Earlier this year, the American Society for Civil Engineers roundly panned America’s disintegrating infrastructure, giving it an overall D grade and estimating that “it would take a $2.2 trillion investment… over the next five years to bring it into a state of good repair.”One of today’s discussions at the Clinton Global Initiative focused onhow to develop infrastructure in both the U.S. and the rest of theworld, and the role that government plays in such development.
General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt — who has been critical of the business communityfor investing too much money in preserving America’s status quo — notedthat successful infrastructure improvements, particularly in creatingthe capacity for clean energy, means coordinating government standards with private investment:
The thing about infrastructure is that it’s a systemsproblem, and by a systems problem I mean you have to align technology,government policy, capital markets, execution skills — all have to bealigned to make it happen. And the government is a central part in howthat goes, both in terms of the U.S., but also in terms of any countryin the world.
Energy in this country, if we want to have a clean energy future, the investments are basically 40, 30, 20 year investments…I think, one of the key roles the government has to play is what are the standards?How should the capital markets work? How do you risk-share some of thekey technology evolutions? And so, if you want to have effectiveinfrastructure, you really do have to have a good public-privatepartnership.
In Immelt’s world, the government would set the standards, and thenlet the private sector loose to achieve them, or, as in China, lay outfive-year plans for infrastructure development. This is a distinctlydifferent take from most of the rest of the business community, whichrecoils from standards, aided by conservatives who claim that if wejust “let the free market work,” everything will take care of itself.
Of course, Immelt must see a way for GE to come out ahead under sucha policy, but that doesn’t mean that his viewpoint doesn’t make sense.Smart standards, regulation, and a cohesive policy from the governmentwould make energy investment — and infrastructure development as awhole — much less scattershot and much more effective.
You may also like
07 NovClimate Progress
In California’s Emerald Triangle, the nation’s largest area for growing medical marijuana, federal anti-drug laws ...
29 OctClimate Progress
Michigan is playing host to a major battle over renewable energy this fall. On one ...