{"id":339048,"date":"2010-02-19T07:18:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-19T12:18:00","guid":{"rendered":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864176.post-6463529406325030853"},"modified":"2010-02-19T07:22:17","modified_gmt":"2010-02-19T12:22:17","slug":"innovation-%e2%89%a0-technology-why-bill-gates-is-wrong","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/339048","title":{"rendered":"Innovation \u2260 technology: Why Bill Gates is wrong"},"content":{"rendered":"

Dave Roberts at Grist has a bone to pick with some of Bill Gates’ recent pronouncements about clean energy (which are by and large still laudable in my opinion) – Innovation \u2260 technology: Why Bill Gates is wrong<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Gates has burst on to the energy scene with some rather ill-considered thinking. To get a flavor, see his blog post, \u201cWhy We Need Innovation, Not Just Insulation.\u201d The idea is that \u201cconservation and behavior change\u201d might get the world to its 2020 or 2030 targets, but to get to 80 percent emissions reductions by 2050 we\u2019ll need fundamental technological innovation. Ergo: we should pay more attention to, and devote more money to, basic science and R&D.<\/p>\n

Now: it\u2019s incontestably true that the U.S. investment in R&D is lower than it should be. We should increase funding in the search for game-changing technology that can help us generate and use energy more sustainably. Indeed, we should increase funding in lots of things! Therein lies the rub.<\/p>\n

There are two problems with Gates\u2019 dichotomy between innovation and insulation. The first is the more obvious but the second is more meaningful. (Also, see Joe Romm and Sean Casten for further Gates critiques.)<\/p>\n

1. Insofar as there\u2019s a distinction between developing new technology that helps generate more\/cleaner\/cheaper energy and using energy more wisely, we obviously need to do both. Just as efficiency alone will never get us to our goals, neither will new generation. …<\/p>\n

Getting maximum energy services out of each electron will be an overriding human imperative in the 21st century, and it will require every bit as much ingenuity and imagination as the pursuit of new generation technology. It\u2019s not a zero sum game; there is no reasonable sense in which concern for efficiency is eclipsing concern for innovation. We absolutely have to do both, and no country on earth is doing either at the scale that will ultimately be required.<\/p>\n

2. Innovation \u2260 technology.<\/p>\n

The deeper and more pernicious problem with Gates\u2019 framing is the implication that technology is where we innovate; in all other areas of life, we just … manage. This taps into some deep archetypes that are worth digging up.<\/p>\n

In modern industrial society we\u2019ve come to see progress as effectively synonymous with technology. When it comes to energy, when someone says \u201cinvest in new technology or,\u201d the or is usually followed some version of restricting, curtailing, or sacrificing. Technology is the opposite of constraint. Proponents of the technology-centric policy perspective cast themselves as forward-looking optimists\u2014in contrast, implicitly or explicitly, to the dour doom-and-gloomers who want you to shiver in the dark. They find easy favor because in America optimism is technology, and vice versa.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve come to think that this conflation of progress\/innovation and technology\u2014specifically energy-generation technology\u2014is one of the principal barriers to a bright green future. To illustrate the point, consider a book I recently reviewed, Reinventing the Automobile, by two engineers from from GM\u2019s advanced auto division and the head of MIT\u2019s Smart Cities program. Among other things, it describes the sustainable city of the future in considerable detail. Here is an extremely condensed sketch of that city:<\/p>\n

Everything is linked up in a smart, integrated communications, power, and transportation network. The city \u201cknows\u201d which roads are congested and which parking spots are free. It can communicate to individuals what combination of walking, transit, and individual vehicles will get them where they\u2019re going fastest. Vehicles are small, electric, modular, and\u2014via sensors, GPS, and broadband wireless\u2014intelligent, so they can pilot and park themselves. They can be charged by parking-integrated stations or even electromagnetic coils embedded in curbs, and since they\u2019re interchangeable and easily customizable, they can be public goods (like today\u2019s car-sharing services), easily swapped out and thus continuously in use. The city uses the vehicles\u2019 batteries as distributed energy storage, along with other storage options including pumped hydro integrated into the sewer system. Rooftops, parking lots, and other marginal lands are covered with solar panels; small-scale wind turbines are perched on bridges and towers; cogeneration systems are attached to every industrial facility. Through smart design and sensing, every building and neighborhood maximizes efficiency. The city senses power demand, knows where power is being produced and stored, and continuously balances supply and demand.<\/p>\n

Cool, right?! At first blush it sounds like a Jetsons techno-fantasy. Here\u2019s the thing, though: according to the authors, who should know, most of the necessary technology either exists or is in development. None of it relies on any major breakthroughs. By a wide margin, the biggest barriers to creating such bright green cities are social. To pick just a handful:<\/p>\n

* Building a city that behaves like an integrated organism means developing a holistic, long-term plan that will coordinate multiple agencies and levels of government. Big, long-term thinking is not exactly an American strong suit these days. Also\u2014and this is a underappreciated problem\u2014cities are cripplingly dependent on the financial largesse of state and federal authorities. They have very little autonomy to borrow money and invest in their own futures.<\/p>\n

* There are all kinds of collective action and first-mover problems: Who puts the charging stations in if there aren\u2019t electric cars on the road yet, and vice versa? Who pays for a smart grid before distributed generation is in place, and vice versa? How can public infrastructure and private market development be coordinated? …<\/p>\n

One could go on. The point is that the way we live together now, the way we govern ourselves, the way we arrange our physical spaces and our commerce, the way we do economics and measure prosperity\u2014all these have to be changed in creative ways if we want to achieve the goal of sustainable prosperity. All these changes require … wait for it … innovation. Innovations in the way we think, interact, and structure our lives require just as much imagination, intelligence, persistence, and funding as innovations in technology.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n