Here in the UK our government is making our energy unaffordable, unreliable and potentially unavailble. This is being imposed on UK citizens, there has been no choice.
Thanks for writing this piece. I've been following Super Spiked for a while now and come from the share of your audience who would bat for net-zero or rather at least positive climate action by investing in science and technology. I particularly appreciate your examples of pragmatic and non-pragmatic policies although I don't wholly agree with them. In my past work, I have closely seen the lives of those Not in The Lucky One Billion and how poor access and high energy costs impact their lives, but I have also seen how the manifestations of climate change have a disproportional impact on their lives over those in the Lucky 1 Billion.
With that, I have two questions based on this piece:
1- If every country has to increase its multiplier of economic output relative to energy input, shouldn't there be greater investment in R&D through grants and production tax credits to achieve this?
For example in the steel industry, without further research in new methods of steelmaking or scrap recycling, this increase in multiplier might not be achieved.
2- If every country has to improve geopolitical security and affordability of energy, even while prioritizing availability and reliability, could you comment on what kind of foreign policies and cooperation exercises are needed to achieve this?
For example, especially in the case of developing countries in Africa that don't have access to resources or have access to knowledge to increase efficiency, what are the options for such countries to solve for energy insecurity?
Dakshesh, thank you for comment and questions. And apologies for what will be a short reply. yes, there is a role for investment in R&D, etc., to improve efficiency. On the foreign policy question, its a good one that I should try to address in a future post.
I think you have it backwards on residency. In Texas, our tax system rewards hard work and success, versus the Northeast, which frowns on it. Summers are awful here however, and it makes sense to enjoy the climate and beauty of the Northeast and New England. Just don't become a tax payer. If a person wants to be optimistic about America's future, it can be found here.
As always, very insightful perspectives that aim to strike a balanced view, something that appears to be increasingly rare in energy discussions nowadays. One question I have is whether you were personally surprised by the speed and scale of renewable development in the power sector, and whether this had fundamentally affected your energy outlook? And relatedly, what would you need to see to think that the energy transition has effectively started?
Thank you Power Econ! Its a good question. My historic background was more on the oil & gas, i.e., non-power, side of the business for sure. By the time I started spending more time on power, solar in particular was coming down the cost curve and ramping up.
There is a line we use that energy is always surprising in new and unexpected ways. So lots of things have ramped faster than we/I expected. Shale oil for sure is an example of that. Solar in power markets. EVs as a share of luxury vehicles in the U.S. Those are 3 examples.
I think "energy transition" as code words for climate-driven changes to our energy mix I don't think is on-track to happen any time soon, if ever. But "energy transition" in the sense that the world is aggressively trying to find new and different energy sources and technologies I think is happening, driven by geopolitical security and affordability.
Generally like your work, but you are way off base in suggesting the banning of SUVs. You probably fly on private jets from NY to Houston, and even if you don’t, there are many people who do so that eschew SUVs and therefore would support this proposal. But a person’s total carbon consumption is what should matter if there are going to be limits on such (and I do not believe that there should be, the market should decide), and whether you use yours driving an SUV, flying private, or powering a 30,000 square foot house is up to you. You lose freedom when you ban something. This proposal is no better than Biden’s mandating EVs. Please reconsider
Here in the UK our government is making our energy unaffordable, unreliable and potentially unavailble. This is being imposed on UK citizens, there has been no choice.
Hi Arjun,
Thanks for writing this piece. I've been following Super Spiked for a while now and come from the share of your audience who would bat for net-zero or rather at least positive climate action by investing in science and technology. I particularly appreciate your examples of pragmatic and non-pragmatic policies although I don't wholly agree with them. In my past work, I have closely seen the lives of those Not in The Lucky One Billion and how poor access and high energy costs impact their lives, but I have also seen how the manifestations of climate change have a disproportional impact on their lives over those in the Lucky 1 Billion.
With that, I have two questions based on this piece:
1- If every country has to increase its multiplier of economic output relative to energy input, shouldn't there be greater investment in R&D through grants and production tax credits to achieve this?
For example in the steel industry, without further research in new methods of steelmaking or scrap recycling, this increase in multiplier might not be achieved.
2- If every country has to improve geopolitical security and affordability of energy, even while prioritizing availability and reliability, could you comment on what kind of foreign policies and cooperation exercises are needed to achieve this?
For example, especially in the case of developing countries in Africa that don't have access to resources or have access to knowledge to increase efficiency, what are the options for such countries to solve for energy insecurity?
Thank you for writing what you do.
Cheers,
Dakshesh Thacker
Dakshesh, thank you for comment and questions. And apologies for what will be a short reply. yes, there is a role for investment in R&D, etc., to improve efficiency. On the foreign policy question, its a good one that I should try to address in a future post.
I think you have it backwards on residency. In Texas, our tax system rewards hard work and success, versus the Northeast, which frowns on it. Summers are awful here however, and it makes sense to enjoy the climate and beauty of the Northeast and New England. Just don't become a tax payer. If a person wants to be optimistic about America's future, it can be found here.
My wife reads these, especially that section. baby steps.
As always, very insightful perspectives that aim to strike a balanced view, something that appears to be increasingly rare in energy discussions nowadays. One question I have is whether you were personally surprised by the speed and scale of renewable development in the power sector, and whether this had fundamentally affected your energy outlook? And relatedly, what would you need to see to think that the energy transition has effectively started?
Thank you Power Econ! Its a good question. My historic background was more on the oil & gas, i.e., non-power, side of the business for sure. By the time I started spending more time on power, solar in particular was coming down the cost curve and ramping up.
There is a line we use that energy is always surprising in new and unexpected ways. So lots of things have ramped faster than we/I expected. Shale oil for sure is an example of that. Solar in power markets. EVs as a share of luxury vehicles in the U.S. Those are 3 examples.
I think "energy transition" as code words for climate-driven changes to our energy mix I don't think is on-track to happen any time soon, if ever. But "energy transition" in the sense that the world is aggressively trying to find new and different energy sources and technologies I think is happening, driven by geopolitical security and affordability.
I was in your offices yesterday and I’d agree; Veriten did it right with your space! As for pragmatism… BRING IT ON!!!
that is outstanding! Great to hear...and now you have to email directly!!!
Generally like your work, but you are way off base in suggesting the banning of SUVs. You probably fly on private jets from NY to Houston, and even if you don’t, there are many people who do so that eschew SUVs and therefore would support this proposal. But a person’s total carbon consumption is what should matter if there are going to be limits on such (and I do not believe that there should be, the market should decide), and whether you use yours driving an SUV, flying private, or powering a 30,000 square foot house is up to you. You lose freedom when you ban something. This proposal is no better than Biden’s mandating EVs. Please reconsider
yes. I am pro freedom.
By the way, you know my brother Weston
yes! big fan. and meant to say thank you in original reply.