I happened to see Dave Roberts of Grist (@drgrist), Brad Plumer of The New Republic (@bradplumer), Bryan Walsh of Time (@bryanrwalsh) and Jesse Jenkins and Devon Swezey of The Breakthrough Institute (@jessejenkins, @devonswezey) mixing it up on Twitter and wanted to preserve the exchange for perpetuity here.

I personally think all these guys are smart and interesting. The fight captured here is going on all across the green coalition right now as people try to figure out what the best political arguments are to pass climate and energy legislation. Do they make the fight about beating China or about saving the planet? I’d previously discussed this with respect to the Russians: The Solar Space Race That Never Was.

It’s actually shockingly hard to follow a Twitter argument back through time, but here it is, the best as I could puzzle it out. I combined multiple tweets that seemed to go together. Let me know if I misrepresented anything.

The debate appears to have begun when Dave Roberts questioned the BTI’s latest, “It’s Not All Good: Why You Should Worry About the Clean Energy Race.” In that paper, the BTI’s Swezey criticized Brad Plumer (among others) for not taking the “clear energy race” seriously enough.

“Plumer’s casual attitude towards the economic consequences of ceding clean tech manufacturing leadership to China is a slap in the face to U.S. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI),” Swezey wrote.

Dave Roberts: What is it about working @BTI that encourages his kind of manipulative caricaturing of those who disagree? http://is.gd/8gtc0

Jesse Jenkins: @drgrist how is that a manipulative caricature? What is it about being @DRGrist that makes you so defensive on behalf of others?

DR: In all the huffing & puffing here http://is.gd/8gtc0 there’s still no defense of the main point: why is “race” an accurate descriptor?

JJ: Why a race @drgrist? Simple: despite growing sector, finite # of jobs, revenues will be created No one will secure all. But competition real

DR: Nobody argues against better policy & more investment in clean energy. Nobody thinks “it’s all good.” Q is: why frame it as zero-sum game? There’s some hand-waving at “first-mover benefits,” but no attempt to quantify or analyze them. How substantial/enduring are they?

JJ: Question: @drgrist do you think Congress takes clean energy more or less seriously if they see it as economic imperative? WTF?! again, please read our report: http://ow.ly/16Wzs If you’d like to talk more RE first mover, contact ITIF. and we’re working on ways to quantify potential economic consequences more clearly. Not an easy task. What’s your problem?

DR: Larson&Plumer think “it’s all good”? Oppose investing in clean energy? Disagreement w/ metaphor is “slap in the face” to Sens?

Brad Plumer: @JesseJenkins That post was a caricature. I said U.S. should do more on energy, not “it’s all good.” Just don’t think “race” is accurate.

JJ: @bradplumer referring to “don’t worry about the race” part when we labeled the “it’s all good” argument. Maybe that’s not clear in our post. we don’t think you are opposed to clean energy efforts! But we think downplaying cleantech race is shortsighted, inaccurate.

Bryan Walsh: I’d be less worried that we lose out on cleantech manufacturing to China, then we lose about ability to innovate new cleantech ideas. Ultimately the race that matters is the one to make Re < Coal, but the China card sure seems to help politically. @JesseJenkins you’re right about manufacturing being a needed element of the politics of clean energy. Hope those jobs exist.

DR: Consequences of not getting serious abt clean energy are what they are, regardless of what China does. “Race” metaphor adds 0 of substance.

JJ: Q for @drgrist & @bradplumer: efforts to make clean energy more profitable, dirty less, will be easier or harder w/more US cleantech jobs?

BP: @JesseJenkins Depends. I want U.S. to do much more to cap carbon and boost clean energy. But if cheap = turbines made in China, that’s okay.

DR: @JesseJenkins For the millionth time, nobody’s arguing abt whether it wd be good to invest more & create more jobs. It’s a straw man.

JJ: @drgrist you still have made no case to that effect, (while many others see differently). Arg to date appears “it offends my sensibilities.”

DR: You guys make up a race & burden of proof is on me? You haven’t “quantified potential losses” but I have to disprove them? Clean energy transition unfathomably large; markets will expand faster than capacity; there will be plenty for everyone to do. “Space race” made sense. Only 1 country can be first to space. What’s equivalent in clean energy race? What’s prize only 1 country can have?

JJ: “Will be plenty for everyone to do” @drgrist you say that based on what? US already running trade deficits in cleantech, only getting worse. we didn’t “make up” the race. Read the darned report pls: http://ow.ly/16X0y Or this one: http://ow.ly/16X0K This isnt hand waving

Devon Swezey: @drgrist no “1 prize only one country can have” –beside the point–it’s about relative market share–others have more, US has less-

DR: @JesseJenkins @DevonSwezey Neither of you has made a case why *relative market share* is important metric. Bragging rights? @BradPlumer & I see very large lake. Fact that China got there first & drinking more now doesn’t mean less H20 for us.

BP: @JesseJenkins You’re making two types of arguments–one political and one conceptual. I agree on the former, not the latter. Also, do you think we should have tariffs against Chinese green tech? That would help us in this “race,” wouldn’t it?

JJ: @bradplumer no, protectionism not answer. Short-term treatment of symptoms not cause. Argued as much at release of Rising Tigers on the Hill

BP: @JesseJenkins Right, that’s why race isn’t accurate–we don’t want to trip up China (via protectionism) IEA says $45 trillion in investments needed to move away from fossil fuels. No one country can do that all.

JJ: @bradplumer but we’re nowhere close to that scale now. Who will secure jobs & advantage in near-term? They’ll have easier route to success.

DR: @JesseJenkins No. SIZE OF MARKET = jobs & tax revenues & economic growth. We should grow our market! RELATIVE size neither here nor there.

BP: @JesseJenkins More like there’s a TON to do on energy and U.S. has to pitch in or it won’t get done. And both U.S. and China will benefit.

JJ: @bradplumer not exactly. Protectionism isnt how you win the race is the point. Protectionism not= competitiveness strategy See Rising Tigers. @Drgirst @bradplumer: So do you think we’re going to see plenty of manufacturing jobs revitalize heartland w/out competitiveness strategy? or do you just not care where those jobs end up, as long as we get cheap wind turbines?

BP: @JesseJenkins Yes, I think cheap-as-possible clean energy is a higher priority than “revitalizing heartland.” Won’t get me elected, though.

JJ: @bradplumer right, and won’t get you a clean energy economy strategy out of Congress either. we need to stop selling clean energy on promise of millions of CE jobs then, if we’re not serious about competitiveness. I also think it’s a higher priority, but not the ONLY priority. @BradPlumer @DRGrist Can’t ignore efforts to create real, tangible economic benefits of CE in US. If we don’t, won’t get policy outcomes. US already losing out on CE jobs today, because market is NOT infinite, and it will grow faster if we get in race.

DR: I’m actually open to hearing persuasive case on 1st-mover benefits. Just haven’t heard it & don’t appreciate bullying & caricatures.

DS: @drgrist who’s bullying? @bradplumer I’m sorry if you feel bullied…not my intention!

DR: @DevonSwezey “It’s all good” seems, uh, inapt way to describe position that decries status quo & supports action, just for diff reasons.

DS: @drgrist “It’s all good” refers to argument that we shouldn’t be concerned about the clean energy race, not about supporting cleantech. of course @Bradplumer supports clean energy

BP: Also, the competitiveness frame does lead to protectionism–look at efforts to limit Chinese imports in stimulus. Also, I’m not sure clean-energy shift will create millions of U.S. clean-tech jobs. But if it doesn’t, it’s still worth doing.

JJ: that is a risk, you are right. But as forceful advocates of CE competitiveness strategy, we also advocates against protectionism

BP: If we put a price on carbon, the market will grow very big very quickly. That’s a big holdup, I think.

JJ: @bradplumer price on C will certainly help.

BP: @JesseJenkins @DevonSweezy I don’t feel bullied. But a dorky Friday-evening conversation about clean energy may get me stuffed in a locker.

JJ: @bradplumer agreed there! Perhaps it’s time I go back to finishing up my work for the day. Happy hour awaits on the West Coast! appreciate the back and forth. Understand where you’re coming from. Just hope you understand us better now.

DR: Argument for price on CO2 + investments in clean energy overwhelming, varied. I fear all “race” adds is support for protectionism, hostility

JJ: @drgrist nice closing argument. Here’s mine: clean enrgy race like arms race, except end of day, >clean cheap energy not bombs. Good for all

As happy hour descended on the west coast, the main bout ended with bows all around. Meanwhile, Charlie McElwee (@chinaevirolaw) an environmental and energy lawyer working in China, sent this wrap-up to Christina Larson (@larsonchristina) who’d written a piece for Yale 360 that Swezey also critiqued. Her tweets drew the attention of Chris Brown, an energy consultant focused on China. Their exchange might have even been more interesting than the original scrap.

Christina Larson: @chinaenvirolaw Thanks for sending. Very interesting … Though I would quibble a bit w/how my position on cleantech characterized … Taking on “it’s all good” position seems a bit of a strawman. Bottom line is Breakthrough supports govt investment greentech. But I don’t think either Brad or I ever indicated we were against increased investment. Quite the contrary.

Chris Brown: I thought the same thing. Swezey set up one of the weakest straw man arguments I have seen in awhile.

CL: Point of my piece (Brad’s, too, methinks) was that we need to think in more fine-grained, serious way … not urge complacency.

CB: US should develop own innovative energy but Applied Materials setting up a research center in Xian doesn’t mean China won. Renewable companies on both sides of Pacific will blur national boundaries in ways that make sputnik analogy inaccurate.

CL:: @chrisrbrown Good point. Space programs are state-run, centrally organized. Ain’t the case w/ business, which [is] much more fluid.

I think the Swezey post showed what the BTI is good at. They throw a little fuel on the fire and suddenly everyone is fighting to define what’s visible by the brighter light of the flames. They got five influential folks all debating the merits of their position; few activists are so effective at goading people into engaging them, no matter how inflammatory their remarks. Of course, you can only do that so many times to your probable allies before they get tired of acting as kindling.