Twitter | Pretraživanje | |
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
(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.)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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?
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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...
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
... not just in the evaporation of trillions of dollars during the financial crisis, but huge followon effects that have massively changed the world.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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...
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen
... capitalism & growth models have this as an inevitable side effect. They’re the real culprits.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se" More
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
But I don’t want to live in North Korea, & I suspect most of the “down with capitalism” crowd don’t either.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
(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”.)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @VitalikButerin @zhitzig @glenweyl
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 ( ) of , a clever way of funding public goods and attacking collective action problems
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @VitalikButerin @zhitzig @glenweyl
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @VitalikButerin @zhitzig @glenweyl
(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.)
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @VitalikButerin @zhitzig @glenweyl
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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?).
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
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!
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
4. A bit of a time out. Looking back at the above, it’s been a blizzard of facts and figures and charts.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
What I really want (& I think many other people want) is a compelling overall narrative arc. And I don’t quite see that. I know a lot of people are prescribing narrative arcs for climate (“X is the answer!”) But I must admit I haven't been very compelled by what I've seen.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Anyways, failing an overall solution, I believe what you need to do is bite off sizeable chunks of the problem, build up your understanding. That’s what I’ve been trying to do in this thread, at least for myself!
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
4. Negative emissions technologies are essential CO2 likely (ordinarily) takes centuries to be removed from the atmosphere. Even if we went to zero emissions tomorrow, it’d keep getting warmer due to climate inertia.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
My opinion is that we need inexpensive (or even profit-turning) scalable NETs, fast. Here’s a really great report surveying NETs: Click on “download pdf”, not “pay $100+ dollars”, and enjoy the amusing survey.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Good news: there’s a lot of them, many seem quite promising. If we can do scalable NET at $10 per tonne, then we can get to net zero emissions at about the same price as for the Clean Air Act (& quickly reduce it).
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
The bad news: we don’t have cheap, scalable NETs :-) I do think this is a wonderful research opportunity, though, and my impression is that it’s very under-invested in.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 30. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
5. Final thoughts: I’m repeatedly struck by the incredible size of the opportunity here. We’re going to make much better institutions, discover many amazing things, & create incredible companies.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 30. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
I know some people don’t like the last, but think it’s good when groups of people profit from providing an enormous social good, like scalable clean energy, or carbon removal. That's capitalism operating as it should, to serve the social good. I hope it does here.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 30. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Of course, the flip side: there’s damage already being done, and likely to be incredible damage done.
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 30. pro
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
We don’t yet have institutions or norms that enable us to deal with problems where inaction over the next few decades may cause much of an ice sheet to melt a century or two from now. I hope we can develop such institutions and norms!
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"
michael_nielsen 29. sij
Odgovor korisniku/ci @michael_nielsen
Postscript: a thoughtful thread and essay on this question:
Reply Retweet Označi sa "sviđa mi se"