Go Big

 As we collectively look to the future and how we deal with the ever-increasing global temperatures and the physics driving extreme weather it is important we add up the critical investments needed to modernize our infrastructure.

The myriad of tactics needed to turn the tide on a warming climate are numerous. If you read Bill Gates new book “Avoiding a Climate Catastrophe”, or the National Academies of Science Consensus Report, “Accelerating Decarbonization”, or the short Rhodium Group Report, “Pathways to Building Back Better: Investing in 100% Clean Electricity” you develop an appreciation for details. Brilliant scientists, dedicated organizations, diligent bureaucrats, and insightful entrepreneurs are working together.  They analyze the science, the marketplace, and the role government must play to steer humanity away from the climate cliff.

The picture, as painted by the NAS, Bill Gates and the Rhodium Group, is one of profound optimism tempered by reality. It takes knowledge, vision, and work to move from proven science, to then analyze viable options, and to finally refine and implement government policy nudging our society to safety.

In all the reports there are a few key elements which stand out. First the electrical grid is old, outdated, and relies on polluting energy sources. It is the perfect time to rebuild it with the next 100 years in mind. Rebuilding the grid will not be done overnight. It is, at a minimum, a ten-year project.

Second, wind and solar have matured to the point they are competitive with primitive fossil fuel energy even when fossil fuels are granted government subsidies. If we discontinue costly health threatening fossil fuel subsidies while simultaneously incentivizing clean energy, the entrepreneurs and marketplace will take care of the rest.  We will reap the benefits of both clean energy and better health. Additionally, by discontinuing fossil fuel subsidies and simultaneously implementing a carbon pollution fee* we will make our nuclear power plants cost effective. Currently nuclear power plants lose money and some are slated to be closed. No matter what your opinion of nuclear power, they do not put greenhouse gasses (ghgs) in the air. And there are new, safer, and more efficient nuclear power plants in their beginning stages of demonstration.

How quickly should we do this? Here is a World War II analogy. I use the analogy because our commitment to reversing global warming is every bit as important as our commitment to winning WWII. The Dec 7^th 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor was the catalyst dragging us into war. President Roosevelt and team had options in the summer of 1941. By June of ’41 Britain had prevailed in air combat and won the Battle of Britain. Canada and Britain had turned the death struggle with the German U-Boats to their favor.

Thus, some argue, the English-speaking democracies would have survived with or without us joining the allies in Europe.

The three anti-democratic, morally debased, totalitarian regimes, Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Fascist Italy, and Stalin’s Communist Russia where bleeding each other out on the world’s deadliest line of battle called the “Eastern Front”. There were no good guys fighting on the Eastern Front.

Japan had committed the most ignorant act of any government in history by attacking Pearl Harbor.  They attacked a country whose manufacturing base, even if only partially mobilized, they could never match. Additionally, the attack was poorly planned and botched. They needed to occupy Hawaii to make the USA think twice. They needed to, at a minimum, destroy our aircraft carriers and our oil storage facilities before leaving Hawaii. The Imperial Japanese Empire foolishly signed their own death warrant on Dec 7^th .   As long as the USA remained committed to winning the war, the outcome of the war was over before they steamed back to Japan.

The only question was how quickly we would destroy Japan and Germany. Full wartime mobilization of the American economy was not the only option for FDR and team USA.

We could have chosen a slower approach, spent less money, and retained more industrial production committed to the civilian marketplace. We could have focused on Japan first, and let the evil empires destroy themselves on the European Eastern Front.

It is my opinion the FDR, team USA decision to fully commit was the correct decision. Our parents and grandparents pulled off the greatest wartime mobilization in history. The decision to spend big and take control of our future was, in my mind, the best option. The decision they made meant we would be the masters of our own destiny.  We demonstrated we were not only the world’s industrial leader but the world’s moral leader.

No one has a crystal ball telling us the twists and turns we must negotiate to win the battle against climate change. We can plan a slower approach and “hope” it will be adequate.  A commitment of 2 Trillion dollars is proposed by the Biden Administration. Some say it is too much. Others, backed by science, say 10 Trillion will be required.

Today critics can look back and sharpshoot FDRs decision to mandate total government control over the marketplace. The government converted nearly every conceivable aspect of our economy and citizen’s lives to the WWII war machine.

I love the debate, but do you know what I love more? I love we can safely and happily look back today as free citizens and say, “Yep, FDR could have spent less, and we still would have won. But, I am proud we went BIG.”

I want future generations to one day look back and ponder, “I wonder if our parents could have spent less, and we would have survived the climate threat? They could have gone cheap in 2021 and I think we would have made it anyway.  But, I am sure glad they went BIG.”

The most impactful move we can make now is to rapidly clean up, modernize, and superpower our infrastructure. How effectively our politicians lead us depends on how hard we push them. Call your elected representatives. Support the transition. Tell them to not only think BIG but go bigger.

*Citizens Climate Lobby recommends all revenue collected by a carbon pollution fee be given back to the citizens via a clean energy dividend.