Barack Obama arrives for climate conference outside Paris on Monday.

Barack Obama arrives for climate conference outside Paris on Monday. Guillaume Horcajuelo/AP

One Way Obama Can’t Outrun Congress on Climate Change

Big nations and private-sector titans arrived in Paris vowing to open their wallets for green energy technology. But can the U.S. make good on its promise?

Even a transat­lantic flight can’t com­pletely un­teth­er Pres­id­ent Obama from con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans when it comes to ce­ment­ing his leg­acy on cli­mate change.

When high-stakes United Na­tions talks on a new glob­al cli­mate pact open Monday in Par­is, Obama and more than a dozen oth­er world lead­ers will pledge a huge boost in re­search-and-de­vel­op­ment fund­ing for low-car­bon en­ergy tech­no­lo­gies.

Twenty na­tions will un­veil “Mis­sion In­nov­a­tion,” a joint plan to double their an­nu­al R&D in­vest­ments over the next five years. Ac­cord­ing to a top White House cli­mate policy ad­viser, the coun­tries cur­rently in­vest a total of about $10 bil­lion an­nu­ally, about half of which comes from the U.S.

But the U.S. gov­ern­ment’s en­ergy R&D spend­ing has beenlargely stag­nant in re­cent years, and the U.S. por­tion of the pledge is re­li­ant on con­vin­cing Con­gress to open its wal­let in the name of bat­tling cli­mate change, a threat that many Re­pub­lic­ans down­play or even don’t ac­know­ledge.

Re­ly­ing on the good graces of Con­gress to make pro­gress on cli­mate change is something that Obama has gen­er­ally sought to avoid for sev­er­al years.

Since Con­gress ap­proved the big stim­u­lus law that fun­ded a suite of en­ergy ef­forts in 2009—and sub­sequently killed cap-and-trade le­gis­la­tion in 2010—nearly all of Obama’s cli­mate agenda has res­ted on ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tions, ran­ging from much tough­er auto-mileage rules to sweep­ing car­bon-emis­sions lim­its for power plants that were fi­nal­ized last sum­mer.

And U.S. of­fi­cials are push­ing for the Par­is ac­cord to be craf­ted in a way that won’t need Sen­ate sign-off the way that form­al new treat­ies do, largely be­cause there’s al­most no chance of win­ning the two-thirds vote that would be needed.

 

But a big part of the Par­is talks will be about mo­bil­iz­ing the pub­lic-sec­tor and private-sec­tor cash needed to de­vel­op and de­ploy green en­ergy tech­no­logy more widely world­wide. That takes gov­ern­ment money, and in the U.S., that means it takes Con­gress.

And already, Re­pub­lic­ans are res­ist­ing a White House re­quest for a sep­ar­ate pot of money: the $3 bil­lion that the U.S. pledged last year to the Green Cli­mate Fund, a mul­ti­lat­er­al pro­gram to help poor na­tions cut emis­sions and be­come more re­si­li­ent to rising sea levels and oth­er un­avoid­able cli­mat­ic changes. The White House has a pending re­quest for a $500 mil­lion tranche of that money.

Still, get­ting Con­gress to help with the new and sep­ar­ate R&D ini­ti­at­ive, even if Cap­it­ol Hill re­mains con­trolled by the GOP, may not be pie in the sky. Re­pub­lic­ans are gen­er­ally more friendly to ba­sic re­search than to reg­u­la­tions or to dir­ect sup­port for clean-tech com­pan­ies through loans and tax sub­sidies.

Con­sider that the En­ergy De­part­ment branch for fund­ing so-called high-risk, high-re­ward en­ergy-tech re­search, called the Ad­vanced Re­search Pro­jects Agency for En­ergy (ARPA-E), has had bi­par­tis­an sup­port for years.

And while Jeb Bush’s en­ergy plan is a set of fa­mil­i­ar anti-reg­u­lat­ory talk­ing points, near the end he notes: “[W]e can fur­ther ac­cel­er­ate the dis­cov­ery of game-chan­ging tech­no­lo­gies by boost­ing fund­ing for high-pri­or­ity ba­sic re­search and in­creas­ing the ef­fect­ive­ness of our na­tion­al labs.”

Top Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials ar­gued Sunday that the R&D fund­ing plan has ap­peal on both sides of the aisle.

“The in­nov­a­tion agenda in gen­er­al is one that ac­tu­ally does at­tract bi­par­tis­an sup­port,” En­ergy Sec­ret­ary Ern­est Mon­iz told re­port­ers on a con­fer­ence call Sunday. “I cer­tainly have spoken with many mem­bers on both sides of the aisle, quite frankly, just in the last few days, and the in­nov­a­tion agenda is one that at­tracts broad sup­port,” Mon­iz said

White House cli­mate ad­viser Bri­an Deese said the Mis­sion In­nov­a­tion ef­fort is the fruit of an “in­tense dip­lo­mat­ic ef­fort” in re­cent weeks. The 19 oth­er na­tions in­volved in­clude China and In­dia, which re­spect­ively are the world’s largest and third-largest green­house gas pol­luters (the U.S. is second). Oth­ers in­clude Saudi Ar­a­bia, Brazil, In­done­sia, Den­mark, Canada, Mex­ico, and Ja­pan.

“This is an ef­fort de­signed to ac­cel­er­ate clean-en­ergy in­nov­a­tion, ad­dress glob­al cli­mate change, provide af­ford­able clean en­ergy to con­sumers with a spe­cial fo­cus on the de­vel­op­ing world, and cre­at­ing com­mer­cial op­por­tun­it­ies for clean en­ergy in de­vel­op­ing coun­tries,” said Deese, who briefed re­port­ers Sunday.

The mul­ti­lat­er­al Mis­sion In­nov­a­tion ef­fort is one half of a pub­lic-private an­nounce­ment as the Par­is cli­mate sum­mit opens. The oth­er half is the launch of an ini­ti­at­ive led by Mi­crosoft founder and phil­an­throp­ist Bill Gates called the Break­through En­ergy Co­ali­tion that of­fi­cials hope will com­ple­ment the stepped-up R&D.

It’s an ef­fort by high-pro­file private in­vestors and cor­por­ate ex­ec­ut­ives to greatly in­crease as­sist­ance for com­pan­ies seek­ing to bring prom­ising new en­ergy tech­no­lo­gies from the lab in­to real-world de­ploy­ment, a gap of­ten called the “Val­ley of Death” be­cause it’s where many com­pan­ies fail.

The group in­cludes Gates, Face­book’s Mark Zuck­er­berg, Hew­lett-Pack­ard CEO Meg Whit­man, bil­lion­aire act­iv­ists George Sor­os and Tom Stey­er, and 23 oth­ers from mul­tiple coun­tries. It’s de­signed to work in tan­dem with the gov­ern­ment R&D fund­ing boost. Here’s part of the lengthy joint state­ment that the in­vestors re­leased Sunday even­ing:

“Ex­per­i­ence in­dic­ates that even the most prom­ising ideas face daunt­ing com­mer­cial­iz­a­tion chal­lenges and a nearly im­pass­able Val­ley of Death between prom­ising concept and vi­able product, which neither gov­ern­ment fund­ing nor con­ven­tion­al private in­vest­ment can bridge. This col­lect­ive fail­ure can be ad­dressed, in part, by a dra­mat­ic­ally scaled-up pub­lic re­search pipeline, linked to a dif­fer­ent kind of private in­vestor with a long-term com­mit­ment to new tech­no­lo­gies who is will­ing to put truly pa­tient flex­ible risk cap­it­al to work.”

There’s a reas­on for all the fo­cus on R&D and get­ting the fruit of lab work in­to the glob­al en­ergy mar­ket.

In­ter­na­tion­al ne­go­ti­ations are aimed at try­ing to lim­it the rise in glob­al tem­per­at­ures to 2 de­grees Celsi­us above prein­dus­tri­al levels, which sci­ent­ists say would help avoid some of the most dan­ger­ous ef­fects of cli­mate change.

But ex­perts say that the car­bon-cut­ting pledges called “In­ten­ded Na­tion­ally De­term­ined Con­tri­bu­tions” that na­tions have sub­mit­ted to the United Na­tions, which last through 2025 or 2030, won’t tame glob­al emis­sions enough to stay un­der that tar­get. So work to bring emer­ging tech­no­lo­gies and steep­er cost re­duc­tions in­to the mar­ket—and re­l­at­ively quickly—is needed.

“For all of the pro­gress that has [been] made, those IN­DCs alone are not suf­fi­cient,” Deese told re­port­ers. “We know that we are go­ing to need to do more to mo­bil­ize fin­an­cial sup­port for low-car­bon de­vel­op­ment in the coun­tries that need it.”