Realism About Technooptimism
Technology will save us. Ninth!
When the climate policy debate turns to specific economic sectors, the potential of carbon abatement technologies, or energy strategies, the same basic questions always arise. How much can we rely on "easy" technology, especially "cheap" technology? Can climate change be solved by forcing people to turn to low-carbon technologies or does it require more radical changes in the way we live and organize ourselves as a society?
This is not just a philosophical or academic question. This is one of the issues that differentiates the left from the right in today's political culture. One side believes in new markets and technologies to improve things, while the other side insists that public policy should play a major role. Yes, this character is very dry. However, knowing the extent to which policy makers, politicians and their followers engage can help us evaluate and improve how they perceive new developments in clean technology.
Consider the scientific advances made in the last month in the field of nuclear fusion. The long debate about nuclear power is back in the spotlight. Techno-optimists believe we can unlock truly limitless sources of clean energy. This is in everyone's interest, regardless of political affiliation, and seems to suggest that human ingenuity is the key to our salvation.
But even the most ardent techno-optimists can't claim that technology itself will deliver. After all, this one-of-a-kind blend is made at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a US federal research facility where government scientists conduct experiments paid for by the taxpayer.
Yes, there are also startups working on integrations, hoping to launch their first pilot plants within the next decade. But they also ask the government for money through direct subsidies or guarantees on energy loans permitted by devaluation laws. The image is not unique to the UK or elsewhere, nor is it limited to fusion technology. Silicon Valley, a bastion of technical freedom, is more dependent on government funding and favorable policies than most industries.
None of this comes as a surprise to those working in the energy sector, which is one of the most regulated, taxed and subsidized sectors in the world. The government always chooses a winner and lobbying plays no small role in this process.
Now let's take a look at the second most recent episode. Ovens have been at the center of America's culture wars ever since the Federal Consumer Protection Agency signaled concern about their impact on home air quality. Induction is new technology, old gas, and the subject matter is too voluminous and illogical for the public to easily understand.
In this regard, many right-wingers, who have traditionally believed that technology will save us, are pitting old technology against government "invasions". But unlike before, you can't resist extrapolation because it costs more. Now you can get a promotional plaque from IKEA for $70.
The switch from gas to induction is largely symbolic in the fight against climate change. Yes, most homes in both hot and cold climates use more gas for heating than for cooking. But the move goes beyond symbolism in the family, as it could cut off the gas line completely.
The smelting and furnace discussion shows why getting the technology right has to be more than a simple yes-no shouting match. In general, no one should argue that we need new technologies and new policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions at the required rate and scale. Just ask the Texas Land and Freedom Coalition, an advocacy group that usually represents conservative farmers and ranchers. The Group supports policies to promote renewable energy projects throughout the state.
All technical professionals should do the same. If you believe new technologies are the answer to climate change , you will want countries to use political regulators to accelerate the adoption of these technologies. The problem is that most of the blame for such policies is hidden, while those who oppose new technology speak about it more openly. As a result, public discourse remains fictional.
In a more open discussion, the company acknowledged that not all technology solutions are created equal. Induction furnaces, heat pumps (an electric option that is more efficient than gas), retrofits, solar and wind power are all up and running on a large scale, now. But other technologies—mostly nuclear fusion, but green liquid fuels where electricity is more efficient—didn't work. They are at best a nuisance and at worst an excuse for further inaction. You can still offer future benefits with additional R&D funds; But that shouldn't stop the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions this decade.
According to a joke, nuclear fusion is 30 years old. Now that they've been discovered in a lab, what dates from 30 years ago is about to become a reality. That means the technology could be a big part of the low-carbon electricity mix in the second half of this century. But given that timeline, no one well versed in climate science would suggest that nuclear fusion is the only technology. About seven million people die each year from air pollution, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels, and our ability to manage climate change depends on what we do now through 2030, and then into 2030 and 2050 .
No solution is sufficient by itself. However, accelerating the adoption of proven renewable technologies is an important goal, especially when accounting for the many hidden costs associated with fossil fuels and requiring new policies to steer investment in the right direction. Techno-optimists should be their biggest advocate.