Since its founding, this nation has behaved as both a unified national power and as a confederation of independent states. Even today, national policy does not necessarily depend on federal policy. This could not be clearer than when discussing climate change and the movement to a less carbon intensive economy. Today, nearly half of the individual states – accounting for more than half of electricity sales and the majority of American citizens – operate under Renewable Electricity Standards (RESs), legislated policies that set timetables and goals for the introduction and utilization of renewable energy sources for power production. Nearly all of those states with a legislated RES have publicly committed to a program of climate change mitigation and/or adaptation. I would submit that President Nasheed, who has asked what the United States can do to make progress toward a new, less carbon intensive energy, misunderstands us if he believes that this nation is not moving, and moving very rapidly, toward a more carbon-efficient economy.

It is an even bigger mistake to assume that corporate America is not moving to embrace renewable technologies. One of the beauties of our society is that both government and business are led by the desires and demands of their customers. It is individual citizens who ultimately decide what will or will not be in the marketplace or in public policy. Corporate America is, indeed, very committed to increasing the contribution of renewable energy and energy efficiency to our national economy. Chevron Corporation is the world’s leading geothermal producer. ExxonMobil has spent tens of billions of dollars on the development of natural gas and on the use of algae as a feedstock for fuels. GE Energy is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of wind turbines and has made major investments in the research and development of geothermal energy, solar electric energy and hydrogen fuel. Last year, moreover, the U.S. was the leading purchaser of renewable energy equipment. Over the last three decades, the U.S. government has invested tens of billions of dollars in cleaner, less carbon-intensive power technologies, such as clean coal and nuclear. Each year, America invests billions of dollars in high efficiency motors and drives, in new, high efficiency lighting, in new, more efficient manufacturing approaches and in higher efficiency equipment.

But the U.S. has both responsibilities and options that the Maldives may not have to consider; and, unlike a many other nations, the U.S. has an economy that is very large and complex. Abrupt changes that impact the economy carry very significant consequences. While conventional power technologies like coal combustion and nuclear generation may be expensive in the Maldives, they are among the least expensive choices we have in the U.S. Our choice for power generating technologies is not a matter of whether or not to move to a more carbon neutral economy; the question for us is how best and most cost efficiently to do so. Our national security concerns also require us to develop an appropriate level of energy independence using domestic resources. In addition, our concern for energy security and reliability require us to use a diverse array of supplies and technologies, and our concerns about non-proliferation lead us to a very broad set of responsibilities related to the energy production in other nations. Our concern for protecting the natural beauty of this nation limits our decisions about what technologies get applied where, too. And our commitment to protecting the economic viability of our businesses and our families requires that we be continually mindful of the costs and benefits of all these options.

To President Nasheed and others who question what the U.S. is doing to transition to a carbon neutral economy, I would suggest that they take a second look at what we have done, what we are doing and how we are doing it. I would ask that they not mistake federal policy for national policy and I would ask that they recognize that much of the new carbon-efficient technology that is being adopted around the world was, in reality, developed here in the U.S.

Fear not, we are well on our way to a more diverse, more robust, more cost efficient, more sustainable energy industry. We are on our way to an energy industry that includes wind and solar and geothermal and hydro and hydrogen; as well as deep sea oil, and shale gas and small modular nuclear. We are on our way to an energy industry that can truly be a new foundation for the twenty-first century.

The quick and, unfortunately likely, answer to President Nasheed's follow up question is: not much, except a lot of political hot air, heated conversations going nowhere, and hot weather in a nice seaside resort.There still is nothing even near a consensus. It may be better to build a more sustainable future via bilateral agreements, regional agreements, Track II meetings away from the media amongst those who are having the most difficult time agreeing, and better, clearer and more effective communications of the complexities of the issues involved and their uncertainties to everyone from leadership to the common man and woman. Education is key, and at all levels. It will take possibly a very long time for effective negotiations to develop.

Cancun will be just one stop on a very long journey. Even so, the really hard part is what happens after the negotiations if any agreement is made in the future. The political leadership in the countries involved then have to sign off on the treaty obligations and other responsibilities that the negotiators signed off on at the meetings. This will be the toughest of trials, especially in this country where a sizable proportion of the political leadership (in the Senate and the House) publicly states that global warming is a hoax. If in their hearts of hearts they think otherwise, they are not letting on about it.

I appreciate everyone’s response. The variety of answer indicates to me that the many solutions to global climate change are attainable if the political will is there to reach for them. I would like, if I may, to broaden this discussion out from what can be done in the United States, to the kind of action that we can see on a global level.

Almost a year ago, we held international climate negotiations in Copenhagen. The document produced by those talks, while far from perfect, was a start to reducing the pollution that causes climate change. In December, world leaders will come together again, this time in Mexico, to work on a global solution to the climate crisis.

What do you see coming out of the December Summit?

It was terrific that President Nasheed installed solar panels on the roof of his presidential house; he showed leadership not only in his country, but globally. But it was sad that President Obama seems to have needed that kind of prodding to do the same on the White House. But it is not enough. The Maldives is going to be carbon neutral by 2020. That will be not be possible in the United States with huge existing energy production infrastructure (in contrast to the Maldives, which today imports almost all its energy requirements). But he can announce the following U.S. energy action plan, set the pace globally, and regain leadership that has clearly been lost:

1. A carbon neutral federal government by 2030, with assistance to states and local governments, including all state and local educational institutions, to do the same. This should include buildings and vehicles, unless non-renewable fuels are needed for security reasons. However, perhaps the most urgent need to go renewable in the federal government relates to the Pentagon, and it is increasingly and acutely cognizant of the cost in money and lives and the loss of security occasioned by massive oil fuel imports as well petroleum use in its operations abroad.

2. Steadily increasing building efficiency standards so that they would reduce per square foot energy consumption by 70% relative to today’s typical new residential and commercial buildings by the year 2030 and also requiring them to be carbon neutral by that date. The carbon-neutral-by-2030 goal, with intermediate steps, has been adopted by the American Institute of Architects.

3. Increasing efficiency standards for passenger vehicles to 100 miles per gallon equivalent by 2030.

President Obama should also announce that he will veto any bill that would curb the authority of the EPA to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act and any bill that would take away the rights of states to set energy and carbon emissions standards stricter than the federal government. Indeed, he should use his famed powers of persuasion and to boost the EPA’s position, so that it can set a course for reducing CO2 emissions from large sources (the electricity sector and heavy industrial sectors, like chemicals) by at least 35 percent by 2025. His administration should prepare a vigorous defense of the Clean Air Act to any lawsuits filed by industry to delay or curb the EPA’s authority under it.

None of this requires climate legislation such as a cap and trade program or a carbon tax. Regulations for appliances, cars, and buildings are an effective way to reduce the energy footprint – Exhibit A is refrigerators, which use just one-fourth of the energy today as they did 40 years ago, and are also cheaper, with better performance. Standards work when there is competition and the technologies are available – and this is the case with buildings, appliances, and cars.

The only item requiring new expenditures would be the transformation of the federal, state, and local infrastructures. This would be the right kind of stimulus for the economy – expenditures now to make investments and create jobs that will reduce federal, state, and local deficits later – by greatly reducing future energy bill and by increasing jobs and property values, both of which will lead to healthier state and local finances. On the whole, the reduction of energy bills in the state, local and federal governments would be tens of billions of dollars per year.

Only a couple short months after the demise of cap and trade, a new bipartisan flag for national energy and climate reform has officially been flown. It stands as a report released yesterday called “Post-Partisan Power” by scholars at three major U.S. think tanks – including the conservative American Enterprise Institute, the centrist Brookings Institution, and the Breakthrough Institute – and represents a powerful new rallying point for U.S. clean energy and climate advocates of all stripes.

The heart of the plan is to overhaul the U.S. energy innovation system with strategic federal investments in clean energy, on the scale of $25 billion annually, to rapidly drive down the cost of low-carbon energy technologies for deployment in the U.S. and abroad. Based on the same federal model that developed microchips, the Internet, and numerous other technological breakthroughs, the investment would easily pay for itself in economic growth and increased federal tax revenue.

The bipartisan approach is already receiving widespread recognition as representing perhaps the only serious and viable alternative to cap and trade. As David Leonhardt wrote in the New York Times, “To put it another way, the death of cap and trade doesn’t have to mean the death of climate policy. The alternative revolves around much more, and much better organized, financing for clean energy… It’s an idea with a growing list of supporters, a list that even includes conservatives – most of whom opposed cap and trade.”

These ideas are not radical. For years, numerous advocates have argued for similar approaches, including my colleagues and I, and more recent entrants include business titans like Bill Gates and John Doerr with the American Energy Innovation Council. However, only after the collapse of the previous agenda have these ideas finally broken through to receive the mainstream consideration they warrant. “Post-Partisan Power” represents the best combination of these ideas yet – including new ideas on leveraging the Department of Defense and expanding our original National Energy Education Act proposal, although omitting some elements like clean energy manufacturing – and it arrives at a crucial moment.

Not surprisingly, the proposal has already sparked harsh backlash from some of cap and trade’s true believers, including Joe Romm of ClimateProgess and David Roberts of Grist, who ridiculed the possibility of bipartisan support for clean energy investment. “At some point in the unknown future, pigs might fly,” wrote Romm, who went on to repeat the well-worn rallying cry for “a rising price on carbon dioxide or mandates.”

Of course, it is difficult to imagine real bipartisan movement on anything in the current political environment. The next Congress and beyond may very well fall into the same crippling gridlock. Energy reform on this scale has daunted U.S. presidents since the 1970s oil embargo – including President Obama to date – and it’s not clear how the dynamics will change in the near-future, or when the opportunity will beat the last two years. The extreme anti-government trend in the Tea Party, and the indiscriminate attack on both public spending and strategic technology investment, is especially troubling.

Political possibilities can shift quickly, however, and the ideas in “Post-Partisan Power” offer unique opportunities for a group of bipartisan political leaders capable of recognizing and seizing them. As Clifton Yin and I wrote in an op-ed this summer, “A Bipartisan Strategy for Energy Leadership”:

“Federal investment in energy technology can also be a political winner for congressional Democrats, Republicans, and the White House alike. Even before the Gulf oil spill, a poll by Pew Research in March found that 78% of the public favors increased government funding for research into clean energy technologies. When compared to alternatives such as carbon pricing, technology investment fares as the most popular energy policy proposal.

For Democratic leaders, this strategy would allow them to meet general public demand for reform while still satisfying their environmental base with a major achievement on clean energy. It would allow Republicans to offer a serious, pro-business alternative to cap and trade and "drill baby drill" that would boost the economy. And it would allow the White House to declare victory on President Obama's original campaign promise to invest $15 billion per year in this sector.”

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post similarly observed of the proposal: “The politics of that are much better… It focuses the conversation on cool new technologies and making sure America dominates a new industry rather than on making it more expensive for people to drive cars or get electricity from a coal-powered plant. It doesn't blame people, or make certain regions of the country terrifically uncomfortable.”

There is simply no other legislative agenda with such compelling and far-ranging implications for the United States than clean energy innovation, which when taken together, constitute a powerful agenda for restoring American greatness. As Democratic Pollster Stan Greenberg was recently quoted in a Thomas Friedman op-ed, “People think the country is in trouble and that countries like China have a strategy for success and we don’t. They will follow someone who convinces them that they have a plan to make America great again. That is what they want to hear. It cuts across Republicans and Democrats.”

Given the enormous and ever-growing stakes of energy reform, the political leaders capable of breaking the logjam will no doubt be counted by future historians among the great legislators of the early 21^stcentury. If such a group exists, we can only hope they move quickly, and not just due to the urgency of climate change and clean energy competitiveness. As bad as the current national politics appear, they could only grow worse in the coming decade as the U.S. economy continues to stagnate and anti-investment deficit hawks gain more power as entitlement spending grows.

Whether or not our national leaders can rally behind this new flag remains to be seen, although clearly it will require sustained and growing support from a strong coalition of thought leaders and advocates. In the meantime, the clock is ticking. Cap and trade is dead, the UN climate negotiation process has collapsed, President Obama’s ideas on energy appear exhausted, and the U.S. is falling behind in the clean energy industry while Asia rises rapidly. We have cards. We should play them. Much is at stake.

By chance, my colleague, Dr. Tony Michaels happened to be in the Maldives at a Sustainable Tourism conference hosted by Six Senses at their Soneva Fushi resort and attended by President Nasheed, Vice President Waheed and other members of the government. Tony can attest that they are addressing this issue with a passion and with a drive that puts most of us to shame. They even have a friendly competition between the government and Six Senses to see who can make their islands carbon neutral first! The steps that the government and Six Senses are taking or contemplating are also exemplars of practical sustainability. Don't waste, reduce use, do the improvements with the greatest ROI first.

What will it take to get the US to show this passion and drive? First, we need to take it seriously. The Maldives is just a hair above sea level and built on a foundation of coral sand. Rising sea levels, increased storminess and the acidification of the ocean will hit them hard and fast, some would say it has already started. They get it because it stares them in the face and they have the courage to take what they see, believe that it is real and start to take real action. They can't stop global warming, but as President Nasheed said at the conference, they will not go down without having tried everything that they could, by action and example, to stop the loss of the country.

The United States has raised that resolve in the face of other challenges in the past and we have been admired for how we rose to the challenge. Much of that has changed and transformed itself into a set of behaviors that reward short-term behavior in the wrong direction that benefits only a small portion of our society. While such short-term thinking has always there, it now has potency through instant media and the ‘demonization’ of science that makes it seems more intractable.

While a major catastrophe that can be certainly linked to climate change can galvanize action in the U.S we can’t wait for that to happen. We can however use the power of markets in partnership with policy actions to start turning the ship. Like a ship we don’t need to turn it far to end up on the other side of the world, same goes for climate action – bet us on the right path for ling term change.

We know that wasting energy costs us money, that being dependent on volatile fossil fuel markets hurts business and that there are a host of opportunities for making money by helping make our energy use more cost effective. This will take a change in how we value energy and look at energy costs as both a short-term and long-term liability. When companies face short-term risks they take measures to hedge – but yet do not think about hedging when it comes to energy. Companies need to take control of their costs, by reducing exposure in energy markets (i.e. efficiency) and making their own (i.e. solar) and look at is as a way of reducing future risks. This may take a change in accounting practices, or just maybe a change in thinking – but we know that we can reduce costs, increase profits and reduce greenhouse gases all at the same time. So we need to the message out, we need to get the details out on how to do it, and we need to create the proper incentives so that companies, and consumers can make more efficient choices. U.S. competitiveness requires us to have lower energy costs than some of our competitors – BUT – this does not mean lower prices – just higher efficiency.

In an island state, with electricity costs of $0.30-0.40 per kwh the Maldives already can make more efficient choices and make more money. Maybe we can do the same and be more internationally competitive.

Mark Bernstein and Tony Michaels

Wind energy is an enormously effective way to put more low-carbon, renewable energy onto the electric utility system, starting immediately. That’s both a huge business opportunity and a chance to rebuild America’s declining manufacturing base. Iowa is showing the way, already obtaining 14.2% of its electricity from wind power, while at the same time building a brand-new manufacturing base for the wind energy industry. Right now the wind industry employs 85,000 workers, with enormous potential to grow. A national RES and other policies to promote clean energy technologies will create over 275,000 jobs in the wind sector alone. A robust domestic wind industry makes sense, for many reasons. That’s why it’s critical for Congress to overcome partisanship and act now to put the policies in place that will put more wind power onto the electrical grid. There is no single step that is still achievable this year that would do more to accomplish the carbon reductions that President Nasheed is asking for than a Renewable Electricity Standard. And the second we do it, phones will start ringing off the hook from investors looking to bring money and new wind energy manufacturing jobs to the U.S.

We can transition to clean energy, it’s not rocket science, and there is a menu of options. We can do it, and the time to start is now.

After this year’s oil disaster in the Gulf, Oceana took a look at what it would take to replace the oil we get from the Gulf of Mexico so that we could stop drilling. As it turns out we only get about 8% of the oil we use in the U.S. from the Gulf. Finding other ways to generate this power would not only prevent future spills but it would allow us to take a big step in the direction of the needed energy transition.

Once we find a way to replace the “need” for the oil we get from the Gulf of Mexico, we can go further down the same path and replace the oil from the Persian Gulf, which is about 12% of the oil we use.

We start by finding a way to generate the energy equivalent to 1.6 million barrels of oil per day, our take from the Gulf of Mexico. We can do this any number of ways. We envisioned a five step process.

Heat homes with electric instead of oil. Convert some of the homes currently heated by oil heat which is inefficient to electric heat. This will increase efficiency and enable their heating by renewable energy like wind and solar. Let’s say we convert a quarter of the homes currently heated by oil heat: that could save 213,000 barrels of oil per day.

Slow ocean-going ships. Slowing the shipping fleet by just 10%, could reduce their CO2 emissions by 23%, and save 23% on fuel. This could save 108,000 barrels of oil per day.

Stop using oil to run power plants. The small fraction of our power that comes from oil could be replaced by clean energy, saving 210,000 barrels of oil per day.

Electrify the automobile fleet. Shifting 10% of our cars to electricity would save 586,000 barrels of oil per day.

Use advanced biofuels to make up the difference. A small amount of the projected biofuel resource could make a big difference. If we use advanced biofuels from non-food crops, and that don’t compete with food cultivation, we could replace at least 600,000 barrels of oil per day.

Together, these examples exceed the 1.6 million barrels of Gulf of Mexico oil that we use every day, suggesting that continued drilling for oil in the Gulf is unnecessary. It is necessary, however, that we develop clean energy at the same time – offshore and land-based wind for example, could produce enough clean energy to make sure that these new electrical demands would not have to be met by coal or other fossil fuel generated electricity.

Progress in transitioning away from fossil fuels is there for the taking. Now we need policies to stimulate these types of changes, if we are serious about preventing climate change and saving our oceans.

Good Morning President Nasheed,

What the US can do to move to a cleaner and more sustainable energy future is limited by our imaginations, technological inventiveness, the quality of our leadership, the financing and business leadership available, inertia in decision making, and the overall speed at which we can change our ways of transportation, electricity production, industrial processing, and agricultural systems management – to name just a few of the variables, issues and options we need to consider. Putting up solar panels on the White House is a good photo opportunity, but hardly a giant step forward in the race toward a better energy future. It is a bit too reminiscent of the failures of past Presidents to follow through with their promises for a better energy future.

Imagination:

There are thousands of technologies out there to choose from. Solar paneling is one of the most common and maybe most accepted by the general public. However, there are concentrated solar power stations, power towers (such as the one invented by Environmission of Australia http://www.enviromission.com.au/EVM/content/media_animations.html), various wind power options (why no wind vane on the White House?), tidal power, ocean energy, geothermal, wave energy, garbage to energy, and more than could be listed in books). There is also nuclear power, which does not emit greenhouse gases from the generating plant, although greenhouse gases are emitted while mining, processing and reprocessing uranium, for examples, but far less than your typical coal, gas, or oil generators. There could also be an energy system that will be thought up in the future that some genius or lucky person is working on in their garages or laboratories.

There is also the imagination side of energy efficiency via simply generating electricity better. Worldwide most electricity generating station loose about 65-75% of all of the fuel BTUs put in to heat dissipation. Then more is lost in transmission, distribution, stepping up and stepping down the electricity and more. If the end user gets more than 10-20 percent of the original BTUs put in at the end use they have done well.

There is also the imagination needed to figure out new ways of transportation. It is more than just using electric cars. We also need to develop smart cars as part of the smart grid and hyper cars that can actually export energy, rather than just using energy. It is more than just connecting electricity, hydrogen, and other new fuels markets to transport markets. We also need to rethink how we transport things and, maybe even more important, why we transport things. As in electricity generation we lose a lot in transport. The typical car wastes about 85% of its fuel simply pushing the weight of the car or truck, not the passengers and cargo.

Above all we need to develop the imagination to metamorphose our entire energy-economy-water-food-transport-communications-and more systems within systems. New ways of thinking about the whole set of systems are needed. This will take time. Rushing into things could do more harm than good and we need to consider the overall costs and benefits in a dynamic and systematic sense to do this correctly.

Inventiveness:

We as a nation and as a world need to put far more emphasis on education focused on invention and innovation, not on just applying and memorizing things. We need to develop generations of creative thinkers and creative leaders. Invention in leadership and methods of leadership is also needed. As we face down the multiple threats of peak oil, global climate change, economic stagnation that could last over a decade, and various water stresses and other resource stresses worldwide we need to get really creative, not just superficially creative. This is a challenge of generations, not just the thinkers of today.

The quality of our leadership:

Clearly in this country our leadership on these issues is lacking. Decision making in Congress is dysfunctional. The President may lose his majority in the next elections. Bipartisanship is doing more damage to this country than most know. These issues need leadership and we don’t have it. It will most likely be left up to the private sector and various departments and agencies (such as DOD, DOE, EPA, etc) to be the vanguards for change as the political leadership fights amongst themselves. We need real leaders, creative leaders, courageous leaders, who will step outside of the normal ways of doing business, cross the political aisles and get things done. This zero sum game that is being played hurts us all.

Financing and business leadership:

The financial crisis has hit the US hard. However, many of our best companies are now flush with cash from borrowing during these times of cheap interest costs and from simply holding on to the cash for better days, instead of hiring and investing. In the short run this is not a good way to change things. In the long run this may be the opening for massive investments in new ways of producing, transporting, and more. This will be mostly determined by how forward thinking our business leaders become. One thing that may push them in that direction is an estimate floating about that the change to new forms of energy, smart grids and more that may be needed for a better energy and environment future could be worth tens of trillions (with a T) of dollars of business over the next few decades. The persons who crack the code for transport and electricity production methods that lead us into a better future could have wealth well beyond the Bill Gates types of today. There is a huge amount of profits to be made in new energy futures and energy efficiency. Those profits may just drive us into a much better future – if this is all done right.

Inertia in Decision Making:

This is more than a problem of politics. This goes to the core of our education, business, trade, engineering and other systems. We need to move from inertia heading us in the wrong directions and profit economically, politically, socially, culturally, and more from the new futures that await us.

Possible speeds of change:

For your county and for a country like Iceland that made huge strides toward a better energy future the speed of change can be a lot faster than in a lumbering hydrocarbon based behemoth like the US. About 85% of our energy is from hydrocarbons. Most of our goods are made with hydrocarbon based materials. Food, for example, has a huge hydrocarbon footprint. Our entire economy is based on hydrocarbons. It is not possible to move quickly and change systems quickly in this environment without huge social disruptions. Those who think this can be done in 20-30 years are dreaming a very costly dream that has little reality attached to it.

However, if we do not move forward toward a new energy future in a logical and methodical way, and not too slowly either, then the social and economic disruptions from global climate change, peak oil and the like could be truly epic. We need to start investing in new systems, invention, innovation, technology diffusion, energy education, new engineering education, new ways of using the energy that is sustainable and more environmental friendly and more. This will not be an easy process.

But if we kick the can down the road too much we will have very big problems. Also, China is moving far faster on this than we are. The EU is also. We should be leaders in this change. We are not. We are laggards in leadership and laggards in investment. What made this country great is just the opposite.

Is it time to wake up? Yes. Is it time to think of a plan? Yes. Is it time to rush headlong into the future without thinking about it? No. This needs to be done carefully and methodically with all of the scientific, engineering, political, economic, diplomatic and other skills and leadership that we can muster – and more. This may be one of the greatest challenges we face in the future.

Photo opportunities are nice for 30 second TV bites, but not for 50-100 year plans for the future.

Last week President Obama reinstalled solar panels in the roof of the White House. President Mohammed Nasheed took the first step to make the Maldives Islands completely carbon neutral by 2020, installing an American solar energy plant provided by Sungevity. And last week, ten miles away from Abu Dhabi, the city of Nasdar came to life, becoming the first carbon neutral city in the world.

President Nasheed our guest-moderate this week asks National Journal experts: what can the US do to make similar progress?

The answer is carbon negative technology, which takes more carbon from the atmosphere than it emits. The US has the most advanced technology to capture carbon from air. Powered by inexpensive residual heat, it makes fossil fuel plants capture significantly more carbon than they emit. Carbon negative technology is what we need to clean the atmosphere and reduce the risk of potentially catastrophic climate change. It is too late for carbon neutrality –now we need carbon negative technology that removes more carbon than it emits. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s data supports this position, Graciela Chichilnisky, Peter M. Eisenberger, Roger W. Cohen, Nicholas M. Eisenberger, Ronald R. Chance, and Christopher W. Jones, “Global Warming and Carbon-Negative Technology: Prospects for a Lower-Cost Route to a Lower-Risk Atmosphere, Energy and Environment”, Vol. 20, Issue 6, 2009, http://www.chichilnisky.com/pdfs/globalwarmingcarbonnegative.pdf

Negative carbon is a reality. Biochar and trees can do it, but they are far too slow.

Yet it is all happening. A new negative carbon technology went live in Silicon Valley California on October 1^st 2010 at the Stanford Research Institute, and is sucking carbon from air www.globalthermostat.com and http://www.goodeyephotography.com/Event-Favorites/Global-Thermostat/Doreens-Favorites/14100961_NwTyA.

American ingenuity can transform the world’s $50 trillion dirty and increasingly expensive power plant infrastructure, which produces 41% of the global carbon emissions, into power sources to clean the atmosphere. Using heat from solar plants we can capture even more carbon yet, so we have a true transition that takes us away from dirty fossil fuels and into cleaner and renewable sources of energy. We can clean the planet’s atmosphere and reduce the risk of catastrophic climate change while producing clean energy, creating jobs and making profits. Yes we can.

This is American ingenuity at work. We have the best technology in the world, ready for export markets that can position the US as a leader in the new green and clean world economy. We can match and improve upon China’s success as the world’s main exporter of solar and wind equipment that created one million new clean tech jobs since 2005.

The US could collaborate with the Maldives Islands – and with many other island states –to produce carbon negative islands where waste water and solid waste are transformed into clean water and fuel by algae powered by carbon that we suck from air. The Association of Small Island States comprising 43 nations and almost 25% of the United Nations vote supported these efforts in a conference we organized at UN Headquarters November 2009, see www.chichilnisky.com

The Kyoto Protocol can offer significant resources to developing nations that create negative carbon villages or towns that reduce carbon from the atmosphere. Its Clean Development Mechanism has funded billions in clean tech projects that reduce carbon emissions in developing nations. Creating carbon negative power plants we can help clean the atmosphere, encourage economic development and resolve the global climate negotiations that are currently stuck in a cold – war look alike debate about who decreases emissions first, China or the US. http://chichilnisky.com/pdfs/us_china.pdf

Private sector investors have shown significant interest in developing carbon negative technologies. Edgar Bronfman Jr., Chairman of Warner Music is also an investor and a Chairman of Global Thermostat a carbon negative technology firm, and Cristiana Wyly, California impact investor, is exploring the development of carbon negative villages.

President Nasheed has asked the National Journal’s Energy and Environmental Experts a provocative question. He deserves another:

What can the Maldives Islands do with the US to create carbon negative islands?

President Nasheed asks a great question, to which my emphatic response is, “A LOT!” The US is the land of opportunity, and true to form, we have ample opportunities to reduce our use of dirty fuels and transition to a clean energy future.

As President Nasheed knows, within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the US has been asking other countries to put together low-emissions plans that would clarify how they would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In recent weeks we have seen both the German and Danish governments indicate that they can envision a future powered by 100% renewable energy. In the case of Germany, the report took heavily from WWF’s ideas of how the country could decarbonize. Many other countries are also developing these plans, but one country that does not have such a plan is the United States.

It’s high time for the US to stop telling other countries to put together their plans and for us to write our own plan for getting off of dirty fuels. The transition doesn’t require anything magical to happen, we simply need to increase our energy efficiency and decarbonize our fuel sources using existing technologies. The only thing that we lack is the political will to put together a plan and enact the right policies. Every single President since Nixon has promised to make this transition. President Obama can keep his promise by laying out a concrete plan for decarbonizing our energy by 2050. Putting solar panels on the White House is a good, if somewhat symbolic, first step.

Time is running out for countries like the Maldives, so we need to act immediately. President Nasheed was very kind not to point out that our reliance on dirty fuels is causing his country to slowly become less inhabitable. Greenhouse gas pollution from our energy has already caused global average surface temperatures to increase significantly. The resultant combination of sea level rise, bleaching of coral reefs that provide so much of their food, increases in extreme weather events, and erratic rainfall patterns is lethal for small island developing states like the Maldives.

If we can’t muster up the political will to transition to clean energy for our own good, then I hope that we can do it for the poor and vulnerable communities around the world who did nothing to get us into this mess. If the Maldives can invest in the American renewable energy industry, then surely we can do it too!

The low-lying island nation of the Maldives recognizes that climate change is an imminent threat. Without urgent action, the population of 400,000 will likely be displaced from rising sea levels. As President Nasheed recently said, "For the Maldives, climate change ... is not a problem in the future … It is a problem that we are facing every day." Like the Maldives, the United States should be taking action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions— and we can.

Although the Senate failed to act on a comprehensive energy policy this past year, we have the tools to get started with reducing our emissions. None of the existing policies alone will enable us to become carbon neutral, but we can – and should – be significantly ahead of where we are today.

The first step is to use the tools we have. WRI has found that using existing federal and state authorities, the United States can significantly reduce emissions. We can clean up old, polluting energy sources while creating opportunities for investment in clean, renewable technologies.

In Ohio, two companies just announced that they will be installing a solar plant— built on the site of a retired coal mine— that will create 300 construction jobs and provide electricity to 1.5 million customers. That's the kind of investment our country needs to recharge the economy and reduce our emissions.

Switching to renewable energy is not a pie-in-the sky aspiration. Economic powerhouses in Europe are taking on ambitious goals. For instance, Germany is aiming to reduce its carbon emissions by 80 to 95 percent by 2050. To achieve this goal, Germany is rapidly shifting its electricity supply to renewable energy. Even China is more ambitious than the United States, setting an official target of getting 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Of course, the United States’ pathway to a clean energy and carbon neutral economy will look very different than countries like the Maldives. The United States is vast and diverse – drawing energy from multiple sources. That’s why, in addition to renewables, we need to continue to pursue a range of technologies and increase the efficiency of our economy dramatically to meet our emissions reduction targets.

But the fact is the United States is terribly behind, losing out on a clean energy revolution that will create jobs and stimulate innovation. We should be world leaders in the clean energy, not trailing behind Europe and Asia. With the right policies and incentives in place, the United States can compete in the clean energy race.

The most effective way to transition the US economy to a lower-carbon alternative is through a market-based system. A well-designed cap-and-trade program will deliver the greatest greenhouse gas reductions at the least cost. It will give businesses the flexibility to develop innovative solutions, keep costs down, and make investments on a logical timeline. A market-based approach allows businesses to adopt the approach that works best for their business, their jobs, and the economy as a whole—while still meeting strong environmental targets.

Solar panels on the White House and in the Maldives are great, and various government incentives, spending, and regulations can certainly play important roles in promoting technologies and reducing emissions in some areas. However, none of these will suffice to reduce overall US emissions to anywhere near the level that scientists recommend. Cap-and-trade can do that—and can do so cost-effectively.

Thankfully, the U.S. has already made remarkable progress to a cleaner, more efficient energy future at the State level. Rather than wait for the federal government to act, State governments have implemented a broad array of innovative clean energy programs all across the country.

It is easy to forget in this day and age just how much progress we’ve made. More than 30 States have established renewable electricity portfolio goals. We’re seeing strong investment in wind and solar programs throughout the country, and we’re learning what works and what doesn’t from so-called “smart grid” pilot programs being implemented in several States.

Becoming completely carbon neutral will not happen overnight, and it will, no matter what form it takes, be expensive. But the progress we’ve already made will ease these costs. We can learn from States like California and Vermont, both of whom have either lowered or maintained a consistent demand curve over the past several years. These States took different approaches but both produced significant results.

I would encourage policymakers to learn from what we’re doing at the State level. See what is working and incent others to follow their lead. We should avoid mandates because obviously what works in one State may not work in another. Each State has different resources and consumer needs, and has different ways of meeting these goals.

The NARUC Board of Directors in July 2009 passed a resolution asking its members to pursue innovative clean energy programs as a means to reduce the overall cost of complying with whatever solution Congress or the Administration adopts to reduce GHG emissions. These State programs are the foundation that a national clean-energy strategy can and should be built upon. Rather than preempting or prohibiting these innovative approaches, the federal government should be rewarding them.

No one doubts that the transition to a clean energy infrastructure will be costly, but we should recognize that the foundation for a cleaner energy future is already being built by regulators and policy makers and financed with the support of utility consumers in States all across the country.

If the United States is to achieve its 2050 target in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent, experts will want to see far more than symbolic gestures like the installation of solar panels on the White House roof. And with significant climate change legislation unlikely to be passed any time soon, robust voluntary initiatives are needed to achieve any real progress on curbing the nation’s dependency on fossil fuels.

The EPA’s voluntary industry partnerships aimed at substantially reducing U.S. emissions of so-called high global warming potential (GWP) gases is showing promising signs. Involving several industries, including HCFC-22 producers, primary aluminum smelters, semiconductor manufacturers, electric power companies and magnesium smelters and die-casters, the program is catalyzing the development and implementation of cost-effective improvements to their industrial processes. Significant emission reductions are being made with participants expected to keep their emissions below 1990 levels.

http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/Climate Leaders is another EPA initiative that it helping companies to develop climate change mitigation strategies. Participating corporations commit to reducing their impact on the global environment by setting aggressive greenhouse gas reduction goals. Companies across a wide range of sectors including manufacturing, utility providers, financial institutions and retailers are receiving EPA recognition as corporate environmental leaders, thereby providing valuable reputation enhancement and competitive advantages.

http://www.energystar.gov/ The EPA’s Energy Star labeling program designed to identify and promote energy-efficient products to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, has gone from strength to strength since its introduction as long ago as 1992. Today more than 1,400 manufacturers use the Energy Star in over 40 product categories. Energy Star partnerships are also available to non-industrial organizations including schools and hospitals.

With the U.S. being by far the largest GHG emitter in the world, environmental campaigners are right to hold legislators to account for a continued failure in introducing any meaningful reduction measures. But, arguably, the nation is a world leader in executing non-mandatory programs involving the private sector.

Whether Maldives’ President Mohamed Nasheed – whose country’s existence is on the brink as a consequence of rising sea levels caused by global warming – can be consoled by these voluntary efforts from the world’s largest economic force, is open to serious question. Time is running out of this Indian Ocean state.