How to avoid a climatic catastrophe. Bill Gates plan

The publishing house “Mann, Ivanov and Ferber” publishes the translation of the new book by Bill Gates about the global climate change and measures that humanity must accept in order to prevent an ecological catastrophe. We publish the chapter in which the author generalized his proposals.

At the climatic conference in Paris in 2015, I have repeatedly asked myself: will we handle climatic changes or are we waiting for a disaster?

It inspired me that leaders from around the world gathered together to discuss climatic issues and almost all countries supported the call to reduce their emission. But, since surveys one by one showed that climatic changes remain a secondary political task (at best), I was worried that we would never find the strength to solve this difficult task.

Fortunately, the public interest in climatic changes has grown much more than I expected. Over the past few years, discussions at the global level have gone along the fruitful path. State support is growing at all levels, as voters of the whole world demand not to sit back, and cities and states take up the reduction of emission within the framework of national tasks.

<...>

In what terms do you need to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to zero? As science says in order to avoid a climatic catastrophe, developed countries should reach zero emissions by 2050.

<...>

What we can (and must) do in the next 10 years is to introduce government measures that will lay the way for universal decarbonization by 2050.

This is an important factor, although it is not striking. It may seem to you that “reduce emissions by 2030” and “reach zero to 2050” are interconnected tasks. Isn't 2030 a stop on the way to 2050?

Optional. The improper reduction in emissions by 2030 will only prevent us from reaching zero.

Why? Because the measures that we will take to achieve a slight reduction in emissions by 2030 are radically different from those that are necessary to achieve zero by 2050. These are two completely different paths, with different success parameters, and you need to choose one of them. It is remarkable that we have goals for 2030, but they should be intermediate milestones on the way to 2050-and that's why.

If we undertake to reduce emissions by a certain percentage by 2030, we will have to quit all their strength to those decisions that will allow this goal, even if, because of these decisions, it is more difficult for us, or even it is impossible to reach zero.

For example, if the “reduction in emissions by 2030” is the only parameter of success, then coal power plants need to be replaced immediately with gas - this will reduce CO2 emissions! But any gas power station, built before 2030, will still function by 2050 (these power plants should work for several decades to compensate for construction costs) - and greenhouse gas power plants are produced. Thus, we will fulfill the goal of “reducing the issue by 2030,” but we will deprive ourselves of hope to reach zero by 2050.

On the contrary, if “reduce emissions by 2030” is only an intermediate milestone on the way to 2050 and zero emissions, it is unreasonable to spend time and money on switching from coal to gas. It is better to focus on two other strategies: firstly, to do everything possible to ensure cheap and uninterrupted Bezuglerous electricity, and, secondly, to electrify everything that is possible: from transport to industrial processes and thermal pumps-even in those regions that now receive electricity only from fuel fuel.

If the only thing that is important is for us is to reduce the issue by 2030, then this approach will lead to failure, since it will bring only a slight decrease in greenhouse gas emissions over 10 years. It is necessary to create conditions for long -term success. With each new discovery in the production, storage and delivery of clean electricity, we will approach zero emissions.

<...>

Innovation and the law of demand and proposals

As I noted, any plan for climatic changes should cover many industries. Climatology explains why this problem needs to be solved, but does not say how to solve it. This requires biology, chemistry, physics, political science, economics, engineering and other sciences.

<...>

In energy, software development and in almost any other undertaking, innovation should not be perceived only in a strictly technological sense. Innovation is not just an invention of a new mechanism or a new process. These are also new approaches to a business model, a supply chain, markets and political measures that will breathe life into a new invention and help him go to a global level. In other words, innovations are new devices and new methods of work.

Given these reservations, I divided all the elements of my plan into two categories. They, no doubt, are familiar to everyone who studied the basic course of the economy: the first category is associated with the expansion of the proposal in the field of innovation (that is, the number of new ideas that are sent for testing), and the second category - with stimulation of demand for these innovations. These two categories are interconnected and put pressure on each other. Without demand for innovation, inventors and legislators will not be incentive to promote new ideas; Without a stable offer, customers will not have green products that are necessary for the world to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to zero.

<...>

Necessary technologies:

• hydrogen production without carbon emissions;
• The method of storing electricity, which is enough for the entire season;
• electric fuel;
• second -generation biofuel;
• Bezuglerous cement;
• Bezuglerous steel;
• vegetable and artificial meat and dairy products;
• Bezuglerogical fertilizers;
• nuclear division of the next generation;
• nuclear fusion;
• carbon capture (from the atmosphere and during production);
• Underground lines of power transmission;
• Bezuglerous plastic;
• geothermal energy;
• hydro -accumulating power plant;
• thermal storage;
• food crops resistant to drought and floods;
• Bezuglerogical alternatives to palm oil;
• Reflays without fluorine -containing gases.

To prepare these technologies on time, the state must take the following steps.

1. Five times increase the number of research and development in the field of pure energy and climate over the next 10 years. Direct state investments in research and development are one of the most important steps that we can take in the fight against climatic changes, but national governments pay insufficient attention to him. In general, state financing of development in the field of pure energy reaches $ 22 billion per year, which is only 0.02% of the world economy. Americans spend more on gasoline a month. The United States, being the largest investor in pure energy studies, invest only $ 7 billion per year in them.

How much is needed? We use for comparison the National Institute of Health (BOD). The bottom with an annual budget of about $ 37 billion has developed vital drugs and treatment methods that save Americans (and residents of the whole world) every day. This is a wonderful model and a vivid example of ambitions that are needed to combat climatic changes. And although a five -fold increase in the budget for research and development seems to be a colossal amount, it turns pale compared to the scale of the problem - and this is an important indicator of the government’s serious mood for its solution.

2. To focus on risky research projects with great potential. Not only the amounts that the state will spend, but also the directions of these expenses are important.

The state has already been burned on investments in pure energy (you can look for the “Solyndra scandal” to refresh in your memory), so it is clear why the legislative authorities do not want to throw away taxpayers money into the wind. However, this fear of failure makes an investment portfolio of possible research very limited. Preference is given to more reliable investments that can and should be funded at the expense of the private sector. The main value of state initiative in research and development is that the state has the right to risk bringing bold ideas that may well turn out to be a dummy and not bring any return.

<...>

What happens when the state makes the right bet? Let's take the project “Human Genom”. Designed to decipher the human genome and make the results of public property, this project became a sign of the US Department of Energy and the National Institute of Health, with the participation of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan and China. The project lasted 13 years, billions of dollars spent on it. He discovered opportunities for new methods of treating dozens of genetic diseases, including hereditary colon cancer, Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer. An independent study on the “Human Gene” project showed that each dollar invested by the federal government in this project brought $ 141 profit to the American economy.

Similarly, it is required that the governments of the countries take on financing of large -scale projects (from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars), which can significantly promote research in the field of pure energy - especially in the areas that I have listed above. Moreover, this financing should be long -term so that the researchers feel stable support throughout the entire period of work.

3. Follow the relevance of research and development. There is a practical difference between abstract studies of new scientific concepts (fundamental studies) and efforts that are necessary in order to extract practical benefits from scientific discoveries (applied research). Although these are different directions, one cannot say, like some, that fundamental science should not think about useful commercial products. A lot of wonderful inventions appeared when scientists began their research, focusing on the final result: the work of Louis Pasteur in microbiology, for example, led to the appearance of vaccines and pasteurization. We need more state programs that combine fundamental and applied research in areas where breakthroughs are most needed.

<...>

4. From the very beginning, cooperate with production industries. Another artificial separation that I came across is that the state should allegedly deal with innovations of the early stage, and later - specific industries. In fact, everything is wrong, especially when it comes to complex technical tasks in the field of energy, where the most important factor in success is the ability to reach a national or even global level. Partnership at an early stage will attract people who know how to achieve this. The state and specific industries should work together in order to overcome obstacles and accelerate the innovative cycle. Companies can help with prototypes of new technologies, explain the market features and invest in projects along with the state. And, of course, it is they who will sell these technologies, so it makes sense to attract them to cooperation as early as possible.

Innovation demand stimulation

In demand, a little more complicated than with a proposal. Here you can distinguish two steps: the stage of verification and the scaling stage.

After the specific method is tested in the laboratory, it must be checked in the market. In the technological world, the stage of verification is fast and cheap. It is not necessary to find out a lot of time to find out whether a new smartphone model is working or not and whether it will like it to customers. But in the energy sector, everything is much more complicated and more expensive.

It is necessary to check that the idea that worked in the laboratory would “shoot” in real conditions. (Perhaps agricultural waste that you want to process in biofuel is actually much more humid than the material that was used in the laboratory, and therefore will not give as much energy as you expected.) In addition, you need to reduce the costs and risk of the early stages of the implementation of new technology, create a supply chain, check their business model and help consumers get used to new technology. At the moment, at the stage of verification there are ideas such as low -carbon cement, nuclear division of a new generation, capture and seizure of carbon, sea wind energy, cellulose ethanol (one of the second -generation biofuels) and an alternative to meat.

The stage of verification is the “Death Valley”, where good ideas go to die. Often, the risks associated with testing new products and their display to the market are too high. They repel investors. In particular, this concerns low -carbon technologies that need large initial capital to “swing”, and may require consumers to significantly change their habits.

The state (as well as large companies) can help energy startups get out of this valley alive, since it is a large consumer. If the purchase of green products becomes a priority for the state, it will help to bring more products to the market, creating confidence and reducing prices.

Use the right to purchase. Federal and municipal entities purchase tremendous volumes of fuel, concrete and steel. They build planes, trucks and cars and consume gigavatts of electricity. They are in an ideal position for the withdrawal of new technologies to the market at a relatively low price - especially if you take into account the social advantages of the large -scale use of these technologies. The Ministry of Defense can purchase low -carbon liquid fuel for aircraft and ships. States governments can use cement and steel in construction projects, made with a low level of emissions. Communal companies - invest in long -term storage of electricity.

<...>

Create incentives that will reduce expenses and risks. In addition to the purchase of products, the state can offer the private sector various incentives in favor of environmentally friendly investments. Tax benefits, credit guarantees and other tools will help reduce green margins and increase the demand for new technologies. Since many of them will be expensive, when they enter the market, potential buyers will need access to long -term financing, as well as confidence that a consistent and predictable state policy inspires.

The state can play an important role by introducing a Bezuglerogical policy and influencing the money to attract money to these projects. We list several principles: the state policy should be technologically neutral (support any solutions that reduce emissions, and not give preference to only some of them), predictable (today you often have to achieve extension of state support programs, when their initial term ends) and flexible (so that many companies and investors can use the projects, and not only those that pay large taxes).

Build an infrastructure that will bring new technologies to the market. Even low -carbon technologies at a competitive price will not be able to find their place in the market in the absence of an infrastructure that can bring them to this market. Governments of all levels should contribute to the construction of such infrastructure. This includes power lines for wind and solar energy, charging stations for electric vehicles and pipelines for transporting captured carbon dioxide and hydrogen.

Change the rules so that new technologies can compete with the old ones. When the infrastructure is built, new rules will be needed to allow new technologies to be competitive. Electricity markets created under the technology of the last century often put the XXI century technologies in a disadvantage. For example, in most markets, communal companies, which are invested in long -term storage, do not receive adequate compensation for the help that they bring to the mains. The norms and standards prevent the use of more perfect biofuels in cars and trucks.

<...>

Until now, I talked about the development stage - about state measures that can inspire the creation and implementation of energy discoveries. Now let's move on to the scaling stage - rapid, full -scale implementation of a new product. You can reach this stage only when the price decreases, the supply chain and business models will be well developed and reliable, and consumers will demonstrate their willingness to buy what you are selling. Coastal wind energy, solar energy and electric cars are now at the scaling stage.

This is not easy. In just a few decades, you will have to increase energy capacity at least three times, so that most of the electricity comes from wind, sun and other forms of pure energy. Нужно внедрять электромобили как можно быстрее — как мы закупали сушилки для одежды и цветные телевизоры, когда они поступили в продажу. Необходимо изменить методы производства и сельского хозяйства и в то же время строить дороги, мосты и обеспечивать население продуктами питания, от которых все мы зависим.

К счастью, у нас уже есть опыт масштабирования энергетических технологий. Мы занялись электрификацией сельских регионов и расширили внутреннее производство ископаемого топлива, заставив политику и инновации работать сообща. Некоторые политические меры — такие как налоговые льготы для нефтяных компаний — могут показаться субсидиями в пользу ископаемого топлива, однако на самом деле они были инструментами внедрения технологии, которую на тот момент мы считали ценной. Напомню, что до конца 1970-х годов, когда концепция климатических изменений впервые стала темой общенациональных дебатов, принято было считать, что лучший способ повысить качество жизни и развивать экономику — это увеличить потребление ископаемого топлива. Теперь мы можем воспользоваться уроками, усвоенными во время целенаправленного расширения производства ископаемого топлива, и применить их к чистой энергетике.

What does this mean in practice?

Ввести цену на углерод. Будь то углеродный налог или торговля квотами, когда компании могут покупать или продать право на углеродные выбросы, одна из важнейших задач на пути к устранению зеленых наценок — грамотно рассчитать стоимость эмиссии.

В краткосрочной перспективе цена на углерод повышает стоимость ископаемого топлива и показывает рынку, что продукция, которая дает парниковые газы, потребует дополнительных расходов. Куда пойдет доход с углерода — не так важно, как сам принцип, который олицетворяет эта цена. Многие экономисты считают, что деньги можно вернуть потребителям или компаниям для покрытия роста цен на электричество, хотя есть и другое решение — направить эти средства на исследования, разработки и другие стимулы, которые помогут в борьбе с климатическими изменениями.

В долгосрочной перспективе, по мере того как мы будем снижать эмиссию, цена на углерод может отражать стоимость прямого улавливания углерода из атмосферы, и полученный доход следует направить именно на развитие данной технологии.

Хотя это означает, что нам придется радикально изменить принципы ценообразования продукции, концепция цены на углерод получила широкое одобрение среди экономистов многих направлений и политических структур. Выполнить эту задачу будет нелегко с технической и политической точки зрения как в США, так и по всему миру. Захотят ли люди платить значительно больше за бензин и все остальные продукты, связанные с эмиссией парниковых газов (речь идет практически обо всей продукции, которой мы пользуемся в повседневной жизни)? Не буду навязывать конкретное решение, главная задача — убедиться, что каждый из нас платит истинную цену за выбросы.

Стандарты чистой электроэнергии. 29 штатов США и Европейский союз приняли производственный стандарт под названием «стандарт портфеля возобновляемых источников энергии». Смысл в том, чтобы обязать электроэнергетические компании производить определенный процент электроэнергии из возобновляемых источников. Это гибкие рыночные механизмы: к примеру, компании, имеющие больше доступа к возобновляемым источникам, могут продавать их в кредит тем, у кого нет такого доступа. Однако есть одна проблема: электроэнергетические компании вынуждены использовать только конкретные, одобренные низкоуглеродные технологии (ветер, солнце, геотермальную энергетику, иногда гидроэнергетику), исключая такие варианты, как атомные электростанции и метод улавливания углерода. А это повышает общие расходы на снижение эмиссии.

Стандарты чистой электроэнергии, которые планируют принять и другие штаты, представляют собой более совершенное решение. Вместо того чтобы акцентировать внимание на конкретных возобновляемых источниках, они разрешают любые технологии чистой энергетики, соответствующие стандарту, включая атомные электростанции и улавливание углерода. Это гибкий и экономичный подход.

Стандарты чистого топлива. Принцип гибкого производственного стандарта можно применить и к другим секторам, чтобы снизить выбросы от автомобилей и строительства, а также электростанций. К примеру, стандарт чистого топлива для транспорта стимулирует внедрение электромобилей, биотоплива второго поколения, электротоплива и других низкоуглеродных решений. Как и стандарт чистой электроэнергии, он будет технологически нейтральным, и компании смогут продавать свою продукцию в кредит, снижая таким образом цены для потребителей. Калифорния разработала подобную модель — это действующий в пределах штата стандарт низкоуглеродного топлива.

<...>

Стандарты чистой продукции. Производственные стандарты также стимулируют применение низкоэмиссионного цемента, стали, пластика и других высокоуглеродных продуктов. Государство может стимулировать этот процесс, включив новые стандарты в правила материально-технического снабжения и внедрив программу маркировки, которая предоставит всем покупателям информацию о том, насколько данный поставщик «чистый». Затем можно расширить эти стандарты, охватив всю высокоуглеродную продукцию на рынке, а не только то, что закупает государство. Импортируемые товары тоже должны соответствовать этим характеристикам — это разрешит опасения стран по поводу того, что снижение выбросов производственного сектора сделает их продукцию дороже и поставит в невыгодное положение по сравнению с конкурентами.

Долой все старое. Помимо стремительного развертывания новых технологий следует отправить на свалку неэкономичное оборудование, работающее на ископаемом топливе, — будь то электростанции или автомобили — причем как можно быстрее. Строительство электростанций обходится дорого, а энергия, которую они дают, будет дешевой, только если распределить строительные расходы на весь срок их полезной службы. Именно поэтому энергетические компании и регулирующие их работу агентства не хотят закрывать функционирующие станции, которые могут проработать еще десятки лет. Политические стимулы — через налоги или регулирование предприятий коммунального обслуживания — могут ускорить этот процесс.