Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
How to Enter the Global Green Economy
When New York City wanted to make the biggest purchase of subway cars in U.S. history in the late 1990s, more than 3 billion dollars worth, the only companies that were able to bid on the contract were foreign. The same problem applies to high-speed rail today: only European or Japanese companies could build any of the proposed rail networks in the United States. The U.S. has also ceded the high ground to Europe and Japan in a broad range of other sustainable technologies. For instance, 11 companies produce 96% of medium to large wind turbines; only one, GE, is based in the United States, with a 16% share of the global market. The differences in market penetration come down to two factors: European and Japanese companies have become more competent producers for these markets, and their governments have helped them to develop both this competence and the markets themselves.
Let's take Germany as an example. Even though the sun is not so shiny in that part of Europe, Germany has put up 88% of the PV photovoltaics for solar power in Europe. Partly, this was the result of a feed-in tariff (FIT); that is, Germany guarantees that it will pay about .10 Euro per kilowatt/hour of electricity to whoever produces wind or solar electricity. The average for electricity that is paid for nonrenewable sources is about .05 Euro per kwh, so Germany is effectively paying double for its renewable electricity in a successful effort to encourage its production. Every year, the guaranteed price is lowered, so that the renewable sector can eventually compete on its own, having gotten over the "hump" of introducing new technology.
But Germany's other advantage is that it is a world leader in manufacturing renewable technology equipment. 32% of the solar equipment manufacturers in the world are located in Germany. In addition, almost 30% of global wind turbine manufacturing capacity is German.
In Denmark we can see the advantages of good policy plus competence in building machinery. The world's largest wind turbine manufacturer, Vestas, is Danish. According to the Earth Policy Institute, "Denmark's 3,100 megawatts of wind capacity meet 20 percent of its electricity needs, the largest share in any country." The Danes have created a fascinating experiment in democracy by building most of their wind turbines through the agency of wind cooperatives, which may be joined by individuals and families.
Spain has undertaken one of the most ambitious programs in wind, solar, and high-speed trains. The Gamesa Corporation is the second largest wind turbine manufacturer, and Acciona Energy is the largest wind-park developer. The Spanish government has very ambitious plans for wind production, and occasionally wind power provides as much as 30% of the country's electrical power.
Spain is also the world's fourth largest producer of solar energy equipment, and is a leader in the development of concentrated solar power (CSP). CSP is a form of solar power obtained by using a very large quantity of mirrors, typically, to concentrate solar rays onto a tower that produces steam, which then turns a turbine, generating electricity. They are often built in deserts, and can be spread over several acres. These new solar technologies will probably result in lower cost electricity for long-distance applications than photovoltaics.
Asia is an important producer of renewable energy and train equipment as well. As of 2006 Japan produced about 39% of the solar cells in the world, and has encouraged solar energy in Japan with subsidies for purchasing the equipment as well as generous research budgets. Japan's Shinkansen high-speed rail network covers much of the country. China is set to take off as one of the world's biggest solar and wind equipment producers, owing to its rise as a manufacturing nation.
But Europe and Japan's dominance in renewable technologies is really based in a broader domain of competitive competence. They dominate the most fundamental sector of the economy, namely the production of machinery for manufacturing industries in general (often referred to as the mechanical engineering sector). According to statistics compiled by the European Union (EU), the EU produces almost twice as much industrial equipment overall as the United States; Japan produces almost as much as the US, with about half the population. The split among the EU, US, and Japan, which together produce most of the world's machinery, is 52%, 27%, and 21%, respectively.
A robust industrial sector is the infrastructure we need for building the tools that will help us to avert climate catastrophe. Think of the industrial sector of an economy as an ecosystem. Instead of the grass and leaves that feed the plant-eaters that feed the meat eaters, a modern economic ecosystem contains industrial equipment that makes production technology that creates the goods and services that people consume.
The different "niches" of an economic ecosystem, such as the various machinery and equipment sectors, thrive as a self-reinforcing web of engineers, high-skill production workers, operational managers and factories. As of 2003, Europe's manufacturing sector made up 32% of its nonfinancial economy, while the manufacturing sector of the United States comprised only 13% of its nonfinancial sectors. The decline of American machinery and manufacturing sectors, in conjunction with the on-again/off-again nature of American renewable energy policy, explains why Europe and Japan are so far ahead of the United States in the transition to a more sustainable economy.
And America's decline can be traced to one overriding factor: a military budget that comprises nearly half of the world's military spending. For decades, as the late Professor Seymour Melman showed in many books (such as After Capitalism) and in numerous articles, the Pentagon has been draining, not just money, but also the engineering, scientific and business talent that Europe and Japan have been using for civilian production. As Melman often pointed out, the U.S. military budget is a capital fund, and American citizens can use that fund to help finance the construction of the trains, wind and solar power, and other green technologies that will help us to avoid economic and environmental collapse.
That economic collapse, if it comes, will be caused by two major factors: the end of the era of cheap oil, coal and natural gas; and the decline of the manufacturing and machinery base of the economy. Both problems can be addressed simultaneously, as Europe and Japan are showing, by moving the economy from one based on military and fossil fuel production to one based on electric transportation and the generation of renewable electricity.
Jonathan Rynn, Ph.D., is a frequent contributor to the Grist environmental blog and a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus.
Copyright © 2008, Institute for Policy Studies
20 Comments so far
Show AllThe causes cited in the last paragraph are two major factors but certainly not the only ones. One of the biggest, if not the biggest, is the entire global credit system which is a mega-ponzi scheme of the first order.
So long as the delusion persists among the financial marketing mavens that it is possible to "grow your money," the madness will continue to metastasize until our our so-called "savings" disappear in a puff of "wha' happened?".
The solution is simple - abandon the U.S. and move to Asia or Europe.
whatfools...
I did and haven't regretted it for a second. I live a much higher quality life intellectually and financially
James McMurtry said it beautifully in his song "We Can't Make It Here Anymore". Schools are struggling to produce skilled scientists and technicians. Retraining layed off workers is a joke. Maybe we are ahead of the world in one way...getting back to an 18th century life style like the Amish, because we won't have any choice.
America is a yoke.
Does anyone besides me think that there must be some better ideal than abandonment?
What would you have sun and wind do that they don't already? This planet was already fully functional before humans began messing with it...air, food, water, shelter...all here, and in abundance...man, alone, has the ambivalence and ability to ruin it, and will do so, unless he can stop himself...when the earth is used up, there will be no more discussing anything...just blame...
If the so-called "Left" would redirect its anger towards ending the phoney "War on Drugs" and allow industrial hemp into the market and alongside get rid of BIG GOVERNMENT that has been stifling scientific creativity and allowing Big Oil to buy out patents on solar technologies ever since the 1980s only to crush its growth and then make people believe the "solar is not efficient to meet energy demands" lie, entering GREEN wouldn't look so bad. If you people think government is supposed to give you and entitlement, where the FUCK have you been for the last 28 years ?!?!? Instead of crying "WAH !! WAH !!", shut the fucker up and look up ways to be creative on the net. The google search engine is there for you to do it. When you can spend hours watching crap on TV everyday, you sure as hell could learn to take a few hours to build your own solar powered charger if not generator. Now shut up and get cracking ! Geesh !!
FrederickJohnson - I agree with you entirely. Check out this site for more information on the wonderful aspects of HEMP: http://www.rawganique.com/whyhemp.htm
OW20YE.......i do!!!
abandonment is the EASY way out of a problem.
there must be a feeling of superiority knowing ur no longer a "part" of the united states.
don't they realize that they can't really escape the USA no matter where they live??
crysanthnm,
Thanks. I would like to also say that in addition to hemp, we need to go back and relook science in general. I mean it's one thing to win some "Nobel Prize" but it's another to actually get it all done correct. As a matter of fact, truly free energy is possible but the fact is that in addition to hostile business interests, religious fundies, and corrupt politicians, the mainstream scientific community itself opposes flexibility in rethinking and perhaps revising any scientific laws that might have once looked correct but have eventually proven themselves shaky or even flawed. Here's what I mean:
http://www.ahealedplanet.net/radleft.htm
I'm afraid that we're all gonna have to be environmental vigilantes if we're to succeed. Good luck to us all.
Thank you for the article - I've been saying the exact same thing for a couple of years. What Professor Rynn, has suggested in his article, is truly America's last chance at saving it's economy.
Professor Rynn focuses on energy and technology, however, their are other areas of our economy that can benefit from going Green. As you can probably tell from my screen name, I am promoting Green Retirement, a new approach to retirement that can save people hundreds of thousands of dollars and help save the planet.
The global societal transformation that is going to be required to, not only save our economy, but also the planet is going to be tremendous. We can either lead it, or keep doing what we are doing, and choke to death on our flawed lifestyle.
HelloDarling, dlnelson7, OW20YE:
In 2003 after marching numerous times to prevent war, soon after the commencement of shock and awe, I knew that disaster would befall our country and I left the United States. I found a little paradise, in a country that has no army, opened a small hotel and started a new life. The Empire soon followed, destroyed the environment and society, the ethos of greed and corruption destroyed my business and forced me to return to the United States.
John Donne wrote "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main." Global warming, caused in large part by the current U.S. consumption model, will effect everyone everywhere.
At the end of WW II, America was the worlds only superpower (the Soviet Unions strength was exaggerated to give us a Cold War). We had 50% of the worlds wealth despite only 5% of the population.
Sixty years later, we are debt ridden, our infrastructure is decaying and some cities look like 3rd world countries. Our manufacturing base has been encouraged with tax incentives to move offshore.
Today, we could not build a computer without parts that must be imported. We have went from being a nation that was essentially independent, to one very dependent on imports. If we wanted to land a man on the moon today, we would not be able to do so on our own.
This did not happen by accident, incompetence, or stupidity. It happened by design, treason from within. JFK saw the threat and took steps to prevent it that got him killed.
It is due to those who have been pushing Globalization. Only if America became dependent and standards of living were lowered could a NWO with One World Government be possible. Since the Vietnam War, this process of making America more dependent and poorer has accelerated.
It used to be that politicians made decisions based on what was best for the country. Today, they make decisions on whats best for the Globalists plan for Globalization. In a sense, you can say that there is a defacto One World Government already.
Man-made Global Warming is just another tool to make us more dependent and poorer, and prevent us from redeveloping. The same MSM that fed you lies on 9-11 and Bushs' phony wars is also feeding you the Global Warming BS. But because the issue fits some peoples preconceived ideology, they trust them on this. The IPCC is not a scientific organization, it is a political group staffed with scientists who have been cherry picked because they happen to believe in mad made global warming. There is not the consensus they would like you to believe.
It's interesting to see the Republicans now jumping on board the Green Train. David Rockefeller as well. Is it not obvious?
The right was able to get their supporters behind the phony external threat of terrorism that they manufactured with 9-11. The so called left now provides their own external threat (man made global warming) to enlist support. The support comes out of everyones pocket. The one threat they both use to their advantage is the peak oil myth (myth in the sense of any shortages for 100 years or more). The same people who profit from speculation on oil and commodities will profit from carbon caps and trading.
The left say we need to develop greener energy, and even if more oil is found, we can not use it, and so we must cap consumption, and the right uses it to justify wars, higher oil prices, and to use food as fuel to create shortages that raise food prices.
I am all for greener energy. But if we really were running out of oil, wouldn't the market have developed the technology. Instead, it appears they suppress the technology, just like Edison tried to suppress the development of AC power and JP Morgan withdrew financing for Nikolas Teslas and his energy technology because it would have interfered with his other investments and designs. So if carbon caps and trading, as well as high oil prices are profitable, what makes anyone believe the markets will develop a cheap green energy. They won't. The markets are not competitive, and have no interest in anything that does not increase profits or control over nations and people.
This could be changed, but only with a government that was not controlled by the markets and globalization forces.
"That economic collapse, if it comes, will be caused by two major factors: the end of the era of cheap oil, coal and natural gas; and the decline of the manufacturing and machinery base of the economy.Both problems can be addressed simultaneously, as Europe and Japan are showing, by moving the economy from one based on military and fossil fuel production to one based on electric transportation and the generation of renewable electricity."
Good, but they're more bandaid remedies for hemorrhage. No one is talking about the underlying cause of economic collapse, ecologic collapse due to overpopulation and extreme money-power concentration. It's ironic that at least the military is addressing overpopulation even if its in the stupidest and cruelest way possible, by killing people.
During the Carter administration (1977-1981) US Government incentives encouraged US companies to make many advances in renewable energy production. As soon as Reagan became President in 1981, all of the incentives ended and generous corporate welfare for fossil fuel companies accelerated and continues today. The advances in renewable energy production made during the past quarter century were made in Japan and Germany in spite of US policy, not because of it.
Although the US is now paying lip service to supporting renewable energy production, the amount of corporate welfare already being doled out to the nuclear power industry, combined with the amount proposed (the recent Lieberman-Warner Act would have provided $544 billion dollars) to be doled out will result in investment in US renewable energy production drying up. Lets hope the Japanese and Germans don't follow the US model.
MiMICCS: Many of your posts are thoughtful and revealing, occasionally even enlightening; but the way you rant against global warming reminds me of the pablum acquired from late night radio talk shows. PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH on the part of 98% of the world's accredited scientists sees the human impact on climate change. You have also at times lent credence to End Times myths, and I wonder if you subscribe to David Icke's perception of an actual reptilian blood line in high office? The symbolism of the reptile fits, but the idea of this OTHER blood line is really "Outer Limits."
I have a friend who probably listens to the same 4 AM radio shows you do. He keeps trying to tell me that the oil is filling up in old drilled wells. Sure.
Watch out for the grey suited white green "lefty" with a smile that would sell you out, leave you on the pavement and walk off with all your money. You know the smooth operator with friends in high places that says he is really a democrat and into renewable energy.
The reason that the US cannot produce high value technology is because the the US economy is not value-based.
The fact that the typical American's eyes glaze over when the word "value" is used in an economic context proves the point. It's easily verified.
Value is defined as the ratio of outputs over inputs. "Bang for the buck" is a familiar idiom. Like almost everything else in the "Good ol USA", value is not used by the elites for good, but abused for profit.
The workers are allowed to maximize value in the confinements of their little production spaces but the overall product has to have as low value as possible. The proof is in the pudding: US healthcare value is one half Canada's. The electric power plants waste 3/4 of input energy. The personal transport vehicle wastes 3/4 of input energy. US agriculture production maximizes inputs, reducing value tremendously.
US capitalists apply the principle of minimum value to every sector to maximize the volume of economic activity. This makes for a paper tiger, to intimidate geo-political competitors. It also allows the Pentagon to skim more cream "legitimately".
The war profiteers of today and the pork-barrel infrastructure profiteers of the past several decades both know they can rip off a nation of lost puppies for at least triple what the job is really worth.
But Americans can build everything the Japanese and Europeans build for the same price, same value, if first Americans smash through the establishment status quo of organized crime and the false carrot of economic growth at all cost.
Try maximizing all market value for the benefit of PEOPLE. This was the promise of the industrial revolution. Now get to work, people!
Ahh but, look at the great advances in surgery and prosthetics thanks to the military. Our artificial limbs have gotten so good a double amputee was banned from competition because he had an unfair advantage. Take that Asia and Europe.
EARL SIMMONS: If your comment above was not facetious, then consider it is largely the U.S. with its BATTERY of war-fares that has caused the great global (land mines!) need FOR prosthetics. Is this forced necessity the grounds for celebrating invention?