Shifting off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible has a sufficient basis in economic and national security grounds, and has for many years.  To be credible, an analysis preferring technological innovation to any other approach to decarbonization has to explain why there’s been so little movement given those other long-standing concerns and why innovation (at a sufficient scale) would not encounter the same resistance.  I’m still waiting.

You and  Romm are certainly working from the same playbook.

Why is Microsoft, one of the premier R & D corporations in the world, now pushing CO2 reduction, when no actual scientific evidence exists for catastrophic global warming?

Because they want to join the gang sucking at the public teat.

Why are Duke Energy and Florida P & L pushing for cap ‘n trade, when they are the largest coal utilities in the country, and when no actual scientific evidence exists for catastrophic global warming?

Because they want to join the gang sucking at the public teat.

On second thought, maybe the answers are so easy that the questions are less interesting than they at first seemed…

Re Joe Romm, his point (which I agree with) is to get something passed by Congress soon, however weak, so that we can get some forward motion.  As I’ve said before, the main immediate benefit of this strategy is that it would empower the administration to move forward with strong regulatory action (and related bi- and multilateral agreements to extend them internationally and immunize them against future repeal).  The most important ball to keep our eyes on is finding ways for China and India in particular to substitute zero-carbon energy sources for their planned coal plant expansion.  Doing so will certainly require some near-term innovation given that CCS is a non-starter.     

Let me start by addressing points at the bottom of your post and work up from there.

You are absolutely correct that calls for “clean coal” technology will come in response to any  peak oil hitting. On that note, I should mention that we’ll probably see a reprise of the “drill, baby, drill” mantra. In fact, you can bet on it. 

You also raise a good point about R & D going hand in hand with carbon pricing schemes. And yes, on some level that’s happening. So why should they be mutually exclusive? Well, I think there is something to be said about emphasis and also to how the larger debate is framed.

If the whole point, as Gates writes, is to avoid climate catastrophe by decarbonizng energy, well then let’s focus like a laser beam on that overriding objective. Do you think the innovation efforts underway now will lead to that?

Lastly, I’m not sure I agree with you that pivoting to an emphasis on innovation will lead to fatalism in the public. One could argue that a fair amount of fatalism already exists on the climate change issue, thanks to the incessant fear-mongering.

At any rate, people don’t think that energy needs to be decarbonized to avoid the worst of climate change at some indeterminate point in the future. They just think carbon emissions will have to be reduced. Now, based on what we know about the U.S. climate bill and the Copenhagen outcome, how confident are you that those reductions are going to happen in a timely and meaningful manner? 

Hence my guess that there might soon be calls for a “reset” in climate policy that elevates investment in innovation above all else.

On a certain level I’m sympathetic with Roger’s POV that we are understating the challenge of stabilization (at least in terms of how it’s communicated in the media).  But I still don’t get how more clarity on that front changes our priorities (i.e. aggressive deployment of existing technologies + aggressive R&D on disruptive tech).   Moreover, I’d suggest that we’d be just as likely to engender a sense of fatalism in the public if they understood how difficult it will be to avoid catastrophic impacts in 2-3 generations time.

What exactly do you think is meant by prioritization in the sense that Gates is implying? Is it that Obama shouldn’t waste any political capital on pushing C&T legislation and that he should instead focus on beefing up ARPA-E (oh wait he’s done that already).  Why does it follow that a lack of progress on *international* C&T initiatives suggests a course correction on the concept of carbon pricing and focusing on instead on government R&D subsidies?

Oh and btw in the absense of carbon pricing if peak oil hits you’re just as likely to see coal-to-liquids technology and a greater shift to coal in electricity production (since the price of natural gas has historically been tied to the price of oil)…