Realism About Technooptimism

Technology will save us! No you won't!

When the debate on climate policy touches on a particular sector of the economy, the potential of carbon reduction technologies or energy strategies, the same fundamental question always arises: how much can we rely on "simple", preferably "cheap" technological improvements? Can we solve climate change by wanting people to switch to low-carbon technologies, or will there be a more radical change in our way of life and how society is organized?

This is not just a philosophical or academic question. In today's political culture, they are one of the most contentious issues for both the left and the right. One side relies on markets and new technologies to make things better, while the other side insists that public policy must play an important role. Yes, this comic is very raw. But knowing how well politicians, debaters and advocates frame these questions can help us analyze and ultimately improve perceptions of new developments in cleantech.

Think of a real scientific breakthrough in the field of fusion last month. The old nuclear debate has resurfaced. Techno-optimists embraced the idea that we may indeed have found an unlimited source of clean energy. This would be in the interest of all, regardless of political affiliation, and would seem to confirm that human ingenuity is the key to our salvation.

But even the most ardent techno-optimists cannot claim that technology alone will save us. After all, this first burst of fusion took place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a US federal research facility where government scientists conduct taxpayer-sponsored experiments.

Yes, there are fusion startups that hope to launch their first demonstration plants within the next decade. But they are also looking for government funding, direct grants or DOE loan guarantees provided by the Inflation Reduction Act. The picture is no different in England or elsewhere, and it is not limited to fusion technology. Silicon Valley, a bastion of techno-libertarianism, is more dependent on government funding and favorable policies than many other industries.

None of this will come as a surprise to those working in the energy sector, which includes some of the most highly regulated, taxed and subsidized industries in the world. Governments always choose the winners, and lobbying plays a significant role in this process.

Now consider the penultimate episode. The stove has become the focus of a culture war in the United States after the federal consumer protection agency released a statement raising concerns about its effect on indoor air quality. Induction is a new technology, an old gas, and there are too many nuances and too much nonsense in the debate for the public to easily understand.

In this case, the far right - those who usually rely on technology to save us - are using old technology in the name of countering the government. But unlike before, they couldn't refuse induction because it cost more. Now you can get a $70 induction cooker from IKEA.

The transition from gas to induction can be seen mostly as symbolic in the fight against climate change. Yes, most homes in temperate and cold climates use gas for heating rather than cooking. But this measure goes beyond simple everyday symbolism and will mean a complete cessation of the gas pipeline.

The smelting and furnace debate shows why the right technology requires more than just a yes-no match. All in all, no one should argue that we need new technologies and new policies to cut carbon emissions at the speed and scale we need. Just ask the Texas Land and Freedom Coalition, an advocacy group that has traditionally represented ranchers and conservative ranchers. The group is calling for a policy to promote renewable energy projects in the state.

All techno-optimists should do the same. If you believe that new technologies are the answer to climate change , you should ask governments to use political leverage to accelerate the spread of these technologies. But the problem is that most of those who lobby for such policies do so in private, while those who lobby for new technologies are more vocal about it. As a result, public discourse remains caricatured.

In a more detailed discussion, the audience will understand that not all technological solutions are the same. Induction furnaces, heat pumps (a more efficient electric alternative to gas), furnaces, solar and wind power are readily available on a large scale. But other technologies, notably fusion, and green liquid fuels for use where electrification is more efficient, don't. At best, they are a distraction, and at worst, they justify continued inaction. They can still benefit from increased funding for research and development in the future; however, this should not prevent us from reducing our _{CO2 emissions} this decade.

Although the jokes have been going on for decades, nuclear fusion is still 30 years away. Now that this has been achieved in the lab, 30 years from now it could be true. This means that technology could become a key part of the low-carbon power industry in the second half of this century. But given this timeline, no climate expert would suggest nuclear fusion as the only method. Nearly seven million people die each year from air pollution, mostly from burning fossil fuels, and our ability to control climate change depends on what we do through 2030 and then between 2030 and 2050.

One solution is not enough. But accelerating the adoption of proven and scalable technologies is a necessary goal, especially given the many hidden costs associated with fossil fuels and the need for new policies to steer investment in the right direction. Techno-optimists must be their strongest advocates.