Making the Concrete and Steel We Need Doesn’t Have to Bake the Planet

There are cleaner ways to produce the building blocks of the nation.

Op-ed by Rebecca Dell, The New York Times, March 4, 2021

You’ve probably spent a lot of time over the past year looking out the window while staying clear of the pandemic. If you’re a city dweller like me, no doubt you see mostly concrete, steel and maybe sky.

Roads and sidewalks, apartments and office buildings, overpasses and embankments, cars and buses, streetlights and even statues — they’re all made of concrete and steel. And there’s even more of it out of sight, in sewer mains, electricity transmission lines, foundations, ducts and girders.

It’s the stuff of modern life, and we use it in astonishing quantities. Last year, around the world, nearly two billion tons of steel was produced — more than 500 pounds for every person on earth. And at least 30 billion tons of concrete, or nearly 9,000 pounds for each of us. The scale can be hard to believe, until you look at a runway or a suspension bridge and contemplate what was required to build it.

But all the comfort, security and convenience provided by things made of steel and concrete comes at a cost. Making steel and cement — the main ingredient in concrete — generates about 15 percent of all global emissions of carbon dioxide, the gas most responsible for the climate crisis. In the United States, industrial sources like steel mills and cement kilns are also the leading source of some of the most damaging types of air pollution. We can’t solve climate or pollution problems if we don’t clean up these industries.


This is particularly urgent. In the coming years and decades, the United States will need a lot more steel and concrete. Roads are crumbling, mass transit is unavailable, many communities still don’t have access to high-speed internet, drinking water is contaminated, and a nasty winter storm left millions of Texans without power. Climate change is only going to increase the need for infrastructure, from wind turbines to flood control systems.

Last month, in an Oval Office meeting to discuss infrastructure and workers’ rights with the leaders of major unions, President Biden noted that the United States ranks “like 38th in the world in terms of infrastructure, everything from canals to highways to airports.” On Wednesday, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave American infrastructure a grade of C-, warning of “significant deficiencies.”

Both political parties want to turn that around.

But a single major infrastructure investment from Congress could increase U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 200 million tons, or almost 4 percent of national annual emissions. For comparison, in the decade before 2019, the United States managed to decrease annual emissions by only some 220 million tons. We can’t afford to build in a way that emits huge amounts of climate-changing gases, adding to the climate problem at the same time we’re trying to fix it.

Fortunately, we don’t have to. Most infrastructure is paid for with tax dollars, so the public can insist that we build it in a cleaner way. This is the idea behind the Buy Clean campaign, an effort by a growing number of governments and corporations to change the way products are made by demanding low-carbon production and supply chains for what they purchase. This will hardly affect the cost to taxpayers, because steel and cement are a very small portion of the total cost of projects. For example, the eastern span of the bridge between San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., that was finished in 2013 cost California taxpayers more than $6 billion, but less than $25 million of that — less than one half of 1 percent of the cost — was spent on cement.

States are starting to experiment with this approach. California has a policy that sets a maximum level of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of material for some building materials. Lawmakers in New York and New Jersey are considering a plan that would award a credit to contractors for public construction projects that use cement and concrete produced with low greenhouse gas emissions.

There are things we can do to reduce emissions immediately. Concrete mixes are available that are just as strong but have less of the ingredients that emit the most carbon dioxide. Multiple studies have found that this could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent or more. These recipes are already in wide use in Europe and elsewhere. We could use electricity from renewable sources to make recycled steel, like a steel mill in Colorado, to reduce emissions from steel production by a similar amount.

Those 20 percent reductions are very valuable and we should get moving on them right away, but they’re not going to get us to the long-term climate goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. That’s why the country needs to make serious investments in the many new ideas for making steel and concrete with zero emissions, to create incentives to buy them and to invest in the workers and communities that produce them.

Meeting the nation’s climate goals doesn’t have to be a burden on American manufacturing — it can make our products and technology more competitive around the world. Smart climate standards can create new manufacturing and construction jobs and with them new ladders to the middle class.

Infrastructure investment is one of the few things both political parties agree on. But how we build affects how we breathe and what kind of climate we have to live in. Most people don’t notice the steel and concrete around them, and they don’t see how it’s changing the climate. We need to recognize the problem and then recognize our power to fix it.

Dr. Dell is the director the industry program at the ClimateWorks Foundation, which works with philanthropies to slow climate change. She worked at the Department of Energy in the Obama administration.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/04/opinion/climate-change-infrastructure.html?referringSource=articleShare

Oil Trade Group Considers Endorsing Carbon Pricing

Day by day, the business community is coming around. The Business Roundtable, the Chamber of Commerce, and now even API recognize that climate action is inevitable and pricing is the most efficient approach.

Draft American Petroleum Institute statement says carbon pricing would help meet Paris accord

By Ted Mann & Timothy Puko, The Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2021

WASHINGTON—The oil industry’s top lobbying group is preparing to endorse setting a price on carbon emissions in what would be the strongest signal yet that oil and gas producers are ready to accept government efforts to confront climate change.

The American Petroleum Institute, one of the most powerful trade associations in Washington, is poised to embrace putting a price on carbon emissions as a policy that would “lead to the most economic paths to achieve the ambitions of the Paris Agreement,” according to a draft statement reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

“API supports economy-wide carbon pricing as the primary government climate policy instrument to reduce CO2 emissions while helping keep energy affordable, instead of mandates or prescriptive regulatory action,” the draft statement says.

API’s executive committee was slated to discuss the proposed statement this week. In a statement to the Journal, API’s senior vice president of communications, Megan Bloomgren, said the group’s efforts “are focused on supporting a new U.S. contribution to the global Paris agreement.”

Carbon pricing aims to discourage the production of harmful greenhouse gases by setting a price on emissions. The API draft statement would endorse the concept in principle, without backing a specific pricing scheme such as a carbon tax.

An endorsement of carbon pricing by the oil industry’s most important trade group would underscore the changing politics of climate change, as major business groups acknowledge the dangers posed by greenhouse gases and adjust to a new reality in Washington. Another major business group, the Business Roundtable, endorsed carbon pricing last year.

President Biden campaigned on treating climate change as a crisis, and since he ascended to power with Democrats controlling Congress, too, several major trade groups have announced support for new climate initiatives.

API was one of the fiercest opponents just more than a decade ago when Congress last considered major legislation on the issue, a plan to have emitters pay and trade for their contributions to climate change. Now it is just the latest of several to support similar plans to put a price on or tax emissions, following an announcement from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in January.

The institute’s draft statement stops short of explicitly endorsing a tax on carbon dioxide emissions or other specific pricing framework, and stops short of the language of environmental activists who argue the world must transition away from fossil fuel power sources altogether.

But it does continue a reversal that has accelerated since Mr. Biden’s victory. In recent weeks, API has backtracked on past opposition to direct federal regulation of the oil-and-gas industry’s emissions. And it is emphasizing that the industry can play a role in helping the world address climate change. That has included laying groundwork publicly to support some form of price on carbon emissions.

In its annual State of American Energy report from January, it listed “market based government policies” to reduce emissions across the economy as a policy that would support progress. The Washington Examiner reported it was the first time this report included such language.

“The risks of climate change are real,” API’s annual report said. “Market-based policies can foster meaningful emissions reductions across the economy at the lowest societal cost. An example can be carbon pricing—balancing reducing GHGs with flexibility and pacing to keep energy affordable.”

Internally, many API members staunchly oppose endorsing a carbon tax or imposing standards for the use of renewable energy, according to one person familiar with the internal discussions who described them as “heated.” The organization had similar internal conflicts over its position on methane-emissions regulations, which the Trump administration had moved to undo at the request of independent producers.

These fights over climate change have increased the pressure on API from within. While many of the smaller and U.S. based companies in its membership want it to press for traditional values -- lower government regulation and more access to federal lands -- some of the majors, especially those based in Europe, have been pushing the organization to accept an ongoing transition to cleaner fuels, one often fed by government intervention.

Just two days after the annual report was released, Total SA announced it was leaving the organization, saying API wasn’t fully aligned with it on climate change. The French oil giant has been pushing to transform its company into producing and selling renewable power and pointed directly to API’s past opposition to carbon pricing and U.S. regulation on methane emissions in its decision.

“The (company) acknowledges the API’s considerable contribution, for over a century, to the development of our industry,” the chief executive Patrick Pouyanné said in a statement at the time. “Nevertheless, as part of our Climate Ambition…we are committed to ensuring, in a transparent manner, that the industry associations of which we are a member adopt positions and messages that are aligned with those of the (company) in the fight against climate change.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-trade-group-considers-endorsing-carbon-pricing-11614640681?mod=searchresults_pos1&page=1

The Prius of airplanes

By Joann Muller, Axios, Feb. 19, 2021

Hybrid-electric aircraft will soon kick off a new era of cleaner air travel, just as the pioneering Toyota Prius heralded the start of the electric car movement 20 years ago.

Why it matters: Replacing small regional planes that run on fossil fuels with hybrid or electric aircraft would help reduce climate-damaging CO2 emissions. It could also make air travel easier and cheaper for people living in smaller cities not served by major airlines.

The big picture: CO2 emissions from aviation have risen rapidly over the past two decades, reaching about 2.8% of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion, according to the International Energy Agency.

  • And with passenger air travel growing at about 5% a year — except during the pandemic — airlines have been scrambling to lower their carbon footprint.

State of play: Fully electric planes, while promising, are limited by available battery technology.

  • Batteries cost less and pack more energy into a smaller package than they did a decade ago, but they're still too heavy to allow planes to fly long distances or carry heavy loads.

  • They do work, however, in low-flying air taxis for short runs across a city or to the airport.

  • These new electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) aircraft are getting a lot of attention on Wall Street, but they won't be widely available until around 2035, according to a Deloitte analysis.

Yes, but: For medium distances of 50 to 500 miles — the city-hopping routes ignored by hub-and-spoke airlines — hybrids offer a practical solution that can be ready in just a few years.

  • UBS, the Swiss investment bank, forecasts a $178 billion market for hybrid-electric aircraft.

Driving the news: Surf Air Mobility, a regional air travel service, said this week it would acquire Ampaire, a developer of hybrid electric powertrains for aviation.

  • Surf Air co-founder and CEO Sudhin Shahani called Ampaire's technology a step toward "the next great shift in air travel: sustainable aviation that's accessible to everyone."

  • For now, the company's plan is to upgrade existing turboprop aircraft with Ampaire's hybrid technology on short, regional routes while the industry works toward fully electric aviation for all trips.

How it works: Upgrading today’s aircraft for electric power is a relatively low-cost, low-risk path to aircraft certification, says Ampaire CEO Kevin Noertker.

  • Its "Electric EEL," for example, is a retrofitted Cessna plane, with an electric motor in the nose and a traditional combustion engine in the rear.

  • Both systems provide thrust, but in the air, the engine is mostly used to recharge the 50 kWh battery stored under the fuselage.

  • In October, the EEL completed a 341-mile test flight between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

  • Ampaire also partnered with Hawaii-based Mokulele Airlines on a series of test runs between the islands’ small airports with mock payloads.

What they're saying: "It is a very long time — well over a decade, maybe two — before your large trans-continental planes are electric," says veteran aviation executive Fred Reid, now president of Surf Air Mobility.

  • "The beauty of a hybrid is that they're already flying. You can save 25 to 30 percent on operating costs and it makes a dent on the environmental problem."

  • "We could upgrade 20-30,000 planes, and give them a shelf life for another 20 years."

https://www.axios.com/airplanes-hybrid-electric-future-5a8cd60e-e65e-4eac-b33a-6e667173a855.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top

Bill Gates Has A Master Plan for Battling Climate Change

The co-founder of Microsoft became obsessed with developing clean tech through his philanthropic work. With a new book, ‘How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,’ and a cadre of billionaire partners, he now has an action plan for ending the world’s carbon dependency.

By Christina Binkley, Wall Street Journal Magazine, Feb. 15, 2021

Note from Partnership for Responsible Growth: These technologies become feasible when a growing price on carbon makes them competitive.

A day before the inauguration, as Lady Gaga rehearsed “The Star-Spangled Banner” in Washington, D.C., wildfires burned in Sonoma, Santa Cruz and Ventura counties in California, shocking climatologists who had never witnessed the state’s fire season extend into January. NASA had just announced that 2020 tied with 2016 for the warmest year on record. As the Covid-19 pandemic drove city dwellers to search for places that felt surer, safer—Vermont, Kansas, Idaho—the FBI began arresting Americans who had rioted in the U.S. Capitol. Online sales of “prepper” gear (gas masks, food preservation kits) were brisk.

Bill Gates was at his lakeside compound in Seattle, gearing up for his next effort to save the planet from mass extinction. For 20 years, Gates has been studying the twin global afflictions of disease and poverty. These efforts led him to consider climate change and its vexing impact on civilization. This month, Knopf will publish his latest book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. Remarkably, given the state of the world, it is an optimistic, can-do sort of book, chock-full of solutions for a problem President Jimmy Carter began warning about in 1977.

Last month’s inauguration of President Joe Biden had a big influence on Gates’s outlook. An earlier draft of the book included measures for a second Donald Trump term. In November, after the election, he edited these parts out, including provisions for how U.S. state and foreign governments could account for an absence of federal support. Another Trump win, Gates says, would have left us “holding our breath for four years and trying not to turn blue.”

“I hope Joe Biden stays healthy,” he had told me during our first virtual interview in December, while seated in a glass-walled conference room at Gates Ventures known as the fishbowl, where he has been taking meetings and relying on the Microsoft Teams platform during the pandemic.

Seattle’s Lake Washington glints over his shoulder, where far below a distant motorboat leaves a wake as Gates slips into his preferred posture, slouched with an ankle across a knee in an ergonomic conference-room chair. Gates, who is 65, has already confronted intractable problems, from trying to eradicate polio to epic rivalries with Steve Jobs and Google. The co-founder of Microsoft also sounded the alarm early about the need to prepare for a global pandemic. Climate change is yet another challenge Gates has served onto his own plate.

Although he has confidence in our collective ability to avoid the earth’s descent into a landscape of scorched rainforests and liquefying glaciers, his prescription is daunting: The planet must reduce the amount of greenhouse emissions being pumped into the atmosphere, currently about 51 billion tons per year, to zero by 2050. Nothing less, he says, will prevent a catastrophe, and he is calling for a full-scale technological revolution to make it happen.

“This is, you know, a harder problem than even ending the pandemic or getting rid of malaria,” Gates says. But the good thing, he adds, is that we have “all these idealistic people who are really pushing the cause forward, so 10 years from now they can see concrete metrics of the right progress, which is not just the low-hanging fruit.”

The crux of his argument is that, as helpful as innovations like electric cars, solar panels, lithium-ion batteries and plant-based burgers are to the effort, they don’t go far enough. There isn’t enough land on earth to plant enough trees to offset our carbon dependency. “The key point in my book is that a serious climate plan—which we don’t have yet—involves counting in your head all the different sources of emissions,” Gates says. This reckoning has to go beyond agriculture and electricity to encompass all carbon-spewing processes (transportation; concrete and steel production) so that we can develop green alternatives. So, for example, Gates believes we must invent green steel.

During an interview from the fishbowl a few days after the Capitol riot on January 6—a day he spent glued to the television even as the congressional vote counting continued well into the night—Gates says we are already on the cusp of a revolution. Climate change, he notes, went nearly unmentioned in the 2016 presidential debates. By the 2020 primaries, after Greta Thunberg had chastised Boomers for fiddling as frog and bee populations collapsed, Democrats were fighting over who would spend the most to fix the problem. “We got innovation on the climate agenda,” Gates says. The next United Nations Climate Change Conference is coming this November in Scotland. “In Glasgow, we’ll do even better.”

Gates gave a TED Talk about climate change in 2010. It hasn’t received as much attention as his pandemic-warning talk, but it marks the point when he grasped that greenhouse gases were hampering the philanthropic goals of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In the early naughts, he was traveling frequently to sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia to study child mortality, HIV and other problems. Traveling in Lagos, Nigeria, one night, he recounts in his book, he wondered at the city’s relative darkness and many unlit homes. Gates recognized a form of impoverishment that he hadn’t considered—energy poverty.

Globally, per-capita income rises with national energy use, meaning that cheap energy is critical to reducing poverty. “It’s hard to be productive if you don’t have lights to read by,” Gates writes in How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. He cites the influence of Canadian scientist Vaclav Smil, who helped him understand how energy shapes civilizations. Gates has written that he looks forward to Smil’s books, which are dense with statistics, with the same gleeful anticipation fans have for a new Star Wars movie.

By 2006, the year An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s groundbreaking documentary about global warming, came out, Gates had invested in energy development. So-called clean tech had become trendy, with more than $25 billion pouring into solar power, battery companies and other new technologies from 2006 to 2011. Gates went all in, even investing in nuclear energy, which, unlike solar and wind, provides a constant, not intermittent, power source.

Clean-tech venture markets crashed in 2011. Fracking had cut the cost of natural gas, depressing demand for green alternatives. One heavily hyped solar-panel startup, Solyndra, illustrates the complexity of funding energy innovation. Solyndra’s thin-film solar cells, a promising technology subsidized with $535 million in federal loan guarantees, proved too expensive to compete with government-subsidized imports from China. The company went bankrupt in 2011, leaving taxpayers ultimately on the hook for the loan.

An analysis by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates that venture investors lost more than half of their money on Cleantech 1.0. Gates is unfazed by such losses. He says he has personally invested $2 billion in climate change innovation so far and expects to invest another $2 billion over the next five years. “I’m only going to lose money on this stuff,” he says, shrugging. “But that’s not in short supply.”

Gates’s current thinking about climate innovation galvanized in June 2015. While attending meetings in London, he was probed by an editor at the Financial Times about the lack of pioneering research into clean-energy solutions. The exchange bugged him. During a meeting the next afternoon in a suite at the Four Seasons Hotel on Park Lane, he began pacing and mumbling, according to two people who were with him at the time, Larry Cohen, head of Gates’s private office, Gates Ventures, and Jonah Goldman, who runs Gates’s policy and advocacy, including climate efforts. “It’s just not enough of a focus, and the wrong people are organizing this,” Gates muttered.

As his group left the hotel and climbed into a black Mercedes van to head to another meeting, Gates and his team concocted a plan to vastly increase the amount of public and private money going toward energy innovation. By the time he emerged on the other side of London, Gates had decided to create a venture capital fund and to organize government leaders to invest billions of dollars in climate technology. “We could call it Breakthrough Energy,” Gates later posited.

“That was not what we expected when we landed in London,” says Goldman.

The speed of what followed reflects the magnitude of Gates’s reach. He pitched then–French president François Hollande the next day in Paris at the Élysée Palace. In September, he crashed a United Nations meeting between Hollande and India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, to pitch the leader of one of the world’s biggest carbon producers. Modi, enthusiastic about the idea, proposed his own name for the coalition, Mission Innovation, which Gates accepted.

In Seattle, Gates’s team began to structure the $1 billion venture fund. When Gates laid out the plan to Rodi Guidero, managing director for strategic investments at Gates Ventures (who now oversees Breakthrough Energy Ventures), Guidero blurted, “That’s a terrible f—ing idea.” He argued the fund would lose money and embarrass Gates.

“Why do you think I care about that?” Gates replied.

(In retelling the story, Guidero now says, “I can’t believe I said a thing like that to Bill Gates.” Gates says he doesn’t remember the exchange.)

Gates’s team established unusual criteria for the fund. Any venture must feasibly eliminate a minimum of 500 million tons of greenhouse gases annually, with an investment horizon of at least 20 years, rather than the standard 10. That meant older participants might not live to see a payout.

“In another 20 years, you’re not going to be wondering if you got a return,” says Larry Cohen. “You’re wondering if there’s going to be a planet left for your great-grandchildren.”

Breakthrough Energy Ventures spurned institutional investors. “It’s easier to make these decisions when you don’t have to justify your lower investment returns to your boss,” says John Arnold, a Houston-based billionaire and former energy trader who invested in the fund and joined as co-chair.

In the fall of 2015, Gates emailed a global cadre of billionaires who could afford to lose tens of millions investing in Breakthrough Energy Ventures. They included Jack Ma, Jeff Bezos, Vinod Khosla and Prince al-Waleed bin Talal.

It turned out to be an appealing club to join, and a model of global billionaire diversity (although female members are scarce). Other investors include Michael Bloomberg, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son, South African mining businessman Patrice Motsepe, Mukesh Ambani (India’s wealthiest person), Richard Branson, Bridgewater hedge-fund founder Ray Dalio and Beijing real-estate developers Zhang Xin and Pan Shiyi.

John Doerr, the legendary venture capitalist at Kleiner Perkins who made early bets on Netscape, Amazon and Google, says the $50 million he put into the venture was his biggest-ever personal investment at the time. “The idea that we would gather entrepreneurs and business leaders from around the globe...I found exciting,” Doerr says. “I think it’s one of the most remarkable pieces of fundraising I’ve ever witnessed.”

Doerr is a believer. He says the climate crisis is the next big investment opportunity. “This is the mother of all markets,” he says.

“It was stunning to me how easy it was to raise the money,” Gates says.

In November 2015, just five months after the London van ride, Gates stood sandwiched between U.S. President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the only private citizen onstage at the launch event for Mission Innovation at the Paris climate summit.

Gates looked sheepish in group photos, having been stranded for about an hour in an awkward situation for an introvert. “Our press conference was delayed because [Modi] and Obama were talking one-on-one,” Gates recalls. “And so I’m standing there with all these other leaders of all these other countries waiting for Obama and Modi to come.”

At last Gates arrived at center stage, wearing a dark suit and a too-short blue tie, to announce his initiative: Twenty-eight billionaires had opted in, and 20 countries had committed to double clean-energy R&D spending in an effort to curb climate change.

Last year’s global average temperature was 1.84 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the baseline 1951 to 1980 mean, according to NASA. Melting permafrost has spit out human cadavers and a woolly mammoth that had been locked in the frozen earth for more than 40,000 years. Residents of Tuvalu, an island nation in the South Pacific, are jockeying for space as their archipelago is swallowed by rising seas.

How much will it cost to halt this trajectory? Gates employs simple formulas. Removing carbon from the atmosphere, for example, currently costs at least $200 a ton, and he thinks it’s possible to quickly get that down to $100 per ton. To remove 51 billion tons of emissions per year at $100 per ton would require spending $5.1 trillion per year, or 6 percent of the world’s GDP. Which is much cheaper, Gates points out, than shutting down whole sectors of economies, as has happened during the pandemic.

What’s more, there is a precedent for this sort of radical innovation on the part of the government. In 1973, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, also known as DARPA, began a program to network computers called the Internetting project. By 1986, the National Science Foundation had launched the backbone of what would become the Internet, a system capable of carrying large volumes of information across its networks. NASA and the Department of Energy contributed. Europe joined, and eventually so did commercial and private network providers, followed by several generations of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, many of them the same people now putting their Internet-derived riches into climate innovation. Gates suggests the same approach can work for climate change research and development. But, he argues, we no longer have decades to make it happen.

Gates proposed in December that the U.S. create a National Institutes of Energy Innovation, and fund it along the lines of the existing National Institutes of Health, which is the largest biomedical research agency in the world, with an annual budget of more than $40 billion. The NIEI should focus on research fields such as low-carbon fuels, energy storage and renewables, he says.

How to Avoid a Climate Disaster presents ideas with the methodical approach of a college textbook. In addressing how current solutions fall short, Gates puts forward some tree-planting arithmetic on page 129:

“[T]he math suggests you’d need somewhere around 50 acres worth of trees, planted in tropical areas, to absorb the emissions produced by an average American in her lifetime. Multiply that by the population of the United States and you get more than 16 billion acres, or 25 million square miles, roughly half the landmass of the world.” An intervention of this scale would be enough to cover only the United States. (Gates nonetheless buys carbon offsets for his own footprint, paying, he says, $400 per ton—more than 40 times the price of typical offsets.)

Gates is a believer in free markets, and one of the key concepts in How to Avoid a Climate Disaster is based on Keynesian economics. He proposes using a measure that he calls the “green premium” to understand how a zero-carbon technology can replace its carbon-spewing analog. The green premium specifies how much more that new technology costs. For instance, in his book Gates writes that green aviation biofuel is sold at an average cost of $5.35 per gallon. This amounts to a green premium of more than 140 percent over standard jet fuel, at an average of $2.22 per gallon.

Gates wants the world to jump-start zero-carbon technologies, which face far greater hurdles than developing new software. “You bootstrap those markets to get the scale, to get the green premium...down enough so that by 2050...you can say to [India] with a straight face: Buy clean steel,” Gates says.

In practice, this means governments stepping up with tax credits, loan guarantees and other supports. But Gates believes investors must play their role. He recently raised a second $1 billion Breakthrough Energy Ventures fund, largely with the same group as the first round. Investments will be guided by Breakthrough Energy’s in-house team of scientists and entrepreneurs, with two investment heads— Carmichael Roberts, a chemist and entrepreneur, and Eric Toone, also a chemist—deciding where to place bets and then acting as cheerleaders and mentors. “Everybody inside BEV is a company builder,” says Roberts.

Ramya Swaminathan is chief executive of the BEV-backed Malta, a battery company that emerged from X, Alphabet’s “moonshot factory.” After a setback involving another potential investor, she called Roberts. “Carmichael said something I’ve never heard from an investor before,” Swaminathan says. “ ‘Here’s how we failed.’ It seems subtle, the inclusion: we.”

A Breakthrough investment, an electric-car battery company called QuantumScape, already appears promising. Also backed by Volkswagen, it went public last fall. Its stock yo-yoed from $23.50 to more than $130 a share before leveling off around $50 in January.

Gates is particularly fond of TerraPower, a Bellevue, Washington–based developer of safer nuclear energy that Gates co-founded in 2008, with an investment that reports estimated at the time as more than $500 million. Gates, who declined to confirm the size of his initial investment, does not share most of the world’s terror of nuclear technology.

“Nobody’s gone back and done a complete redesign of a nuclear energy plant since those early days of the ’50s,” Gates says. “So the question is, in the digital age, can you build a nuclear reactor whose economics, safety potential and waste output are utterly different than the current generation of nuclear? You really have to start from scratch.”

TerraPower’s approach, designed after Gates paid for supercomputer modeling, stores heat in tanks of molten salt. Without high pressure, the technology will eventually be able to run on spent fuel rods, so that existing stockpiles of nuclear waste are reduced as they are recycled.

“Can nuclear be super safe?” Gates asks. “I say yes.”

After 10 years of developing a prototype, TerraPower was on the verge of building a demonstration plant in China in 2018, when the Trump administration pulled the plug amid rising tensions with the country. Chris Levesque, TerraPower’s chief executive, recalls taking the call from the U.S. Department of Energy in his office, his general counsel at his side. “It was October 11, 2018,” he says, the date fixed in his memory. “It was devastating…. It [was] really almost like the grieving process—first it’s disbelief, then it’s acceptance.”

Levesque faced what venture capitalists call the second valley of death—a low point when startups are likely to fail. While his nuclear-industry colleagues and employees wondered if TerraPower was done for, Gates stepped in. He turned to Capitol Hill. Six weeks after the China deal was rescinded, TerraPower pivoted to a plan to construct a prototype reactor on U.S. soil, with Gates later promising to contribute at least half the cost. The plant was funded by Congress last October and is one of two new nuclear reactors approved, each awarded $80 million in funding. Gates has committed to invest another $500 million in TerraPower, which Levesque expects will start generating energy in seven years. “We’ll push forward,” Gates says. “It takes kind of a long-term thinker.”

As a teenage prodigy in the 1970s, Gates wrote computer code to schedule classes for the student body of his Seattle high school (and later admitted that he hacked the system so that he could place himself in all-girls’ classes). After dropping out of Harvard to co-found Microsoft, he conceded in a 2016 interview he could be a nightmarish boss, memorizing employee license plates to keep tabs on who was working late or on weekends and employing a self-made management theory that no one should report to a manager with a lower IQ than their own.

These days, a half-dozen friends and associates describe Gates as a polymath who relentlessly tries to decipher puzzles. To keep him at peak productivity, his senior team at the Gates Foundation and Gates Ventures (he left Microsoft’s board in 2020) hold an annual meeting to determine how best to allocate his time over the coming year, says Cohen, who left Microsoft with Gates in order to establish what is now Gates Ventures.

It isn’t helpful to interrupt Bill Gates. He speaks in circles, wending his way around ideas and unleashing a cascade of details that can be difficult to follow until its conclusion. “I’m not a natural like Steve Jobs, who could really get people riled up,” he says.

When I asked what makes him good at solving complex problems, Gates spoke without hesitation for six minutes and 45 seconds, touching on his approach to eradicating malaria, building strong teams, his understanding of concrete and cement, Americans’ generally more positive outlook about nuclear energy than the Europeans’, and much more. He concluded, “This is fun work.”

He paces, according to colleagues, and his voice gets squeaky when he’s excited, but he often fails to emote when faced with tragedy. “It’s actually hard to convey what it’s like to be there watching a kid who’s dying of malaria. I could get better at that,” he says. In a social setting, small talk is not his thing. Gates is the guy in the corner talking to another brainiac.

“Tony Fauci and I were quite obscure and would go to cocktail parties and nobody would talk to us,” says Gates of the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has taken a star turn during Covid-19. “Now Tony’s like the rock star and Saturday Night Live has women throwing bras at him.”

Gates sees his role in climate change falling squarely on the side of science. “I won’t be the biggest advocacy person. I will be on the innovation piece,” he says. “I do hope to mostly use logic as opposed to lobbying dollars.”

In February, as his book was about to arrive in stores, Gates was preparing to launch two new facets of Breakthrough Energy, the umbrella organization under which BEV sits, including a series of philanthropic fellowships in green industries for post-graduate technologists and business leaders. Another program, Breakthrough Energy Catalyst, will sell real carbon-offsets (not tree-planting credits) to help fund market-ready technologies such as aviation biofuel refineries while enabling high-net-worth individuals, companies and institutions to meet climate pledges. “You can’t buy your way out of your climate impact,” says Jonah Goldman. “You have to buy your way into the solution.”

Melinda Gates, whom Gates married in 1994, is often seen as a humanizing influence on her husband, a scenario neither of them appears to relish. (Through spokespeople she declined to be interviewed for this piece.) The couple has three children, Jennifer, a 24-year-old medical student; Rory, 21, and Phoebe, 18, both college students.

Melinda does offer social guidance, Gates acknowledges. She counseled against making too many references to cow farts, he writes in How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, attempting to limit his mentions of the methane produced by ruminant livestock.

Yet he thinks the popular view of Melinda as his alter ego is shortsighted. “Melinda and I are more alike than people think,” Gates says. “Yes, you can see her empathy more easily than mine—though I cry more easily than she does. Melinda’s very analytical—like top-1-percent analytical, though yes, I’m weirdly even more analytical.”

If the Gates approach works, a handful of billionaires could become vastly richer from taxpayer-backed technologies, which poses a question of equity. “These people are the winners of the system that is producing [these] problems,” says David Callahan, founder and editor of Inside Philanthropy, which tracks trends in charitable giving.

Chuck Collins, director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive Washington, D.C., think tank, who also worked with Gates’s late father, Bill Gates Sr., would like to see the effort—and the rewards—spread around more. “I would rather have fewer billionaires and more broadly controlled venture funds funded by taxpayers, funded by pools of donors, but not by five or 10 mega-billionaires or centi-billionaires,” Collins says. “That’s where it becomes corrosive—concentrations of power.”

Gates says he understands those concerns, and today’s general societal distrust of billionaires, but this is really no time to quibble.

“I think you should attack billionaires who try and avoid the estate tax or billionaires who try and avoid paying capital gains taxes,” he says. “There’s a lot of things to go after billionaires for, besides their willingness to put money into a fund that’s super high-risk, and in the best case, they won’t get their money back for over a decade. And they’re doing it because they believe in climate.”

Gates is a little worried that people will get sick of hearing from him this year as he flies around trying to save the planet. There’s climate change, there’s the pandemic (not to mention Alzheimer’s research, another of his passion projects). “ ‘Boy, this guy sure is telling us what to do in two different areas. Who does he think he is?’ They’re going to get full of me,” Gates says.

He slouches and ducks his chin as he makes a joke. “I’m just trying to avoid kryptonite as much as I can.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-gates-interview-climate-change-book-11613173337


Experts Tell Biden: Your Climate Goals Require a Carbon Price

The National Academies published a comprehensive list of policies the U.S. can enact to transform the energy system and right historical inequality.

By Eric Roston & Leslie Kaufman, Bloomberg News, Feb. 4, 2021

Meeting the climate goals of President Joe Biden will require setting a national cost for carbon pollution and spending heavily on social programs to assist Americans hurt by the clean-energy transition. Those are the findings in a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the latest group to lay out a detailed strategy for making the U.S. economy carbon-neutral by 2050.

The goal to be carbon-neutral by mid-century — which the global scientific community says is the only way to avert the worst effects of climate change — has been widely embraced in the private sector and by nine of the top 10 biggest economies, including the U.S. Yet 30 years is very little time to wind down and replace an energy system that's taken generations to build. Urgent steps and market signals are needed, the report said, such as a mechanism to place a price on carbon emissions.

“The big difference between this and any previous report is the attention paid to the social connections to the equity and diversity, and community worker-protection issues,” said Stephen Pacala, committee chair and a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University. “The report was specifically created to have a full representation of the social dimensions of a transition like this. At least half of our policy recommendations are in that camp.” One of their suggestions is to establish a White House Office of Equitable Energy Transitions to develop criteria to ensure that energy transition funds are equitably shared so that historically marginalized communities can benefit from new jobs and low-cost net-zero energy.

Federal officials are at the receiving end of several firehoses of expertise specifying what, exactly, needs to be done to put the U.S. economy on a climate-safe footing by mid-century. 

There’s a map of what federal agencies should do. There’s a database of job-creating policy ideas. Princeton researchers in December illustrated five decarbonization scenarios for the 2020s that could leave the U.S. well-positioned to meet the world’s science-driven mid-century deadline. There’s “quiet climate policy,” whose clean investments steadily pay off at epic scale. A research team concluded last month that the U.S. “can reach zero emissions without requiring changes to behavior. Cost is about $1 per person per day, not counting climate benefits.” The Decarb America project today reported that its incremental cost estimates “are small relative to the projected size of the U.S. economy, constituting only 0.4-2.2% of GDP,” compared with 5% to 10% for the volatile traditional energy system.

Above all, time is of the essence: An analysis published Wednesday by Energy Innovation Policy & Technology LLC, a nonpartisan energy and environmental policy research firm, concludes that delaying decarbonization from today until 2030 would raise the overall cost of energy capital, operations, and fuel by 72%. The time-crunch forces industries to make more draconian changes more quickly, including more aggressive pushes, for example, into building efficiency and expensive technologies that captures CO₂ directly from air. 

The new National Academies report argues that carbon pricing, the politically unpopular idea of taxing emissions or requiring permits, is an important step to meet the 2050 goal. It is also not enough. The authors, drawn from numerous fields of research and experience, also compiled a list of emissions-reduction policies that include electrifying vehicles and appliances. These technological  accomplishments must be matched with complementary efforts to ensure that the energy transition isn’t too hard on any U.S. communities, particularly historically marginalized and poor areas.

Yet slashing emissions requires more than a technical transition, the report suggests. The report calls for the creation of a National Transition Corporation to manage problems like possible job loss and equitable access to economic opportunities created by infrastructure development. It estimates the cost at $20 billion over 10 years, which would require Congressional approval.

The National Academies emphasized just how critical the next 10 years are for government action. To reach carbon neutrality, industry and the private sector will have to electrify. That's why it's so urgent, the report says, for the government to invest heavily in systems that will allow the rest of society to follow suit.

The report outlines the immense technical challenges to achieving the basic milestones for decarbonizing in a timely manner. For example, Biden says he wants to decarbonize the U.S. electric grid by 2035. The academies suggest that the grid needs to be 75 percent carbon free by 2030. But to achieve that, they note, “would require an average pace of wind and solar installation that each year matches or exceeds the record historical yearly deployment of these technologies.” And that pace would have to accelerate every year from 2025 to 2030. 

 But the biggest challenges may be the policy imperatives that need bipartisan support to implement. There is currently little political appetite on either side of the aisle for a carbon tax starting at $40 per ton as suggested by the report — which is still below data-driven estimates of what every ton of CO₂ costs society. Carbon pricing would likely take an act of Congress, as would the academies’ suggestion that the Department of Energy set manufacturing standards to achieve close to 100 percent all-electric appliances by 2050.

Americans Are Moving To Escape Climate Impacts. Towns Expect More To Come

By Annie Ropeik, National Public Radio/New Hampshire Public Radio, Jan. 22, 2021

The impacts of climate change could prompt millions of Americans to relocate in coming decades, moving inland away from rising seas, or north to escape rising temperatures.

Judith and Doug Saum have moved already, recently leaving their home outside Reno, Nev.

"It was with a view of the Sierra [Nevada Mountains] that was just to die for," Judith says. "We had a lot of friends, musician friends, we'd get together and play music with them often. It wasn't easy to leave all that."

The Saums had long thought about retiring to Colorado or Montana to be near family. But as they started making those plans several years ago, they were also noticing a new problem: Wildfire season was getting worse and longer in their part of the country, fueled by climate change.

"For me, it was unbearable because I was so sensitive to the smoke that I start to swell up," says Judith. "I get sinus infections, and going outside was intolerable."

The Saums settled on northern New England and a house in the rural town of Rumney at the foot of New Hampshire's White Mountains.

Doug Saum says they call themselves climate migrants.

"We had the idea ... not necessarily that we were going to a place that would be forever untouched by climate change, but that we were getting out of a bad climate situation that was only likely to get worse," he says.

For others, climate-related hazards will be just one reason to move. Bess Samuel says her family has wanted to leave Huntsville, Ala., for a less conservative place for a while — and rising temperatures and power bills could seal the deal.

"I feel like I have to be realistic — this is as good as it's going to get for a while," Samuel says. "We keep hearing these things ... it's the hottest summer and it's the hottest summer and that trend doesn't seem to be reversing."

Jola Ajibade studies climate migration as an assistant professor at Portland State University in Oregon.

"Impermanence might be the new normal for many of us," she says. "The idea that you have to live in one place forever, I think people have to forget that... And I think people who have been able to do that historically, I think it's a privilege that they should celebrate."

But she says all this moving around can make people resilient. And if the places that will receive these new residents can be resilient and flexible, too, the communities might just benefit from it.

Pandemic influx shows the need to plan

"When we've talked about climate migration, it usually comes up in the context of the jobs that we just can't fill," says Sarah Marchant, the community development director in Nashua, N.H.

Nashua has already seen its Puerto Rican population grow after Hurricane Maria hit the island, and it expects more climate migrants from Boston and other nearby coastal areas.

"I think the city is well-positioned with the infrastructure we already have, and our location that is very desirable," Marchant says. "We are an hour from Boston, a little over an hour from the Seacoast and two hours to the mountains, and so we are connected to everything."

By some measures, Nashua's region could be an ideal climate haven. It's getting warmer, but it doesn't face the existential threats of, say, Florida from hurricanes and flooding or California from wildfires and smoke. Northern New England is also one of the oldest and whitest parts of the country and has struggled with population loss.

But it's hard to predict the scale and timing of climate migration. And an influx of newcomers during the current pandemic is showing just how disruptive unplanned growth can be.

"An increase in traffic, people getting evicted, a lack of hospital beds because there's more people – these are the kinds of things that create tension," says Anna Marandi, a senior climate specialist with the National League of Cities. "When the systems aren't set up properly in advance to hold more people, then the existing population can get resentful."

So Sarah Marchant says Nashua is keeping migration and other climate impacts in mind while tackling existing problems with affordable housing and overstretched infrastructure. The idea is "to ensure that what we are building is sustainable," she says, and to "be smarter about what we do have."

Whether or not the climate migrants come, she says Nashua is making improvements that will benefit everyone.

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/22/956904171/americans-are-moving-to-escape-climate-impacts-towns-expect-more-to-come