Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Rescue US energy innovation

Nature Energy volume 2, pages 760–763 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

President Trump has proposed severe cuts to US government spending on energy research, development and demonstration, but Congress has the ‘power of the purse’ and can rescue US energy innovation. If serious cuts are enacted, the pace of innovation will slow, harming the economy, energy security and global environmental quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Present and proposed investments in energy RD&D at the US Department of Energy.
Fig. 2: Historic funding for energy RD&D.

References

  1. FY18 R&D Appropriations Dashboard : R&D Budget and Policy Program (AAAS, 2017); http://go.nature.com/2gGrxVJ

  2. NAS. An Assessment of ARPA-E. (National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gallagher, K. S. & Anadon, L. D. DOE Budget Authority for Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Database https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5339497 (2017).

  4. Gallagher, K. S., Grubler, A., Kuhl, L., Nemet, G. & Wilson, C. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resources 37, 137–162 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Science and Engineering Indicators (National Science Board, 2016); http://go.nature.com/2vLVpKG

  6. Narayanamurti, V. & Odumosu, T. Cycles of Invention and Discovery: Rethinking the Endless Frontier. (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge MA, 2016).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Trembath, A., Jenkins, J., Nordhaus, T. & Schellenberger, M. Where the Shale Gas Revolution Came From (Breakthrough Institute, Oakland, CA, 2012).

  8. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Federal Energy R&D for the Challenges of the 21st Century (Executive Office of the President of the United States, Washington DC, 1997); http://go.nature.com/2eGCyWu

    Google Scholar 

  9. Energy Future: Think Efficiency. How America Can Look Within to Achieve Energy Security and Reduce Global Warming (American Physical Society, 2011); http://go.nature.com/2xao8sT

  10. A Business Plan for America’s Energy Future (American Energy Innovation Council, Washington DC, 2010); http://go.nature.com/2jH9naO

  11. Post Partisan Power: How a Limited Approach to Energy Innovation Can Deliver Cheap Energy, Economic Productivity, and National Prosperity (American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution & Breakthrough Institute, Washington DC, 2010).

  12. Ending the Energy Stalemate: A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America’s Energy Challenges (NCEP, Washington DC, 2004).

  13. Kammen, D. F. & Nemet, G. F. Issues Sci. Technol. 22(suppl.), 84–88 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  14. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Accelerating the Pace of Change in Energy Technologies Through an Integrated Federal Energy Policy (Executive Office of the President of the United States, Washington DC, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Anadon, L. D., Chan, G. & Lee, A. in Transforming US Energy Innovation (eds Anadon, L. D. et al.) Ch. 2, 36–75 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2014).

  16. Chan, G. & Anadon, L. D. Improving Decision Making for Public R&D Investment in Energy: Utilizing Expert Elicitation in Parametric Models Univ. Cambridge Energy Policy Research Group Working Paper 1631, Cambridge Working Paper in Economics 1682 (2016); http://go.nature.com/2j2NKS9

  17. Greenfieldboyce, N. Trump’s budget slashes climate change funding. The Two-Way (16 March 2017); http://go.nature.com/2j24mth

  18. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) (IPCC, 2015).

  19. Holdren, J. P. The Science Supporting the Climate Action Plan : Testimony before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, US House of Representatives (2014); http://go.nature.com/2eFEkao

  20. The True Costs of Fossil Fuels (IRENA, 2016); http://go.nature.com/2xaosYu

  21. Coady, D. et al. How Large Are Global Energy Subsidies? WP/15/105 (IMF, 2015); http://go.nature.com/2gNcSeV

  22. Nordhaus, W. Schumpeterian Profits in the American Economy: Theory and Measurement Research Paper no. 10433 (NBER, 2004).

  23. Nemet, G. & Kammen, D. Energy Policy 35, 746–755 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jaruzelski, B. & Dehoff, K. The Customer Connection: The Global Innovation 1000 (Booz Allen Hamilton, New York, 2007); http://go.nature.com/2eFuOUp

  25. Myslikova, Z., Gallagher, K. S. & Zhang, F. Mission Innovation 2.0. CIERP Discussion Paper 14 (The Fletcher School, Tufts Univ., Melford, MA, 2017); http://go.nature.com/2wIag62

    Google Scholar 

  26. US National Research Council. Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000 (National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2001); http://go.nature.com/2eFWaKg

    Google Scholar 

  27. US DOE. ARPA-E Impacts Vol. 2 (ARPA-E, 2017); http://go.nature.com/2f3j9zn

  28. Anadon, L. D. Res. Policy 41, 1742–1756 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gallagher, K. S. The Globalization of Clean Energy Technology: Lessons from China (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Anadon, L. D., Chan, G., Bin-Nun, A. & Narayanamurti, V. Nat. Energy 1, 16117 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine An Assessment of ARPA-E (National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2017).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Grubler, A. et al. Global Energy Assessment. Ch. 24 (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Anadon, L. D., Baker, E. D. & Bosetti, V. Nat. Energy 2, 17071 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Laura Diaz Anadon, Kelly Sims Gallagher and John P. Holdren made equal contributions.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB3 9DT, UK

    Laura Diaz Anadon

  2. The Fletcher School, Tufts University, Medford, MA, 02155, USA

    Kelly Sims Gallagher

  3. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

    John P. Holdren

Authors
  1. Laura Diaz Anadon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kelly Sims Gallagher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John P. Holdren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelly Sims Gallagher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anadon, L.D., Gallagher, K.S. & Holdren, J.P. Rescue US energy innovation. Nat Energy 2, 760–763 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0012-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0012-0

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing