Hah, that’s not a song I would’ve associated with you on a superficial level. Rock on!
If we need a label for where we stand on these issues I like climate/energy centrist. Matt Yglesias would be another prominent commentator I’d place there and maybe you too.
Overall I agree that I’d like to see (and wish we had seen) the world deal with climate and energy abundance in a quieter more rational fashion. Climate activists can be pretty annoyingly naive and ignorant about energy realities and the usefulness of markets. To be fair though the forces of the status quo weren’t being rational either with their do-nothing, tobacco playbook approach.
One quibble and one addition:
My quibble is that I think you maybe overstate that pollution caused by EVs relative to ICE vehicles (ICE vehicles are much worse, like an order of magnitude if I’m not mistaken) and we can make policy to further improvements.
The subject that I’d add here is the urgency (yes!) to clean up air around the world. I don’t think most people are aware of how long the list of medical conditions associated with dirty air has gotten including with autism (!).
Thanks for the stimulating piece. I think we’re on decent track to muddle through if we can successfully ignore the loudest irrational and ignorant voices on the left and right. Cheers!
Great piece Arjun. Agree on everything except your take on the phrase energy transition. It’s come to represent an intellectually dishonest, half truth. Kind of a mission accomplished vibe which equates electrification to getting to net zero on a one to one basis. About 45% of solutions will have to come from sequestration of some kind. CCS, trees/grasses, soil and, quietly important, buildings and structures. Cumulative man-made emissions, soil comes in well ahead of passenger vehicles. Many avocates actively fight against considering these potential solutions, much like nuclear, this is crazy if you believe we have an existential threat. First time I’ve read your new work, great job, look forward to reading more.
Great piece! So much misleading language. My personal favorite is the use of the word “carbon” when “carbon dioxide” is what is really meant. And on the topic of CO2, while scientists have proven that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 are causing an increase in global temperature, it is not at all clear that there is a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature and in fact most natural systems are self-balancing … CO2 is not a pollutant in the way that the word is traditionally used.
Hah, that’s not a song I would’ve associated with you on a superficial level. Rock on!
If we need a label for where we stand on these issues I like climate/energy centrist. Matt Yglesias would be another prominent commentator I’d place there and maybe you too.
Overall I agree that I’d like to see (and wish we had seen) the world deal with climate and energy abundance in a quieter more rational fashion. Climate activists can be pretty annoyingly naive and ignorant about energy realities and the usefulness of markets. To be fair though the forces of the status quo weren’t being rational either with their do-nothing, tobacco playbook approach.
One quibble and one addition:
My quibble is that I think you maybe overstate that pollution caused by EVs relative to ICE vehicles (ICE vehicles are much worse, like an order of magnitude if I’m not mistaken) and we can make policy to further improvements.
The subject that I’d add here is the urgency (yes!) to clean up air around the world. I don’t think most people are aware of how long the list of medical conditions associated with dirty air has gotten including with autism (!).
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/air-pollution/index.cfm
Thanks for the stimulating piece. I think we’re on decent track to muddle through if we can successfully ignore the loudest irrational and ignorant voices on the left and right. Cheers!
Great piece Arjun. Agree on everything except your take on the phrase energy transition. It’s come to represent an intellectually dishonest, half truth. Kind of a mission accomplished vibe which equates electrification to getting to net zero on a one to one basis. About 45% of solutions will have to come from sequestration of some kind. CCS, trees/grasses, soil and, quietly important, buildings and structures. Cumulative man-made emissions, soil comes in well ahead of passenger vehicles. Many avocates actively fight against considering these potential solutions, much like nuclear, this is crazy if you believe we have an existential threat. First time I’ve read your new work, great job, look forward to reading more.
Great piece! So much misleading language. My personal favorite is the use of the word “carbon” when “carbon dioxide” is what is really meant. And on the topic of CO2, while scientists have proven that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 are causing an increase in global temperature, it is not at all clear that there is a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature and in fact most natural systems are self-balancing … CO2 is not a pollutant in the way that the word is traditionally used.