Well written. Agreed with your points. However, cost is a sticky issue. In my perspective, the problem is sometimes we miss the point of the environment as an externality. So “true” cost is not apparent in the system and therefore bad choices made. To get us to better solutions and really get the case clear to Gates re NCS, we need strong policy to price nature and carbon into the system. This may actually end up in “higher cost” but that price will better reflect costs to humanity (and help us use the market to find the most efficient solutions).
Thx Dietmar. Agree that costs are tricky issues to get right and that externalities really matter a lot. A high and rising price on carbon addresses much of that challenge. But such policy would also be hugely regressive unless accompanied with some very sophisticated measures to offset that. I’m skeptical about that being accomplished in today’s political world. Raising the price of carbon so that lower income people are forced to use less energy, travel less, eat differently etc just doesn’t seem to me to be the best approach. I don’t have the answer on that front. But, if nature based carbon removal could be scaled and also low cost — which I think is likely — that would allow for some or a lot of climate progress to happen in a fairer way (I think). Wdyt?
It feels like we’re hard pressed for NBS to be as low cost as converting coal plants to natural gas, but we need all solutions, so the cost/pricing issue is complex.
In terms of being regressive - I agree and have been interested in the tax policies that could address that directly by taxing carbon and using the revenues to address the regressive elements.
Bill Gates’s insights and grasp of complex systems (disease, poverty, education) is impressive. I haven’t read the book but I’d expect the same holistic clarity from him on the environment. You’ve pointed out a paradox and possible gap: massive innovation can also be applied to nature-based solutions. My guess is he’s persuadable. If presented with strong “ROI” on particular methods (e.g., Salk Institute’s Plants Harnessing Initiative, something similar for the oceans), his response would be interesting.
Thanks Marc. Sounds right. Btw, I was trying to keep my blog short. Otherwise, I would have to pointed to the Salk Institute work as Exhibit A re innovation in nature-based solutions. Thanks for mentioning that.
Here is how a cynic might read your thoughts here, Mark. Point one: You silly “enviros” just don’t understand the importance of things like economics (meaning money and efficiency, but also, sub rosa, business principles and even serious thought - leave that to the big boys). Point two: You silly technos just don’t understand the power of nature when managed by the smart environmental community gang. Do you really believe either of these points are so reductive or that Gates is addressing either of your points in such absolute terms? Good ideas and good conservation come from innovative thinking and action from across the spectrum of citizens concerned about climate or environment. No one holds a copyright to the best ideas and few fit comfortably in the community segments you suggest.
Thanks for the feedback George. I certainly didn’t intend for readers to react like you suggest they might. So I probably need to write my stuff more carefully. I just meant more straightforwardly: 1) I agree with Gates and believe we should try to to achieve climate progress at the lowest cost possible. I don’t think this idea gets enough attention by the enviro community. For example, many leading environmentalists say that emissions reductions are always more worthwhile than carbon removal. I think the answer should depend on the costs of the two approaches. Lots of other examples like this. 2) I think Gates does dismiss nature-based solutions as I state. He make no reference to the many innovations being pursued to augment nature’s ability to remove carbon (even though he praises tech-based innovation at great length). He says we are hugely constrained by the availability of land. I’m not sure that is right. Finally, I absolutely agree that no one has all of the best ideas and I apologize if I gave a contrary impression. I’m hugely in favor of more ideas, diverse strategies, etc. Lets see what works best.
Interesting points on climate mitigation costs. The problem we have seen is a general one of globalisation whereby economically for example manufacturing chases the cheapest labour costs, so much offshoring occurs towards third world countries from developed countries who are most likely the biggest contributors of CO2. Bill Gates is a globalist and would naturally tend towards technological solutions where intellectual property can be commercialised and monetised and implemented above nature based solutions which could be adopted inclusively across all nations rich and poor and become scalable and tuned to suit the specific terrain and circumstances.
Being in harmony with nature is the gift we must embrace to go the opposite direction of globalisation and fully integrate with communities at a local level to make a difference that benefits all mankind not a few.
Agree being in harmony with nature is a key goal and aspiration. But another key goal is to help huge numbers of lower income people around the world have access to more energy, benefit from more protein in their diets, travel etc (just like higher income people do). I’m on the side of these people. It’s unfair to thwart them. So we have to do many things at once — protect nature, help people raise their living standards, use more clean energy, recycle and so on and so on. I think we will have much success if we do all of this in the most economic way.
Well written. Agreed with your points. However, cost is a sticky issue. In my perspective, the problem is sometimes we miss the point of the environment as an externality. So “true” cost is not apparent in the system and therefore bad choices made. To get us to better solutions and really get the case clear to Gates re NCS, we need strong policy to price nature and carbon into the system. This may actually end up in “higher cost” but that price will better reflect costs to humanity (and help us use the market to find the most efficient solutions).
Thx Dietmar. Agree that costs are tricky issues to get right and that externalities really matter a lot. A high and rising price on carbon addresses much of that challenge. But such policy would also be hugely regressive unless accompanied with some very sophisticated measures to offset that. I’m skeptical about that being accomplished in today’s political world. Raising the price of carbon so that lower income people are forced to use less energy, travel less, eat differently etc just doesn’t seem to me to be the best approach. I don’t have the answer on that front. But, if nature based carbon removal could be scaled and also low cost — which I think is likely — that would allow for some or a lot of climate progress to happen in a fairer way (I think). Wdyt?
It feels like we’re hard pressed for NBS to be as low cost as converting coal plants to natural gas, but we need all solutions, so the cost/pricing issue is complex.
In terms of being regressive - I agree and have been interested in the tax policies that could address that directly by taxing carbon and using the revenues to address the regressive elements.
Bill Gates’s insights and grasp of complex systems (disease, poverty, education) is impressive. I haven’t read the book but I’d expect the same holistic clarity from him on the environment. You’ve pointed out a paradox and possible gap: massive innovation can also be applied to nature-based solutions. My guess is he’s persuadable. If presented with strong “ROI” on particular methods (e.g., Salk Institute’s Plants Harnessing Initiative, something similar for the oceans), his response would be interesting.
Thanks Marc. Sounds right. Btw, I was trying to keep my blog short. Otherwise, I would have to pointed to the Salk Institute work as Exhibit A re innovation in nature-based solutions. Thanks for mentioning that.
Here is how a cynic might read your thoughts here, Mark. Point one: You silly “enviros” just don’t understand the importance of things like economics (meaning money and efficiency, but also, sub rosa, business principles and even serious thought - leave that to the big boys). Point two: You silly technos just don’t understand the power of nature when managed by the smart environmental community gang. Do you really believe either of these points are so reductive or that Gates is addressing either of your points in such absolute terms? Good ideas and good conservation come from innovative thinking and action from across the spectrum of citizens concerned about climate or environment. No one holds a copyright to the best ideas and few fit comfortably in the community segments you suggest.
Thanks for the feedback George. I certainly didn’t intend for readers to react like you suggest they might. So I probably need to write my stuff more carefully. I just meant more straightforwardly: 1) I agree with Gates and believe we should try to to achieve climate progress at the lowest cost possible. I don’t think this idea gets enough attention by the enviro community. For example, many leading environmentalists say that emissions reductions are always more worthwhile than carbon removal. I think the answer should depend on the costs of the two approaches. Lots of other examples like this. 2) I think Gates does dismiss nature-based solutions as I state. He make no reference to the many innovations being pursued to augment nature’s ability to remove carbon (even though he praises tech-based innovation at great length). He says we are hugely constrained by the availability of land. I’m not sure that is right. Finally, I absolutely agree that no one has all of the best ideas and I apologize if I gave a contrary impression. I’m hugely in favor of more ideas, diverse strategies, etc. Lets see what works best.
Interesting points on climate mitigation costs. The problem we have seen is a general one of globalisation whereby economically for example manufacturing chases the cheapest labour costs, so much offshoring occurs towards third world countries from developed countries who are most likely the biggest contributors of CO2. Bill Gates is a globalist and would naturally tend towards technological solutions where intellectual property can be commercialised and monetised and implemented above nature based solutions which could be adopted inclusively across all nations rich and poor and become scalable and tuned to suit the specific terrain and circumstances.
Being in harmony with nature is the gift we must embrace to go the opposite direction of globalisation and fully integrate with communities at a local level to make a difference that benefits all mankind not a few.
Agree being in harmony with nature is a key goal and aspiration. But another key goal is to help huge numbers of lower income people around the world have access to more energy, benefit from more protein in their diets, travel etc (just like higher income people do). I’m on the side of these people. It’s unfair to thwart them. So we have to do many things at once — protect nature, help people raise their living standards, use more clean energy, recycle and so on and so on. I think we will have much success if we do all of this in the most economic way.