23
Yesterday, I heard a very controversial but very interesting talk at the Fortune Brainstorm Green Conference here in Pasadena. It was by Bjorn Lomborg, and he spoke about some of the economic issues of going green. He strongly challenges many of the traditional assumptions people have about what they can and should do to make a difference. The most eye-opening to me was the ideas that the only way we are going to make a real difference is to invest on a monumental scale in new technologies that are wildly disruptive. I had a gut feeling that this was a good way to go, and that’s why I try to work on, but he had some economic arguments supporting his thesis that were very persuasive.
The strongest argument he made — in my opinion, at least — was that rather than have a Kyoto protocol, or carbon tax or cap and trade to spur investment in new technologies, why not just invest DIRECTLY in new technologies. He proposed a miniscule 1/20th of 1% fraction of GDP from all the major countries going into a major $25B per year investment fund to invest in new technologies. He claims that that would make 10 times the difference, and cost 1/10th as much (in other words, 100x more effective) than the indirect method. He also said this would be more fair by country, because countries with much bigger GDP’s would contribute so much more.
It was a very compelling argument. He had 5 others that were compelling. He’s very controversial, but now I want to read his book and test his thoughts with some more rigor.
His talk alone made the conference worthwhile — but there were 50 other great speakers to make it even better. Fortune Magazine did a great job on this one, and I hope Marc Gunther and David Kirkpatrick decide to do this again.
People, not things or technology, will change the outcome of environmental issues. And I mean, avoiding the dilution of useful changes in personal habits, by avoiding the whole investment cycle for new contraptions and concepts that need to be designed, built and implemented, thereby causing untold delays in cutting carbon output. Here’s a simple example: When TV goes digital, upgrade your house or apartment with an antenna that also captures wind (VAWT as seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical-axis_wind_turbine). The technology is there. You’ll get digital HDTV. The wind turbine will sell power back to the grid. The technology exists. Nothing fancy in the mechanical generation of power with wind, and nothing computerized needed to monitor speed, direction or rotation of the upright blade. What you save in CATV or satellite bills each month (approx., $100), will pay for the $1200 antenna/windmill, plus the power that is routed back into your electrical panel –and the grid– whenever the wind blows. Not satisfied, then add a small, thin-film, pyramidal solar panel that captures power from all directions. Buy an fully electric car for short transport, maybe something like the ZENN (we have a number of cities that allow their use https://www.greenautos.com), and most major metropolitan areas are moving in that direction as well. So whether you tile your roof with grass or white asphalt tiles to reflect or absorb sun, you’re at least making an effort. If every home has a wind turbine and saves $1,200 per year, the cost is a wash. But the long term benefit is a 5% to 25% reduction in overall carbon output for residential homes. Imagine that…?
The reason they’re not investing directly in new technologies and instead try and put that through incentives for adopting the Kyoto protocol is because too many people spent too much time coming up with the Kyoto crap and can’t let it die.
At least that’s my take on it. While these people understand the concept of sunk cost when it comes to other people’s money, they don’t seem to grasp it when it comes to their time.
Someone made a comment on one of my blog posts that my view was “similar to Bill Gross’” so I came here to find out if I should be offended or honored
I’ll want to read some more before I come to a conclusion but so far. I noticed you also had an engineering background so maybe that explains the connection the commenter made.
The post is here if you’re interested http://www.bergenjerseyforeclosures.com/blog/info/entry/where_should_house_prices_really