After the GFC I thought the smart move was to generate a massive renewable industry, Manhattan project style. Growth, new jobs, energy independence, a new direction and possibly dominance in renewables. There are probably reasons why it was too early but I still think we’d all be in a better world if that was the choice.
I don't think "manhattan projects" are a good idea anymore.
Maybe during a war, when the best people could be drafted and put together for a common goal.
But now, it seems to be "the government picks a winner", which historically they have been bad at.
Examples I remember are paying ISPs to wire schools, and the early funding for solar companies. The government just dissipated billions of dollars with little to show for it.
I think the real answer might be to eliminate externalities via taxation and let market forces solve the problem. (admittedly a hard problem when pollution is global). But from what I recall, cap-and-trade worked to solve the acid rain problem pretty well.
Your anecdote doesn't directly contradict his statement. It would be like if the president decided that he will spare no expenses to personally install GWH of solar and that was his project. Your example is if the government just paid a bunch of subcontractors to do it.
I believe his statement is true. If some strong willed president came in, declaredd that it was a national security issue to have energy independence and utilized miltary resources to start construction on federal lands of massive solar farms, I would applaud such effort.
Technically the president is commander and chief and although limited in his ability to expend funds, there are appropriations through which he could funnel resources, like the Air Force red horse construction units. Granted, we'd have to stop building so maany bases in the middle east for that to happen; but that's aa feature not a bug.
Yes, I think an effective leader could make a difference.
I just am skeptical when I read "manhattan project". I guess my way of thinking about it isn't - have the government solve the problem hands-on from the top, but instead lead and empower people to solve our shared problems.
I remember talking with a pool guy once, where we talked about an ultraviolet water cleaning system vs chlorine. He basically told me, the ultraviolet cleaning system sounds cool, it's electronic and has no chemicals. But it cleans a just small amount of circulating water in front of it, while chlorine cleans all the water, thousands of gallons, everywhere at once.
Externalities are hard to move fast on because you just can't get the populace excited by charging more for something, over time or suddenly. E.g. cheap fuel - good luck getting that past anyone without being thrown out of office.
The government just needs to line up the incentives with what's good for the country on many axes. Just some examples that seem fairly rational:
- 50 points for reducing carbon
- 10 points for leveraging local resources
- 10 points for technical innovation
- 10 points for jobs growth
- 10 points for defence benefits
- 10 points for foreign sales benefits
Iterate to refocus on what produces the most points, or update points and categories if you have better suggestions.
(Edit: in the spirit of actually looking for a rational outcome, it's possible you could reduce support for externalities over time, e.g. X% per year. But EU is usually better at that than US for some reason.)
We, the USA, have had energy dependence for decades now. Renewable especially with how the tech has advanced would have been one of the worst things in the world to do this with. You'd have dumped tons into factories and manufacturing that was obsolete before it even finished being build.
For fields with this kind of rapid iteration jumping in hard but later is the better move.
