs to be put in energy technology.
The U.S. is in firm agreement on that in terms of research and development deployment. But you can’t compare this pool with that pool because it’s an aggregate number for national contributions—that happens to be the pool for clean energy funding in that mechanism.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
