Without plentiful and low-cost energy, every aspect of the global economy is threatened. Yet, while promising new technologies could translate into literally trillions of dollars of economic output, the public financing needed to get them off the ground remains shockingly low.
NEW YORK – The world economy is being battered by sharply higher energy prices. While a few energy-exporting countries in the Middle East and elsewhere reap huge profits, the rest of the world is suffering as the price of oil has topped $110 per barrel and that of coal has doubled.
Without plentiful and low-cost energy, every aspect of the global economy is threatened. For example, food prices are increasing alongside soaring oil prices, partly because of increased production costs, but also because farmland in the United States and elsewhere is being converted from food production to bio-fuel production.
No quick fix exists for oil prices. Higher prices reflect basic conditions of supply and demand. The world economy – especially China, India, and elsewhere in Asia – has been growing rapidly, leading to a steep increase in global demand for energy, notably for electricity and transport. Yet global supplies of oil, natural gas, and coal cannot easily keep up, even with new discoveries. And, in many places, oil supplies are declining as old oil fields are depleted.
Coal is in somewhat larger supply, and can be turned into liquid fuels for transport. Yet coal is an inadequate substitute, partly because of limited supplies, and partly because coal emits large amounts of carbon dioxide per unit of energy, and therefore is a dangerous source of man-made climate change.
For developing countries to continue to enjoy rapid economic growth, and for rich countries to avoid a slump caused, it will be necessary to develop new energy technologies. Three objectives should be targeted: low-cost alternatives to fossil fuels, greater energy efficiency, and reduction of carbon-dioxide emissions.
The most promising technology in the long term is solar power. The total solar radiation hitting the planet is about 1,000 times the world’s commercial energy use. This means that even a small part of the earth’s land surface, notably in desert regions, which receive massive solar radiation, can supply large amounts of the electricity for much of the rest of the world.
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
For example, solar power plants in America’s Mohave Desert could supply more than half of the country’s electricity needs. Solar power plants in Northern Africa could supply power to Western Europe. And solar power plants in the Sahel of Africa, just south of the vast Sahara, could supply power to much of West, East, and Central Africa.
Perhaps the single most promising development in terms of energy efficiency is “plug-in hybrid technology” for automobiles, which may be able to triple the fuel efficiency of new automobiles within the next decade. The idea is that automobiles would run mainly on batteries recharged each night on the electricity grid, with a gasoline-hybrid engine as a backup to the battery. General Motors might have an early version by 2010.
The most important technology for the safe environmental use of coal is the capture and geological storage of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. Such “carbon capture and sequestration,” or CCS, is urgently needed in the major coal-consuming countries, especially China, India, Australia, and the US. The key CCS technologies have already been developed; it is time to move from engineering blueprints to real demonstration power plants.
For all of these promising technologies, governments should be investing in the science and high costs of early-stage testing. Without at least partial public financing, the uptake of these new technologies will be slow and uneven. Indeed, most major technologies that we now take for granted – airplanes, computers, the Internet, and new medicines, to name but a few – received crucial public financing in the early stages of development and deployment.
It is shocking, and worrisome, that public financing remains slight, because these technologies’ success could translate into literally trillions of dollars of economic output. For example, according to the most recent data from the International Energy Agency, in 2006 the US government invested a meager $3 billion per year in energy research and development. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this represented a decline of roughly 40% since the early 1980’s, and now equals what the US spends on its military in just 1.5 days.
The situation is even more discouraging when we look at the particulars. US government funding for renewable energy technologies (solar, wind, geothermal, ocean, and bio-energy) totaled a meager $239 million, or just three hours of defense spending. Spending on carbon capture and sequestration was just $67 million, while spending for energy efficiency of all types (buildings, transport, and industry) was $352 million.
Of course, developing new energy technologies is not America’s responsibility alone. Global cooperation on energy technologies is needed both to increase supplies and to ensure that energy use is environmentally safe, especially to head off man-made climate change from the use of fossil fuels. This would not only be good economics, but also good politics, since it could unite the world in our common interest, rather than dividing the world in a bitter struggle over diminishing oil, gas, and coal reserves.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
A promising way to mobilize more climate finance for developing countries is to expand the use of “solidarity levies”: global levies on carbon dioxide emissions and other economic activities that channel proceeds to developing countries. The benefits of scaling up such measures would be far-reaching.
Although Americans – and the world – have been spared the kind of agonizing uncertainty that followed the 2020 election, a different kind of uncertainty has set in. While few doubt that Donald Trump's comeback will have far-reaching implications, most observers are only beginning to come to grips with what those could be.
consider what the outcome of the 2024 US presidential election will mean for America and the world.
NEW YORK – The world economy is being battered by sharply higher energy prices. While a few energy-exporting countries in the Middle East and elsewhere reap huge profits, the rest of the world is suffering as the price of oil has topped $110 per barrel and that of coal has doubled.
Without plentiful and low-cost energy, every aspect of the global economy is threatened. For example, food prices are increasing alongside soaring oil prices, partly because of increased production costs, but also because farmland in the United States and elsewhere is being converted from food production to bio-fuel production.
No quick fix exists for oil prices. Higher prices reflect basic conditions of supply and demand. The world economy – especially China, India, and elsewhere in Asia – has been growing rapidly, leading to a steep increase in global demand for energy, notably for electricity and transport. Yet global supplies of oil, natural gas, and coal cannot easily keep up, even with new discoveries. And, in many places, oil supplies are declining as old oil fields are depleted.
Coal is in somewhat larger supply, and can be turned into liquid fuels for transport. Yet coal is an inadequate substitute, partly because of limited supplies, and partly because coal emits large amounts of carbon dioxide per unit of energy, and therefore is a dangerous source of man-made climate change.
For developing countries to continue to enjoy rapid economic growth, and for rich countries to avoid a slump caused, it will be necessary to develop new energy technologies. Three objectives should be targeted: low-cost alternatives to fossil fuels, greater energy efficiency, and reduction of carbon-dioxide emissions.
The most promising technology in the long term is solar power. The total solar radiation hitting the planet is about 1,000 times the world’s commercial energy use. This means that even a small part of the earth’s land surface, notably in desert regions, which receive massive solar radiation, can supply large amounts of the electricity for much of the rest of the world.
Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
For example, solar power plants in America’s Mohave Desert could supply more than half of the country’s electricity needs. Solar power plants in Northern Africa could supply power to Western Europe. And solar power plants in the Sahel of Africa, just south of the vast Sahara, could supply power to much of West, East, and Central Africa.
Perhaps the single most promising development in terms of energy efficiency is “plug-in hybrid technology” for automobiles, which may be able to triple the fuel efficiency of new automobiles within the next decade. The idea is that automobiles would run mainly on batteries recharged each night on the electricity grid, with a gasoline-hybrid engine as a backup to the battery. General Motors might have an early version by 2010.
The most important technology for the safe environmental use of coal is the capture and geological storage of carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants. Such “carbon capture and sequestration,” or CCS, is urgently needed in the major coal-consuming countries, especially China, India, Australia, and the US. The key CCS technologies have already been developed; it is time to move from engineering blueprints to real demonstration power plants.
For all of these promising technologies, governments should be investing in the science and high costs of early-stage testing. Without at least partial public financing, the uptake of these new technologies will be slow and uneven. Indeed, most major technologies that we now take for granted – airplanes, computers, the Internet, and new medicines, to name but a few – received crucial public financing in the early stages of development and deployment.
It is shocking, and worrisome, that public financing remains slight, because these technologies’ success could translate into literally trillions of dollars of economic output. For example, according to the most recent data from the International Energy Agency, in 2006 the US government invested a meager $3 billion per year in energy research and development. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this represented a decline of roughly 40% since the early 1980’s, and now equals what the US spends on its military in just 1.5 days.
The situation is even more discouraging when we look at the particulars. US government funding for renewable energy technologies (solar, wind, geothermal, ocean, and bio-energy) totaled a meager $239 million, or just three hours of defense spending. Spending on carbon capture and sequestration was just $67 million, while spending for energy efficiency of all types (buildings, transport, and industry) was $352 million.
Of course, developing new energy technologies is not America’s responsibility alone. Global cooperation on energy technologies is needed both to increase supplies and to ensure that energy use is environmentally safe, especially to head off man-made climate change from the use of fossil fuels. This would not only be good economics, but also good politics, since it could unite the world in our common interest, rather than dividing the world in a bitter struggle over diminishing oil, gas, and coal reserves.