7/25/2019 Paul Krugman 05/02

1/1

Paul Krugman

joined The New

York Times in 1999

as a columnist on

the Op-Ed page

and continues

as a professor of

economics and

international

affairs at Princeton

University. He was awarded the

Nobel in economic science in 2008 .

Mr. Krugman i s the author or editor

of 21 books and more than 200

papers in pr ofessional jour nals and

edited volumes. His latest book is

End This Depression Now!

So you say you want a revolu-

tion? Politically, Im afraid youllbe disappointed unless the revo-lution you have in mind involvesputting Donald Trumps finger onthe button. But an environmentalor energy revolution? Thats look-ing remarkably within reach.

Joe Romm at Climate Prog-ress has the story (here: th kpr.gs/3743517). The backdrop is theremarkable improvements of re-cent years in renewable-energytechnologies, which have putsolar and wind power in strikingdistance of matching the costs ofelectricity generation using fossilfuels.

But besides the costs, theres oneremaining hurdle: Renewableshave a hard time matching fluctua-tions in demand.

Enter three policy changes. First,the last congressional budget dealretained tax incentives for renew-able energy, which will have a hugeimpact maybe even a yuge

impact, as Donald Trump wouldsay on its deployment over thenext decade. Second, in Januarythe Supreme Court rejected achallenge by power companies toEnvironmental Protection Agencyrules leading to demand responsepricing which is, basically, pay-ing people not to consume electric-ity during peak periods, a programthat really helps renewables.

Finally, if Democrats hold theWhite House next year, well seethe Obama admin istrations planto limit carbon go into effect, whichwill create a big incentive to switchto renewables.

Nothing in this should lead tocomplacency. Were still facing ahuge climate challenge, and Presi-dent Trump (or for that matter anyof the other seven dwarfs) could

and would destroy the whole thing.But were now achingly close tomaking rapid progress on emis-sions much more rapid than Ithink anyone imagined was pos-sible just a few years ago.

Bernie, Hillary and Change

Quoting President Obamasinterview with Politico last month,Greg Sargent at The Washing-ton Post recently noted that Mr.

Obama essentially supports theHillary Clinton theory of changeover the Bernie Sanders theory.

Heres the president talking toPolitico: I think that what Hillarypresents is a recognition that trans-lating values into governance anddelivering the goods is ultimatelythe job of politics making a rea l-life difference to people in theirday-to-day lives. I dont want to ex-aggerate those differences, though,

because Hillary is really idealisticand progressive. Youd have tobe to be in, you know, the positionshes in now, having fought all thebattles shes fought and, you k now,taken so many, you know, slingsand arrows from the other side.

Mr. Sargent could be wrong, ofcourse. But if youre a progressivewho not only supports Mr. Sand-ers, but is furious w ith anyone whois skeptical about his insurgency

someone who considers the econo-mist Mike Konczal to be a minionand me to be a corrupt crook, forexample you might want toask why Mr. Obama is saying es-sentially the same things that pro-gressive Bernie skeptics are.

And you might want to thinkhard about why youre not just surethat youre right, but sure that any-one who disagrees with you mustbe evil.

We now have yet another Hill-ary Clinton email story thistime involving emails that cov-ered material that wasnt clas-sified when the messages weresent, but which is now deemed tobe top secret by the State Depart-ment. The Clinton campaign isdemanding that the emails be re-leased, presumably to show howinnocuous they really were.

Max Fisher at Vox suggested re-cently that this is basically a storyabout the craziness and excessesof the classification system, andmy own experience althoughdeeply out of date suggests that

hes probably right. (Read his ar-ticle here: bit.ly/1UvVFPQ.)

As Ive mentioned before, Iworked for the American govern-

ment, as a staff member at theCouncil of Economic Advisers,from 1982 to 1983 . No, I wasnt aReaganite my job was a sub-political, technocratic position,which I filled because MartinFeldstein, the councils chairman,wanted the smartest young tech-nocrats he knew to be on staff.I was the senior internationaleconomist; the senior domesticeconomist was a guy namedLarry Summers.

Given the area I covered, I re-ceived a lot of classified reportsfrom the C.I.A., the State Depart-ment and other government agen-

cies. The covers of these reportshad all sorts of warnings in capitalletters: SECRET NOFORN NO-CONTRAC T PROPIN ORCON,

I think, was the standard litany.And there was a security personwho came through our offices atnight, scooped up any classifieddocuments we left out, put themin a safe and issued c itations to usfor leaving them out. Between thenumber of classified documents Ireceived and my continuing trueidentity as an absent-mindedprofessor, I got a lot of citations second only to Mr. Feldstein.

But the reason I kept forgettingto lock up the documents was thefact that none of them literallynot one, during a whole year contained any information that

was actually sensitive. There wasnothing in any of these classifiedreports that you couldnt haveread in newspapers or figured out

for yourself by accessing publicinformation.

I suppose I was privy to a fewbits of sensitive information. Forexample, I knew that Brazil wasout of money during the LatinAmerican debt crisis a few daysbefore that information was pub-lic though it wasnt mentionedin classified documents. Thelarger secret I learned from myyear in government that thequality of discussion in Cabinet-level meetings is lower than youcan imagine isnt the kind ofthing people put in classifieddocuments.

So my guess is that theonly scandal here is how muchanodyne stuff gets top secretslapped on it.

PAUL KRUGMAN

An Energy Revolution Within Reach

PAUL KRUGMAN

Top Secret Tends to Be the Default

According to analysts, a series of re-

cent developments in the United States

could help expedite the nations transi-

tion to renewable energy.

The Rhodium Group, a consulting firm

that specializes in energy policy, predict-

ed in a report released last month that

extensions of federal tax credits for wind

and solar power companies, combined

with forthcoming emissions regulations,

could effectively end the countrys natu-

ral gas boom.

While natural gas extraction emits a

significant amount of carbon, it produces

less than other fossil fuels like coal, and

analysts have long expected natural gas

to act as a bridge in the transition from

coal-generated power to renewables.

But while the cost of generating re-

newable energy from wind and solar is

expected to continue to decline, natu-

ral gas is still predicted to remain cheap-

er for several more years. T hus, renew-

ables have been able to compete because

of the federal tax credits.

Additionally, President Obama un-

veiled a Clean Power Plan last Au-

gust, which mandates steep cuts in emis-

sions from power plants. Without the tax

credits for renewables, the cheapest way

for utilities to comply would have been

through the expansion of natural gas

generation.

Many analysts had expected the tax

credits to expire, but they received a sur-

prise reprieve in a spending bill that was

passed in December and will remain in

place for five more years. According to

the Rhodium Group, The tax extend-

ers fundamentally change[d] the game.

We expect wind and solar to cut off the

surge of [natural gas] generation.

In another blow to fossil fuel extrac-

tion, the Supreme Court ruled late last

month that the government could force

utilities to implement demand re-

sponse energy pricing. Normally, when

a utility experiences high usage, it acti-

vates unused power plants to meet the

extra demand. But under a demand re-

sponse pricing system, the utility must

pay consumers to conserve electrici-

ty the same amount that it would pay to

generate new electricity. If the case be-

fore the court had gone the other way, it

would have incentivized the construction

of more carbon-intensive power plants,

rather than foster conservation.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the

courts majority decision that the de-

mand response practice started be-

cause wholesale market operators can

sometimes say, on a muggy August

day offer electricity both more cheap-

ly and more reliably by paying users to

dial down their consumption than by

paying power plants to ramp up their

production.

BACKSTORY

RenewablesGet a Boost

I am concerned that any posi-

tive developments that might

result from an energy revolutionwill arrive too late. If we want theUnited States to transition awayfrom fossil fuels, we need to push alot harder now.

CHRIS G., MASSACHUSETTS

People who support Bernie

Sanders are not looking for an

instant revolution they simply

want to stop preserving the plu-

tocratic status quo. They want toput the country on a path towardreal change.

They also know that an instantrevolution in energy production isimpossible. Renewable energy isstill not fully competitive, but there

is hope that it will be soon. But fornow, too many political barriers torenewables remain in place.

NAME WITHHELD, TENNESSEE

Incrementalism is just the

ticket if you are comfortable and

have a stable, middle-class job.

However, if you are falling out ofthe middle class, then more of thesame wont cut it.

More than 30 years ago, Presi-dent Reagan led a revolution thatgave us supply-side economics.But it is no longer sustainable.

TIM KANE, ARIZONA

It occurs to me that some

people might not understand the

power of sustained incremental

improvements with regard to

renewables.

For example, silicon-based solarpanel technology has been aroundfor decades. And solar panels havegotten a little cheaper every year.Now prices are low enough that so-lar energy can be a viable competi-tor to fossil fuel extraction in sunnyregions around the world.

So when one opts for incrementalchange, it does not mean giving upon accomplishing big things. Sus-tained incremental improvementsover time can result in revolution-ary changes.

In fact, steady improvementsare often the only way to make bigideas a reality.

NAME WITHHELD, CALIFORNIA

Its worth noting that the costof replacing any significant por-

tion of the power grid with wind

or solar energy will be stagger-

ing.

NAME WITHHELD, PUERTO RICO

Power generated through so-

lar and wind is starting to take

over at a time when energy de-

mand is projected to be relative-

ly flat for the foreseeable future.

This means that for the first timesince the Industrial Revolution,economic growth and energy con-sumption have been decoupled.

Also, solar and wind arent thepower generators of choice justbecause they are clean and rela-tively cheap. Renewables can beintegrated into the power grid inmanageable increments.

CHRIS GRANDA, VERMONT

Renewables? Absolutely, just

as long as were not talkingaboutethanol, which is market-ed as a renewable, even though it

uses more energy than it creates

and wrecks the livelihoods of im-

poverished farmers.

NAME WITHHELD, FLORIDA

The other revolution on the

horizon involves energy-storage

technology. Besides Teslashome-energy battery, the Germancompany Varta is also selling re-chargable batteries.

A balanced storage system cantake a lot of pressure off the gr idand help tremendously in fosteringthe use of renewable energy.

NAME WITHHELD, VERMONT

Id be more sympathetic toward

Hillary Clinton if she hadnt vigor-

ously supported the prosecution

of Chelsea Manning and othergovernment whistle-blowers in

the past. Such hypocrisy is just toomuch to forgive.

And when it comes to her emails,she simply should have known bet-ter. Even if the information only be-came classified later (which hasntactually been confirmed), she wasthe top official in the State Depart-

ment. She should have known wherethe bar was set.

If Mrs. Clinton was a low-level

employee rather than a rich, power-ful, well-connected politician, shedalready be locked up.

SEB WILLIAMS, FLORIDA

Mr. Krugman, you were a nonpo-

litical technocrat when you were

on staff at the Council of Economic

Advisers. But Mrs. Clinton held thevery political title of secretary ofstate.

She should have known that anyinformation that was shared with

her was classified from the momentshe received it.

C.G., NEW MEXICO

Considering all the information

that the former government con-

tractor Edward Snowden was able

to obtain (andwhich the Russianslikely now possess), Mrs. Clintons

email server may have been the

only one with government infor-

mation that was not hacked. This email scandal sounds more

like the Whitewater scandal witheach passing day.

JUNE BUTLER, LOUISIANA

This email controversy stinks

to high heaven, but not because of

anything Mrs. Clinton did.No, the origin of the rotten smell is

the Republican noise machine its

the same machine that years agorepeated claims about Iraq havingweapons of mass destruction. The

last time the noise was this loud, wewent to war based on Republicanlies.

Lets not forget that we are stillpaying for that war with Americanlives and treasure.

JOHN S., ARIZONA

Secrecy is not about security.

Its allabout power. NAME WITHHELD, NEW YORK

I had similar experiences during

the Vietnam War. I flew transports

to and fromSoutheast Asia, mostofteninto Vietnam itself.

Every one of those trips would bepreceded by an intelligence briefing

during which pilots were given cur-rent and secret information aboutwhat we might encounter. But there

was never anything in those brief-ings that I didnt already know fromreading the newspapers. Still, theintelligence officers clearly enjoyedtheir roles as guardians of all thissecret information.

There is an old joke about militaryintelligence being an oxymoron. Itsas true as it is fu nny.

TERRY, NEVADA

We need to know when, exactly,

the information in question was

classified. If it was classified in thelast couple of months, then Mrs. Clin-ton did nothing wrong.

Ill bet Mr. Snowdens glowing per-formance evaluations are now top

secret, but they werent at the timethat they were written.

ACHARN, THAILAND

READER COMMENTS FROM NYTIMES.COM

Leaving Fossil Fuels Behind

READER COMMENTS FROM NYTIMES.COM

Hypocrisy Is the Issue

SANDY HUFFAKER/THE NEW YORK TIMES

Wind turbines near Ocotillo, Calif. In December, Congress approved the extension of tax credits for wind and solar power firms.

KAL/CARTOON ARTS INTERNATIONAL/THE NEW YORK TIMES SYNDICATE

DEBATING POLITICS, ECONOMICS AND OTHER TIMELY TOPICS WITH PAUL KRUGMAN OF THE NEW YORK TIMES FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2016

ONLINE: COMMENTS

Comments have been edited for clarity and

length. For Paul Krugmans latest thoughts

and to join the debate online, visit his blog

at krugman.blogs.nytimes.com.