(FA) The Case for a Clean Energy Marshall Plan…

How the Fight Against Climate Change Can Renew American Leadership…

DANGER OF RELIANCE

In our highly connected world, it’s vital to be aware of the risks associated with overdependence on a single tool, resource, or person. This kind of reliance can create vulnerabilities that may undermine overall stability and efficiency. Thus, adopting a balanced approach that encourages diversification and self-reliance is key to reducing risks and bolstering resilience across different areas.

The United States is on the cusp of a transformative journey, poised for substantial growth in the clean energy sector. To support this shift, the creation of a Clean Energy Resilience Authority is proposed. This entity would play a crucial role in strengthening our supply chains during the transition to clean energy. By fostering manufacturing in developing countries and enhancing our own production, we aim to develop diverse supply chains that are independent of any single country and resilient to critical chokepoints. Presently, China dominates with 60 percent of the world’s rare-earth mining output and approximately 90 percent of its processing and refining capabilities, a dominance we intend to challenge.

To prevent replacing one dependency with another—substituting foreign oil for a reliance on Chinese critical minerals—the United States should lead a coalition to secure access to processed vital minerals. Contrary to their name, “rare-earth minerals” are abundant and dispersed across various regions. Notably, 80 percent of the world’s lithium reserves, 66 percent of nickel reserves, and 50 percent of copper reserves are found in democratic countries. This is in sharp contrast to the 80 percent of oil reserves held by OPEC nations, many of which are autocratic.

Currently, the United States has a significant asset: the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, an oil stockpile created in response to the 1973 oil crisis. In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the U.S. utilized this reserve, releasing 180 million barrels to stabilize supply. As oil prices fell, the government started to refill the reserve, accruing nearly $600 million in profits for American taxpayers by May 2024. This approach has not only smoothed oil price volatility but also bolstered U.S. strategic objectives.

From the Shadows of Biological Warfare to the New Era of Bioweapons…

One, two, three, four… oh, the joy that fills the hearts of mothers and fathers when our little ones embrace the magic of learning!  It is the little milestones that bring us the greatest delight.

We recently had the opportunity to engage with a thought-provoking (1) YouTube video by the esteemed Mr Juan Ignacio Rubiolo, the AES executive vice president and president of energy infrastructure.  The video addresses three fundamental themes: “Nurture your body, cherish your relationships, and watch your ambitions.”

Embracing these fundamental principles for achieving a balanced life should ostensibly be straightforward; however, their significance often requires further exploration.  We sincerely thank Mr Rubiolo for elucidating these essential tenets to our benefit. 

Let us take a moment to reflect on the concept of ambition.  Yesterday, we were presented with an engaging reflection by ManyMangoes from Dubai. “The stark contrast between America’s polished ideals and the persistent violence is truly eye-opening.  What can the nation’s leaders do to bridge this divide and foster a sense of unity?”  The inquiry follows an article titled “America’s Fossil Fuel Boom Risks Bust in Europe,” authored by Gabriel Gavin and Ben Lefebvre and published in POLITICO EU on July 19, 2024.  The article explores the potential repercussions of the United States’ fossil fuel agreements with Europe, particularly as the European Union seeks to reduce its reliance on this energy source. 

Let’s explore a potentially invaluable insight.  From an anthropological perspective, the conclusion is evident: we, the so-called humans, are responsible for the chaos in which we currently find ourselves.  Our insatiable desire for more has always come at a cost, where one gain inevitably necessitates the sacrifice of another.

Indeed, we should only observe the events unfolding today as Russia is embroiled in a brutal conflict with Ukraine while Israel is experiencing retaliatory attacks from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, resulting in widespread devastation.

Today, the answer to ManyMangoes, whether fortunate or unfortunate, is that the only viable solution is a second Yalta Conference that includes China.

Let’s not overlook the unsettling quirks in the psyche of specific individuals, which can lead to moral missteps and complicate our ability to coexist in ways we never thought possible.  Indeed, our journey through life is a tapestry of intricate challenges, often ignited by unforeseen turmoil.  Insightful authors have long anticipated the waves of chaos and political strife that would continuously shape our existence.

The Biological Weapons Convention has faced significant shortcomings, particularly in its inability to prevent private entities and individuals from engaging in the nefarious activities associated with biological weaponry.  For example, in 1984, the Rajneesh cult in Oregon infamously contaminated salad bars with salmonella in an attempt to incapacitate rival voters and secure electoral victories for their candidates in Wasco County.  Fortunately, no lives were lost, but hundreds of individuals fell ill.  Fast forward to 1995, and the doomsday cult Aum Shinrikyo unleashed chaos in Tokyo using the nerve agent sarin, having previously attempted – albeit unsuccessfully – to develop anthrax weapons.  The situation escalated further with the chilling anthrax attacks that resulted in five tragic deaths in the United States in 2001.  The attacks targeted journalists and Senate offices and were believed to be the work of a solitary American scientist.

On November 17, 2019, the world was introduced to the SARS-CoV-2 virus in Wuhan, China – a simple yet formidable organism composed of proteins and nucleic acids, capable of replicating only within living cells, as defined by the Royal Spanish Academy.  This minuscule entity has brought about perhaps the most profound transformation in our emotional landscape.  It has instilled a deep-seated paranoia, cruelly reminding us that the warmth of human connection – handshakes, hugs, and genuine affection – has been supplanted by faceless digital interactions, flowing endlessly in a virtual sea and devoid of the comforting touch that nourishes the soul.  How many loved ones are now absent from our lives, all due to a supposed human error in a distant laboratory in ancient Wuhan?

The repercussions of these new living conditions extend beyond our emotional well-being; they have also disrupted various industries.  Humanity’s enforced confinement hindered the flow of raw materials and components essential for production, leaving the supply chain in disarray and jeopardising our basic needs.

The scarcity of essential goods and soaring international shipping costs have unleashed the venom of inflation.  From January 2020 to December 2021, global cumulative inflation surged from 1.9% to an astonishing 3.5%, nearly doubling in one year, with projections approaching 7% by the end of the period, according to World Bank data.  Inflation has tripled over three years, creating a financial tempest that no national economy or household budget can endure. 

On August 24, 2024, the Spanish newspaper El País published an article titled “From Fighting Inflation to Avoiding Recession: Monetary Policy Changes Its Focus.” Miguel Jiménez, writing the article from Chicago, discusses how the Jackson Hole Symposium confirms that central banks are shifting focus from controlling prices to prioritising employment and economic activity to pursue an elusive soft landing.

This blog has addressed this topic over the past year due to the rise of atypical inflation.  The shortage of raw materials, components, and spare parts – exacerbated by ongoing conflicts, and, to a lesser extent, piracy – along with the economic measures implemented by central banks, including interest rate hikes, have done little to mitigate inflation.  A consensus exists about urgently needed interest rate cuts to prevent a recession.  Ultimately, the only viable solution is to urgently pursue concessions and end the conflict.

(2)Biological weapons are considered worse than nuclear weapons…

The clock is ticking, and action is imperative; the alternative could spell disaster.  If a lab-engineered or enhanced pathogen were to escape, the consequences could be catastrophic.  Certain synthetic germs could potentially cause devastation beyond what the novel coronavirus unleashed, producing a staggering loss of life and economic turmoil.  In the bleakest scenarios, we could witness a global death toll that surpasses the horrors of the Black Death, which claimed the lives of one in three individuals in Europe.

Let us extend our heartfelt gratitude to Mr Rubiolo for illuminating the three essential pillars that support a harmonious existence.  We must also extend our gratitude to ManyMangoes for initiating this crucial dialogue on fostering peace in our world. Thank you!

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt-EP6CoFgg

(2) https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/new-bioweapons-covid-biology

(FA) The Case for a Clean Energy Marshall Plan…

  Foreign Affairs by Brian Deese, September/October 2024.

For decades, global integration—of trade, of politics, of technology—was seen as a natural law. Today, integration has been replaced by fragmentation. The post–Cold War institutions are teetering, industrial strategies are back in vogue, and competition with China is growing. These dynamics are creating geopolitical friction across global supply chains, for vehicles, minerals, computer chips, and more.

Against this backdrop, the clean energy transition remains the most important planetary challenge. It also presents the greatest economic opportunity: it will be the largest capital formation event in human history. And it presents the United States with a chance to lead. Thanks to its still unparalleled power and influence, Washington maintains a unique capacity—and a strategic imperative—to shape world outcomes.

In 2022, the United States recognized these opportunities when it passed the Inflation Reduction Act, the world’s largest-ever investment in clean energy technologies. This transformative industrial strategy was a crucial first step for the United States in positioning its economy for success by accelerating the clean energy transition at home. Now is the time to take this leadership to the global stage, in a way that promotes U.S. interests and supports aligned countries. But the United States need not create a new model for doing so.

Seventy-six years ago, also facing a fractured world order and an emerging superpower competitor, U.S. President Harry Truman and U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall launched an ambitious effort to rebuild European societies and economies. Although often associated with free-market neoliberalism, the 1948 Marshall Plan was hardly laissez-faire. It was, in fact, an industrial strategy that established the United States as a generous partner to European allies while promoting U.S. industries and interests. Generations later, the Marshall Plan is rightly understood as one of the great successes of the postwar era.

Although today’s challenges are undoubtedly different, the United States should draw lessons from that postwar period and launch a new Marshall Plan, this time for the global transition to clean energy. Just as the Marshall Plan assisted those countries most ravaged by World War II, the new Marshall Plan should aim to help countries most vulnerable to the effects of climate change: the United States’ partners in the developing world. Developing countries and emerging markets will need access to cheap capital and technology to transition away from fossil fuels quickly enough to halt global warming.

The United States again has the chance to help others while helping itself. Putting its own burgeoning industries front and center in the energy transition will generate further innovation and growth. Clean energy investment in the United States reached about 7.4 percent of private fixed investment in structures and equipment in the first quarter of this year, at $40 billion, up from $16 billion in the first quarter of 2021. Investment in emerging energy technologies—such as hydrogen power, carbon capture and storage—jumped by 1,000 percent from 2022 to 2023. Manufacturing investment in the battery supply chain went up nearly 200 percent over the same period. By creating global markets for its own clean energy industries and innovators, the United States can scale back these economic gains and strengthen domestic support for an energy shift that has not always been an easy sell to voters.

The fracturing of world order and the ominous climate crisis lead some observers to focus on the potential tensions between those two developments. But they also provide an opening for the United States to deploy its innovation and capital in a generous, pragmatic, and unapologetically pro-American way—by launching a Clean Energy Marshall Plan.

THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY

Gauzy invocations of the Marshall Plan often induce eye rolling, and with good reason. In U.S. policy circles, commentators have called for a new Marshall Plan for everything from ending global poverty to rebuilding Ukraine. The term has become shorthand for a response to any problem that mobilizes public resources to achieve an ambitious end. But this overuse has blurred the substance of what the Marshall Plan really was—and was not.

The Marshall Plan was not, as many assume, born solely out of visionary ideals of international unity after the horrors of World War II. Instead, it reflected the pragmatic constraints of a fracturing, uncertain world order. In the spring of 1947, having returned from China after a failed attempt to head off a communist takeover there, Marshall was left to grapple with the newly emerged Iron Curtain in Europe. The shifting geopolitical reality forced Truman and Marshall to consider how to exert U.S. leadership to shape the world for good—to forge peace, rebuild cities, and promote American values in the face of communism. But they clearly recognized the limits of hard power and understood that economic stability could yield geopolitical stability.

Fundamentally, the Marshall Plan was an industrial strategy that deployed public dollars to advance U.S. manufacturing and industrial capabilities in service of reconstructing Europe. Washington spent $13 billion—equivalent to $200 billion today—over four years, mostly in the form of grants to discount the European purchase of goods and services. Because U.S. companies were at the center of the program, 70 percent of European expenditures of Marshall Plan funds were used to buy products made in the United States. Italy, for example, used Marshall Plan funds to buy American drilling technology, pipes, and other industrial equipment to rebuild its energy sector—including the equipment needed to restart Europe’s first commercial geothermal plant, powered by steam from lava beds in Tuscany. By 1950, that region had more than doubled its geothermal capacity and remained a major contributor to Italy’s total power demand.

The adoption of low-cost clean energy technologies is not self-executing.

The structure of the Marshall Plan allowed it to meet Europe’s pressing needs while winning over a skeptical and war-weary American public. Because there was little appetite for providing foreign aid following World War II, Marshall and Truman centered their plan on Americans’ economic interests. The country’s industrial capabilities had grown considerably during the war, but after the war, the task was to find new markets for them. As the plan’s chief administrator, Paul Hoffman, explained, the goal was to turn Europe into a “consumer of American goods” at a time when postwar U.S. GDP had fallen precipitously and exports were imperiled by a moribund European economy. The Marshall Plan would thus help American companies and save American jobs.

To sell the plan to the public, its architects and supporters launched a public relations campaign, squarely anchoring their case in these core U.S. economic interests. In the ten months after Marshall’s June 1947 speech introducing the plan, it gained traction, securing a 75 percent public approval rating and winning over a majority of the U.S. Congress—in an election year and with a divided government to boot.

Yet even though the Marshall Plan was attuned to U.S. economic interests, its architects recognized that it was important for the United States to be a generous, reliable partner to U.S. allies. The plan helped Europe rise from the rubble, pay off its debts, refill its foreign exchange reserves, recover its industrial production and agricultural output, adopt new technologies, and build goodwill for the United States, all while reducing the appeal of communism. By filling a financing gap that no other power could, the United States cemented its transatlantic partnerships. And by supporting its own economy, it became a capable and reliable global partner.

THE CHEAPER, THE BETTER

Like the original Marshall Plan, a Clean Energy Marshall Plan should meet other countries’ development needs while advancing U.S. interests. In this case, the goal is to speed the adoption of low-cost, zero-carbon solutions, such as the manufacture of batteries, the deployment of nuclear and geothermal energy, and the processing of critical minerals. This approach reflects the basic intuition that, as useful as it can be to make carbon pollution more expensive by putting a price on it, the most credible way to accelerate the adoption of zero-carbon technologies is to make that technology cheap and widely available.

The Inflation Reduction Act embodies this theory: it created long-term public incentives that promote the innovation and deployment of a variety of clean energy technologies. This public investment is already transforming the U.S. energy industry, and it holds even more potential for global energy markets. By driving down the cost of clean energy technologies—particularly innovative technologies such as nuclear power and carbon capture—the IRA could generate up to $120 billion in global savings by 2030. The resulting uptake of clean energy technologies in emerging markets could ultimately yield emission reductions in the rest of the world that would be two to four times as large as those achieved in the United States.

But the adoption of low-cost clean energy technologies is not self-executing. Without U.S. leadership, the world will simply not do enough fast enough to limit the worst effects of global warming. Unfortunately, the United States has yet to offer a full-throated answer to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the $1 trillion infrastructure project Beijing designed to expand its influence across the globe. And now, some leaders in China are calling for Beijing to go even further and develop a Marshall Plan–style approach to drive clean energy adoption in developing countries. Meanwhile, other players are also stepping up where the United States has not. For all the controversy about the United Arab Emirates—a fossil fuel nation—hosting last year’s UN climate conference, it is notable that it was the UAE, and not the United States, that proposed a large funding effort aimed at scaling zero-carbon technology to appropriate levels for emerging markets.

Ceding this space is a failure of American leadership and a missed economic opportunity. Skepticism of the United States, exacerbated by its handling of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, is already high in Southeast Asia and across the developing world, where Washington cannot afford to see alliances fray. And when countries there look to China or the UAE for capital and technology, American innovators and workers lose ground.

Implementing a Clean Energy Marshall Plan won’t be easy, but the process must begin now. As after World War II, the United States can be generous as well as pro-American in its approach. It can promote U.S. interests by scaling its industries to meet global needs while winning greater influence in this new geopolitical landscape. And it can meet developing countries where they are—supplying them with the energy they need to expand their economies and the innovation they need to decarbonize efficiently.

To accomplish these aims, however, Washington needs a clear mandate, adequate resources, and flexible tools. And it will need to enact a strategy that does three things: finances foreign deployment of U.S. clean energy technology, secures more resilient supply chains, and creates a new, more balanced trade regime that encourages the development and implementation of clean energy technology.

Gratitude is a vital aspect of our existence…

In a world that’s constantly growing and grappling with inflation, the art of blogging faces its fair share of hurdles.  To keep our content top-notch during these challenging times, we’ve poured resources into top-tier software, licenses, and stunning copyrighted images, among other essentials.  But fear not, we’re not navigating this journey alone! Just last week on “X,” actions like “liking” or “retweeting” have become your secret weapons—free and private, thanks to “Musk” your support through these simple yet impactful gestures is not just a token of appreciation but a significant contribution that shapes our journey!

If you’re feeling motivated to make a difference, consider extending your generosity through PayPal at gjmtoroghio@germantoroghio.com, or by using our IBAN account: SE18 3000 0000 0058 0511 2611.  Alternatively, you can effortlessly support our blog with a secure contribution via Stripe using the donation link.  Every little bit helps!

Thank you for being a part of our journey!  Your generous support is truly invaluable to us!  It plays a crucial role in helping us achieve our goals and make a positive impact.  Thank you for being such an important part of our journey!

https://x.com/Germantoroghio/status/1828035072806539629

HOMEGROWN ADVANTAGES

The United States should begin with a focused investment and commercial diplomacy effort, akin to that of the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan had a straightforward aim: subsidize European demand for U.S. products and services needed to rebuild Europe. Today, the United States should establish a Clean Energy Finance Authority with an updated mission: subsidize foreign demand for clean energy technology and put American innovation and industry at the front of the line.

The new body would enable the United States to participate in foreign deals that promote U.S. innovation and production while reducing emissions. The purpose would be to reduce the premium that emerging-market economies must pay to meet their energy needs in a low-carbon way. To receive U.S. investments, governments and private sectors in these countries would themselves need to invest in clean energy. The promise of reliable U.S. support would prompt reform.

The good news is that most of the technologies necessary, from solar power to battery storage to wind turbines, are already commercially scalable. Other technologies are now scaling up rapidly, thanks to U.S. investment. For example, the United States has used its existing drilling capacity to become the world’s leading producer of advanced geothermal energy. It is well positioned to leverage its homegrown advantages to export geothermal components to geopolitically important markets in Southeast Asia and Africa and beyond, where sources of reliable power are needed. The more these technologies are deployed, the more costs will come down, as processes become more efficient with scale. With patient capital, dividends will be manifold: steady, clean power; faster-growing markets; diversified supply chains; and support for hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs. Similar opportunities exist for advanced nuclear and hydrogen power and carbon capture.

The United States has yet to offer a full-throated answer to the Belt and Road Initiative.

To be effective, the Clean Energy Finance Authority would need to be big yet nimble. Not only has the United States lagged other countries in offering public capital to lead the energy transition, but its financial support is also unnecessarily inflexible. Officials in foreign capitals joke that the United States shows up with a 100-page list of conditions, whereas China shows up with a blank check. The United States’ current financing authorities are constrained by byzantine rules that block U.S. investment that could advance its national interests.

For example, the U.S. Development Finance Corporation, which invests in projects in lower- and middle-income countries, cannot invest in lithium processing projects in Chile because it is considered a high-income country, yet companies in the low-income Democratic Republic of the Congo often find it impossible to meet the DFC’s stringent labor standards. Meanwhile, Chinese companies invested over $200 million in a Chilean lithium plant in 2023 and gained rights to explore Congolese lithium mines the same year. Of course, U.S. finance must continue to reflect American values, but there is still room for far greater flexibility in the name of national interest and the energy transition.

Promising models for a Clean Energy Finance Authority also exist. Domestically, the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office rapidly expanded its capabilities, approving 11 investment commitments to companies totaling $18 billion in the past two fiscal years (versus just two commitments in the three years before that). Internationally, the DFC expanded its climate lending from less than $500 million to nearly $4 billion over the last three years. And the United States has supported creative financial partnerships with several countries. In Egypt, for example, the United States and Germany committed $250 million to stimulate $10 billion of private capital to accelerate the Egyptian energy transition.

The most effective aspects of these examples should be harnessed together under the Clean Energy Finance Authority, which should have a versatile financial toolkit, including the ability to issue debt and equity. It should be able to deploy this capital in creative arrangements, such as by blending it with foreign capital and lowering risk premiums with insurance and guarantees. It should draw on, not re-create, the Department of Energy’s expertise in assessing the risks and benefits of emerging technologies, such as advanced nuclear energy, hydrogen power, and carbon capture and storage. The Clean Energy Finance Authority could be managed by the U.S. Treasury Department, in light of the latter’s experience in risk underwriting and financial diligence, and given the mandate to coordinate closely across agencies.

With nimble, market-oriented financing capacities, the Clean Energy Finance Authority would be able to accelerate and initiate, not impede, financial transactions. Whereas the Marshall Plan was 90 percent financed with U.S. grants, a Clean Energy Marshall Plan could easily be the inverse, with less than ten percent of its expenditures in the form of grants and the rest of the capital being deployed as equity, debt, export credit, and other forms of financing. And whereas the Chinese Belt and Road model relies on government-dominated financing, an American approach would be market-based and therefore more efficient because it enables competition and encourages large investments of private capital.

The Clean Energy Finance Authority should be capitalized with a significant upfront commitment of money—enough to generate market momentum that tips the balance of clean energy investment toward the private sector; ultimately the private sector, not the public sector, will need to provide the majority of the financing the energy transition needs over the coming decades. If this new authority is set up and deployed properly, U.S. companies and innovators would gain more foreign demand, on favorably negotiated terms, and new market share. Foreign consumers, for their part, would gain access to new channels of cheap clean energy technology. For emerging-market countries and major emitters—such as Brazil, India, and Indonesia—the United States could act with both generosity and its own interests in mind.

THE DANGER OF DEPENDENCE

The United States should also establish a Clean Energy Resilience Authority, whose goal would be to create more resilient supply chains for the clean energy transition. To support burgeoning manufacturing production in developing countries, and to expand that of the United States, the world needs diversified supply chains that are not dominated by individual states and do not have exploitable chokepoints. Today, China controls 60 percent of the world’s rare-earth mining production and approximately 90 percent of its processing and refining capability.

The United States should lead a coalition of partners to build access to processed critical minerals such that the energy transition does not substitute dependence on foreign oil for dependence on Chinese critical minerals. Thankfully, the term “rare-earth minerals” is a misnomer: these elements are abundant and geographically dispersed. Eighty percent of the world’s lithium reserves, 66 percent of its nickel reserves, and 50 percent of its copper reserves are in democracies. Eighty percent of oil reserves, by contrast, are in OPEC countries, nearly all of which are autocracies.

In today’s energy market, the most important tool the United States wields is the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a stockpile of oil created 50 years ago as a response to the 1973 oil crisis. In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, in 2022, the U.S. government used this reserve to ensure adequate supply by selling 180 million barrels of oil. When prices fell, the administration began refilling the reserve, securing a profit for U.S. taxpayers of close to $600 million as of May 2024. The mechanism has reduced the volatility of oil prices while advancing U.S. strategic interests.

As part of the Clean Energy Marshall Plan, Washington must level the playing field through the use of trade tools.

The United States should create a strategic reserve capability for critical minerals, as well. A body similar to the U.S. Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund, a reserve fund used to prevent fluctuations in the value of the U.S. dollar, but for critical minerals would enable the United States to stabilize the market for these resources. The Clean Energy Resilience Authority could offer various forms of financial insurance that would steady prices, protect consumers from price spikes, and generate stable revenue for producers during low-price periods. And it should have the ability to build up physical stockpiles of key minerals, such as graphite and cobalt, whether on U.S. soil or in allied territory.

Support for this type of reserve capability already exists. The bipartisan House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party recommended just such a body. The United States’ allies are also on board: in May, South Korea allocated an additional nearly $200 million to build up domestic lithium reserves. Indeed, the original Marshall Plan also recognized the need to improve access to strategically important materials, funding domestic stockpiles for goods such as industrial equipment and medical supplies.

With the Clean Energy Resilience Authority, the United States would be better able to craft multilateral agreements to diversify critical minerals processing. As part of that effort, it could organize a critical minerals club among leading producers and consumers, wherein members could offer and receive purchase commitments. Such an arrangement would give countries that produce and process minerals reliable access to the United States and other developed markets—assuming they meet high standards for sustainable and ethical mining practices. The outcome would be more minerals processed in a more diverse supply chain, sold into a more stable market.

TRADING PLACES

The Marshall Plan underscored the importance of using trade policy to advance U.S. interests: it required European countries to integrate their economies and to remove trade barriers as a means of expanding U.S. exports, promoting capitalism, and warding off communism. A Clean Energy Marshall Plan should help lead a coalition to elicit a more balanced global trading system.

Right now, China is the central actor in global supply chains for clean energy technologies. Facing a stalling domestic economy, China is pursuing a state-led strategy of investing in domestic manufacturing capacity rather than in greater domestic demand or a stronger social safety net. For some goods, such as electric vehicles, batteries, and solar panels, China explicitly aims to dominate global manufacturing. That strategy is fundamentally unsustainable for the global economy. For one thing, it creates acute supply chain vulnerabilities; because the world relies so heavily on China for processing rare-earth minerals, a natural disaster or geopolitical tensions could threaten the entire global supply. For another thing, the strategy erodes industrial capacity across the world, including in the United States. By flooding global markets with artificially cheap goods without a commensurate increase in imports, China forces the cost of its subsidies onto its trade partners—undercutting employment, innovation, and industrial capacity elsewhere. Indeed, this strategy even harms China’s own industrial sector and fails to address the root causes of its domestic economic challenges.

As part of the Clean Energy Marshall Plan, Washington must level the global playing field through the active yet measured use of trade tools such as tariffs. Doing nothing and being resigned to China’s statist approach is neither economically nor politically sustainable. And using blunt tools to effectuate what amounts to a unilateral retreat is dangerous. Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s call to essentially end all imports from China within four years is a cynical fantasy playing on populist fears. In 2022, U.S. goods and services trade with China amounted to over $750 billion. It is not practicable to decouple from any major economy, let alone the United States’ third-largest trading partner. Global trade delivers important benefits, whereas unilateral, asymmetric escalation would leave the United States isolated and vulnerable.

The right approach is to harmonize more active trade policies with like-minded countries. Indeed, Brazil, Chile, India, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam, among others, are all investigating or imposing tariffs on Chinese dumping practices. China is now the object of twice as many retaliatory measures as it was four years ago. The growing pushback represents a chance for the United States to address the Chinese-driven global trade imbalance by crafting a global coalition to galvanize a coordinated response while creating more global trade in clean energy goods and services.

To accomplish this, the United States must use expanded, stronger, and smarter trade authorities. For example, Washington should build into its tariffs on imported goods an assessment of how much carbon was used to produce them. Tariffs should be determined by the emission intensity of the trading partner’s entire industry, rather than company by company, to avoid “resource reshuffling,” whereby countries try to dodge penalties by limiting their exports to only products manufactured with clean energy instead of reducing their emissions overall. These tariffs should be aimed at all countries, but given its current production practices, China would be hit the hardest.

This form of tariff regime could be coordinated with what other countries are doing on the same front. The effort should begin with the steel sector. Chinese-made steel is two to five times as carbon-intensive as U.S.-made steel and is being dumped in markets around the world. The United States has been working on an arrangement with the European Union to harmonize tariffs on steel and aluminum. But the EU need not be the United States’ first or only partner in this initiative. There is a global appetite to enact a common external tariff regime on China to respond to its overproduction and carbon-intensive practices. Washington should work to pull this group together through the G-7 and G-20.

There is also a domestic appetite for this approach, in both the U.S. Congress and the private sector. For example, Dow Chemical has advocated the use of carbon policies to favor environmentally responsible industries that make heavily traded goods. Several bipartisan bills now in Congress propose similar policies. The United States could develop an industrial competitiveness program for heavy industries, such as those producing cement, steel, and chemicals, that bolsters domestic industry and makes trade more fair by charging a carbon-based fee on both domestic industries and imports at the border. This program would incentivize domestic innovation and efficiency, and it would advantage environmentally responsible U.S. companies that compete with heavy-carbon-emitting foreign producers. The revenue from the fee could be rebated to the U.S. private sector by rewarding the cleanest domestic producers and investing in research and development.

Investing in a clean energy transition abroad will benefit businesses and workers at home.

A carbon-based tariff, or a carbon border adjustment, should further motivate climate action by exempting countries that are hitting their nationally determined goals under the 2016 Paris climate agreement or those that fall below certain income and emission thresholds. To complement the Clean Energy Finance Authority, the tariff could be lowered in exchange for foreign procurement of clean energy technologies or of clean products made in the United States. For many developing countries, the tariff would act as a powerful accelerant to their energy development plans.

This approach would allow the United States to transition from its current indiscriminate, broad-based tariff regime to a more comprehensive carbon-based system that more accurately targets Chinese overcapacity and trade imbalance concerns. And the United States should leave the door open to cooperating with China in this context, as well.

Policymakers will have to reimagine existing trade rules—and be willing to lead the World Trade Organization and other international institutions in thinking about how trade can accelerate the clean energy transition. The WTO’s objective was never just to promote free trade for free trade’s sake; its founding document includes a vision for sustainable development. The WTO must reform if it is to deliver on that vision, but in the meantime, the United States shouldn’t cling to old trade conventions when more targeted and effective approaches exist.

BANKING FOR THE FUTURE

Finally, as the United States upgrades its tools of economic statecraft, it should also increase its expectations of the world’s multilateral development banks, especially the World Bank. Like its predecessor, the Clean Energy Marshall Plan would be temporary, designed to unlock a wave of innovation investment to address a global need. Multilateral development banks are a necessary complement to active U.S. leadership today, just as they were in the postwar era. But the banks need to deploy their capital with the urgency that the energy transition and economic development demand. Although there has been a welcome recent focus on this reform agenda—including by the Biden administration, the G-20, and even the banks themselves—progress has been tepid, and conventional proposals lack ambition and creativity. Incremental change is not enough.

Some avenues already exist to spur the proper level of ambition. For example, donor countries can increase the stakes for the banks by fostering competition among them to make tangible progress on reforms that increase lending for climate-related projects and leverage their investments more effectively. Washington can already provide capital in the form of guarantees to multilateral development banks; this authority could be expanded such that U.S. capital is allocated to these banks based on which ones deserve it most. This “play to get paid” structure would challenge the banks to come forward with legitimate plans to improve their lending practices for clean energy projects. And the guarantee structure offers a great bang for the buck: the World Bank can spend $6 for every $1 of guarantee provided.

The Green Climate Fund, the sole multilateral public financial institution devoted to addressing climate change, could follow this approach, too. Almost 15 years after it was founded, the GCF has disbursed only 20 percent of the funding it has received. To speed up its progress and increase its leverage, the GCF should allocate a portion of its funds to the multilateral development banks, building on its existing practice of lending to these institutions, based on a similar “play to get paid” principle. Instead of submitting individual project applications, the banks would submit proposals for leveraging hybrid capital to scale climate lending in support of the GCF’s mission, including the even split between those projects that prevent climate change and those that respond to its current impacts. In other words, the banks that can best attack the problem would receive flexible GCF capital to scale those efforts. Such a change would be merely one part of a multilateral system that maintains the momentum created by a Clean Energy Marshall Plan.

WIN-WIN-WIN

The Clean Energy Marshall Plan has the makings of a compelling pitch to U.S. domestic audiences: investing in the clean energy transition abroad will benefit businesses and workers at home. Evidence of that effect is already easy to find. The clean investment boom is turning novel technologies into market mainstays: emerging technologies such as hydrogen power and carbon capture now each receive more investment than wind. Billions of dollars are flowing to areas of the United States left behind by previous economic booms, bringing new jobs with them. But to further this momentum, the country needs to turn to foreign markets to boost demand for U.S. products.

The United States should seize the occasion to lead on its own terms. The Clean Energy Marshall Plan would be good for U.S. workers and businesses, unlocking billions of dollars of market opportunities; good for the United States’ developing country partners, by delivering low-cost decarbonization solutions; and good for the world order, by building more resilient supply chains and a more balanced and sustainable trading system.

Such a plan requires political focus and money, but it is not impossible. The United States can spend far less than it did on the Marshall Plan, thanks to the better financial tools available today and falling clean technology costs. And it could recycle the proceeds from a carbon-based border adjustment tariff into the finance and resilience authorities, thus setting up a system that pays for itself.

In this moment of domestic economic strength—stark against the backdrop of heightened competition, a fracturing world, and a raging climate crisis—the United States can do something generous for people across the globe in a way that benefits Americans. It should take that leap, not just because it is the morally right thing to do but also because it is the strategically necessary thing to do.