Plants want to be eaten only by big animals that take them on long and random walks and then die far away from where they are picked up to fertilize the seed.
185 karma · joined December 1, 2018
Crystallised intelligence increases with age.
Your comparative advantage changes.
At one point, German subsidies drove ~⅓ of the global solar adoption, ~86% of which occurred outside Germany (6x) - see https://founderspledge.com/stories/changing-landscape#fnref1
Corporations are kind of like AIs, if you squint. How hard do you have to squint though, and is it worth it? In this video we ask: Are corporations artificial general superintelligences?
Also see Karl Sims 'Creatures' from the 90s: youtube.com/watch?v=JBgG_VSP7f8 or OpenAI's Multi-Agent Hide and Seek: youtube.com/watch?v=kopoLzvh5jY
Evolution? 2.5bn years ago stromatolites changed the atmosphere from a CO2-rich to O2-rich through photosynthesis, because they had no competition. Now plants dominate the earth (≈450 Gt C, the dominant kingdom), then animals (≈2 Gt C, mainly marine, and bacteria (≈70 Gt C) and archaea (≈7 Gt C).
In 2020, global human-made mass exceeded all living biomass ( nature.com/articles/s41586-020-3010-5).
However, this test has been called imprecise (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2500/ajra.2017.31.44...).
If the paper is true, one could do spot checks today to estimate the true IFR in every country tomorrow on a shoestring budget.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-a...
Depending on the results that might save trillions of dollars.
I think it might be worth for people here to reanalyze everything.
The effect sizes seem large and clinically significant.
So this is big if true.
Having skimmed the paper it seems the only thing the authors do and what is peer-reviewed is estimate earth's theoretical maximum capacity for reforestation.
There are few problems:
1) Feasibility: "200 GtC is a technical potential assuming every hectare of forestland on earth is increased to 100% forest cover"
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1147190442145898496
"An assessment of the biophysical capacity for restoring global tree cover provides a necessary but insufficient foundation for evaluating where tree cover can be feasibly increased. The kinds of trees as well as how and where they are grown determine how and which people benefit. In some contexts, increasing tree cover can elevate fire risk, decrease water supplies, and cause crop damage by wildlife. Reforestation programs often favor single-species tree plantations over restoring native forest ecosystems. This approach can generate negative consequences for biodiversity and carbon storage (5), threaten food and land security, and exacerbate social inequities. How restored lands are governed determines how reforestation costs and benefits are distributed."
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/24
There are no dollar signs or economic feasibility analysis in that paper. So the people who wrote it just cited some number that is not peer-reviewed and even if loosely based on previous numbers might not work at the scale.
--
2) There seems to be no scientific consensus how much (or even if!) new trees are a GHG sink on net. Some legitimate papers even suggests that new trees could be a net GHG source. (the paper does not make any new contributions to this question and I think just assumes that trees absorb GHG).
For instance, see this recent paper in Nature communications:
a) "Limited capacity of tree growth to mitigate the global greenhouse effect under predicted warming" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10174-4
b) this recent paper in PNAS (top journal as well)
"On-going carbon uptake due to forest demography is large, but much smaller than previous influential estimates have suggested. Contrary to previous findings, these latest data sources indicate that the sink is predominantly in mid-high latitude, rather than tropical, forests.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/10/4382.short"
from
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xY3iSgDRHidue8J7C/...
Because of diminishing returns, it is very hard to imagine reducing UK emissions to zero. This would mean replacing every last lightbulb with LEDs powered by zero carbon energy and having everyone fly in electric planes. It is much easier to conceive of an UK scientists or engineers improving technology, say, carbon capture technology so that the diffuse benefits reduce global emissions by >3%.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vTaPmBiFIbPq...
Would cutting these—still considerable—subsidies reduce emissions substantially? The Nature study suggests that global subsidy removal would only lead to a small, 1%–5% decrease in global CO₂ emissions. Only a small share of this can be influenced by policy in advanced economies: There are $43 billion in subsidies, amounting to 13% of global subsidies, within Europe, North America, and the Pacific OECD, and this number is not projected to grow much in the future. In fact, EU member states and G7 nations have pledged to end fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 and 2025 respectively (although they are currently not on track to fulfill this pledge).[137] Advanced economies might be able to use their influence to push fossil fuel subsidy reform in emerging economies, but this would be hard because even though it would have many benefits,[138] they are nevertheless often seen as regressive[139].
The Nature study has been criticized[140] for leaving out some subsidies, such as capacity market payments to ensure the constant electricity supply, public finance, and investment by state-owned fossil fuel enterprises. Others estimate subsidies in European countries alone to be $138 billion a year.[141] But even if we were to use these higher estimates to naively extrapolate them to get a rough upper bound of the direct government support in all advanced economies, then this number would probably not be much higher than the $330 billion. Thus, advocacy for subsidy reform in advanced economies is unlikely to reduce emissions by much more than 5%. Because phasing out these minor subsidies is theoretically equivalent to a very small tax on carbon, it will not substantially stimulate the kind of energy innovation that could spill over to emerging economies. Thus, the net benefits of advocacy might be lower than other policy areas.
Reducing emissions by 5% is not insignificant and worth promoting, especially if broad support can be garnered from both environmentalist and libertarian camps to end support of fossil fuel subsidies. Also, any country can unilaterally cut their fossil fuel consumption without the need for international coordination. But because the world must lower emissions to zero or even negative emissions soon,[142] phasing out fossil fuel subsidies can only be a small part of the answer. It is not the silver bullet some advocates claim.
All citations and more effective climate policies can be found at: https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/#h.jf0xbaac5xn6
And policy needs to be global in scope. Because even if advanced economies were to reduce their emissions to zero, this would be insufficient to prevent warming with substantial risks. Note that emerging economies are producing an increasingly large share of total global emissions, while the share from advanced economies is dwindling, now accounting for only 35% of global emissions. This trend continued past 2015 and is forecast to continue in the coming years.
By 2040, emerging economies will produce 75% of all emissions, while only 25% will come from advanced economies.
But policy-makers are still stuck in a mid-2000s mindset. Back then, their emissions were still the highest in the world and they had to focus their policies on reducing their own emissions. This no longer makes sense.
Advanced economies have a special obligation to do more to lower emissions in all countries. Why is it our responsibility? Because our per capita emissions are still the highest and we have emitted the most carbon since the industrial revolution.
Only if the policies of advanced economies lead to reduced emissions in all countries, can we prevent dangerous climate change. The most effective policies to prevent climate change are those that stimulate clean energy innovation. In other words, those that stimulate progress or breakthroughs in clean energy technologies (or any low-carbon technology that lowers emissions as well as demonstration projects, i.e. RD&D). Providing the global public good of cheaper clean energy technology helps all countries reduce their emissions.
If you want to do something check out my crowdfunding campaign for effective climate policy here: https://www.lets-fund.org/clean-energy
But the problem of population growth and higher overall populations in emerging economies adopting more energy intensive lifestyles remains. These economies and their citizens are likely to use an enormous amount of cheap energy to grow their economies: Global energy demand is forecasted to rise by 30% as of 2040[119] because energy demand and thus per capita carbon footprints increase in proportion to income.
Also, xarbon tariffs (or border carbon adjustments) might prevent some, but not all,[152] carbon leakage and reduce emissions but are very difficult to calculate and lower trade flows and welfare, especially in emerging economies.[153]
citations here: https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy
How R&D makes carbon taxes more acceptable: One economic model suggests that "if a carbon tax imposes a dollar of cost on the economy, induced innovation will end up reducing that cost to around 70 cents".[72] Given that political acceptability is mainly a function of cost, making clean energy cheaper might make carbon taxes more likely.
We need carbon taxes - there's no question about that. I used to think they're the best policy on the margin, but they do have drawbacks- one being political tractability, and now I've think increasing clean energy R&D is more effective and should be prioritized.
Continued reliance on outdated nuclear technology might not have the same crucial global technology spillovers as investments in other clean energy (including advanced nuclear). Since the best path towards global decarbonization is through global technology spillover into emerging economies, the actors that have the best emissions score may, surprisingly, not be the most effective actors at reducing the global rate of emissions in the future.
This has some counterintuitive implications. Consider that Germany has higher carbon emissions than France even though it has invested more heavily in solar than its neighbor, which uses much more nuclear. Should advanced economies like Germany leave their nuclear plants running? Perhaps, but it will not make a very large dent in global emissions because 75% of all future emissions will come from emerging economies, which will not adopt the kind of (non-advanced) nuclear power currently in use in Germany & France.
Nuclear only contributes 5% to the world’s energy supply[159] and even in China, where regulation is lax and public opposition to nuclear is not as big an issue for policy-makers, few reactors are currently being built (_six_ in the last 18 months).
While advanced nuclear power in some advanced economies might actually reduce nuclear proliferation risk by using up nuclear material, in other countries, nuclear power might increase proliferation risks.[161]
It will not be used in many emerging economies.[162] Consider that only 1–5 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are currently plan to have commercial nuclear power and these countries are at least 10 years away from starting construction on nuclear plants.[163]
citations here: http://lets-fund.org/clean-energy
Policy-makers should reorient their focus to develop policies that contribute to the global public good through cheap, clean energy technology.[123] With access to cheaper clean energy and more energy efficient technology (e.g. smart grids), countries can grow their economies without emitting as much carbon and also help us decarbonize our economies.
citations here: https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/
However, the overall funding gap is likely much lower (perhaps in the hundreds of millions) than for clean energy R&D (which is in the tens of billions) and so diminishing returns will set in earlier. Thus, while investing in this is quite cost-effective, there is an upper bound on the benefits (low benefit-costs).
citations here: https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/
It’s not infinitely powerful: It only contributes 5% to the world’s energy supply[159] and even in China, where regulation is lax and public opposition to nuclear is not as big an issue for policy-makers, few reactors are currently being built (_six_ in the last 18 months).
It carries safety risks.[160] While advanced nuclear power in some advanced economies might actually reduce nuclear proliferation risk by using up nuclear material, in other countries, nuclear power might increase proliferation risks.[161]
It will not be used in many emerging economies.[162] Consider that only 1–5 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa are currently plan to have commercial nuclear power and these countries are at least 10 years away from starting construction on nuclear plants.[163]
Continued reliance on outdated nuclear technology might not have the same crucial global technology spillovers as investments in other clean energy (including advanced nuclear). Since the best path towards global decarbonization is through global technology spillover into emerging economies, the actors that have the best emissions score may, surprisingly, not be the most effective actors at reducing the global rate of emissions in the future.
We need more energy R&D to make nuclear better new small modular nuclear reactor designs.
All citations here: https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/
One economic model suggests that "if a carbon tax imposes a dollar of cost on the economy, induced innovation will end up reducing that cost to around 70 cents".[72] Given that political acceptability is mainly a function of cost, making clean energy cheaper might make carbon taxes more likely.
The current US administration was considering significant cuts to its energy R&D budget and has not advanced Mission Innovation.
But recently it appears as if a unique window of opportunity has opened up for policy research on the effectiveness of higher and smarter clean energy R&D spending. The Mission Innovation secretariat is now led by the EU and Canada. And it also now appears as if there will be a slight increase to the US energy R&D budget. It might increase further in 2020, because there is a chance of a change in US leadership after the 2020 elections, which might affect clean energy policy.
citations here: https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/
Why is there so little investment in clean energy innovation?
Generally, basic R&D is under-supplied at both the private and public level. There are several theoretical reasons for this:
On a global level, basic clean energy R&D is under-supplied by both governments and the private sector. Why? Because it suffers from the free-rider problem, as all basic R&D and public goods do. Countries and firms can just let others do the basic research and then reap the benefits because knowledge is hard to protect internationally. Private R&D cannot be protected perfectly because patents expire or industry know-how diffuses to other firms and not all rents from investments can be captured. This results in a socially suboptimal investment.
In other words, additional public investment through basic R&D funding and subsidies increase social surplus, because private capital can only capture a fraction of the social surplus pie. Generally, venture capital and the market neglect capital-intensive, high-risk, high-return, long time-horizon investments.
Clean energy R&D, in particular, is under-supplied because externalities of carbon are not priced adequately, leading to insufficient commercial applications for clean energy R&D.
So, advanced economies should be spending much more on clean energy R&D. This view is shared by a number of academics, international organizations, and members of the private sector, including:
1. Daron Acemoglu, the most cited economic scholar in the recent decade, who argues that optimal climate change policy requires both carbon pricing and subsidies for clean energy research. Clean energy research should be heavily front-loaded to carbon taxation, which can be phased in gradually to minimize switching costs for industry.[19] This argument is not about how high carbon taxes should be in absolute terms or when exactly they should come. It merely suggests that we need to prioritize clean energy R&D, because it would not make much sense to create better clean energy technology later this century. In short, there is good reason to prioritize clean energy R&D.
2. The International Energy Agency notes that public R&D on energy technologies grew at an average rate of only 2% per year in the last 5 years.[20] For that reason, they argue that more spending on public and private clean energy R&D would be productive and is needed.[21]
3. The Breakthrough Energy Coalition,[22] a private sector coalition of billionaires led by Bill Gates, has started a venture to invest in breakthrough energy projects. According to recent analyses, public energy R&D can productively absorb large amounts of additional funding[23] and should increase 5-fold to be socially optimal. The US R&D budgets should even increase 10-fold.[24]
A 2018 meta-analysis summarized the results of several studies[25] that all asked several experts by how much clean energy prices if clean energy R&D were to increase. The meta-analysis concludes:
"[...] experts largely believe that increased public RD&D investments will result in reductions in future technology costs by 2030, although possibly with diminishing marginal returns. [....] for all technologies, experts see the possibility of breakthroughs that would make the technology cost competitive, envisioning sustained annual rates of cost reduction on the order of 10 percent per year. Moreover, such breakthroughs appear more likely under higher RD&D."[26]
The results from these experts surveys: moving from low to medium or high R&D investment scenarios might decrease clean energy costs by several percent.
You can find all citations and the full report here: https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy
It's for the Clean Energy Innovation program at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF)—a top-ranked US think tank. The program is led by Professor David Hart and Dr. Colin Cunliff whose policy research focuses on the effectiveness of higher and smarter clean energy R&D spending and communicating this to policy-makers.
We have done hundreds of hours of research to figure out most effective way to donate to combat climate change and believe this is best place to donate. Why?
You can read our in-depth analysis at https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/, but briefly:
Advanced economies like the US and EU are prioritizing reducing their own emissions. But by 2040, 75% of all emissions will come from emerging economies such as China and India. Only if advanced economies’ climate policies reduce emissions in all countries will we prevent dangerous climate change. The best policies to do this are those that stimulate innovation and clean energy technology cheaper in all countries. We compared 10 climate policies that stimulate innovation (e.g. carbon taxes, deployment subsidies, cutting fossil fuel subsidies) and found that increasing government budgets for public clean energy research and development (R&D) is the most effective—even more effective than carbon taxes.
Public clean energy R&D is neglected: only $22 billion is spent per year globally compared to $140 billion spent on clean energy deployment subsidies and trillions spent on energy. Many advanced economies (e.g. U.S., EU) could unilaterally increase this substantially without international coordination—which makes this much more politically tractable than carbon taxes. Better yet, advanced economies can coordinate spending parts of their GDP on clean energy R&D. Many countries have already done so by signing an international ‘Mission Innovation’ agreement, but are not on track to fulfill their pledges. Donating to this campaign might lead countries to get back on track and increase clean energy R&D budgets.
This would make low-carbon energy cheaper, carbon taxes more politically acceptable, and prevent dangerous climate change.