The energy transition is uglier than Jimmy Carter’s cardigan

Want to go solar? Wait in line. [Bloomberg]( This is Bloomberg Opinion Today, an unfortunate trend of Bloomberg Opinion’s opinions. On Sundays, we look at the major themes of the week past and how they will define the week ahead. Sign up for the daily newsletter [here](. [Body Electric]( [1](#footnote-1) Has there ever been a more hideous article of clothing than the cardigan sweater? OK, culottes, but fortunately we have consigned the 1780s and the 1980s to the dustbin of fashion history. Royal non: Princess Diana and King Louis XVI Sources: Tim Graham/Getty Images; Library of Congress The cardigan, a button-front monstrosity named after the goat of the Battle of Balaclava[2](#footnote-2) — in cashmere, cotton or cable knit — is so cringeworthy that no less than an American president implied that it required a spirit of “sacrifice” just to don one. In a famous 1977 fireside chat, a cardigan-clad Jimmy Carter urged Americans to lower their thermostats, if not necessarily their fashion games. (In truth, I’m all for Carter’s idea of bundling up and dropping the heat to 65 degrees, and I’ll even wear a cardigan, so long as it’s made by [Thom Browne](.) The failure of Carter’s conservation efforts didn’t stem from the uglification of Americans’ wardrobes, but of Americans’ roofs. The president who put solar panels on the White House wanted them on your house, too, pushing subsidies, a $100 million [“solar energy bank,”]( and a goal of getting 20% of US power from renewable sources by the year 2000. That dream was dead even before Ronald Reagan had the panels [yanked]( from his residence in 1986. Button up! Photographer: Dirck Halstead/Getty Images There are plenty of reasons that something as plainly sensible as solar didn’t catch on back then — panels were highly inefficient and frankly hideous. But today, given advances in technology and the Inflation Reduction Act’s [tax credits and rebates](, it seems like a no-brainer for many homeowners[3](#footnote-3)and larger-scale energy projects. Why the hesitancy? Does it stem from climate-change denial? Feelings that solar is somehow non- (or anti-) American? Residual memories of the Era of Malaise?[4](#footnote-4) Actually, it may be something as simple as a waiting list. “An already bloated backlog of renewable projects awaiting approval from grid operators grew even bigger last year, spurred partly by the [Inflation Reduction Act of 2022](, designed to wean America’s economy off its dependence on climate-killing fossil fuels,” [writes]( Mark Gongloff. “Until it’s cleared, the logjam will be an obstacle to President Joe Biden’s goal of decarbonizing the country’s power sector by 2035 and zeroing US greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050.” So, add carbon emissions to the list of things the Inflation Reduction Act isn’t reducing. Luckily, we have one state we can always count on to take the lead in progressive causes and climate action: Not California, but ... Texas?? Mark explains: “Texas, a national leader in renewable development — despite the [best efforts]( of its politicians — offers some clues that may help explain why its connection queue is relatively short … Whisper it, but Texas also ‘socializes’ the cost of transmission projects by passing them along to all rate payers, as long as the projects can prove they’ll end up being a net benefit to consumers.” Socialist Texas? Somebody better warn the world’s sometimes-richest man before he [moves his company]( there from Delaware. I like to [think]( that all politics is local, even Lone Star local, but climate change is global. And, increasingly, so is the Biden administration’s green policy. Consider White House climate czar John Podesta’s comments last week at the [Bloomberg BNEF summit]( and Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. “Podesta essentially called for the creation of a new trading system that protects green subsidies in the US, and in potential partners aligned with Washington, both from legal challenges and so-called carbon leakage,” Liam Denning [explains](. “The latter is where a country prices carbon in some way within its borders, raising the cost of doing business there, only to find its domestic manufacturers undercut by cheaper imports from a country with looser climate policies.” This is clearly in line with the IRA’s goal of boosting US jobs and securing supply chains, but isn’t it to the detriment of American leadership in cutting emissions? For instance, “the cheapest route to decarbonizing transportation would be to flood the market with Chinese EVs. It would also be the fastest route out of office for the administration allowing it,” Liam argues. The Editors are simpatico that “the administration’s goals are sound,” but question the execution. “The Environmental Protection Agency issued revised standards last month that aim to boost sales of EVs to half the US market by 2030,” they [write](. “In part, the change acknowledges faltering growth in US EV sales, despite generous subsidies. But it leaves EVs at the core of the administration’s climate-change strategy. That’s proving to be an error.” And it’s hardly the only mistake, says David Fickling, especially in the wake of Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s trip to China last month. “One of the most distinguished living economists is rejecting what’s been one of the most fundamental principles of economics for more than 200 years: comparative advantage,” David [wrote]( at the time. “If a country can manufacture goods at lower costs than you can, you shouldn’t raise tariff barriers. Instead, you should import the goods, and send back something in return where your industry is more efficient ... It’s a protectionist disaster in the making — for both the US, and the planet.” “Capitalists shouldn’t retreat into their shells at the first sign of competition,” David [adds](. “Instead, they should treat every danger as an opportunity to up their game. It’s ironic that the US, which pretty much invented the spirit of ebullient boosterism, is now the nation retreating from it most rapidly.” Sounds bad, but could this retreat lead to common ground? “However difficult it may be for US and Chinese officials to strike any deals when there is so little trust between their nations, they have little choice but to continue trying,” Minxin Pei [argues](. “Continued dialogue is relatively low-cost yet has greater potential than any other policy to produce beneficial returns. Doubters should recall that US-Soviet détente did not transform the two adversaries into friends. It was never intended to do so. What it accomplished was to avoid a calamity.” Its other accomplishment was putting a nail in the Soviet coffin. Who has the better hand today? “China faces an ever-tightening cordon of alliances around its periphery,” [writes]( Minxin. “Chinese officials rail against this US-led network as an unwelcome and destabilizing case of ‘bloc politics.’ In reality, there’s not much else they can do.” Except, it seems, use clean energy to [dust off that dirty word](, détente. Bonus [Electric FeelÂ](Reading: - The [Wind Is Picking Up](, But Only in China — David Fickling - Taiwan’s [Wind Power Ambitions]( Are in Peril — Tim Culpan - AI Is a Humongous Electricity Hog. [That’s Great.]( — The Editors - Making Sense of China’s [Magical 5.3% Growth]( — Shuli Ren [What’s the World Got in Store](? - US-Philippines annual war games, April 22: US Navy Shipbuilding Has Fallen [Dangerously Behind]( — Thomas Black - US new home sales, March: You [Get a Summer House](, I Get a Summer House — Merryn Somerset Webb - US GDP, April 25: IMF Reveals That [Growth’s Secret Sauce]( Is American Catch-Up — Clive Crook [Standing in the Rain]( The 1970s weren’t only about ugly sweaters and ugly roofs. There were plenty of ugly cars too — but only one that swam.[5](#footnote-5)James Bond would have needed it again in, of all places, the Arabian Peninsula. Source: Screen Archives/Moviepix via Getty Images “The sights coming out of the United Arab Emirates this week range from surreal to apocalyptic: Rolls Royces and Aston Martins floating in flood water,” [writes]( Lara Williams. “But what produced the downpour? Bloomberg News suggests [a link between the precipitation and the UAE’s cloud-seeding efforts](.” It seems that for a couple of decades, the Emiratis have been messing with Mother Nature, dropping salt into clouds so that large droplets will form and crash to earth. But Lara doesn’t buy it. “Weather-modifying technology has an air of mysticism about it,” she writes. “But despite the investment of huge amounts of money into the technique, the jury is still out on how effective it can be … It’s likely that this week’s destruction isn’t the result of us trying to play God with the weather, but comes instead from a different human-made creation: Climate change.” The switch to renewables had better come soon, or things are going to get far uglier than the 1970s. Notes: Please send Thom Browne cardigans and feedback to Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.net. [1] Having written this column for several months and receiving no feedback on my heterodox (read: questionable) musical tastes, I'll point out that all of my subheadings are song titles linked to live performances of bands that for the most part didn't make it much past the Carter administration. Lana Del Rey is a notable exception. [2] There remains to this day a heated debate over how exactly a mix of vague orders, bitter personality clashes and Turkish ineptitude led to the Charge of the Light Brigade (and a dreadful Tennyson poem), at least among those like myself who think arguing about causes and effects of the Crimean War is an intellectually profitable enterprise. While there are uncountable primary and academic sources of what happened on Oct. 25, 1854 — particularly the on-the-spot reporting of William Howard Russell of the Times of London — I recommend George McDonald Fraser's "[Flashman at the Charge,](" a novelistic, humorous, and very politically incorrect treatment of the Battles of Alma and Balaclava, especially of the two against-all-odds British victories that preceded the ride of the 600 into the Valley of Death: the [Thin Red Line]( and the [Charge of the Heavy Brigade](. [3] Admittedly, that's easy for me say as a Manhattan apartment-dweller. Also, I usually cringe at using the gimmicky names of federal legislation — particularly Biden's IRA — but sometimes you have to expect shorthand from the lazy columnist. [4] Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Carter's infamous ["malaise speech"]( is that he never actually used the word "malaise." [5] Now the property of that aforementioned (sometimes) richest man in the world, for the [tidy sum]( of $997,000. Follow Us Like getting this newsletter? [Subscribe to Bloomberg.com]( for unlimited access to trusted, data-driven journalism and subscriber-only insights. Before it’s here, it’s on the Bloomberg Terminal. Find out more about how the Terminal delivers information and analysis that financial professionals can’t find anywhere else. [Learn more](. Want to sponsor this newsletter? [Get in touch here](. You received this message because you are subscribed to Bloomberg's Opinion Today newsletter. If a friend forwarded you this message, [sign up here]( to get it in your inbox. [Unsubscribe]( [Bloomberg.com]( [Contact Us]( Bloomberg L.P. 731 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022 [Ads Powered By Liveintent]( [Ad Choices](