Realism About Technooptimism
Technology will save us! No, it won't!
When climate policy discussions focus on certain economic sectors, CO2 abatement technologies or potential energy strategies, the same underlying question always arises: how much can we rely on 'simple' technical solutions that are as 'cheap' as possible? Can we solve climate change by relying on people to move to low-carbon technologies, or are more fundamental changes needed in the way we live and organize ourselves as a society?
These are not just philosophical or academic questions. In today's political culture, they are among the most controversial issues on the right and left. One side believes that the market and new technologies will solve everything, while the other insists that public policies must play a leading role. Yes, this cartoon is very rude. But knowing how many politicians, day-trippers, and their advocates ask this question can help us analyze and ultimately improve how new developments in cleantech are received.
Consider the apparent scientific breakthrough in nuclear fusion over the past month. The long debate on nuclear power is back in the spotlight. Techno-optimists have had the idea that we may have discovered a truly limitless source of clean energy. This would be in everyone's interest, regardless of political position, and seems to confirm that human ingenuity is the key to our salvation.
But even the most ardent techno-optimist cannot claim that technology alone will save us. After all, the first fusion ignition took place at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a US federal research facility where government scientists conducted taxpayer-funded experiments.
Yes, there are start-ups that are working to establish themselves and hope to have their first pilot plants operational in the next decade. But they also need public funds, whether it's direct subsidies or DOE loan guarantees under the Anti-Inflation Act. The picture is the same as the UK or anywhere else, and you're not limited to Fusion technology. A bastion of technoliberalism, Silicon Valley depends on government funding and favorable policies more than many other industries.
None of this will surprise those working in the energy sector, which includes some of the most regulated, taxed and subsidized industries in the world. Governments are constantly picking winners and lobbying plays a big part in the process.
Watch the penultimate episode now. Stoves have been at the center of the culture wars in the United States after a statement from the Federal Consumer Protection Agency raised concerns about their impact on indoor air quality. Induction is a new technology, gas is an old technology, and there are so many nuances and nonsense in the debate that the public can't figure it out easily.
In this case, many right-wingers who normally rely on technology to save us are endorsing the old technology on behalf of the opposing government. But unlike before, they can no longer oppose induction because it costs more. You can now buy an IKEA induction cooker for $70.
The switch from gas to induction can be considered largely symbolic in the fight against climate change. Yes, most homes in temperate and cold climates use significantly more gas for heating than for cooking. But the measure goes beyond mere symbolism in homes, as it means that the pipeline will be shut down completely.
The smelting and furnace debate shows why the right technology must go beyond simplification and shout yes or no. In general, no one should dispute that we need new technologies and new policies to reduce carbon emissions at the required speed and scale. Just ask the Texas Land and Freedom Coalition, an advocacy group that traditionally represents conservative farmers and ranchers. The group supports policies to encourage renewable energy projects across the state.
All tech optimists should do the same. If you believe that new technologies are the answer to climate change, you must want government to exert political influence to accelerate the deployment of these technologies. But the problem is that many of those pushing for such policies do so privately, while those pushing for new technologies are much more vocal. Consequently, public discourse is caricatured.
With a more detailed discussion, the audience will understand that not all technology solutions are created equal. Induction cookers, heat pumps (a more efficient electric alternative to gas), retrofits, solar and wind power are ready for immediate large-scale deployment. But other technologies, notably nuclear fusion, but also clean liquid fuels for use where electricity is most efficient, are not. At best, they're a distraction, or worse, an excuse for further inactivity. With more R&D funding, they can continue to deliver benefits in the future; But that shouldn't detract from the reduction in carbon emissions this decade.
As the joke goes, nuclear fusion is decades away, 30 years away. Now that this has been achieved in the laboratory, those 30 years could be true. This means that the technology can become an integral part of the low-carbon energy economy in the second half of this century. But given that timeline, no one who understands climate science would suggest nuclear fusion as the only technological solution. Nearly seven million people die each year from air pollution, caused largely by the burning of fossil fuels, and our ability to control climate change depends on what we do between 2030 and 2030-2050.
No single solution is enough. However, accelerating the adoption of proven technologies and their scalability is a necessary goal, especially given the many hidden costs associated with fossil fuels, and requires new policies to steer investments in the right direction. Techno-optimists should be its strongest advocates.
