The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Biden Administration Deploys Prizes to Address Climate Change
The Department of Energy has announced a good way to spend some of the funds authorized by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
The Department of Energy has announced it will spend $3.7 billion to "kick-start America's carbon dioxide removal industry." While most climate policy discussions focus on how to reduce emissions of greenhouse gas emissions, this initiative is focused on how to remove greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere.
One of the most promising and significant parts of the announcement is the embrace of technology-inducement prizes. From the release:
- Direct Air Capture Commercial and Pre-Commercial Prize – DOE's Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) is announcing the Direct Air Capture Prize for support and prize awards totaling $115 million to promote diverse approaches to direct air capture. The Direct Air Capture Pre-Commercial Prize provides up to $15 million in prizes to incubate and accelerate research and development of breakthrough direct air capture technologies. The Direct Air Capture Commercial Prize provides up to $100 million in prizes to qualified direct air capture facilities for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere. Read the full Direct Air Capture Prize Competitions announcement here.
This represents only a small portion of the relevant funding -- and is smaller than I would like -- but it is nonetheless good to see some recognition of the power of prizes to induce desired innovation, particularly in the context of climate change.
As longtime readers may know, I have been pushing for climate prizes for some time. In 2011, I published "Eyes on a Climate Prize: Rewarding Energy Innovation to Achieve
Climate Stabilization" in the Harvard Environmental Law Review, in which I argued that technology-inducement prizes are particularly well-suited to problems like climate change. Here is the abstract:
Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at double their pre industrial levels (or lower) will require emission reductions far in excess of what can be achieved at a politically acceptable cost with current or projected levels of technology. Substantial technological innovation is required if the nations of the world are to come anywhere close to proposed emission reduction targets. Neither traditional federal support for research and development of new technologies nor traditional command and-control regulations are likely to spur sufficient innovation. Technology inducement prizes, on the other hand, have the potential to significantly accelerate the rate of technological innovation in the energy sector. This Article outlines the theory and history of the use of inducement prizes to encourage and direct inventive efforts and technological innovation and identifies several comparative advantages inducement prizes have over traditional grants and subsidies for encouraging the invention and development of climate-friendly technologies. While no policy measure guarantees technological innovation, greater reliance on inducement prizes would increase the likelihood of developing and deploying needed technologies in time to alter the world's climate future. Whatever their faults in other contexts, prizes are particularly well suited to the climate policy challenge.
I hope this recent announcement is a sign of more to come.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Approach #1:
Have Hunter Biden switch from smoking Cocaine to either intravenous or intranasal use. Cocaine (C17H21NO4) will still be metabolized primarily by Hepatic microsomal enzymes t Benzoylecgonine (BE) and Ecgonine methyl ester (EME). IV or intranasal use avoids the production of methylchloride (CH3Cl), ethylene (C2H4), methane (CH4), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), carbonylsulfide (OCS), carbon disulfide (CS2), carbon dioxide (CO2), and carbon monoxide (CO) which occur by the smoking route and fuck up our precious Ozone (O3) level (and our First Son)
Frank
Ummm, to those who believe in Global Something, Methane is 100 times worse than Carbon Dioxide. Or maybe just 14 times worse -- they are never consistent on anything, but Methane is defined as a "Greenhouse Gas" like Carbon Dioxide.
And since I suspect you know, what is the difference between amphetamine and methamphetamine and why is the latter worse?
I recently saw a comment about how much right wing outrage is based on suddenly finding something out that pretty much everybody else has known about all along and treating it as some hidden secret revealed.
Care to cite an example?
See above.
Mr. Ed once again expresses his ignorance of chemistry among other things. On a molecule by molecule basis CH4 is several times as potent a greenhouse case as CO2. However the average residence time of CH4 in the atmosphere is roughly 70 years while that for CO2 is at least 700 - 1000 years. Moreover CH4 are far less than CO2 emissions.
Methane may or may not be more potent than CO2.
We do know that threat of methane contributing significantly or at all to AGW is not likely based on history. 4k-6k years ago, when the artic was unfrozen, and the tree lines were 100-150kilometers further north than today, there was no runaway warming from all the methane that exists in the frozen north. The threat rapid warming as the release of methane as the artic tundra thaws is just a false talking point with little if any historical or scientific basis.
The relative greenhouse effect per molecule in the atmosphere of CH4 and CO2 is very well known as are the relative average residence time in the atmosphere.
Don - I completely agree with the scientific assessment that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than co2 albiet with a shorter life span.
My point was whether methane is really a significant greenhouse gas in the grand scheme of global warming. I simply dont know the answer to that question. Approx 6k years ago, the planet was much warmer as evidenced by the northern tree line in the arctic region being 100-150k further north than the present day. The methane seepage for the thawing arctic tundra during that period was significant and should have resulted in significant warming.
If methane wasnt a factor during that period, then why would it become a factor now?
In summary, too many unknowns and too many contradictions to make any claim that the science is settled.
I cannot answer your question Joe. Whether the analysis has been done I do not know.
Democrat donors rejoice!
If everyone who believed in the AGW crisis were to cease emitting CO2 by reporting to the locak Soylent Green intake center then this "problem" would quickly sort itself out. Since NYC is not underwater as predicted this whole thing is revealed as a sham excuse for governments to sieze more power and control over others.
What a load of nonsense. The science is quite clear. You and Greta are on the same side, pushing the same genocidal shit in different ways.
Co2's either a problem or it isn't (it isn't) seems it's affected your ability to detect sarcasm.
"The science is quite clear. "
What "science" is that? The output of GIGO computer models?
"The Science"
Dave - the science is not nearly so clear
for a few million years, there has been near zero correlation between greenhouse gas levels and temps, then beginning circa late 1800's there has been reasonable correlation with temps and co2 levels
for a few million years, there has been fairly high correlation with tsi, orbital changes, and temps. That correllation continues today.
In summary , at this point in time, our knowledge of the cause of the current short term warming is really not well known.
The science is extremely clear and quite conclusive, you're chasing crankery.
As I said up thread GIGO computer models are not science.
Of course they are, and they're far from the only science involved.
Your willful ignorance is amazing. If models are "science" why have they been unable to match the actual record when provided with know values?
Ah, so you don't actually understand science. That makes sense.
Nige 1 hour ago
Flag Comment Mute User
The science is extremely clear and quite conclusive, you’re chasing crankery.
One of the biggest scientific claims supporting the climate science is the very high correlation of rising co2 and rising temps for the last 120-150 years , which a well known fact .
Yet, that correlation has only existed for those 120-150 years and poorly correlated prior to that time.
At the same time TSI (total solar irradiance) has had a high correlation with temps for at least 2k-4k years. Same with the the correlation with temps and orbital cycles.
Nige - please explain why actual facts and science are quackery?
Well, you see, more than one thing can cause an effect, so something that caused climate change a million years ago might not be the same thing causing climate change today, but we know about the greenhuse effect and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that there's been a massive increase in CO2 and that the climate is abruptly changing and the only people who question it are right-wing cranks and fossil fuel shills.
Joe,
That may or may not be true.
But it has little to do with the snake oil of DAC
A virologist and a climatologist!
Joe,
What we do know is that over the past 200 years there is some forcing going on. What increase in temperature that will lead to is uncertain but in the range of 1.5° to 3°C. Clearly present models do not include all effects. But even Richard Lindzen, the most knowledgable skeptic whom I know, agrees that there will be some warming due to anthropogenic CO2.
"The DAC Pre-Commercial Energy Program for Innovation Clusters (EPIC) Prize awards cash prizes to regional incubator teams that submit creative and impactful plans to support entrepreneurs and innovators in the DAC space and create meaningful community engagement. "
Plans and meaningful community engagement. So BS with no actual results than can be directed to preferred demographic groups?
"So BS with no actual results than can be directed to preferred demographic groups?"
Yes, or preferred Democrat donors.
It is fortunate, from the perspective of your Democratic overlords, that whining right-wing losers are in no position to do much about it -- other than continue to whimper as they await replacement!
DemoKKKratic "Overlords"
they can't even keep that Skank Kristen Semen-a on a chain, not really that intimidating. They need someone who really knows how to stretch an anal sphincter, The (Very Wrong) Reverend Jerry S. himself,
Frank "keepin that pimp hand strong"
What do you think this is, Jared Kushner giving out pandemic relief to his friends and donors?
"his friends and donors?"
Why did you omit his investors? Just because they reside in despicable countries whose interests are averse to America's?
without addressing the merits / validity of the current state of “climate science”, its worth noting that the programs and subsidies under the recently passed inflation reductin act is really just a grifters benefit program. There will be a lot more solandra’s – a lot more and a lot bigger taxpayer losses, with very few, if any, actual tangible benefits.
C'mon (Man)! Hunter (The other son who didn't die in Iraq) has Lap Dances and Meth Mouth Treatment to pay for! You-crane can't support him forever.
Without addressing the merits, you sure did judge these programs on their merits!
As if no history of graft/grifting on government programs,
Weird, it doesn't look like I said anything about that in my objection to your comment...
Weird – you seem to be oblivious to past history, economics etc
Long history of misallocation of capital to benefit select groups with poor returns.
Can anyone say Solandra?
Can you say the entire US military, frankly.
That would have been a slightly more effective snark on your part if you knew the name of the company that you were asking whether anyone could say.
So your argument is government bad, therefore this bad.
Scintillating intellect you got there.
No that was not his argument. His argument is that even with a Nobelist as Secretary the DOE has demonstrated remarkably poor judgement.
By the way did you like the DOE chest beating yesterday about inertial fusion? Livermore used the energy of 300 sticks of dynamite to produce the fusion energy content of a dozen donuts. And that at a potential rate of 4 perday when the fusion plant designs require 400,000 shots per day.
Prizes are a weird funding model. Compared to grants and contracts, they require results first and then government money without any strings attached.
Prizes would seem to me better than other funding models at getting private industry to build up it's own capabilities independent of government funding.
A privately grown and functioning innovation ecosystem has obvious benefits. But that's hard and rare in our current landscape, and easily crowded out by future efforts.
For big stuff like space launch, I can see the appeal. I'd be interested in the thinking about using such a vehicle here.
Even lower level prizes have a long and very successful history of encouraging innovation. Sometimes the prizes are offered by government but often they are funded by private sources. They are not "weird" though they have become less visible in recent decades. I think it's an encouraging trend to bring them back. As you say, they put results first.
To be clear, I have zero information I’m working from.
It’s less the specific prize outcome. I’m trying to figure out when you would use a prize not a grant or contract.
Part of it may be the risk - little government risk since no MLK eh moves till someone delivers. But then why are they not more popular? I’d guess specificity of the deliverable.
The other thing I can see is that the private sector is doing all the lifting on their own. So to really about the specific prize outcome but the ecosystem and it’s followon effect. Which is why I was talking about crowding out - I meant of the subsequent ecosystem you have encouraged private industry to create.
Use a prize whenever you care about the result but don't care (within legal limits) about how it's achieved. This includes not caring about how long it takes.
Use a contract when you want to control the process or have a deadline.
Use a grant ... never? Grants are pure patronage that make the giver feel better. Okay if you want to spend your own money subsidizing an artist but I don't see an ethical reason why you should get to spend my money on it.
For examples of prizes driving innovation, look to:
- John Harrison's solution for measuring longitude
- Nicholas Appert's development of canning
- Lindberg solving transatlantic flight
- the Pentagon's continuing autonomous vehicle challenge
- the Kaggle competition to map dark matter
among many, many others.
Looking further, here is a McKinsey article with a flow-chart of when they think you should use a prize, contract or grant.
What’s the best way to stay safe from the bogeyman? Prizes awarded for the most effective answers.
Yay!
"The Department of Energy has announced a good way to spend some of the funds authorized by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law."
I actually read that as sarcasm.
Apparently it isn't. Wow....
The race to see who can more vociferously declare their anti-climate change bona fides is boring as hell.
What are you saying here? Is it based on emotion of careful chemistry and physics analysis?
Scrubbing carbon from the air is all very well, but without addressing the root causes, we're left with horribly polluting industries that are destroying the planet's biodiversity and, by extension, us. If climate change don't get us, ecological collapse will. Still, I expect the fossil fuel lobby likes this sort of thing because it lets them carry on regardless.
Soylent Green is calling. Help rid yourself of fear and help the planet by visiting your nearest center.
My longtime Usenet ally, Christopher Charles Morton, put it simply.
https://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=380576&page=2&p=4522359#post4522359
No wonder he influenced my own political views for twenty-five years!
The prosperity of some, anyway. Not so much the ones living in cancer corridors and sacrifice zones. Or indeed the ones whose wages stagnated for several decades. But some prospered.
Christopher Moncton is an overbearing blowhard. I've spent a few weeks in his company and seen him in action first hand.
If there ever comes a day when it actually becomes poitically untenable for the right to continue to deny climate change, I do fully expect you to propose Soylent Green-based solutions.
"without addressing the root causes"
Pray tell what are those?
Carbon emissions.
Jonathan--you do realize that natural processes withdraw prodigious amounts of CO2? Isn't there a scale issue here?
You have to actually treat those natural processes and the places they occur as having value to society and to humanity in general and not, y’know, systematically destroy them wholesale to enrich a few. That would certainly be a better approach than this, though, and in fact, and approach is just incredibly dumb the more I think about it.
Nige,
Your comment is meaningless and shows that you know nothing of the natural processes that occur in oceans, forests, steppes.
Nope they don't occur in urba centers.
I... did not say that they did? Though of course there are nice examples of urban areas with lots of trees, and swales that double as biodiversity pockets while reducing flooding...
To be more specific humans are adding roughly 2 ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere per year. Absorption into the planetary capacity is estimated to be between 1 to 1.5 ppm. Hence if we were presently at net zero human emissions, the planet would relax to 1950 levels of CO2 in 90 years. We could cut that time in half if we planted 800 billion trees. Realistically what ever “climate change” humans have produced is going to stay with us for at least a century.
Yes, it's already locked in.
The oceans do absorb carbon, to a point, but they are acidifying as a result which is having additional effects on food sources (in addition to the impact of warmer water overall.) Further, as the permafrost melts, additional greenhouse gases that were bound up will be released. And while that is technically a natural process, it will be triggered by human emissions. Same with forest fires. The planet's ability to absorb carbon comes with its own impacts and changes, not all of which are good for human populations.
Direct capture, yeah that's the ticket. Oh wait trees already do that and generate O2 in the process and provide useful products as a bonus.
THANK you. The tree-huggers were right all along.
So they get the prize?
They should. The money would be better spent on rewilding and restoration.
…and not covering thousands of acres in Chinese made solar panels.
That's what rooftops are for.
Well except when they cause fires.
However, to be fair, I will agree with you that placement on rooftops and other existing structures is better than covering fields with them. As long as it was done without other people's money.
Well, we could take all the other-people's money being paid to fossil fuel companies and use it for that instead.
Trees do that and to be effective at lowering the CO2 level in the atmosphere one would have to add 1 trillion trees (no joking about that number).
Curious as to how you arrived at that number?
Same way AlGore came up with his.
Mr Bumble,
For each hectare of reforested land, ~500 tonnes CO2 can be extracted from the atmosphere over 100 yrs (You could look at https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-of-planting-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change/)
8 million sq km of new forest would reduce atmospheric concentration by 400 billion tons, or 50 ppm.
The optimum yield of wood implies 100K trees per sq km
that implies 0.8 trillion trees @ 10 Billion plantings per year
or 80 years of planting trees
Again, trees are not the only 'natural' way of sequestering carbon.
But you wouldn’t need just trees, and they’re not always appropriate, you can get even better results restoring and preserving grass plains and wetlands, and of course decently conserved oceans would play a major part and of course, let's not forget that we should also be reducing carbon emissions.
Nope, but I already commented that the ocean and exposed earth also sequester carbon at a rate of ~ 1 ppm per year. So what are you going on about?
Preserving is not going to remove new additions of carbon. What is there is already doing its job. But if you are looking for reductions beyond the 1 ppm you need to add effective vegitation.
Algae is a massive form of vegetation that is harmed if the oceans become too acidic, or can overwhelm other life if the water gets too warm. The ocean's ability to absorb carbon can result in ecosystem collapses and human starvation. Forests are great at storing carbon until they catch fire; then they're great at releasing it. The solution starts with not digging/pumping up ancient carbon sources and burning them to add more to the mess we've gotten ourselves into.
Think of it this way: the ocean absorbs carbon much like the US absorbs climate refugees. Both can absorb a lot but the results are not favorable or desirable.
The $115M Direct Air Capture Prize is a give away for a completely impractical technology.
Nothing in the past decade changes the conclusions of the study done by the American Physical society 2011.
Anyone can get a copy by doing a google search
Hey, who broke the thread and what happened to the last comments?
If you took your child to a doctor (let's give the doctor a good name, Dr. T Science), and that doctor said "I read 1000 journals, ignored 900 of them because they disagreed with me, and of the remaining 100, 97% say your kid has cancer and you need to pay me $1,000,000,000 to save him"... Would you believe Dr. T Science, or maybe look for a second opinion?
Well, queenie being the useless idiot that s/he is...
97% bullshit will not die for some people. Both presidents Washington and McKinley might have survived but 97% of the medical experts contributed to their deaths. Bleeding in the case of Washington and gangrene in the case of McKinley from doctors continually probing his wound (in search of the bullet) without washing their hands.
We all know Joseph Lister was a quack.
Queen - If you cant spot the deception in the 97% consensus claim, then you cant possibly understand the complexities of climate science.
Spend some time looking at the methodology and raw data used in the 97% . Its appalling that people fall for that claim or give it any credibility.
Sure. Three real doctors instead of 97 Faucis and Dr. Jills.
Queen – Really a majority of scientists?
The Majority claim is based a large part on those consensus surveys, spearheaded by John cooks’ “peer reviewed” consensus study.
Those surveys exclude “climate studies’ where the authors express no opinion about the cause of the warming, thus significantly deflating the denominator Those surveys include authors expressing an opinion as to the cause of the warming when the study didnt cover anything remotely relating to the possible cause of the warming, thus inflating the numerator. Those surverys double/triple count the same authors expressing the same opinion in different studies thus inflating the numerator.
helps to utilize some basic maths skills and look at the source data to test the validity of those peer reviewed science claims.
"The exact number isn’t important (note in my reference to climate science I sad the vast majority),
You are quite the cunning linguist.
For someone complaining above about deflecting, you seem remarkably averse to addressing the real point of Joe's comment. Regardless of the number, go look at the methodology. It does not support your claim or deserve your blind faith.
Better mine than yours.
Just curious as to how you pick a doctor?
Of course they do, It's a source of grant money for them.
It's amazing as to how much you "know" about everyone and everything.
I hate to tell you, but if it's money they're after, they'd be better off shilling for the fossil fuel companies - some did.
Tell me about it when you stop using fossil fuels and the products they produce.
Oh happy day.
You know absolutely nothing about me, what I know (about science or anything else for that matter) and what I've done yet feel free to call me a "doofus" because I disagree with you.
The world is and has been full of "experts" who have been wrong about any number of things, including those that were accepted as common knowledge by a majority of people at different times and places.
Feel free to have your own opinions just don't proclaim then to be facts.
The Human Chromosome number was taught as "48" for years (I know I'm setting myself up for a Trisomy joke, blow me) really fit well with Evil-lution as Apes/Chimpanzees have 48 also (I know, another set up for Jerry S)
Only problem was Chromosomes 47 and 48 never looked exactly the same, and countless numbers of Genetics students got marked down for not finding all 48 chromosomes on their Karyotypes,
Turns out the correct number is 46, (I know, another setup) and was discovered by......Albert Levan (8 March 1905 – 28 March 1998) was a Swedish botanist and geneticist.
Albert Levan is best known today for co-authoring the report in 1956 that humans had forty-six chromosomes (instead of forty-eight, as previously believed). This epochal discovery was made by Joe Hin Tjio in Levan's laboratory.
Yes, another example of the European man keeping the Asian man down,
Of course now the teaching is Humans "Evolved" to a lower number of Chromosomes...
Frank "46, XY"