Accelerate progress—don’t impede it!

Wind farms, solar, remote work, and brocade?

Next:Economy Newsletter Cropped image by fhir.photograph on Flickr   Don't be a decel Last week we focused on the challenges that remain to be solved to allay the climate crisis. But climate isn't the only area where we're counting on technological innovation to help create a better future. In his Noahpinon newsletter, Noah Smith cautions readers against being "decelerationists," arguing that "technological progress must be harnessed, not fought." Pointing to the successes of mRNA vaccines like the COVID boosters, solar power, and AI technologies, Smith lays out just why a commitment to "acceleration" is so important: Progress is never inevitable or automatic; it depends on a favorable institutional context. It depends on government science funding, on private capital, on big business and small business, and very often on public-private partnerships. And most of all, it depends on a populace that believes that increasing humanity's power over our world will make tomorrow better than today. The more that hope in our technological future is able to transcend partisan cleavages, online subcultures, and mass ennui, the faster we will move on to the next, better chapter in our history.   Energy privilege is a roadblock As Smith notes in his newsletter, solar technology is widely supported by most Americans, but through the actions of the small anti-solar movement, it's become a pivotal wedge issue. (A similar thing is happening in the UK.) So too with wind farms. Heatmap's Robinson Meyer explores the findings of a new study, " Prevalence and Predictors of Wind Energy Opposition in North America ," tracking opposition to wind farms. In short, opposition is growing, and it's growing fastest in richer, whiter areas. Leah Stokes, a political science professor at UC Santa Barbara and a coauthor of the study, calls this "'energy privilege,' the ability of rich, largely white communities to stymie the energy transition," often to the detriment of poorer communities and communities of color. As Meyer points out, the community input process required for permitting decisions itself "inherently benefits whiter and wealthier people," and the longer the process goes on, the more opposition grows, despite relatively few people bringing initial complaints. "That systematic privilege of the status quo," Meyer contends, "is an existential problem for the climate movement." Solving it will likely require a more streamlined (and more democratic) permitting process. + While the vocal few may be able to bring wind energy projects to a halt, the good news is that most Americans support renewable energy. A recent Washington Post-University of Maryland poll found that "three-quarters of all Americans say they would be comfortable living near solar farms while nearly 7 in 10 report feeling the same about wind turbines. And these attitudes appear to remain largely consistent regardless of where people live."   So are threats to the bottom line Deceleration isn't just an outgrowth of NIMBYism. When it comes to solar energy, utilities have been eager to slow progress, or at least progress that affects their profit margins. In California for instance, the Public Utilities Commission has already lowered the rates utilities pay customers for generating excess solar power and will soon decide whether to do the same for owners of apartment buildings . The adjustments are controversial, as they weaken the benefits individual home and apartment owners realize by installing solar, and could slow adoption. For their part, power companies, which backed the adjustments, argue that the new rates reflect the real value of the excess electricity sent back to the grid. But in a related trial in Arizona, utilities may have given the game away. As Mother Jones reported, "An expert witness for the state's largest utility said he agrees with the idea that utilities oppose rooftop solar because it is a threat to their profits." + If individual solar proves too costly or otherwise impossible, community solar may be an option.   Look at solutions from every angle While not technological progress per se, the rise of remote work during the pandemic definitely improved work for employees in a number of fields. But companies increasingly want to hit the brakes on the remote work experiment and bring everyone back to the office. So far the going hasn't been easy. The conflict between the work-from-home and back-to-office camps is often framed in terms of worker happiness or productivity, and these are important issues to hash out. But a new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences spotlights a potential upside of remote work that's often overlooked: "In the United States, switching from working onsite to working from home can reduce up to 58% of work's carbon footprint." (Hybrid schedules also reduce emissions, but by less.) Allyson Chiu summarizes the findings in the Washington Post, emphasizing (as do the study's authors) that remote work remains just one piece of a much more complicated puzzle of decarbonization that includes "vehicle choice, commuting behavior, and energy efficiency in homes and offices." But it's one of many solutions that should be considered on our way to a greener future. + "Here's What We Do and Don't Know About the Effects of Remote Work." + Another underpublicized benefit of remote work: "It's helped bring mothers back to the workforce."   How should we judge progress? Economist Tyler Cowen recently sat down with University of Chicago historian and writer Ada Palmer for a conversation that covered everything from Renaissance fabrics to Viking music to censorship and much more besides. Their compelling discussion should be watched or read in its entirety. But one of Palmer's revelatory insights, about whether life in the Renaissance was better than life in the Middle Ages, is worth quoting at length: The question is, what do we mean by better? Do we measure better by life expectancy? Do we measure better by how you're spending your days? Do we measure better by two of your three brothers have died, but you wear comfortable clothing; or only one of your three brothers has died, but you're wearing itchy clothing because it's been manufactured only with local materials without being able to import things like alum fixatives and expensive dyes and high-quality olive oil from far away in order to make higher-quality cloth? This is why, when people talk about the Renaissance as a golden age, what I'd like to say is, well, golden age can mean a lot of different things. Do we judge a golden age based on the quality of how beautiful the cities are, how great the art is that is being produced, how many consumer goods somebody is living with in a daily life, the quality of your clothing? Or do we measure it by life expectancy? Do we measure it by fear? Do we measure it by how many times you have relatives who are on death's door from being exposed to the plague and living from it?. . . Progress is to be encouraged and celebrated, not impeded. And historically it has been, at least given the long view: as Palmer points out, "We know more [now], which is great. We can do more, which is great. That's been true of every generation for a long time." But as Palmer reminds us, when considering progress, we should also be crystal clear about the values by which we're measuring it.   —Tim O’Reilly and Peyton Joyce This message was sent to alexvarboffin.abbb@blogger.com. You are receiving this because you've signed up to receive email from us. Privacy Policy | Unsubscribe From All | Unsubscribe From Next:Economy O'Reilly Media, Inc., 1005 Gravenstein Highway North, Sebastopol, CA, 95472 (707) 827-7000