Discussions about building a green future tend to focus on the need to improve the generation of energy from renewable sources.
However, that is just the first step.
Better mechanisms for storing and releasing that energy — when the sun is not shining, the wind is not blowing, or when electric cars are on the move — are also critical, and contrary to popular belief, it is the public sector that is leading the way toward effective solutions.
Since the commercial development of lithium-ion batteries — the rechargeable batteries common in consumer electronics — in the early 1990s, the challenge of storing and releasing power effectively enough to make sustainable energy sources viable alternatives to fossil fuels has been a vexing one. Efforts by entrepreneurial billionaires like Bill Gates and Elon Musk to overcome this challenge have been the focus of much excited media speculation. So how many billionaires does it take to change a battery?
The answer, it turns out, is zero. This week, Ellen Williams, director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), part of the US Department of Energy, announced that her agency had beaten the billionaires to it. Williams said ARPA-E has attained “some holy grails in batteries,” which are to enable us to “create a totally new approach to battery technology, make it work, make it commercially viable.”
While praising Musk’s achievements, Williams drew a sharp distinction between their approaches. Musk has been engaged in the large-scale production of “an existing, pretty powerful battery technology.” ARPA-E, by contrast, has been pursuing technological innovation in the purest sense: “creating new ways of doing” things. They “are pretty well convinced” that some of their technologies “have the potential to be significantly better.”
To many people, this development might seem surprising. After all, the private sector has long been regarded as an economy’s most important source of innovation, but this perception is not entirely accurate.
In fact, history’s great entrepreneurial figures have frequently stood on the shoulders of the entrepreneurial state. Late Apple founder and chief executive officer Steve Jobs was a smart businessman, but every technology that makes the iPhone “smart” was developed with state funding. That is why Gates has declared that only the state, in the form of public institutions like ARPA-E, can lead the way to an energy breakthrough.
It is critical to acknowledge that it is not the state as administrator fulfilling this role; rather, it is the entrepreneurial state in action, creating markets, instead of just fixing them. With a mission-oriented approach and the freedom to experiment — with failure understood to be an unavoidable, and even welcome, feature of the learning process — the state is better able to attract top talent and pursue radical innovation.
However, leading a green revolution would be no easy feat. To succeed, public agencies would have to overcome significant challenges.
Consider ARPA-E, which was founded in 2009 as part of US President Barack Obama’s economic-stimulus package. Though still in its infancy, the agency — based on the model of the long-established Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — has already shown major promise. Following the commitment, made by Obama and 19 other world leaders at a climate change conference in Paris in December last year, to double public investment in green-energy research, ARPA-E seems set to receive a welcome boost in funding.
However, ARPA-E still lacks the capacity to create and shape new markets that, for example, DARPA enjoys. This represents a major challenge, because the agency is working in an industry that remains in its early stages. Though the development of wind and solar-power technologies received a big push in the 1970s, both are still marked by market and technological uncertainty. The embedded energy infrastructure retains strong incumbency advantages and markets do not value sustainability adequately or price waste and pollution fairly.
In the face of such uncertainty, the business sector is unlikely to enter the market until the riskiest and most capital-intensive investments have been made, or until coherent and systematic political signals have been communicated. Governments must therefore act decisively to make the needed investments and provide the right signals.
Crucially, governments must also install safeguards to ensure that the entrepreneurial state reaps an appropriate share of the rewards for its efforts. In the past, this might have happened via tax spillovers, but the top marginal rate is nowhere near the level it was in the 1950s, when NASA, a foremost example of state-sponsored innovation, was founded in the US — at that time, the highest marginal tax rate was 91 percent. Indeed, thanks to the lobbying of Silicon Valley venture capitalists, capital gains tax fell by 50 percent in five years at the end of the 1970s. The increased use of upstream patenting has weakened spillovers.
Of course, private-sector players like Gates and Musk are essential partners in driving forward the green revolution. As they assume a greater role in the commercialization and deployment of battery-storage technology, they are likely to earn their fair share of rewards, but should the ARPA-E — or its angel investors, US taxpayers — not also get some return for its early, and risky, investment?
In some nations, such as Israel, with its Yozma program, and Finland, with its Sitra fund, the government has retained a stake in state-funded innovation. This enables the entrepreneurial state to continue to invest, catalyzing the next wave of innovations. Why are Western nations so resistant to this sensible idea?
Mariana Mazzucato is a professor of the economics of innovation at the Science Policy Research Unit of the University of Sussex
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
RSS