This is an excerpt from my 2021 book, Sensible Decarbonization: Regulation, Risk, and Relative Benefits in Different Approaches to Energy Use, Climate Policy, and Environmental Impact
No technologies are immune to disruption. They are
disrupted mainly by competing technologies that are deemed better by consumers
of the technologies. Innovation, doing things better, is the driver of
technology change. Unfortunately, innovation often creates winners and losers,
but that is the nature of competition in business and capitalism. However, it
is not just the profit motive but also the desire to create public good,
usefulness, utility. One might call that the usefulness motive or the
utilitarian motive. The desire for excellence in one’s endeavors is another
motivation. The desire to improve human well-being is another or perhaps it is
roughly synonymous with the utilitarian motive. In terms of green technologies,
one might add a waste reduction motive: the desire to achieve reductions in
energy use, reductions in energy waste, reductions in pollution, solid, liquid,
and gaseous wastes, or reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Reduce, reuse,
and recycle became goals to prevent a fraction of waste. More recent goals are
in making integrated circular economies that optimize utility and reduce waste
of resources.
From disruption often comes dispute. Those
about to get disrupted want protection from the disruptors and sometimes they
seek the help of regulators. I will mention two examples: A company attempting
to build a natural gas power plant in West Virginia, a state with very abundant
and cheap natural gas, was sued by a local jobs group funded by the coal
industry, a delay tactic more common among environmentalists.[1]
Another example also partially involves the economic feasibility of natural gas
power doing the disrupting. State bailouts of nuclear and coal plants with
taxpayers footing much of the bill have happened in a few states. This includes
charging the public to make them profitable compared to the disrupter. This is
direct subsidization. In terms of clean energy and decarbonization, one might
agree with subsidization of nuclear but not subsidization of coal. In the US bailouts
were attempted, or at least studied at the federal level but were not enacted.
The rationale given for potential coal subsidization was reliability of
baseload power and fuel-on-site needs for power plants during high-demand times
such as cold snaps. Analysis by system operators showed that this was not a
relevant issue in most parts of the country. In these cases, affordable natural
gas was the disruptor, and less economic (nuclear) and higher emissions (coal) power
generation were the disrupted. The bailouts simply stop the disruption.
We also adapt
to disruption. We become resilient and flexible enough to assimilate new
technologies and other changes. We preserve our adaptive capacity. We
cope. Many of our modern technologies have annoying aspects in addition to
their great utility. We adjust. New technologies are often resisted but
gradually take hold as the benefits or upsides come to be seen as justifying
the downsides. This is perhaps not too unlike Thomas Kuhn’s “paradigm shifts”
in which new data and new scientific consensus, often gradual and with
resistance, leads to new scientific understanding. Kuhn noted in his book The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions that scientific understanding involves
some subjective inputs as well as objective ones. Consensus can be seen as a
subjective steering of interpretation of the objective. Once more and more
scientists accept a paradigm it is adopted. He also suggested that competing
paradigms are often irreconcilable.[2]
Is there an irreconcilability between those who want very accelerated
decarbonization and those who want more gradual or even no decarbonization? The
COP 21 Paris agreement shows that very few countries are calling for zero
decarbonization, so the argument is really between accelerated and measured
decarbonization. To clarify, what I mean by measured decarbonization means
accelerated from what it is now but in a measured and gradual way. Practicable
technological relativism seems preferable to some less practicable
technological idealism. We celebrate and seek to optimize the upsides and deal
with the downsides as best we can. Often that is the most expedient means to an
end. Replacing coal plants with natural gas plants is less ideal in terms of
decarbonizing than replacing them with wind and solar, along with required
peaker or storage, but much more expedient and practical in terms of cost and
functionality so the relative benefits are significant and immediate.
John Entine,
founder of the Genetic Literacy Project wrote an excellent article explaining
how precautionary-based anti-technology activists are resisting biotech
technology innovations that are sure to have hugely positive benefits to
society including increasing crop yields and reducing land use for agriculture,
helping to mitigate climate change, feeding more people with better nutrition, making
farming more efficient and inexpensive, and treating diseases. He notes that “History
abounds with examples of epic misjudgments rooted in pessimism about the
promise of emerging disruptive technologies.” He says that many scientists
are simply bewildered at this resistance and unwillingness to simply recognize,
let alone embrace these new innovations where the risks are reasonable. Like
past disruptions, the dangers of the current ones are being exaggerated, he
says.[3]
Innovation is
how technology improves lives. It should be encouraged rather than suppressed
by the mere possibility of downsides. Well-placed research and development dollars
have yielded great dividends. R&D investment must consider relative utility
vs. potential harm. Harm mitigation is always ongoing. Matt Ridley writes in his
2020 book How Innovation Works: And Why it Flourishes in Freedom that a
great truth about innovation is that people often underestimate its long-term
impact.[4]
[1] Conklin, Jamison, Sept.13, 2019. Another Gas-Fired
Power Plant Moving Ahead in West Virginia. Natural Gas Intelligence (NGI).
[2] Kuhn, Thomas, 1970. The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
[3] Entine, John, Sept. 22, 2020. Viewpoint: Modern-day
Luddites: How precautionary activism and reporting paint a misleading picture
of biotechnology. Genetic Literacy Project. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/09/22/viewpoint-modern-day-luddites-how-precautionary-activism-and-reporting-paint-a-misleading-picture-of-biotechnology/
[4] Ridley, Matt, 2020. How Innovation Works: And Why It
Flourishes in Freedom. Harper Collins.
No comments:
Post a Comment