Of your many significant papers, posts and book, this post may prove to be the most significant. I hope it evolves into a conversation around solutions both effective and politically feasible.

1. Adaptation

You have completely convinced me of the adaption priority. Now we just need to recruit some charismatic politicians.

2. Make Carbon Emissions Pricier

I appreciate your realism about sane policy, but have trouble seeing investment and innovation deriving mainly from top-down, government-financed R&D (which I take as the thrust of your #3). Price is the signal for investment. The anticipation of carbon pricing has already motivated a ramping up of venture capital investment in some low-carbon energy options.

And yes, the political process may result in a “dog’s breakfast” cap-and-trade scheme that mainly waters the growth of rent-seeking beneficiaries and political favors. But without price we are losing the most powerful multiplier of technological innovation. We don’t know where the winning innovations are coming from, whether in air capture or engineered microbes that convert deep coal reserves into hydrogen.

For an optimistic examination of the economic feasibility of the carbon price option I recommend William Nordhaus “The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy”, all 253 pages:

http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dice_mss_072407_all.pdf

3. Make Carbon Free Energy Cheaper

Question: can you suggest a reference that demonstrates how government-funded R&D can be effective at the scale required?

The innovation of technology prizes can clearly contribute to R&D up to the tens of millions level. It’s not clear that prizes can motivate private investment at the scale required to prove out such as carbon sequestration — at least as fast as I think we need it. I think we need it for the simplistic reason that I believe the developing economies thirst for energy will result in committments to terrawatts of dirty coal over the next decades because of the uncertain costs of CCS alternatives.

So I’m arguing against “picking winnners” government funding, while holding the belief that we need to find out very soon if CCS is economically feasible — and costing CCS adequately that investors will choose “clean coal” instead of dirty coal.

Any thoughts on that?

Proving out the costs of third and fourth generation nuclear face similar R&D investment hurdles. I’m not suggesting picking winners, just concerned that we haven’t found a way to get serious candidates on the agenda at all.

OTOH, I will speculate that a believable future projection of carbon prices will motivate utilities and suppliers to invest in the nuclear possibility. A recent poll of utility execs is encouraging on that point.

Price is powerful — on both sides of the street, supply and demand.

My questions weren’t about ‘getting rid of gov’t altogether’ – but rather whether command-and-control policies (such as ‘green’ subsidies) can actually deliver as intended. After all, many such schemes have a rather poor track record.

Anyway, Iain Murray has a fine comment on your points and general outlook which includes some good ideas that mirror my own thinking. More to ponder about.

http://www.ismurray.com/?p=49#more-49

Don’t know if I’ll be able to comment from this computer (at work). And I probably shouldn’t comment at lunch. But…

…this crazy scheme of yours has absolutely no hope of working, regardless of how good you are (and you are good) at getting heard in high circles.

This is all simply too reasonable. And too oriented towards actually accomplishing something. I have minor quibbles, but they pale in comparison to the monumental criticism that you’re being far to logical, methodical, and reasonable.

Best wishes (on your non-windmill slaying),
Mark

Thanks for these questions. I’ll certainly answer them, and others that come in, as I focus in on the details.

But for now I’ll give you two short answers.

1. Who said anything about top-down?

2. Gov’ts do implement policies, and last I checked pretty much every major gov’t in the world is already deeply invested in everything I propose in some manner or another (OK, except maybe air capture). So unless you are proposing to get rid of gov’t alteogether (are you?), then the question is what gov’ts will be doing, not whether gov’t are to be involved.

3. Who will pay, for what programs, with what goals, are of course excellent and central questions!

These are some impressive suggestions for large-scale, top-down government interventions – but will any of them really work?

1. Adaptation – a wonderful idea! But who’s going to pay the $150+ billion the IPCC estimates adaptation will cost per year?

2. ‘Make carbon emissions pricier.’ Most governments have been trying hard in recent years to follow your advice; there is just one small problem: when you make energy and food pricier, expect a backlash! Many governments are now facing angry voters and green tax revolts.

3. ‘Make carbon free energy cheaper. Shift massive subsidies that government provides to fossil fuel to non-carbon fuel energy sources.’
Another great idea – shame about the unintended consequences:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/43386/Labour-s-green-tax-will-cost-every-family-3-000

http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2008/05/05/afx4967853.html

4. Energy modernization. Sounds great, but what exactly do you mean – and who is going to foot the bill?

5. Air capture. Why limit geoengineering research to just one scheme? After all, your particular hobby horse may turn out to be the least cost-effective of the numerous proposed technologies.

Just a few questions for your to ponder.