2020 Democratic Primary Debate 2 Part 1

The current democratic primary debates are very interesting because of the 10 candidates on stage per night results in very limited amount of time for each candidate to speak. That being said it is important for this blog to report on technology topics that are brought up in these debates.
The only topic where technology was mentioned was about climate change. Climate change was delved into in blog posts about the first primary debate. It is important to note that there was barely a mention of the debate about the existence of climate change as man made, the scientific consensus is nearing absolute on humans impact. John Delaney was asked to explain why he didn't agree with the green new deal. He cited linking so many other issues into a policy that should work to achieve green house gas emissions reductions.
His proposal is to tax carbon, really carbon dioxide emissions, and return the revenue as a dividend. Taxing carbon is an approach that has been proposed multiple times over the years. Carbon taxation is essentially a production based tax on emissions. This may seem rather simple implement and it is at a fundamental level. The issues with carbon taxes arise when trying to calculate what the tax should be. Setting a tax level that would realistically match the impact from CO2 emmissions might kill the economy and cause a backlash from citizens who are sufferring under this policy. If the tax rate is set too low then it will have a negligible impact on our emissions and fail as a policy prescription to resolve climate change. This balancing act is only further going to get muddled by the fact that in order to pass a law other politicians, some who don't believe in climate change, will have an opportunity to impact Delaney's proposal.
Additionallt he wants to increase the research funding in the Department of Energy on alternative energy five fold from current levels. The idea behind this part of Delaney's plan is to spur innovation to provide solutions to climate change. The move to a net carbon zero economy will require innovation by private industry to achieve this goal. A significant increase in funding for research and development money towards new technologies is nice, but the proposed amount of increase may be dwarfed by the scale of the problem. Department of Energy research and development funding is not a large sum such that Delaney's proposed five fold increase will not even come close to current Defense department research funding.
He directly endorsed direct air capture technology. Direct air capture technology is a system that seperates carbon dioxide from the air. Delaney is the first candidate to mention and/or endorse the use of this technology. The technologies end goal would be to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it underground in a carbon capture storage system. This is a system that is currently under development and has been proven at least at a prototype level. There are still questions as to whether it can be an important player in solving climate change. The current scientific knowledge about climate change is that to achieve a one degree celsius global average temperature increase we need carbon dioxide levels to be at 350 parts per billion. The latest readings are at or over 400 parts per billion. Fundamentally this means that not only do we need to achieve a net zero emissions, but we would need to actually reduce the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. Direct air capture technology could provide a way to do this. The other key potential benefit of direct air capture technology is that it can counter some of the excess emissions in the transition from our current fossil fuel dependent economy to a green economy, operating on net zero emissions. The transition, or scale up of new technologies, will not be instantaneous and may suffer from friction that will delay expected reductions in our emissions.
Delaney is also interested in a climate corps. Unfortunately due to the time limits in the debate this came across as a sound bite and not a solid policy. It would be nice to get a more concrete information in regards to what this corps would do and how this would tackle climate change.
Elizabeth Warren discussed her two trillion dollar green manufacturing plan. She wants to invest in manufacturing the green technologies of the future in America. This policy proposal is in many ways tailored to the midwest industrial manufacturing states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The current state of green manufacturing is that China is the leader in the development of electric cars, solar panels, and other technology which will be the backbone of the zero carbon economy. Warren's plan is ambitious in that she wants to use a significant government investment to spark manufacturing in America of these technologies. The risks are that any attempt to compete with China and other possible Asian countries may turn out to be un-profitable. Solyndra was an infamous attempt by the Obama administration to invest in green manufacturing, and the company would file for bankruptcy within 24 months of receiving a multi-million dollar loan. Solyndra's failure as a business was due to China's significant investment in solar panel production. They flooded the market and drove down the price to a point that Solyndra couldn't make a profit. This risks does exist in Warren's two trillion dollar plan. In addition she has stated that this investment will generate approximately one million jobs. In order for some companies to remain competitive they may decide to use automation and not hire nearly as many employees as expected.
John Hickenlooper stated that we have to work together with other countries to avert the worse of climate change. This is true, but currently the U.S. is the only country that is planning on leaving the Paris Agreement on climate change. He did in the previous debate state that he would return the U.S. to the Paris climate agreement. Unfortunately this is was also the extent of his remarks. This leaves many Americans who are interested in knowing concrete plans for dealing with climate change disappointed.
Tim Ryan reiterated his desire to dominate electric vehicle production in support of aspects of Elizabeth Warren's plan. He proposed to have a chief manufacturing officer who would help reinvigorate American manufacturing. The  chief manufacturing officer position as it was briefly described would help manufacturers grow and partner them with government programs. This is an interesting concept that hopefully Tim Ryan will be able to elucidate for the electorate to make a decision on this proposal. His last proposal to fight climate change was to promote regenerative agriculture whereby carbon is stored in the soil thru practices including cover crops and soil management. This may have been among the strongest moments of the debate for Tim Ryan. He showed a good command of his proposals and didn't repeat what had been stated multiple times by other candidates before him. He managed to link climate change, which has the strongest support in most urban areas, between the urban and industrial cities to the rural agrarian economy.
Steve Bullock was the only candidate to mention the Republican denial of climate change. His stated remedy for this was to fight corruption. It is correct that the oil and gas industry spend significant sums lobbying in congress and also provide large donations to candidates thru political action committees. Unfortunately we didn't hear a plan that touched on how to reduced greenhouse gas emissions from our economy, which according to climate scientists is vital to avoiding the worst effects of climate change. Bullock did manage to point to the correlation between an expanded fire season and climate change. He also managed to make a great point about the workers who have spent their entire working life powering America who would stand to lose their jobs. Bullock is the governor of Montana, a state with significant coal mining operations, and it would be expected for him to have a plan to fight climate change that included how to deal with coal miners, coal plant operators, and other fossil fuel workers who could be displaced.