climate refugees

Leave a reply

This Common Dreams article goes into the existing legal framework governing refugees and how it could be extended to define and benefit climate refugees. For example:

  • The Refugee Convention of 1954 was set up in the wake of WWII and addresses “those who must leave their home countries due to war, violence, conflict, or any other kind of maltreatment”. So it doesn’t address environmental displacement or internal displacement, but it could be adapted to address these things.
  • The “1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement” are what they sound like – they have not been formally adopted and are not legally binding. They could be developed into a treaty and/or countries could just adopt the principles as part of their own internal legal frameworks, hopefully also offering aid to neighbors experiencing hardship.
  • A “Global Compact for Migration” was adopted by the UN in 2018. It “promotes safe, orderly pathways for migrants, including planned relocation, visa options, and humanitarian shelter”. “Adopted” means the general assembly adopted it as another voluntary, legally non-binding set of principles. This also could be developed into a treaty and/or countries could incorporate the principles into their own internal legal frameworks.
  • The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an actual treaty ratified by many countries including the United States Congress. Trump has announced the US is withdrawing from the treaty – which I don’t understand. I naively thought that if Congress ratified a treaty (which is extremely rare nowadays when win-win agreements are viewed by our cynical politicians as a loss of sovereignty), the executive branch didn’t have the right to unilaterally withdraw.
  • “The Loss and Damage Fund was established in 2022 at COP27 to address the financial needs of communities severely impacted by climate change. The money would support rehabilitation, recovery, and human mobility.” It is underfunded of course.

I don’t want to be cynical, but the global political mood is just cynical at the moment. US politicians in particular are not in the mood to sign international agreements or even cooperate informally. So while I think it is good to pursue all of these ideas, I do not think it is a good idea to put all our eggs in this basket.

Climate crisis-fueled migration is already a driving force behind the rise of right-wing parties in the US and Europe, and this ugly feedback loop looks to just keep accelerating over time. As economic conditions in the destination countries deteriorate, the right-wingers are able to scapegoat migrants and that accelerates the feedback loop even more. The most rational way I can see to try to break the feedback loop is to address the environmental and economic conditions in the source countries. Aid and trade are the consensus center-left and center-right ways to do that. The right-wingers are probably aware of this, and so they sabotage both, which accelerates the feedback loop again. So they have no incentive to solve problems, because increasing problems fuel their agenda. Meanwhile more rational politicians can point to the rational solutions, but then when they can’t deliver them within a political cycle, real peoples’ real economic pain again accelerates the feedback loop. We could try to deliver the best economic performance possible as a strategy with some chance of success. Here, the current US administration is unpatriotically sabotaging the foundations of economic success such as R&D, education, and a strong central bank. Sorry for the doom and gloom as I am not seeing an easy way out of this political conundrum. Sit back and hope AI raises productivity in spite of our currently incompetent government and institutions?

Where are the Small Modular Reactors?

Leave a reply

Small modular nuclear reactors might be a key part of the solution to the climate crisis, or they might not. They seem to be near the end of the R&D stage (although doubtless they can and will continue to be improved) and at the very beginning of pilot testing/proof of concept. They are not yet economically competitive with other forms of power generation (including traditional large nuclear reactors), which you could say about pretty much any new technology. There is a chicken and egg problem where you have to implement it and scale it up for the unit price to come down, and it is hard to get the private sector (and public sector, if they are short-term financial return focused) to take the chance on implementation of something that might end up not working out. Of course, the idea is to invest in a portfolio of things that have some chance of working out, such that there is a high chance at least one of them will pay off. Anyway, some facts and figures in this Physicsworld article (isn’t that name slightly redundant?):

  • Nuclear power generated 17.5% of the world’s electricity in 1996, vs. only 9% today (2026 if you are a future historian reading this).
  • I somewhat naively thought US firms might be leaders in this technological knowledge (if not in implementation of anything at scale, where I would never be that naive). But it turns out that there are two of these reactors currently operating in the world, and they are in Russia. Two are being built in China.

Sure, there are mining, supply chain and waste problems, but in my view you have to balance them against the unfolding global ecological catastrophe caused by burning fossil fuels for two centuries and counting.

WEF Global Risks Outlook 2026

Leave a reply

I think of this thing as not so much a prediction but an indicator of what political and business leaders are thinking and talking to each other about. The results seem to be very sensitive to whether people are asked about a 1-, 2-, or 10-year horizon. So I don’t know that the rankings make a lot of difference. Rather, it makes sense to look at a “top 10” or so. Chillingly, more than half of poll respondents seem to think there is an “elevated” to “looming” risk of “GLOBAL CATASTROPHE” within the next 2-10 years. Within 2 years, they are most worried about “geoeconomic confrontation” while within 10 years they identify environmental disaster as the top 3 worries – “extreme weather events”, “biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse”, and “critical change to earth systems”. “State-based armed conflict” (would it be simpler to just call this WAR?) is also up there somewhere near the top. “Inequality” doesn’t rank as high, but the analysts identify it as the risk that is most “interconnected” with the others.

How pathetic for our species and civilization that our leaders believe environmental disaster is looming a decade out, and yet they are starting wars with one another on our behalf in the present, when they know damn well they need to be cooperating to head off the environmental disaster that is going to affect all of us, the winners and losers of today’s useless wars alike. People don’t want war, so how are we putting people in leadership positions over us who are failing us so utterly?

https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2026/infographics-global-risks-report-2026/
https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2026/infographics-global-risks-report-2026/

what to eat, or you can take my cheese…WHEN YOU PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!

Leave a reply

Harvard School of Public Health explains how the new U.S. government nutrition guidelines were developed without proper scientific oversight. The normal process is a transparent one where an expert panel reviews the latest evidence and submits a report with recommendations, supposedly without any bias or industry influence. (A cynic could probably look at these highly credentialed experts at leading universities and show that they receive research funding from industry and from government agencies being heavily lobbied by industry, because where else would they receive funding from? But they can at least channel any propaganda through some scientific and ethical guardrails you would hope.) USDA employees aren’t obligated to follow these recommendations to the letter, but they at least give them some weight and balance them against the economic and political factors. This time the panel submitted their report as usual, but USDA then cherry-picked a separate set of experts to produce a “supplemental report” without the transparency or adequate documentation. And the guidelines are then based on that. So they are not credible.

Even though the process was not credible, the consensus seems to be that the new guidelines are not really all that different. The main issues have to do with how they are being (badly) communicated, including an apparent emphasis on more saturated fat (which is not really what the technical guidelines say at all, but the concern is that very few people will drill into the technical guidelines). If I can try to clarify the saturated fat issue, it seems to be that a portion of the population that has no cholesterol issues may be able to increase saturated fat intake with no ill effects, but a portion of the population that has cholesterol issues will have more heart attacks and strokes and early death if they do so. Nutrition advice really should be more personal in an ideal world, but with public health guidelines, broad, simple, clear statements that benefit a majority of the public on balance seem to be the way to go. And replacing saturated fat with healthier plant-based fats and oils definitely seems to fall in this category. If people who are eating a lot of sugar and processed garbage were to replace it with meat, that might actually benefit them which may be what the guidelines are trying to say. Of course, they should be replacing it with fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, seeds, whole grains, healthy fats and proteins. And I want to state that I support vegetarians and vegetarianism on ethical and environmental grounds. These considerations are missing entirely from the government’s concept of “nutrition”, and they should not be.

Another criticism I have always had of these guidelines is the use of weight, like eat so many grams of fat per day, or fat should be X% of your calories. Even those of us who might consider ourselves reasonably quantitative and logical think in volume or area, not weight. If you told me to aim for X tbsp of vegetable oil per day or Y slices of cheese, I could do that. Tell me Z grams or ounces, and I have no idea what to do, and then I am supposed to convert that to energy units (calories) and determine what percentage it is of my total calories for the day. But people don’t pay much attention to these guidelines anyway. They need to be getting this information from “trusted messengers” like teachers and doctors, and if these messengers had simple clear messages from the government that they themselves understood and trusted, they could just pass them along. Something like a point system that approximates the weights and calories involved could work.

I don’t think these guidelines have much short-term impact just because us laypeople don’t pay attention, and the professionals that could help us eat better don’t get clear communication materials out of these guidelines that they can work with.

But the longer-term damage here is the damage to the credibility of government health and medical advice. When I tell my kids “not to believe everything you hear and read on the internet”, I tell them to be aware of the source of the information. And one source I would have considered credible in the past is a major federal agency like USDA, CDC, etc. If major government, academic, and professional journalistic sources are telling you the same thing and it matches what that social media influencer or your friend are telling you, it’s still not 100% guaranteed to be true but you can start to have some confidence. But the credibility of federal agencies has really been significantly damaged by this administration and it may take a long time to recover, even if the past norms are ever put back into place.

Conflicts to Watch in 2026

Leave a reply

The Council on Foreign Relations has a list of conflicts to watch. I’ll highlight a few below:

  • “U.S. military operations targeting transnational criminal groups escalate to direct strikes in Venezuela, destabilizing the Maduro government” – marked “probably or highly likely to occur in 2026” when this was written in December 2025. It took three days.
  • high likelihood, high impact: conflict over (clearly illegal under international law) Israeli settlements in the West Bank; “renewed fighting in the Gaza strip” is also listed as depressingly “likely to occur” [I find this deeply tragic and a human rights catastrophe for everyone involved. I am not sure I find it hugely consequential for global war and peace. I think it is more politically correct for the U.S. media to treat it as such. There are other human rights catastrophes going on in the world which will not get equal media or political attention.]
  • “An intensification of the Russia-Ukraine war, caused by expanding attacks on each side’s critical infrastructure and population centers” – also listed as “probable or likely to occur” – so they don’t see this one dying down in 2026 either
  • “Renewed armed conflict between Iran and Israel” – they mark this one as “an even chance of occurring in 2026”
  • “A state or nonstate entity undertakes a highly disruptive, artificial intelligence–enabled cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure” – also marked as an even chance, and I find this one deeply disturbing
  • “Intensified military, economic, and political pressure by China on Taiwan precipitates a severe cross-strait crisis involving other countries in the region and the United States” – also marked as 50% likely to happen in 2026
  • “Armed clashes between Russia and one or more NATO member countries, precipitated by increasing Russian provocations toward European states” – 50% likely
  • “A resumption of North Korean nuclear weapons tests heightens tensions on the Korean Peninsula, triggering an armed confrontation involving other regional powers and the United States” – 50% likely

So the cyberattack we need to be ready for – are we? Not to worry, I am sure the tech companies that created the technology underlying the weapons also have massive government contracts to create counter-measures. Let’s hope the power stays on.

So if we were to gamble (which I guess we can on the futures sites), we would put even money on armed conflict breaking out in at least 2 of these 4 situations, and we should not expect to get through the year without at least one of them: (1) between Iran and Israel, with the U.S. pretending to be reluctantly dragged in [3 NUCLEAR STATES], (2) between China and Taiwan/U.S./Japan [2 NUCLEAR STATES, 1 THRESHOLD NUCLEAR STATE, 1 AMBIGUOUS THRESHOLD NUCLEAR CITY-STATELET], (3) Russia and NATO [4 NUCLEAR STATES], (4) North Korea and South Korea/U.S. [2 NUCLEAR STATES, 1 THRESHOLD NUCLEAR STATES].

There are a couple things they say are low likelihood, so at least we have these: a U.S. armed attack on Mexico, and a China/U.S. armed conflict over the Philippines.

natural disasters in 2025

An insurance company called Aon publishes an annual list of natural disasters and their estimated costs. They also provide fatalities. Costs and fatalities do not track because the highest costs tend to be in developed countries and the highest fatalities tend to be in developing countries. Case in point – the most expensive disasters of 2025 were the January California wildfires (~USD 60B, 31-400 deaths depending on source), and the worst loss of life was the flooding in Southeast Asia that just happened in November (~USD 25B, 1750 deaths). Given what I know about real estate and informal land use in Southeast Asia, the latter was a massive disaster.

https://earth.org/2025-one-of-costliest-years-for-climate-disasters-report/

Other notable disasters were flooding in China, Pakistan/Bangladesh, and Texas; and hurricanes/typhoons that hit Jamaica/Cuba/Bahamas, Philippines, Australia, and Reunion which is a small island near Madagascar and Mauritius. Finally, a drought affecting Brazil makes the “top 10” list.

Every single one of these disasters is a type that will be more frequent and more severe due to global warming, I would say. Flooding, fires, and food – this is how climate change will hit home for almost everyone eventually.

The headline calls 2025 “one of the costliest years”. Is this right? It’s hard to say, but I got CoPilot to give me a plot of estimates released by Aon for the past 10 years. It wasn’t able to access Q4 for 2025 so I asked it to project the trend from the first three quarters, which is likely to be inaccurate. But nonetheless, 2025 doesn’t look particularly exceptional over the past decade. This doesn’t prove anything except that year to year variability is high.

CoPilot (ChatGPT4?) – not extensively verified by any human!

AI predictions for 2026

It’s easy to find predictions for where AI technology, the “AI race”, and the knock-on effects for the US and world economies might go in 2026. I find myself slightly fatigued from hearing about it, but nonetheless it is important.

Here’s one knowledgeable sounding blogger’s predictions:

  • Artificial general intelligence will not be achieved in 2026.
  • Robots will not be able to clean my bathroom in 2026.
  • ‘No country will take a decisive lead in the GenAI “race”.’
  • “Work on new approaches such as world models and neurosymbolic will escalate.”
  • The AI-driven stock market bubble may pop, or it may not. The exact words here are “the beginning of the end”. Well, I can predict with 100% confidence that the stock market will either go up, down, or stay the same.
  • AI will be discussed in the US midterm elections.

Okay, nothing too earth shattering here. On the subject of “countries in the AI race”, one perspective is that the US is focusing nearly all its investment on private sector AI, while China is spreading its investments across a basket of technology and infrastructure investments including AI, “electric vehicles, batteries, robotics, solar panels, wind turbines and other forms of advanced manufacturing” (“the Antimonopolist” blog). The US was also at least trying to do this during and after the Covid-19 pandemic era, but that sensible long-term strategy has been monkey-wrenched by a certain fool in 2025.

Then again, we could ask whether the basic econ 101 lessons are completely disproven? Is it possible we should invest more in what we are good at and sell it to others, while buying things from them that they can make better, faster, or cheaper? There’s a tension of course between being highly efficient and focused on comparative advantage, and also being diversified so you are resilient if something happens to upset your trade flows. But we are certainly not seeing rational debate about all this in the US political context.

Chartbook makes an argument that if you compare the US and European economies, it is really just the performance (measured by profits and stock market values) of the “superstar” US tech firms that makes the US look better. And while life at the top of the heap may skew the US numbers, quality of life for the average working European aided by their bumbling, stumbling social welfare systems is actually not that bad.

Goldman Sachs year in review

Rapacious corporations sometimes put out interesting infographics. I wonder what it takes to get a job like this in one of these corporations, where I assume most jobs are not like this. Anyway, this entry from Goldman Sachs has some interesting ones. I’ve screenshotted a few interesting graphics – this is fair use and I am steering people to your publicly posted info, please don’t sue me guys!

What the heck are stablecoins?

https://www.goldmansachs.com/pdfs/insights/goldman-sachs-research/2025-4-themes-in-charts/2025-summary.pdf p. 18

So basically, a bank or bank-like entity is allowed to take a dollar and issue you a digital currency that you can spend just like a dollar. Crucially, it appears that they have to keep your dollar as a dollar or invest it in U.S. Treasury bonds while they are holding it. So they can make interest on your dollar and you cannot, but they can’t actually create new money by issuing more stablecoins than people give them dollars.

U.S. government debt interest payments are historically high

https://www.goldmansachs.com/pdfs/insights/goldman-sachs-research/2025-4-themes-in-charts/2025-summary.pdf, p. 23

We often hear “debt is X percent of GDP”. But this is comparing a stock and a flow, so there is no reason 100% has any meaning as a benchmark and it certainly does not mean the entire economy is being spent to service the debt. This measure is really a proxy for interest payments as a percent of GDP. This is really the “hangover” from past spending – what we are spending on interest can’t be spent on anything else, and we can’t really control it in the short term. What is really concerning here is that the high interest payments of the 1980s might be explained by high interest rates, but the debt payment level never came down as interest rates came down during the historically low interest rate period since then. Now interest rates are spiking, and this is directly sucking dollars away from real priorities. So clearly, we have to either “grow our way out”, reduce spending, and/or increase taxes (and/or tariffs) if we want to reduce this number. But reducing spending, increasing taxes, and putting up trade barriers all tend to decrease growth in the near term so this is the conundrum. The government can just create money of course, but this tends to be inflationary and at the moment, we appear to be in the midst of a spiral of inflationary expectations that is not going to go away soon. Thanks Biden…but really thanks Obama, Trump and Biden administrations for making the necessary hard choices to stimulate the economy and head off panic during the financial and Covid-19 crises. This has left less slack to deal with the next crisis though – the current number may be sustainable absent an external shock, but of course external shocks happen. The only good thing about external shocks is they sometimes tend to reduce interest rates. By the way, this section of the publication concludes by showing that government debt is not a uniquely U.S. problem.

The Federal Reserve has a Geopolitical Risk Index

https://www.goldmansachs.com/pdfs/insights/goldman-sachs-research/2025-4-themes-in-charts/2025-summary.pdf, p. 40

Basically, it is just counting the number of newspaper articles mentioning geopolitical conflict in a specified number of “papers of record”. I suppose it provides a somewhat objective measure to ground discussions on interest rates for them. But it could be useful for the rest of us to gauge whether our impressions of geopolitical instability are matching the evidence.

my “top 10 U.S. political/geopolitical events of the 21st century”

This Silver Bulletin post is called “The 51 biggest American political moments of the 21st century”. I liked it because it made me think. I found that the non-chronological nature of it threw me off a little bit. So I decided to come up with a “top 10 (U.S.) political/geopolitical moments of the 21st century” of my own. I picked some events off Nate Silver’s list, thought of a few extra of my own, and then put them in chronological order. Limiting it to 10 forced me to really think about what was most important, although like Nate I occasionally cheated by putting things together. I leaned towards events that were true “watershed moments” in the sense that they could have gone differently and the outcome for the U.S. and possibly the world might have been very different. I also leaned towards events where I remember where I was or what I was doing at the time, because I suspect those are important. I included 2000 as Nate did.

  • December 12, 2000: Bush v. Gore. I remember literally falling on my knees when CNN “called Florida for Gore” (the floor of my rental apartment in New Jersey was carpeted). Where would we be if this had gone differently? In general, you may see a theme below that I see Democrats as basically protectors of the pro-big-business, pro-low-profile-foreign-wars center-right consensus in the U.S. George W. Bush was on the right edge of this consensus, while Gore likely would have been on the left edge. I suspect 9/11 and the Afghanistan invasion would still have happened exactly as they did, but I don’t think the Iraq invasion would have happened. Who knows if other aspects of the 20-year “war on terror” would have unfolded as they did? We would have seen more action and progress on climate change and more standing up to fossil fuel industry propaganda for sure.
  • September 11, 2001. I was in my office building in Philadelphia. My mother called me on my desk phone (I didn’t yet have a cell phone) and told me what was happening. We turned on a small black and white TV with rabbit ears we had in our conference room at the time and watched the events unfold. The streets filled with panicky people and you couldn’t get on a train or highway for hours. There were rumors of additional planes in the air over Pennsylvania (which turned out to be true), but in the end nothing happened to us in Philadelphia directly. When I finally got back to my apartment in New Jersey, there were highway signs saying all roads to New York were closed.
  • March 20, 2003: Iraq invasion. A weird thing I remember is Dan Rather updates on the invasion during halftime of NCAA basketball tournament games. We aren’t used to mixing sports and serious news like that.
  • September 15, 2008: Lehman Brothers collapse. This is a stand-in for the larger financial crisis, surely one of the most important world events of my life time (I might pick the Berlin Wall as the single most important, but now we are going back to a previous century). The sub-prime mortgage derivative collapse might have been inevitable, but letting a major institution collapse was a key decision by the Bush administration that led to panic. It certainly played a large role in the Obama election. Obama understood that however distasteful, avoiding panic was the single most important thing he had to do, and he did it. I am an Obama fan, as I was a Bill Clinton fan and fan of the first 2-3 years of Joe Biden. He was just an effective keeper of the pro-big-business, pro-low-profile-foreign-wars center-right consensus. All these leaders pushed to accomplish the most incremental progress that was politically possible in their moments without blowing up the system.
  • January 21, 2010: Citizens United decision. No, I don’t remember where I was or what I was doing. I probably wasn’t even aware of this in real time. But this was crucial and the U.S. and maybe the world could be different without it. Maybe a marginally less corrupt election system would have delivered different results in 2016, and climate change and health care among other issues could be on a very different track.
  • October 28, 2016: the “Comey letter”. I picked this to represent the catastrophe of the 2016 election (which took place on November 8, 2016). The situation was on a knife edge, and without this “October surprise”, which turned out to be a complete hoax, maybe history would have unfolded differently.
  • November 4, 2016: Paris climate change accord takes effect. Obama really pushed and deserves a share of credit for getting this one done. It could still be in effect if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders had won the 2016 election, OR if the U.S. Congress ever did its job of considering and ratifying treaties. Because none of these things happened, the U.S. never gained any momentum on climate action, and generations of our descendants are going to suffer as a result.
  • Friday, March 13, 2020: Covid shutdown. I picked this date because it is the date the Philadelphia public school system, where my son was in first grade at the time, insisted it would not shut down, and then announced late morning that it would shut down for two weeks, which turned into about a year. It was also the day my employer told me I wouldn’t be coming back to the office on Monday. I picked this date to represent the Covid-19 pandemic as a whole, but I could also have picked the date the first vaccinations were approved by the FDA, which was December 11, 2020.
  • November 30, 2022: Chat-GPT goes public. Not on Nate Silver’s list, but seems important no?
  • June 27, 2024: Biden-Trump debate. Of course, the real watershed moment was whenever Biden and his team decided he would run for re-election. Had he announced sometime in 2023 that he would be walking off gracefully into the sunset and allowing a real primary process to play out in 2024, maybe history and our present moment would be very different.

what’s new with learning curves?

At least since reading some early Singularity-adjacent publications by Vernor Vinge, Ray Kurzweil, and Bill Joy, I’ve been interested in learning curves. (And for the record, the topic and these authors were were not considered politically “right wing” or even political at all at the time.) Progress, at least in certain technologies, tends to be exponential over time. This clearly applies to computer technology, where there are short product cycles, the needed infrastructure is more or less in place and/or can adapt as the technology is scaled/commercialized, and legal and institutional barriers to change are relatively low. Technologies with “recipes”, like chemicals, drugs, seeds and other agricultural technologies, might be other examples. For these we have the patent system to actually try to slow down scaling and commercialization to the pace of innovation. With energy technology, learning curves seem to play out over much longer periods of time because while available technology changes rapidly, our system tends to be locked into long-lived infrastructure that can only change slowly. So new energy technology rolls out slowly as it is scaled up and commercialized over decades. There are also entities with enormous political and propaganda power that fight tooth and nail to keep us locked into obsolete technologies and infrastructure that fit into their historical (and profitable) business models. Now when you get to other technologies, like transportation and housing, public policy, legal and institutional barriers are dominant and tend to retard or even prevent progress. Rollout is so hard that while there are pockets of innovation, many don’t see the light of day or don’t spread from the local/pilot scale, even if they are successful at this scale. These also vary by location and jurisdiction, so that progress is very uneven geographically. These are my thoughts anyway. As for what’s new, here’s a journal article from Advances in Applied Energy.

Variability of technology learning rates

Climate and energy policy analysts and researchers often forecast the cost of low-carbon energy technologies using Wright’s model of technological innovation. The learning rate, i.e., the percentage cost reduction per doubling of cumulative production, is assumed constant in this model. Here, we analyze the relationship between cost and scale of production for 87 technologies in the Performance Curve Database spanning multiple sectors. We find that stepwise changes in learning rates provide a better fit for 58 of these technologies and produce forecasts with equal or significantly lower errors compared to constant learning rates for 36 and 30 technologies, respectively. While costs generally decrease with increasing production, past learning rates are not good predictors of future learning rates. We show that these results affect technological change projections in the short and long term, focusing on three key mitigation technologies: solar photovoltaics, wind power, and lithium-ion batteries. We suggest that investment in early-stage technologies nearing cost-competitiveness, combined with techno-economic analysis and decision-making under uncertainty methods, can help mitigate the impact of uncertainty in projections of future technology cost.

This blog in Construction Physics has a deeper dive across more industries, and discusses at least one large data set that is available for analysis. If you could accurately predict learning rates (and successful scaling/commercialization rates) for specific technologies based on known factors, then theoretically you could fine-tune policies and incentives to increase the rate of progress in the technologies you want. So this is an area of research that could boost all other areas of research and progress.