Jeff Kalmus argues that the idea of a “race” between China and the United States over green tech (suggested by Will Rafey here) is misguided. Clean energy anywhere benefits everyone, everywhere. If there are no losers, then why call it a “race”?
The “race” is just another manifestation of the phenomenon Will described in his fall article, an attempt by environmentalists to argue for action on climate change in terms they expect to be better received than the fundamental environmental justifications, but terms which are ultimately unconvincing.
There’s a lot of truth to this. When people tell me that “China, moving rapidly into the void left by U.S. inaction, is poised to leap beyond the U.S. and seize control of the emerging clean energy economy” my response is simple: I get mad. I get worried. Some of my reasons are pure, no doubt — I worry about the effects of CO2 admissions, and the benefits that a proactive government would deliver; I worry about resource dependency; and I know that directed investment in growth industries is good for a struggling economy. But all those are legitimate concerns regardless of what China does or fails to do with clean energy.
The “race” construct itself is designed to flatter my less-pure motives — my competitive nationalism. The idea of a “race” obscures the central fact that, as a citizen of the world (not just of the United States) I benefit as we all do from a greener China.
Yet the fact is I bristle when reading that China is beating the United States — and that’s a good thing. It’s good to get people mad about issues worth getting mad about, even for the wrong reasons. Will’s post is thus good on its face.
But that doesn’t exactly answer the question: Is the “race” construct “unconvincing”? Does it matter if China takes the lead? Smart people like Fareed Zarkaria and Matthew Ygelsias are quick to point out that, in a networked world, the “rise of the rest” is a good thing for America. This is true of politics — where we want strong, effecitve, well-run states to collaborate to mitigate the dangers of nonstate, networked enemies — and it’s true of economics: progress is inherently positive sum. In Matthew Yglesias’ words:
I can’t think of any major technical innovations occurring in Portugal since the 16th century. Nevertheless, Portugese people benefit from technical advances that occur elsewhere in the world. New products find customers and spinoffs and useful imitators all around the one. The growing extent to which China and India are places where research and development activities can take place is a very good thing not only for the two billion people who live over there, but for the people who live everyplace else as well.
That said, there clearly are advantages to acting first. America is a much richer nation than Portugal, after all, and this is due in no small part to its relentless innovation; economists have long argued that national R&D investments (and education investments) are key components of national economic growth. Place matters. Where research is happening determines the flow of talent, of capital, and, more subtly, it structures the dynamic effect of institutional clustering, agglomeration, all the things that makes NYC and Silicon Valley so extremely productive. America reaped huge rewards from being the first to move into, say, the auto market in the early 20th century or the Internet boom at the turn of the century, both directly tied to government investments; in those industries, the race mattered, and the same, one assumes, is true of the green tech industry today.
You could imagine a case where we’d have to choose: increase total innovation, or increase our innovation level relative to others (while reducing total innovation). That’s interesting to think about, but inapplicable to the problem at hand. The point stands: the race matters.
