I'm starting to have a negative reaction to statements like this one: "Invest aggressively in a broad range of technologies, including wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, storage, transmission, and lots more to fuel innovation and drive costs down."
Why should we invest in wind and solar, especially at taxpayer expense, when they're making our grid more and more vulnerable and raising the cost of electricity? These industries are less efficient than gas or nuclear, so why not invest in what works best? By the way, why are wind and solar said to be clean? By now, everyone knows the truth about mining for the needed minerals and all the emissions from producing, transporting, installing, and maintaining wind turbines and solar plantations.
We subsidize fossil fuels. If we want to end wind and solar subsides then we need to end the fossil fuel ones as well. I don't believe we will ever be able to run our economy on wind and solar only, nuclear, geothermal and hydrogen will be essential as well. However wind and solar are energy sources that could create jobs and allow other parts of the country(mainly the Midwest and southwest) to become energy suppliers. Ultimately put everything on a even playing field and let the market decide.
I agree that we also subsidize fossil fuels, although to a much lesser extent. Also, subsidizing fossil fuels isn’t bad - because they are efficient. Subsidizing wind and solar is throwing money down a rathole, encouraging extremely expensive, inefficient methods of power production, while at the same time making our power grids less reliable and making electric bills sky high.
However, I’d love to see a totally level playing field by removing ALL government subsidies - letting the best power production methods compete in the open market.
I'm broadly sympathetic but I feel it's really important to specify who exactly you mean. If the question is what should the US government do with it's relatively tiny foreign aid budget, I agree. If it's about what a climate charity should fund I don't think it's that simple.
I mean, if the question was just what is the best use of money what climate advocacy groups should just take all their money and hand it over to givewell to maximize utility per dollar. But that's not the only consideration. If they did that the donations for these groups would dry up (after all they didn't donate to givewell).
Ultimately, most people donate money because it makes them feel good and as an unfortunate matter of psychological reality people have strong purity intuitions. People don't like to feel they've touched something dirty or morally dubious. The people who would look at the cost benefit analysis and approve of funding fossil fuel projects with their climate donations are probably sending their money to givewell anyway not climate groups. So I fear that taking your advice just means less money gets donated not that it gets used better.
I'm starting to have a negative reaction to statements like this one: "Invest aggressively in a broad range of technologies, including wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, storage, transmission, and lots more to fuel innovation and drive costs down."
Why should we invest in wind and solar, especially at taxpayer expense, when they're making our grid more and more vulnerable and raising the cost of electricity? These industries are less efficient than gas or nuclear, so why not invest in what works best? By the way, why are wind and solar said to be clean? By now, everyone knows the truth about mining for the needed minerals and all the emissions from producing, transporting, installing, and maintaining wind turbines and solar plantations.
We subsidize fossil fuels. If we want to end wind and solar subsides then we need to end the fossil fuel ones as well. I don't believe we will ever be able to run our economy on wind and solar only, nuclear, geothermal and hydrogen will be essential as well. However wind and solar are energy sources that could create jobs and allow other parts of the country(mainly the Midwest and southwest) to become energy suppliers. Ultimately put everything on a even playing field and let the market decide.
I agree that we also subsidize fossil fuels, although to a much lesser extent. Also, subsidizing fossil fuels isn’t bad - because they are efficient. Subsidizing wind and solar is throwing money down a rathole, encouraging extremely expensive, inefficient methods of power production, while at the same time making our power grids less reliable and making electric bills sky high.
However, I’d love to see a totally level playing field by removing ALL government subsidies - letting the best power production methods compete in the open market.
I'm broadly sympathetic but I feel it's really important to specify who exactly you mean. If the question is what should the US government do with it's relatively tiny foreign aid budget, I agree. If it's about what a climate charity should fund I don't think it's that simple.
I mean, if the question was just what is the best use of money what climate advocacy groups should just take all their money and hand it over to givewell to maximize utility per dollar. But that's not the only consideration. If they did that the donations for these groups would dry up (after all they didn't donate to givewell).
Ultimately, most people donate money because it makes them feel good and as an unfortunate matter of psychological reality people have strong purity intuitions. People don't like to feel they've touched something dirty or morally dubious. The people who would look at the cost benefit analysis and approve of funding fossil fuel projects with their climate donations are probably sending their money to givewell anyway not climate groups. So I fear that taking your advice just means less money gets donated not that it gets used better.
Thanks. Mostly agree. I was referring to the big philanthropists who shape policy more than individual donors.
Definitely agree on Give Directly!
Thanks for continuing to make these points, Todd.