But this should be only the start. We need a Marshal Plan for innovation in general. A little known aspect of the Paris Climate Accords was the agreement by the advanced economies of the world to fund research into Green Innovation. The economics and physical realities of Solar and Wind technologies are such that although they can play a role in reaching net carbon neutral, that role is never going to displace fossil fuels.
How much of the global power mix will come from renewables in the future? Opinions differ.
But we really have to ask ourselves, to what extent is it in a major corporations interest to position themselves in such a way that their projections prove more accurate and less optimistic than most, but still achieve an objective which provides PR cover, against possible criticism. And we really need to ask ourselves, if renewable energy is so easy, why has green energy production from the West’s most technically proficient and green-committed nation effectively stalled?
The sad truth is that most politicians in the advanced economies of the world have failed to live up to their commitments to the Paris Accords. Not because they are unwilling to spend taxpayers money, but because if given a choice between crowd-pleasing spending on wind and solar PV, and the politically brave choice of doing something which might actually lead to a real greener future, like fund the type of long-term green research which we desperately need, but to which the market is averse, they will choose the solar and wind project which create jobs, but will never deliver a future without fossil fuels.
Some of this is at least partially founded in Western politicians unfounded neoliberal assumptions about the free market. Yes, it delivers progress and raises people out of poverty. But it takes an incredible amount of audacity and high tolerance for risk to make a bet against a technology which has existed for over a century. Elon Musk may have the balls, but no one else has. And there are some types of investment in long-term innovation which no sane investor would capitalise, for the simple reason that the risk-reward ratio simply doesn’t work.
The more optimistic amongst us might point to Moore’s and Wright’s Law, and sagely reference the fact that the cost of solar PV modules has come down 99.6% since 1973, but this ignores the reality that although installation costs have come down somewhat, they are static now, and don’t replace the middle class jobs which they displace in the energy sector with anywhere near the same level of recompense.
There is also the uncomfortable truth that, whilst Wright’s Law might be quite useful for predicting the future cost of a sector, as a back of the envelope calculation, there is a definitive s-curve to innovation which one can see quite clearly with hindsight, and it would appear that the price for crystalline solar PV modules per unit seems to be reaching the end of its s-curve, in terms of its cost per unit.
So let’s bring this discursive full circle. Think of NASA. Whilst it may be true that Elon Musk might possessed the vision and fortitude to develop SpaceX at a cost 36 times cheaper than NASA commissioning would have accomplished. But he is the exception, not the rule. The decision to go to the Moon accomplished far more than the social spending its budget might otherwise have been spent upon.
Because chief amongst the technologies which NASA needed was machine computing power, and the role this key technology played in shaping our present and our future. For a start, we would have nowhere near the computing power to understand fully just how much of a long-term problem climate change might be by 2100.
We would have suspicions, but the science would be by no means settled, even if most of us have bought into a catastrophically overhyped alarmist interpretation of the real risks and costs, which any fool with half a brain can see, if they can be bothered to read to 2014 and 2018 IPCC reports. (Here’s a hint- when looking at the pretty graph in the 2018 report you have to look at the actual line, rather than the upper and lower points of the projections. These are not best and worst case scenarios- they are variable estimates based upon the actual impacts of humans, adjusting for possible mitigating and exacerbating effects in nature.)
We need a Marshall Plan for innovation, in green technology as in so many other fields, because the price of doing nothing, or simply continuing to buy into solar or wind, without conceding that other technologies are needed, is simply too high to pay. You may not like the source, but the Copenhagen Consensus has estimated that a dollar of investment in solar and wind accomplishes about 12 cents worth of climate good over the long-term. Innovation, by contrast, accomplishes $11 worth of climate good.
Capitalism may well be part of the problem when it comes to climate change, but it is also the only solution, for this and so many other problems. But a blind reliance on a market which only looks to next years quarterlies, isn’t going to get the job done. Government can work, but part of the necessary calculation to government is that the short-term amelioration of guilt which comes from spending money on the needy brings, is as nothing compared to the value of providing their children with jobs which demand they strive harder and change the world in a real and substantive way.
And buried away in oblique corners of the internet, the innovation which NASA drove had profound implications for the Developing World. The Western Governments spent $2.4 trillion in trying to lift up the Third World up from poverty, as well as countless dollars from charitable giving. They accomplished a lot. They delivered medicines, they opened schools, they built roads, they drilled wells. But there core goal of lifting people up out of poverty didn’t help one iota. If anything, the assumption of dubious Third World Debt made the situation worse, as Governments borrowed, as they normally do, to fund boondoggle white elephants.
In the end it was automated banking services delivered through mobile phones and over precarious internet facilities which were decisive. Digging a ditch to help irrigate your land might seem practical, until you realise you will have to do it every year, unless you possess basic building materials. A moped with a buggy might seem a cheap luxury to a Westerner, until one considers that for someone aiming to cut out the middle man and get his own goods to market, it can make the difference between simply subsisting and being able to plan and build for the future. That by now tiny little transistor which was the inspiration for Moore’s Law actually proved incredibly vital in lifting over a billion people out of extreme poverty between 2000 and 2012.
Excellent article. However, a key technology seems to be missing: nuclear. See, for instance, the review on Thoughtscapism, carefully pondering all arguments.
Excellent article. However, a key technology seems to be missing: nuclear. See, for instance, the review on Thoughtscapism, carefully pondering all arguments.