Twitter | Search | |
Ramez Naam
Hey, it's Friday night. How about a twitter thread of unpopular opinions about climate policy generally, and the specifically. Ready? Here we go. 1/
Reply Retweet Like More
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
First, there's much to like about the . But also much that could be better. An ideal climate policy: a) Makes a meaningful impact. b) Addresses problems the market isn't addressing itself. c) Is cost-effective. d) Is actually passable. Let's start with impact. 2/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
The common wisdom on how climate policies have impact is wrong. Politicians think that a country's climate policy is about reducing that same country's emissions. Nope. The most effective climate policies reduce *global* emissions, or at least provide tools to do so. 3/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @Noahpinion
As has been pointing out, the US produces only 15% of carbon emissions. US decarbonization is necessary, but not sufficient, to address climate change. We need more impact. Fortunately, we can get it. 4/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
The most effective climate policy of all time, for my mind, is Germany's early subsidy for solar and wind. These policies had impact not because of the emissions avoided in Germany (relatively small), but because they *made solar and wind cheaper* for the world. 5/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
Technologies improve via Wright's Law, which shows that every doubling of scale produces a typically constant reduction in cost. We can see Wright's Law (aka "the Learning Curve" in technology since the Ford Model T. 6/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
And we can definitely see the impact of industry scale bringing down costs in solar () wind () and batteries () 7/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
Solar & wind are now cheaper in many parts of the world than new coal or gas. That happened *because Germany subsidized them when they were young and expensive*. And because China did a bit later. Like cheap solar in California & Nevada? Thank German & Chinese policy makers. 8/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
So the key here is that, if Germany had the power to make a new clean tech cheaper for the whole world, than the US (much larger) certainly does. And that is our most powerful lever in having an impact on global emissions and global climate change. 9/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
Okay. B) Climate policy ideally focuses most on the biggest unsolved problems. Most people view the through the lens of electricity generation and cars. Folks, these are not our biggest climate problems. They're the ones we're making the most progress on. 10/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
Our biggest climate problems - the sectors that are both large and that lack obvious solutions, are: a) Agriculture and land use changes (AFOLU in the graphic) and b) Manufacturing / Industry. Together, these are 45% of global emissions. And solutions are scarce. 11/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
I'm not saying that clean electricity or transport are solved. They're not. But in electricity, we have solar, wind, batteries growing & getting cheaper & on path for 70-80% decarbonization *at least*. Same with electric cars and trucks. We have momentum in those sectors. 12/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
We do NOT have momentum in reducing carbon emissions of agriculture or manufacturing. In agriculture, livestock methane emissions + deforestation to graze livestock are biggest problems. And meat consumption is doubling in next 40 yrs. This should scare you more than coal. 13/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
In industry, despite progress in recycling steel, *primary* steel production is still incredibly carbon intensive. As is cement. As is much of manufacturing. We haven't reached the "solar cheaper than coal" or "EVs cheaper than gasoline" tipping points there. We need to. 14/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
The does talk (vaguely) about decarbonizing agriculture & industry. That's better than nothing. Though it's one and only proposed solution - local ag- is a non-solution. Eating local is, usually, worse for the planet. Eat food from where it grows best. 15/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
If the US is serious about climate policy, it ought to focus on these two sectors - agriculture and industry - that are soon to be the two largest emissions sources, and lack solutions. We should press to invent solutions, drive them down in price, and spread them globally. 16/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
What would climate policies focused on agriculture & industry look like? a) An ARPA-A in the Dept of Ag, driving science to remove methane from livestock & otherwise tackle ag & deforestation. b) Incentives for farmers to adopt new tech to reduce methane & other emissions. 17/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
c) An ARPA-I (or a new focus area in ARPA-E) spearheading carbon-free steel, carbon-free cement, carbon-free manufacturing. d) Tax breaks and subsidies to deploy those technologies to industry (as Germany did w/ solar & wind) to help scale them and drive down price. 18/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
An ideal climate policy is also c) Cost Effective. Is the cost effective? So vague that it's hard to say. But I doubt it. Market mechanisms (like auctions for power) are great for cost. GND seems to avoid them. Markets work when you direct them properly. Use them. 19/
Reply Retweet Like
Ramez Naam Feb 8
Replying to @ramez
I also worry that in a command-and-control model of GND, we wouldn't see the cost reductions that come from learning-by-doing, new technologies, and cutthroat market competition. And cost reductions are the lever we have to affect the other nations & their 85% of emissions. 20/
Reply Retweet Like