In this podcast, Gus Docker and I discuss a broad set of climate-related issues from a broadly effective altruist lens. I also say “kind of” far too often.
Here’s the chapter list
00:00 Johannes’s journey as an environmentalist 13:21 The drivers of climate change 23:00 Oil, coal, and gas 38:05 Solar, wind, and hydro 49:34 Nuclear energy 57:03 Geothermal energy 1:00:41 Most promising technologies 1:05:40 Government subsidies 1:13:28 Carbon taxation 1:17:10 Planting trees 1:21:53 Influencing government policy 1:26:39 Different climate scenarios 1:34:49 Economic growth and emissions 1:37:23 Social stability.
Stuff that I haven’t covered before
As I’ve done a bunch of podcasting over the last 15 months (here, here, and here), I was originally worried about overlap, but – to Gus’s credit – I think the overlap is not more than 20-30% and the FLI podcast also helps clarify some common misconceptions on what my views are (whereas the 80k podcast has most detail on philanthropy, our methodology, and prioritization, and the Volts podcast is the shortest overall introduction to our key ideas).
Here are some personal highlights of materials covered that I have not covered before (or in far less detail):
(1) Significantly more on specific energy technologies and the big picture of energy transitions, in particular on energy density, energy transitions, and lock-in
(2) How the current moment is quite different from the past in terms of US climate policy and how money is not the binding constraint on energy innovation anymore, the role of permitting reform and other regulatory interventions
(3) Why it seems reasonable to think that most variance in energy technology outcomes is the result of social choices (rather than innate technological characteristics)
(4) Why there is no alternative to a strong role of government in energy innovation
(5) Which type of philanthropic interventions look most promising
(6) Why carbon pricing is unlikely to be the main story
(7) Whether we only recommend hedging against the worst worlds (no)
(8) How significantly the risk of extreme scenarios has reduced.
(9) A quantitative sense of the difference made by technological change compared to carbon pricing in moving things towards low-carbon competitiveness.
Energy density of different energy sources estimated from existing plants and extrapolated into the future: Noland et al 2022
Emissions forecasts: The source I discussed in our conversation was this working paper from LSE, which estimates a distribution (with about 0.2-0.6% for 5-6C, compared to Wagner and Weitzman from 2016 suggesting a 5% probability of 6C or more), similar work was published in Science earlier this summer.
Why not simply plant trees? Conclusion is to focus on avoiding deforestation, which should be easier (but see next bullet)
Review study in Science showing REDD+, the primary attempt to avoid deforestation, not working, with only 6% of claimed additional deforestation reductions actually being additional (p.3-4).
New FLI Podcast on tackling climate change
Link post
This is a linkpost for https://futureoflife.org/podcast/johannes-ackva-on-managing-climate-change/ and https://x.com/FLIxrisk/status/1704960893417586992?s=20
In this podcast, Gus Docker and I discuss a broad set of climate-related issues from a broadly effective altruist lens. I also say “kind of” far too often.
Here’s the chapter list
00:00 Johannes’s journey as an environmentalist 13:21 The drivers of climate change 23:00 Oil, coal, and gas 38:05 Solar, wind, and hydro 49:34 Nuclear energy 57:03 Geothermal energy 1:00:41 Most promising technologies 1:05:40 Government subsidies 1:13:28 Carbon taxation 1:17:10 Planting trees 1:21:53 Influencing government policy 1:26:39 Different climate scenarios 1:34:49 Economic growth and emissions 1:37:23 Social stability.
Stuff that I haven’t covered before
As I’ve done a bunch of podcasting over the last 15 months (here, here, and here), I was originally worried about overlap, but – to Gus’s credit – I think the overlap is not more than 20-30% and the FLI podcast also helps clarify some common misconceptions on what my views are (whereas the 80k podcast has most detail on philanthropy, our methodology, and prioritization, and the Volts podcast is the shortest overall introduction to our key ideas).
Here are some personal highlights of materials covered that I have not covered before (or in far less detail):
(1) Significantly more on specific energy technologies and the big picture of energy transitions, in particular on energy density, energy transitions, and lock-in
(2) How the current moment is quite different from the past in terms of US climate policy and how money is not the binding constraint on energy innovation anymore, the role of permitting reform and other regulatory interventions
(3) Why it seems reasonable to think that most variance in energy technology outcomes is the result of social choices (rather than innate technological characteristics)
(4) Why there is no alternative to a strong role of government in energy innovation
(5) Which type of philanthropic interventions look most promising
(6) Why carbon pricing is unlikely to be the main story
(7) Whether we only recommend hedging against the worst worlds (no)
(8) How significantly the risk of extreme scenarios has reduced.
(9) A quantitative sense of the difference made by technological change compared to carbon pricing in moving things towards low-carbon competitiveness.
Materials discussed
All of our work can be found at founderspledge.com/climate.
Emissions by sector: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
Energy density of different energy sources estimated from existing plants and extrapolated into the future: Noland et al 2022
Emissions forecasts: The source I discussed in our conversation was this working paper from LSE, which estimates a distribution (with about 0.2-0.6% for 5-6C, compared to Wagner and Weitzman from 2016 suggesting a 5% probability of 6C or more), similar work was published in Science earlier this summer.
“Structure of climate risk and its implications for high-impact philanthropy” is the talk I reference on risk management.
Study on carbon pricing and the implicit carbon price one would have needed for German solar to be equivalent to what was possible with tech-specific subsidies (700 USD/t):
Why not simply plant trees? Conclusion is to focus on avoiding deforestation, which should be easier (but see next bullet)
Review study in Science showing REDD+, the primary attempt to avoid deforestation, not working, with only 6% of claimed additional deforestation reductions actually being additional (p.3-4).
Decoupling, 24 high-income countries were able to achieve this over the last decade (Global Carbon Budget Summary Highlights)
Premature deaths from air pollution, about 7m/year, from fossil fuels but also other sources (e.g. biomass).