(As a parenthesis, I’d note one policy context when an essentially zero discount rate

(As a parenthesis, I’d note one policy context when an essentially zero discount rate is applied — radioactive waste disposal, where the depositories are required to prevent leakage for 10000 years — somewhat ironic when we can’t plan the rest of energy policy even 30 years ahead) [Consider this analogy. Suppose astronomers had tracked an asteroid, and calculated that it would hit the Earth in 2080, 65 years from now — not with certainty, but with (say) 10 percent probability. Would we relax, saying that it’s a problem that can be set on one side for 50 years — people will then be richer, and it may turn out then that it’s going to miss the Earth anyway? I don’t think we would. There would surely be a consensus that we should start straight away and do our damnedest to find ways to deflect it, or mitigate its effects. ] Many still hope that our civilisation can segue smoothly towards a low-carbon future The pledges made at the Paris conference are a positive step. But even if they’re honoured, this may not happen fast enough to prevent CO2 concentrations rising to dangerous levels. Politicians seldom take a long-term view, and won't gain much resonance by advocating unwelcome lifestyle changes now — when the benefits accrue mainly to distant parts of the world, and are decades into the future. But there’s one measures to mitigate climate change that genuinely seems a ‘win win’ scenario. CLEANER ENERGY SOURCES It’s that nations should accelerate R and D into all forms of low-carbon energy generation (renewables, , 4"th generation nuclear, fusion, and the rest) . And into other technologies where parallel progress is crucial — especially storage (batteries, compressed air, pumped storage, flywheels, etc) and smart grids. That’ why an encouraging outcome of Paris was an initiative called ‘Mission Innovation’. It was launched by President Obama and by the Indian Prime Minister Modi. And endorsed by 20 other nations. It’s a campaign to double publicly funded R and D into clean energy by 2020. There’s been a parallel pledge by Bill Gates and other private philanthropists. This target is a modest one . Presently, only 2 percent of publicly funded R and D is devoted to these challenges. Why shouldn’t the percentage be comparable to spending on medical or defence research? The faster these ‘clean’ technologies advance, the sooner will their prices fall so they become affordable to developing countries - where more generating capacity will be needed -- where the health of the poorest billions is jeopardized by smoky stoves HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026735