How to Avoid a Climate Disaster

 In 2006 the movie An Inconvenient Truth came out.  It featured Al Gore and was built around a slide show he had been giving for years at that point.  It highlighted Global Warming, what caused it, and the fact that if nothing was done very bad things would happen.  Most of the movie was devoted to making the Global Warming case, but a short section at the end outlined how the problem could be fixed.

I thought Gore did a great job of proving his main thesis, that Global arming was a real thing, and that it presented a danger serious enough that urgent action was justified.  Where he fell short was when it came to solutions.  I listened to what he had to say there and thought, "we are so fucked".

It's been fifteen years.  How have things changed?  I regularly follow scientific developments so I was already familiar with large parts of Gore's argument.  But most people don't do that.  For them the movie was their first serious introduction to the issue.  As such, I think its release was, to quote Churchill,  "the end of the beginning" of the public's interest in, and engagement with, the subject.

There has been some good news since the movie came out.  Wind turbines and solar panels existed at the time, and Gore mentioned both.  But back then they were expensive, and especially in the case of wind turbines, not very efficient.

Solar panels are now more efficient and far cheaper.  Wind turbines are now much more efficient and, per unit of capacity, considerably cheaper.  Finally, everybody is now familiar with Global Warming.  Most people now think that it is real and that it would be nice to do something about it.  But that's pretty much the end of the good news.

There has been a lot written on the subject between then and now.  Very recently (it came out this year), an excellent addition to the literature on the subject was added.  It is a book called How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.  It was written by none other than Bill Gates.

I just finished reading it.  What makes this book especially valuable is that he is a numbers guy.  So, he provides answers to all the important "how big" and "how much" kinds of questions.  As a result, you come away with a real understanding of how significant something is or is not.

He backs up his analysis with a lot of detail.  He frequently tells us that he is optimistic the problem will get solved.  Given what he has to say about what will need to be done, he more than justifies labeling himself as an optimist.  The book is an easy read.

He simplifies (and admits he was doing it) in order to keep what's important front and center.  But he does not go down the "no numbers or math" path that many authors writing for a general audience do.  He tells us what the size, scale, and difficulty of the various components are.  He does this, both for the problems he discusses, and for the various solutions he investigates.

Reading this book won't provide you with the information you need to understand all aspects of all the issues in depth.  But it provides a good entrée, an introduction to each issue and an explanation of how it fits in with everything else.

If you want to dive more deeply into any specific subject or aspect then you will have to go elsewhere.  (Check the "Notes" section at the end of the book for where you can find more in-depth information.)  If not, then be assured that he quickly moves on.  You won't get mired down in any one topic.  And speaking of deep dives, I can't dive even as deeply as he does, and often his "dive" is pretty shallow, and still keep this post to a manageable length.

So what I am going to do is give you the headline version of the book.  I will add some commentary and leave it at that.  If you want to dive more deeply, but not too deep, read the book.  It is easy to read and only runs a little over 200 pages.  To work.

"How big is it?", is an important question.  The answer can get confusing, so he consistently uses the same yardstick.  We are putting the equivalent of 51 billion tons of "carbon" into the air each year.  Every bit of it causes warming in excess of the situation before the beginning of the industrial revolution.

If we want to get back to normal we need to drive that number all the way to zero.  Anything less than zero and things keep warming up.  If we drive it down significantly but not all the way to zero, then things continue to warm.  They just warm more slowly.  If we increase it, things warm even more quickly than they are now.

This is an oversimplification.  Gates oversimplifies a lot.  But the oversimplification is in service of the goal of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).  The oversimplifications mean that he might not have one thing or another exactly right.  But he is careful to oversimplify in a ways that get the basic idea right without getting bogged down in the details.  And it is obvious that he knows much more than he is putting in the book.

It can be argued that he should have done this or that differently.  But what he does conveys the important ideas accurately.  And that is the important thing.  I could provide a bunch of examples of places where there may be a better or different way.  But I am not going to.  Just imagine I had.  Otherwise, the post would end up longer than the book.

Poor people contribute to Global Warming to a much smaller extent than rich people do.  This means that things are going to get worse if, as Gates and I hope, these people are able to improve their situation.  In spite of this, he argues that they should be supported in this.  And, he argues, we have to find solutions that they can afford and that work in the less developed parts of the world.

He also spends a lot of time on economics.  If something is a good idea, but costs twice as much as the bad idea, then nobody is going to change to it.  He is a big believer in harnessing business.  Show them a way to make a lot of money doing the right thing and they will happily do it.  They will also stop throwing roadblocks in the way of doing the right thing.

And, unlike much of the business community, he is not opposed to government.  He sees practical solutions as those that harness the power of ordinary people, business, and government.  Later in the book he lays out the roles and duties of each.

His pro-government stand comes in spite of the experience he had when the U.S. Government sued Microsoft.  As he notes, that was a very unpleasant experience.  But ultimately it was one he learned from.

Global Warming is not a "one fix" problem.  Making everybody drive electric cars would help.  But it would leave most of the problem unsolved.  The short version of his solution is:

1. To avoid a climate disaster, we have to get to zero.
2. We need to deploy the tools we already have, like solar and wind, faster and smarter.
3. We need to create and roll out breakthrough technologies that can take us the rest of the way.

He says nice things about the Paris Accord and about something called "Mission Innovation" that I had never heard of.  And that's the point,  As he notes "Unfortunately, the world did little to prepare".  He is talking about COVID but the same applies to Global Warming.  And, as he often notes, "getting to zero [on Global Warming] will be really hard".

He spends an entire chapter on why the goal needs to be getting all the way to zero.  I have already outlined the super-short version of why this is so above.  If you don't already believe it then I don't think this chapter is going to convince you to change your mind.

Chapter 2 is called "This will be hard".  I think that this is the one single statement about Global Warming that literally everybody agrees with.  It's everything else where the disagreements lie.  The thesis of the chapter name is obvious.  There is, however, information in this chapter that is not obvious.

For instance, an important but less obvious concept is that "fossil fuels are like water".  They are so ubiquitous that we forget how many places they crop up.  Even if you fix all the problems that everybody knows about, you aren't done.  You still have to fix all the other problems too.

Most people don't know how many things use fossil fuels in one way or another. He provides a much abbreviated list.  He also notes that "gas", the stuff you put in your car, is cheaper than name brand bottled water like Dasani.  It is also cheaper than pop at Costco, milk, and many other liquids we don't think of as being particularly expensive.

"History is not on our side", he observes.  The various energy transitions humans have gone through have been critical to improvements in the quality of life.  Firewood kept cave men warm.  Coal fueled the industrial revolution.  Petroleum fueled the twentieth century.

We want things to keep getting better.  It will be hard to do that without increasing the amount of energy we collectively use.  And it will be even harder for poor people to keep improving everybody's situation without also substantially increasing their energy use.  It is not clear how improve everyone's situation without making Global Warming worse.

"Coal plants are not like computer chips."  The point here is that computer chips (and a few other technological marvels) have gotten way better very quickly.  But you can't do the same thing to a coal fired power plant, or many other parts of our energy use infrastructure.  Making them a little better?  Perhaps.  Making them oodles better?  Not possible.

Similarly, "our laws and regulations are so outdated."  He is not anti-regulation.  But regulations change slowly but the problem changes quickly.  Potential solutions change even more quickly.  This means that we are applying old regulations to new problems.  Instead of being part of the solution, this makes them part of the problem.

He then deconstructs that 51 billion.  He puts the components into five general categories.  You have to get a certain distance into the weeds if you expect to get to zero.  This is his idea of the minimum distance necessary.  Here are his five categories:

1. Making things (cement, steel, plastic) - 31%.
2. Plugging in (electricity) - 27%.
3. Growing things (plants, animals) - 19%.
4. Getting around (planes, trucks, cargo ships) - 16%.
5. Keeping warm and cool (heating, cooling, refrigeration) - 7%.

His point is that, in the end you need to do something about all of these things.  And notice that electric cars isn't even broken out into its own separate category.  If we switched 100% to electric cars there would still be lots left to do.  He devotes a chapter to each category (see below).

This list is imbedded in a chapter called "Five Questions to Ask in Every Climate Conversation".  The questions are:

1. How much of the 51 billion tons are we talking about?
2. What's your plan for cement?
3. How much power are we talking about?
4. How much space do you need?
5. How much is it going to cost?

The category percentages come from his discussion of the first question.  The "cement" question is a proxy for all the hard things that need to be done.  Spoiler Alert:  Gates doesn't have a solution to the problem of how to make cement (the stuff you make bridges out of) without putting out a lot of greenhouse gas.

If we electrify cars, where does the electricity ("power") come from?  Are we just moving the problem around, say by polluting to make electricity rather than driving a gas car that pollutes?  The "how much space" question comes into play when we ask how many acres we need to cover with solar panels or how much space we need for giant farms of wind turbines.

And, in many ways, the last question is the most critical of them all while being the most obvious.  To keep things simple he calculates a "Green Premium".  If it costs $X to make something the old way then what does it cost to make the "green" alternative instead.

Ideally, we want it to cost less.  Electricity from solar or wind currently costs less than electricity made the old fashioned way.  It has a negative Green Premium.  But that is unusual.

In almost every case, it costs more to go green.  It may cost a few percent more, or it may cost 1000% more, or it may be that no one knows how to make something (i.e. cement) "the green way" at all.  Calculating a Green Premium keeps things simple when trying to make these kinds of comparisons.

In a lot of cases the solution is to replace something with electricity.  We replace a gas car with an electric one, for instance.  Because this "fix" is so common, Gates tackles item 2 (Plugging in) first.

And, as he often does, he starts with a discussion of all the people who do not have access to large quantities of electricity.  His point is that these people deserve a chance at a better life.  And, if they succeed, the world demand for electricity will climb.  We need to factor this into our plans.

Green electricity is a topic that a lot of people already know a lot about.  So, I am going to give it short shrift.  Gates is a fan of nuclear power.  So am I.  He talks about fusion power.  He is more optimistic about its prospects than I am.  He notes that batteries suck.  He sees them getting some but not a lot better.  He explores other options for storing power.  He likes Hydrogen.

He spends some time on Carbon Capture.  Compared to other options, this is relatively easy to do.  But it is currently not much done.  "Clean coal" has been talked about for decades without anybody actually pulling it off.  He thinks that "direct air capture", pulling carbon dioxide out of ordinary air, is worth exploring.  Unfortunately, he makes a good case that this vey expensive and hard to do thing may, in the end, be necessary.

On to "making things", starting with concrete.  The component of concrete that is germane to this discussion is cement.  It turns out that China has made a lot more cement (25.8 billion tons) in 2001-16 than the 4.3 billion tons the U.S. made in the entire twentieth century (1901-2000).  So, right now, the only opinion that matters is the Chinese one.

If some experimental technology that Gates talks about that I am not familiar with can be made to work, then the Green Premium on cement is only 75-140%.  If it doesn't pan out then it is higher, maybe infinity, as in there is no workable green alternative.  Even if the Gates thing works, no one is going to pay that much extra.

The (relatively) good news, is that the Green Premium for Ethylene, a typical plastic, is 9-15%.  That's something people might be willing to pay.  The Green Premium for Steel is 16-29%.  Although that's way lower than the one on cement, no one is going to be willing to pay it.  See how the "Green Premium" approach simplifies things.  The figures are estimates which might not turn out to be that accurate.  But they are accurate enough to tell us where we stand.

On to the subject of "growing things".  We will need lots more food to better feed the world's poor.  We will need still more to feed all the additional people who will be around in 2100.  Ehrlich, in his 1968 book The Population Bomb, famously predicted that mass starvation would happen in the near future due to population growth.  It didn't happen.  Instead the "Green Revolution" happened.  The name is shorthand for a bunch of innovations that made it possible to grow a lot more food.

Innovation saved us once.  It can do it again.  Lots more innovation in agriculture (and in many other things) is possible.  Still, Gates advocates moving from meat based food to plant based food.  A cow has to eat a lot of feed (plants) to produce a pound of hamburger.  But, since we all like a good burger once in a while, he advocates for various kinds of fake meat or lab grown meat.  The idea is that these alternatives will give us the "meat" experience while substantially reducing the number of pounds of feed required.

Whatever we do, we will need a lot of fertilizer.  This is another place where we can substitute electricity for fossil fuels.  But that means producing lots more electricity.  And there is a Green Premium of 20% or more that needs to be allowed for.  And there are other problems when it comes to growing things.  There is, for instance, the "fart" problem.  Finally, he goes into the plusses and minuses of planting lots of trees.

On to "how we get around".  Which has more energy, a gallon of gas or a stick of dynamite?  It turns out that its not even close.  There is as much energy in the gas as there is in 130 sticks of dynamite.  Now you know why petroleum products are used everywhere in transportation.

Cars emit 47% of the transportation total.  Trucks, buses, etc. (but not pickup trucks - they get lumped in with cars) emit another 30%.  Planes and ships each amount to anther 10%.  And we have to fix it all.

Cars are pretty easy to electrify.  Not so for the rest of them.  Batteries suck.  Pound for pound, gas contains 35 times as much energy as the best lithium-ion battery.  A heavy truck with a range of 900 miles, less than the range of a standard diesel powered 18-wheeler, would be all battery and no cargo.  It's way worse for planes.

The situation for ocean going cargo ships is worse than it is for 18 wheelers but better than it is for airplanes.  Gates does not discussing adding sails to cargo ships.  They are not a complete substitute even though there were cargo ships that only used sails as late as 1910.  But there are now practical, high tech ways to use sails to supplement traditional engine power.  Such designs would effectively decrease fuel consumption.

Warming (furnace) and cooling (air conditioning) is an interesting subject.  Cutting to the chase, Gates recommends switching homes and offices to heat pumps.  A good idea, I say.  He gets into how failing to update regulations, in this case building codes, in a timely manner inhibits progress here.  Notice that he is not arguing for getting rid of them.  He wants to instead change them so that they encourage needed change rather than discouraging it.

He devotes a whole chapter to adaptation.  If we went to zero emissions today there is already a considerable amount of Global Warming baked in.  Since, at best it will take us a long time, he thinks we can get there by 2050, we will see a lot of warming no matter what we do or don't do.  We need to figure out how to live with it.

There is a lot that can be done on the agriculture front.  And a lot of people are working on it.  And they are having considerable success.  More generally Gates makes the following recommendations:

• Help farmers manage the risk from more chaotic weather.
• Focus on the most vulnerable people.
• Factor Climate Change into policy decisions.
• Cities need to change the way they grow.
• We should shore up our natural defenses.
• We're going to need more drinking water than we can supply.
• Finally, to fund adaptation projects, we need to unlock new money.

On to "Why government policies matter".  He first makes he case for why they matter.  Then he makes the case for why good policies can be very helpful.  Then he drills down to specific areas and makes recommendations.  Here's his list of general recommendations:

1. Mind the investment gap.
2. Level the playing field.
3. Overcome nonmarket barriers.
4. Stay up to date.
5. Plan for a Just Transition.
6. Do the Hard Stuff Too.
7. Work on Technology, Policy, and Markets at the Same Time.

It may be hard to figure out what he is getting at by just looking at the recommendation.   Trust me when I say that they all make sense.  But I am going to direct you to the book for any necessary clarification.

In his chapter "A Plan for Getting to Zero" he does a far better job than Gore did.  He has something to say about:

• Innovation and the Law of Supply and Demand.
• Expanding the Supply of Innovation.
• Accelerating the Demand of Innovation.
• Who's on First?
• Federal Government.
• State Governments.
• Local Governments.

He follows this with a whole chapter called "What Each of Us Can Do".  He then finished the book with a small afterward called "Climate Change and COVID-19".

I give him tremendous credit for completely covering the subject.  Is a lot of it a shallow dive?  Yes!  But there is something on everything.  So, it is particularly good as a starting point.  It also provides the context necessary to fit a deep dive on any specific subject into the broader context.  That is an extremely valuable contribution.

He also gives an accurate picture of the state of the art in all areas.  That too is very valuable.  Unfortunately, the state of the art is a long ways away from where it needs to be if we are going to succeed in achieving his goal.

His general plan is to get everything in place by 2030.  If we then execute the plan well for twenty years, then we will get to where we need to be in 2050.  I find that completely unrealistic.  We'll be lucky to pull off everything we need to do by 2100.

And that's if people aren't throwing unnecessary and unreasonable roadblocks in the way.  But they are.  To paraphrase what Churchill might say at this point, we have now been at war or a while and things are still going badly.

But there is reason to believe that the tide will eventually turn.  That is as optimistic as I can get.  Fortunately, there is Gates.  Over and over he proves that he truly is an optimist.  We need optimists if we are ever going to beat this thing.