An undervalued factor in climate mitigation analysis is the time value of CO2. A molecule prevented today is worth considerably more than a molecule in 15 years. Over those 15 years the first molecule will have contributed to many positive warming feedback loops and

Done it’s in part in irreversible damage to ecosystems. This is not an argument for deployment or innovation. Any cursory review of the sources of GHG pollution makes it clear we need both. It does suggest that solve some small to medium sized GHG problems quickly is important

Even those that need technological improvements to work. There are many skill sets and personality types and forms of capital that are being pulled into climate mitigation work and there is important work for all of them. Yes we need rapid deployment of wind and solar. Also need

Solutions to relatively mundane things like leaky building envelopes, financing mechanisms to get existing high efficiency A/C tech into the developing world, packaging, food waste, industrial motors, space heating, leaky gas networks and so on.

Some of these could be achieved quickly with relatively modest business and technical innovation while others continue to work on the big rocks like fusion, cement, aviation, etc. And of course we can’t deploy solar and wind fast enough! More and more and more is needed. Why?

Because its not just traditional power needs. Many sectors are planning to use that cheap, clean power: hydrogen, space heating, light vehicles and maybe heavy, steel, fertilizer (thru H2), maybe aviation, maybe synthetic fuels. We’ll need to repower the grid several times over.

So work on renewable deployment bc your excesses will drive innovation elsewhere, the huge hard to decarbonize sectors and moonshots bc we can’t win without these, and/or things that can move quickly to capture the time value of carbon savings by moving fast.