next page (older posts) →
admin3 · 2014-04-07T15:00:10.000Z · comments (None)
Hi, I contributed to that part, let me respond to both of your points:
You are right, the plan is to get 80% of electricity from renewable sources by 2030. But it's complicated: At the same time, they expect to see an increase in electricity demand from 488 Twh in 2020 to 680-750 TWh per year, as more sectors are electrifying. Separately, they state the target to generate 50% of energy for heating from climate neutral sources by 2030. The goal is to also electrify transport. I can't quickly give you an overall target percentage, that would require further research. The exact goals for 2030 and 2045 will be put into law this year.
Yes, they do plan to build up infrastructure for green hydrogen, but explicitly state they will remain technology-neutral for now, in order to quickly mature the hydrogen market. Personally, I think it's impossible to stay truly technology-neutral if you want to move that quickly. We can only build things that we know work today. And I think it makes sense to focus CCS efforts on sectors where there is no green alternative available yet, especially now while CCS is unreasonably expensive.
Yes, perfect, thank you!aogara on Two tentative concerns about OpenPhil's Macroeconomic Stabilization Policy work
These all make sense to me, particularly #3 with the huge recent interest in crypto. Monetary policy seems like some strange dark art where we think we have more control over the world than we actually do, and we’re probably not seeing some of the most important unintended consequences of our actions. You have to do the best you can based on what you understand, so I mostly agree with the monetary policy regime, but wouldn’t be surprised if we look at things very differently in 50 or 100 years. (The history of the subject is really rather recent — the Federal Reserve was born in 1913, and Nixon only fully took us off the gold standard in 1971.)
A separate topic you might be interested in would be Modern Monetary Theory. It’s is widely derided by economists, mainly I think because it’s so closely tied to Democratic politics and advocating big budget increases. But as an academic theory I think it’s a really compelling new account of the function of money and the levers we have at our disposal to affect the economy. A lot of the MMT authors themselves are pretty polemical, I didn’t like Kelton’s Deficit Myth. Greg Mankiw’s introduction is pretty balanced IMO, check out the full thing if you want but here’s his conclusion:
“In the end, my study of MMT led me to find some common ground with its proponents without drawing all the radical inferences they do. I agree that the government can always print money to pay its bills. But that fact does not free the government from its intertemporal budget constraint. I agree that the economy normally operates with excess capacity, in the sense that the economy’s output often falls short of its optimum. But that conclusion does not mean that policymakers only rarely need to worry about inflationary pressures. I agree that, in a world of pervasive market power, government price setting might improve private price setting as a matter of economic theory. But that deduction does not imply that actual governments in actual economies can increase welfare by inserting themselves extensively in the price-setting process. Put simply, MMT contains some kernels of truth, but its most novel policy prescriptions do not follow cogently from its premises.”mickey-zachary-1 on FAQ: UK Civil Service Job Applications
Hi, I’m currently on a student placement with the civil service and hopefully, would like to apply for a graduate entry role after the completion of placement, later at some point, I’ll need visa sponsorship, is there any chance I would be sponsored by my employer?barrygrimes on Looking for Resources/Video on Well-being Metric from Happiness Research Institute
You can find the recordings of all our previous talks on our YouTube channel too: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBTpxfb5k-heqidplxDxvjAchanamessinger on Off Road: support for EAs struggling at uni
Thank you! This makes sense to me.chanamessinger on Off Road: support for EAs struggling at uni
The thing about parts not being necessarily about IFS specifically should have occurred to me, thank you!question-mark on Running for U.S. president as a high-impact career path
How much would this apply to running for office in general? Even though most elected officials are less influential and powerful than the US president, running for mayor, congress, senate, etc., could still draw attention and funding to EA causes, and the odds of winning the election are probably higher.cilliancrosson-gmail-com on Apply to Negotiating for Good [Feb 26 - Mar 12]
It's mainly designed for the for-profit case but I'd be excited to see academics working on important topics use this programme to negotiate for non-monetary benefits that could increase their impact!
Although some of the content would not be 100% relevant, most of the tools we cover are cross-applicable to any negotiation. The basic framework of the programme would also allow participants to replace "salary goal" with their alternative negotiation goal.jonas-vollmer on Long-Term Future Fund: July 2021 grant recommendations