A couple of weeks ago I asked on Twitter what people felt they, individually (not others!), should do about climate change. There were many thoughtful replies:https://twitter.com/michael_nielsen/status/1204129299369877504 …
-
-
Something I don’t understand are the price points at which solar + battery ought to take over most of the electricity system. I don’t think we can be terribly far from that point - 10 years? I don’t have a good model, nor of how centralized it will be.
Prikaži ovu nit -
(Also: I’d like to better understand the environmental impact of batteries and solar. Lithium ion batteries seem to be pretty nasty stuff.)
Prikaži ovu nit -
In any case: there are incredibly strong forces driving renewable growth.
Prikaži ovu nit -
At the moment, 6 of the world’s 10 largest companies (by revenue) are oil and gas companies. 2 are car companies, still mostly fossil fuels. And 1 is an electricity company, almost certainly mostly fossil fuels.pic.twitter.com/7pEoYIpaBD
Prikaži ovu nit -
My guess - this is just speculation - in 30-40 years time many of those fossil fuel companies will have been replaced on that list by either renewable energy or (maybe) nuclear companies. Or they themselves will have largely switched. Volkswagen is certainly in that mix.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Incidentally, when I talk to tech folks they sometimes tell me climate/energy is a niche, interesting but obviously much less important than tech. See all the tech companies on that list above? Neither do I.
Prikaži ovu nit -
It’s true that by market cap tech is currently larger. But energy is a multi-trillion dollar industry. And the growth of renewables suggests a major transition in energy is near.
Prikaži ovu nit -
(Just to be clear: I'm not saying tech isn't incredibly important! Just that there's a myopia on the part of some tech people I've chatted with about this. There's a very large world beyond technology.)
Prikaži ovu nit -
2. But hang on, aren’t capitalism and growth models the problem? Why are you talking about all this growth? Isn’t it a bad thing?
Prikaži ovu nit -
This argument basically says climate change is just a symptom of a much more unhealthy pattern: growth models. Capitalism produces growth produces more human ability to change the world. And that means goof-ups produce more damage to the world.
Prikaži ovu nit -
I’m somewhat sympathetic to this argument. Certainly, and just as a for instance, battery waste really is something I worry about, if we’re all of a sudden using 100x the scale of batteries.
Prikaži ovu nit -
And you do see this pattern over & over. Subprime mortgage derivatives seem, in principle, a great idea - pooling risk to provide capital to people who otherwise can’t afford homes. Except they were systematically mispriced, resulting...
Prikaži ovu nit -
... not just in the evaporation of trillions of dollars during the financial crisis, but huge followon effects that have massively changed the world.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Sometimes we find technological solutions to these problems. The original refrigerators used ammonia as a coolant. This sometimes leaked, killing people. Solution! Use CFCs instead. Except that damaged the ozone layer. Solution! Use HCFCs instead. And so on.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Maybe tomorrow some magic genie will produce a way of doing scalable direct air carbon capture at 10 cents per tonne of CO2. If so, we can be back down to pre-industrial CO2 levels in a flash, if we choose.
Prikaži ovu nit -
The pessimistic view is that we keep playing with fire, & sometimes we get lucky. But eventually humanity will damage ourselves in a way that makes the financial crisis look like a rounding error. Maybe climate is it. But even if not...
Prikaži ovu nit -
... capitalism & growth models have this as an inevitable side effect. They’re the real culprits.
Prikaži ovu nit -
The trouble with this point of view is that the alternatives seem far worse. Yes, you can go for a low-growth or communist model. I’m sure the Amish CO2 emissions are much lower than middle America. North Korea’s are 1.6 t / yr, one tenth of the US per capita, one third of global
Prikaži ovu nit -
But I don’t want to live in North Korea, & I suspect most of the “down with capitalism” crowd don’t either.
Prikaži ovu nit -
(Of course, they don’t think of it that way. But whenever I’ve dug down into concrete plans, they seem poorly thought through, relying on wishful thinking and “this time will be different”.)
Prikaži ovu nit -
Now, the optimistic point of view here - the opportunity! - is to try to find smart and wise alternatives that are much better than capitalism’s current incarnation. That really is an exciting opportunity.
Prikaži ovu nit -
That’s one reason I’m enthused by charter cities. It’s why I’m enthused by the ideas of Elinor Ostrom. And by the liberal radicalism (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243656 … ) of
@VitalikButerin@zhitzig@glenweyl, a clever way of funding public goods and attacking collective action problemsPrikaži ovu nit -
I don’t mean to say I think liberal radicalism etc are likely to solve climate change! I just mean: this kind of thinking & work seems tremendously important, & worth supporting more experimentation in this direction. Reinventing capitalism will sound ludicrous until its not.
Prikaži ovu nit -
(The more conservative approach - probably more likely to work, in this context - is to make a small modification capitalism by introducing something like a carbon tax. I may say more about that later, but I’ll leave it aside for now.)
Prikaži ovu nit -
3. What about nuclear? I haven’t said much about nuclear (fission). That’s because, while in principle it ought to be an enormous help, there’s a set of problems with it that I just don’t know much about how to solve.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Between 1950 and the 1980s nuclear grew rapidly, from 0 GW to more than 300 GW of installed capacity. And then it levelled off, in the aftermath of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. It’s only 400 GW today, and provides about 10% of world electricity.
Prikaži ovu nit -
The problems are interlocking: political unpopularity, security (country A doesn’t want country B to use nuclear power, because it can be used for weapons), cost (in part due to regulations, politics, & security), waste, and more.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Worse, there’s a cadre of people who like to shout loudly “nuclear is the only possible answer, and if you don’t think so you’re an idiot” (or the equivalent). These are not the people you want on your side in a battle for hearts and minds.
Prikaži ovu nit -
I don’t know how to solve the problems above. I believe, however, that they genuinely _are_ soluble, and what’s needed is the right kind of marketing and political and entrepreneurial geniuses (genii?).
Prikaži ovu nit -
Actually, that's a little silly to say ("genius" can be such a discouraging word!) But: hard work and imagination may well go a long way. I'd like to learn more about the best ideas people have here! How to solve the unpopularity? Regulatory? Security? And so on!
Prikaži ovu nit - Još 12 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.