As the Breakthrough Institute has pointed out, we didn’t promote the digital revolution by taxing slide rules or restricting the supply of typewriters. We did it by investing massively in R&D. We could—and should—do the same with green energy technology. As we point out in “Cool It,” devoting roughly $100 billion a year to green energy R&D would likely produce the kind of game-changing breakthroughs needed to fuel a carbon-free future. Not only would this be a much less expensive fix than trying to cut carbon emissions directly, it would also reduce global warming far more quickly.
There is one potential problem with this scenario – what if “green” energy sources can’t be made much more efficient than current state of the art? Simply devoting to research doesn’t mean that a solution can be found. How much has been spent on the war on cancer? A lot. And although weve had considerable gains in treatment we still haven’t really solved the problem of cancer. There’s no reason that research into “green” energy efficieny will be any more productive.
Ambiance 
amba12 said,
November 7, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Oh, my foundation friend in St. Louis had me reading Björn Lomborg and the COpenhagen Consensus a few years ago. Cool, counterintuitive guy.
Icepick said,
November 8, 2010 at 3:56 pm
As the Breakthrough Institute has pointed out, we didn’t promote the digital revolution by taxing slide rules or restricting the supply of typewriters. We did it by investing massively in R&D. We could—and should—do the same with green energy technology. As we point out in “Cool It,” devoting roughly $100 billion a year to green energy R&D would likely produce the kind of game-changing breakthroughs needed to fuel a carbon-free future. Not only would this be a much less expensive fix than trying to cut carbon emissions directly, it would also reduce global warming far more quickly.
There is one potential problem with this scenario – what if “green” energy sources can’t be made much more efficient than current state of the art? Simply devoting to research doesn’t mean that a solution can be found. How much has been spent on the war on cancer? A lot. And although weve had considerable gains in treatment we still haven’t really solved the problem of cancer. There’s no reason that research into “green” energy efficieny will be any more productive.