Dear Elon Musk: Addressing Climate Change

Dear Elon Musk,

I have several suggestions regarding climate change and the budget deficit. 

Our society’s current climate strategy is to talk about the problem and encourage people, companies, cities and states to “do something.” Unfortunately, the cost and impact of their efforts are rarely quantified, and this leads to wasted money.

The public might not care if someone else wastes their own money; however, there is a problem with waste. It is not scalable, and one needs large volumes to tackle climate change. More specifically, lawmakers will not expand a program that is wasteful. In other words, due to political constraints and high-volume requirements, one needs to tackle the climate problem at the lowest cost to society. This is a subtle point that is often ignored, and it implies our fundamental approach to climate is destined to fail.

Also, this presents an opportunity for conservatives. If they can fix this with a “we do more for less” approach, they will be stronger in upcoming elections. 

This raises the following question: “How might the U.S. fix the climate problem, reduce the budget deficit and achieve energy dominance all that the same time?” I believe this is possible via an engineered approach, described below. 

The next question is: “Who might do this?” Elon, you seem busy. However, your father Errol seems underutilized. He is a brilliant engineer, and his common sense is exactly what is needed. I suggest he be tasked with solving the entire climate problem at the lowest cost to society, without conflicting with America’s energy dominance strategy.

Tackling climate at the lowest cost

There are many initiatives that reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Each has a cost to society and an amount of carbon dioxide that is reduced. One can divide these two numbers to calculate the cost to reduce emissions by one metric ton of carbon dioxide ($/tCO2). One can think of these parameters as cost and impact. If one decarbonizes in lowest cost order, they might tackle $10-per-ton initiatives first, followed by $12-per-ton initiatives, for example.

• Suggestion #1: Task U.S. government economists at the Energy Information Administration (EIA) with scoring state and federal decarbonization initiatives. More specifically, for each, estimate cost-to-society, amount of CO2 reduced, and cost-per-ton-of-CO2.
• Suggestion #2: Task engineers at EIA with identifying how to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 1/30th each year, over 30 years, in lowest cost order to reach zero 30 years from now, without taxes, without subsidies and with additional costs passed onto consumers (ref.)

Nuclear automation 

In theory, one could develop custom machines that automate the construction of nuclear power plants. This would cost little compared to the $4,000 billion-per-year global cost of fossil fuel (i.e. $2,500 billion/year for oil, $1,000 billion/year for coal and $500 billion/year for natural gas).

• Suggestion #3: Task engineers with estimating the cost to develop custom machines that automate nuclear construction.

Commercial fusion

Currently, scientists are exploring how to generate energy within a hot plasma inside a donut-shaped structure. This is referred to as “tokamak fusion,” and some scientists believe it will not be commercially available for another 20 years. However, a billion-dollar sized R&D initiative could potentially get this done sooner. 

The U.S. government currently spends $800 million each year on basic fusion research; however, they do not “pick winners and losers.” In other words, they are not inclined to heavily support a specific approach.

Fusion companies are looking to develop a fusion machine in the 2030s that produces electricity. However, this would be paid for by investors, not electricity customers. In other words, the cost of their electricity would be high and therefore not popular in an electricity market. In the best case, fusion companies are not expected to produce low-cost electricity until the 2040s, which is too late for climate change.

Fortunately, a paper-only design of a fusion reactor that produces low-cost electricity does exist.

• Suggestion #4: Task engineers with estimating the cost to develop a fusion machine within several years that produces low-cost electricity.

Sunlight reflectivity laboratory

In theory, more sunlight could be reflected back into outer space to cool the planet, ultimately blocking climate tipping points. To better understand how to do this, scientists would need an airplane that injects different candidate materials and then measures impact. More specifically, it would create faint streams of material that wrap around the planet and then monitor them over weeks. This would be done in the upper atmosphere where warmer temperatures cause materials to remain elevated. A potential site would be at an altitude of 40,000 feet in the stratosphere above Alaska.

• Suggestion #5: Outfit one airplane with sprayers and monitoring instrumentation to help scientists identify how to reflect approximately 1% of sunlight back into outer space, at a reasonable cost, without harm.
• Suggestion #6: Task engineers with calculating the cost to block North Pole and South Pole climate tipping points via Boeing 777 aircraft that dispense material near the poles.

Global climate strategy

If the U.S. fully decarbonizes, and other nations do not, little will be accomplished. Also, many climate models say runaway climate change is more likely than not, even with decarbonization. Obviously, this is bad. A website that explains the problem and the solution would be helpful.

• Suggestion #7: Task the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with building a website that summarizes the climate problem with several graphs, after the user specifies a climate model and number of years they expect our society to emit carbon dioxide. In many cases, this will show runaway climate change even with decarbonization. 
• Suggestion #8: Have the same website calculate how much sunlight needs to be reflected back into outer space to achieve an objective like block a specific climate tipping point, and generate an R&D plan that accomplishes the objective.

Climate laboratory

In theory, a new laboratory could be set up to solve the entire climate problem at the lowest cost to society.

Suggestion #9: Set up a $1 billion climate R&D fund overseen by Errol Musk.

Maintain energy dominance

Lawmakers are concerned about energy security, energy economics and climate change. Energy security involves reducing dependence on other nations who might withhold energy to gain influence; energy economics involves reducing energy costs to gain economic advantage; and climate change involves reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

If fossil fuel production is curtailed with drilling or pipeline restrictions, then fuel prices increase, and the additional cost is incurred by all consumers. This causes carbon dioxide emissions to decrease slightly, yet with a high decarbonization cost. Alternatively, if fossil fuel is replaced, instead of being blocked, the decarbonization cost is low. For example, decarbonization cost is low when coal is replaced by a solar farm or wind farm. In other words, a lowest-cost climate strategy does not interfere with an energy dominance fossil fuel strategy.