7 ms·

If you want to do something about climate change—I've just launched crowdfunding campaign to raise $2 million dollar for effective climate policy. It's for the

If you want to do something about climate change—I've just launched crowdfunding campaign to raise $2 million dollar for effective climate policy. 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/ 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.

adrianN 7y ago
How much more research can you do, realistically? If we want any chance at meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement we (the whole world) need to be at net zero emissions in at most twenty years (assuming a linear reduction starting now!). That doesn't seem to be enough time to go from research to market. We already have the technology we need. More research might make it cheaper, or it might not. But more money for deploying the technology we have has an immediate effect. By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the emissions from the developing world are coming from consumption that happens in the rich countries. A carbon tax that is also applied to imports would be a pretty good incentive for countries like China to push harder for carbon neutrality (not that they're currently not pushing harder than most of the western countries).
- HaukeHi 7y ago
  We think it's very effective to spend more. Consider that, globally, only $22 billion in public funds are spent on clean energy R&D annually—this is only 0.02% of World GDP. For comparison, world energy expenditure was 6% of the World's GDP. This means we spend about 300 times as much on energy than on making energy better. 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 https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy
codingdave 7y ago
> Advanced economies like the US and EU are prioritizing reducing their own emissions. I'm not sure we're living in the same US. The USA I live in is one of the few countries not agreeing to climate change, with a subset of its population not even believing it is real. I'm glad you are doing policy work - it is important. But I'm not ready to declare the problem solved in our own backyards quite yet.
- HaukeHi 7y ago
  Yes, countries are not doing enough to reduce their own emission either, but this is precisely the reason why clean energy R&D is such a good climate policy. Making clean energy cheaper also makes decarbonizing more politically palatable for advanced economies. Especially the US is worried about economic competitiveness. 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/ https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/
  - ThomPete 7y ago
    Show me anything with even remote promise of delivering like coal, oil and nuclear And you will find a swarm of willing investors. The problem is that energy isnt like technology, its about fundamental physics, something we spent almost 200 years exploring. There isnt just some magical solution out there that can compete with fossil fuels unfortunately.
    - 7y ago
ridicter 7y ago
>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. This causality seems tenuous. I'm confused how an enlarged budget for Renewable Energy R&D necessitates a reduction in emissions? There'a lot of jumps being made there. On the other hand, a carbon tax is straight forward: a tax is applied on carbon, and it creates a "price signal", where fossil fuels products become more expensive relative to those based on cleaner tech. This fundamental price signal--with the price on carbon increasing year over year--incentives investment into renewable energy and clean tech. The market runs full speed towards a clean transition. How would "carbon taxes become more politically acceptable"? The arrow of causality is in the wrong direction: it is the carbon tax that MAKES clean energy R&D the obvious thing to do. And finally, there are tons of studies that have explored what a clean energy mix would look like. Here's Stanford professor Mark Jacobson's: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Coun...
- HaukeHi 7y ago
  The causal model is that clean energy R&D causes better low carbon technology/energy, which is what most experts agree with. The reduced price increases demand and adoption, which in turns lowers emissions. 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.
alexandercrohde 7y ago
I mean, I'm never giving money to an internet stranger for research, no offense. BUT if you want to have a meaningful impact, maybe you can verify if us internet folks can buy carbon credits (to stimulate innovation and offset our own footprint)? I'm deeply concerned about how thorough the auditing and accounting and accuracy of carbon-credits is and would encourage passionate people like yourself to answer these questions.

adrianN 7y ago

How much more research can you do, realistically? If we want any chance at meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement we (the whole world) need to be at net zero emissions in at most twenty years (assuming a linear reduction starting now!). That doesn't seem to be enough time to go from research to market. We already have the technology we need. More research might make it cheaper, or it might not. But more money for deploying the technology we have has an immediate effect. By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the emissions from the developing world are coming from consumption that happens in the rich countries. A carbon tax that is also applied to imports would be a pretty good incentive for countries like China to push harder for carbon neutrality (not that they're currently not pushing harder than most of the western countries).

HaukeHi 7y ago
We think it's very effective to spend more. Consider that, globally, only $22 billion in public funds are spent on clean energy R&D annually—this is only 0.02% of World GDP. For comparison, world energy expenditure was 6% of the World's GDP. This means we spend about 300 times as much on energy than on making energy better. 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 https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy

codingdave 7y ago

> Advanced economies like the US and EU are prioritizing reducing their own emissions. I'm not sure we're living in the same US. The USA I live in is one of the few countries not agreeing to climate change, with a subset of its population not even believing it is real. I'm glad you are doing policy work - it is important. But I'm not ready to declare the problem solved in our own backyards quite yet.

HaukeHi 7y ago
Yes, countries are not doing enough to reduce their own emission either, but this is precisely the reason why clean energy R&D is such a good climate policy. Making clean energy cheaper also makes decarbonizing more politically palatable for advanced economies. Especially the US is worried about economic competitiveness. 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/ https://lets-fund.org/clean-energy/
- ThomPete 7y ago
  Show me anything with even remote promise of delivering like coal, oil and nuclear And you will find a swarm of willing investors. The problem is that energy isnt like technology, its about fundamental physics, something we spent almost 200 years exploring. There isnt just some magical solution out there that can compete with fossil fuels unfortunately.
  - 7y ago

ridicter 7y ago

>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. This causality seems tenuous. I'm confused how an enlarged budget for Renewable Energy R&D necessitates a reduction in emissions? There'a lot of jumps being made there. On the other hand, a carbon tax is straight forward: a tax is applied on carbon, and it creates a "price signal", where fossil fuels products become more expensive relative to those based on cleaner tech. This fundamental price signal--with the price on carbon increasing year over year--incentives investment into renewable energy and clean tech. The market runs full speed towards a clean transition. How would "carbon taxes become more politically acceptable"? The arrow of causality is in the wrong direction: it is the carbon tax that MAKES clean energy R&D the obvious thing to do. And finally, there are tons of studies that have explored what a clean energy mix would look like. Here's Stanford professor Mark Jacobson's: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Coun...

HaukeHi 7y ago
The causal model is that clean energy R&D causes better low carbon technology/energy, which is what most experts agree with. The reduced price increases demand and adoption, which in turns lowers emissions. 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.

alexandercrohde 7y ago

I mean, I'm never giving money to an internet stranger for research, no offense. BUT if you want to have a meaningful impact, maybe you can verify if us internet folks can buy carbon credits (to stimulate innovation and offset our own footprint)? I'm deeply concerned about how thorough the auditing and accounting and accuracy of carbon-credits is and would encourage passionate people like yourself to answer these questions.