Suggestions
Jurgen Weiss
Focusing on radically accelerating global decarbonization
Jurgen Weiss, Founder of Dash2Zero
Jurgen Weiss is the Founder of Dash2Zero, a company focused on radically accelerating global decarbonization.3 He brings over 25 years of experience as an academic, management consultant, and economist across a broad range of industries.2
Prior to founding Dash2Zero, Weiss held the following roles:
- Senior Lecturer at Harvard Business School (2020-2022), where he developed a course on "Global Energy in Transition"16
- Managing Director at The Brattle Group, a global economics consulting firm14
- Co-Founder and Managing Director of Watermark Economics1
- Managing Director of Point Carbon's global advisory practice1
- Director at LECG and Associate at Booz Allen & Hamilton1
Weiss has a PhD in Business Economics and MA in Economics from Harvard University, as well as an MBA from Columbia University.1 He has testified in US state and federal courts, state regulatory proceedings, and served on advisory councils for organizations like California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the Department of Energy's Wind Vision Task Force.1
As an energy and industrial organization economist, Weiss focuses his work on the fundamental transformation of the energy industry in light of technological change and climate change pressures.1 He consults, researches, and publishes on topics such as decarbonization of transportation and buildings, deep decarbonization of the power sector, and their impacts on assets, markets, planning, and business models.15
Highlights
Are great graphics good enough to make for a good article? I think not. This New York Times article shines, as usual, with very cool graphics, clearly better than what the IPCC produces in its impenetrable reports (and I am talking about the summaries for policy makers).
The article goes through a list of potential tipping points and shows how far away (or not) we are from a "danger zone".
I think most scientists who study these things would agree that, in spite of the considerable uncertainty about whether/when we might go over a tipping point cliff and independent of what doing so means for our climate over our life times, not acting swiftly now is playing with fire.
Instead, as I read the article, I felt lulled into a sense that this is all very far away and potentially not so big a deal. For example, the section on "Abrupt thawing of permafrost" has a graph that shows that we seem to be in the very early phase of a long "danger zone" with lots of ups and downs. The conclusion is: "The timing will vary place to place. The effects on global warming could accumulate over a century or more." On the "Collapse of the Greenland Ice" the graph shows the same and concludes that "Irreversible melting could begin this century and unfold over hundreds, even thousands, of years."
Is this really what the science tells us or what the scientists believe, or is this a graphics department gone wild with naive journalists who don't think about what the message really is. I am pretty sure it does not imply that since irreversible change may only start later this century we should wait and see. At a minimum, we need to consider the inertia not just of global natural systems, but also of human societal change. Also, the fact that we may be at the relative beginning of a tipping point danger zone almost certainly does NOT mean that we can or should wait - the whole point about uncertainty here is that it could be too late next year to avoid some tipping - and the whole point about tipping is that it is super hard (if at all possible) to reverse course, suggesting a huge benefit to reducing tipping point risks NOW. But that is not what I take from this article. Too bad since if the New York Times can't get the story right, then how likely is it somebody else with similar audience reach can do better? We need really excellent journalism to convey these complex issues to a broad audience - so I hope the NYT will make sure that future stories it tells about climate change will be more than misleading pretty graphics!
I have been searching for a long time for a book that articulates what I believe to be the core challenges of tackling climate change. Much of the literature I come across is relatively narrowly based on some normative analysis (What should happen, given how rational people should think about the world) or some engineering-economic modeling or perspective (showing that mitigating climate change is cheaper than not mitigating once we include the damages we anticipate, or the price we need to put on carbon to either reflect its social cost or to decarbonize over some period of time.
I haven't done any book recommendations so far, but Andreas Karelas has written a book (now a few years old but only now reaching my "horizon" that is the first one I have seen that recognizes that these normative or engineering-economic perspectives are not going to result in the progress we need. Instead, beyond from stating clearly that shaming people who disagree with those of us who believe that climate change is an existential threat and needs to be tackled with common sense legislation and incentives won't get us anywhere, he also offers some good ideas and examples of different approaches. They include, importantly, the search for "common ground" such as around themes of conservation (the name has much in common with conservatism), energy independence, national security, finding small scale solutions that limit the power of large corporations and monopolies etc. He also spends a fair amount of time discussing underlying issues related to how we lead a happy life and how the idea that anything we do to mitigate climate change may make our current lives less "happy" are based on potentially false perceptions, many of which likely driven by commercial desires to make us consume more. All of this sounds true to me and worthy of more exploration.
Even though sections of the book are a bit too much like "action lists" to me, I think the book is well worth a read and the ideas covered in it could be the foundation for a more productive discussion of how to change the foundations of a discussions around climate change in ways that would allow moving forward much faster and putting the fight against climate change on a much broader basis of support.
https://climatecourage.us/
