Sure. And I will also get back to the rest of Taylor’s comments.Harry Marks wrote:No, no, I want to read your response toRobert Tulip wrote: here are my responses to Taylor's initial comments.Taylor wrote: ARPA-E is an agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, according to the linked site their total funding is from U.S. tax payers.
I am not directly involved with ARPA-E, so if these impressions are wrong I am happy to be corrected.
ARPA-E has a low public profile for its climate research, in my view largely due to it not fitting the emission reduction political orthodoxy, although the Democrats support its basic science agenda which Trump rejects.
My opinion is that ARPA-E’s Mariner program, (Macro Algae Research Inspiring Novel Energy Resources), may be the single best climate response happening in the world today, setting the path for large scale rapid carbon removal. Hats off to the USA for this practical program, which could be part of the moonshot equivalent for the coming decade, aiming for net zero by 2030.
BUT. Trump wants to defund ARPA-E in order to focus on national energy security, although it seems Congress will ignore him. Instead of this partisan hostility to climate science, Trump could have a moonshot equivalent by proposing to achieve net zero global emissions by 2030 through activities including expansion of the MARINER program in partnership with the oil industry. He would lose nothing and the US and the world would gain immensely. ARPA-E was initiated by George W Bush and focuses on technology rather than politics. Trump needs to rise above the extreme anti-science attitude of the frothing loons in his base, but that may not be possible.
Ocean algae research under the MARINER program serves fundamental science objectives while also delivering on national energy objectives for the USA. But how many people have even heard of ARPA-E, let alone its algae research? This program seems to fly under the radar, as far as mass movement climate politics are concerned. I understand that ARPA-E grant recipients have distanced themselves from geoengineering due to the toxic politics. This situation illustrates the inability to formulate a cogent climate strategy due to the stranglehold of left wing politics over climate activities.
UN Secretary General Gutierrez should publicise ARPA-E activities around the United Nations if he is serious about climate change. ARPA-E offers the best carbon mining projects available today, harnessing the area, resources and energy of the world ocean as the great new frontier for intrepid pioneers of the New Age, converting carbon from waste to asset. I would like to see the fossil fuel industries partner with ARPA-E to work out their transition strategy to the new circular economy, scaling up the investment in new innovative technology that has been pioneered by American inventors.
I was partly thinking about what is to be gained on the pavement thinkin bout the guvermint. Far better to engage with technical agencies like ARPA-E to develop a workable planetary cooling strategy.Harry Marks wrote:I am so going to steal this.Robert Tulip wrote:Now I wait for the spam ads from Johnny in the basement.
Much more needs to be said about the climate change free rider problem, namely the companies and individuals who don’t pay the cost of their CO2 externalities. The relation to collective action is that this problem cannot be solved by punitive energy taxes. The only solution is a new program with the scale and vision and coordination of the moonshot, identifying the most practical and cost-effective strategies for collective action to cool the planet. Rather than mass political pressure to decarbonise, the collective focus should be technology that removes carbon on industrial scale and directly cools the planet. Collective action on climate does not mean building a mass movement, but rather requires government partnership with companies and scientists for industrial investment on cooling technology, with a vision to inspire people about the potential benefits of global cooperation on climate technology to avoid the collective risks of a hothouse earth.Harry Marks wrote:At last you have acknowledged the key point. Public goods have a free rider problem. No more needs to be said.Robert Tulip wrote: The only climate solution is through collective action
Promoting corporate investment in pure research in areas that will clean up carbon waste and deliver direct cooling is a better strategy than blunt tax instruments to force the free riders to cut their emissions. A tax on carbon can contribute to cooling, but only if kept small and made fully deductible against planetary cooling investment.
A carbon tax big enough to force decarbonisation would generate too much conflict, economic damage and delay, making it unworkable. The populist idea of returning carbon tax funds to households ignores the central task of creating incentive for investment in research and development of cooling technology. Only corporate investment in partnership with governments and scientists would deliver the needed urgent climate impact.
World emissions are projected to continue to grow by 50% over the next decade to about 15 GTC. The net zero by 2030 agenda can only be met by converting CO2 into useful products, with emission reduction delivering maybe 15% of the overall pathway to net zero and below.
So the challenge is to find paths to collective planetary action on climate change that are not beholden to the political left. Geoengineering technology can bring the mainstream right to see the dangers of climate change and of allowing Trump to treat climate as such a political partisan hand grenade.Harry Marks wrote:But you can add that anyway.Robert Tulip wrote:his do-nothing option is the height of stupidity.