The environmental and social crisis that threatens us requires deeper solutions than new technology alone can provide
Technology is part of the solution to climate change. But only part. Techno-fixes like some of those in the Guardian’s Manchester Report simply cannot deliver the carbon cuts science demands of us without being accompanied by drastic reductions in our consumption. That means radical economic and social transformation. Merely swapping technologies fails to address the root causes of climate change.
We need to choose the solutions that are the cheapest, the swiftest, the most effective and least likely to incur dire side effects. On all counts, there’s a simple answer – stop burning the stuff in the first place. Consume less.
There is a certain level of resources we need to survive, and beyond that there is a level we need in order to have lives that are comfortable and meaningful. It is far below what we presently consume. Americans consume twice as much oil as Europeans. Are they twice as happy? Are Europeans half as free?
Economic growth itself is not a measure of human well-being, it only measures things with an assessed monetary value. It values wants at the same level as needs and, while it purports to bring prosperity to the masses, its tendency to concentrate profit in fewer and fewer hands leaves billions without the necessities of a decent life.
Techno-fixation masks the incompatibility of solving climate change with unlimited economic growth. Even if energy consumption can be reduced for an activity, ongoing economic growth eats up the improvement and overall energy consumption still rises. We continue destructive consumption in the expectation that new miracle technologies will come and save us.
The hope of a future techno-fix feeds into the pass-it-forward, do-nothing-now culture typified by targets for 2050. Tough targets for 2050 are not tough at all, they are a decoy. Where are the techno-fix plans for the peak in global emissions by 2015 that the IPCC says we need?
Even within the limited sphere of technology, we have to separate the solutions from the primacy of profit. We need to choose what’s the most effective, not the most lucrative. Investors will want the maximum return for their money, and so the benefits of any climate technologies will, in all likelihood, be sold as carbon credits to the polluter industries and nations. It would not be done in tandem with emissions cuts but instead of them, making it not a tool of mitigation but of exacerbation.
Climate change is not the only crisis currently facing humanity. Peak oil is likely to become a major issue within the coming decade. Competition for land and water, soil fertility depletion and collapse of fisheries are already posing increasing problems for food supply and survival in many parts of the world.
Technological solutions to climate change fail to address most of these issues. Yet even without climate change, this systemic environmental and social crisis threatens society, and requires deeper solutions than new technology alone can provide. Around a fifth of emissions come from deforestation, more than for all transport emissions combined. There is no technological fix for that. We simply need to consume less of the forest, that is to say, less meat, less agrofuel and less wood.
Our level of consumption is inequitable. Making it universal is simply impossible. The scientist Jared Diamond calculates that if the whole world were to have our level of consumption, it would be the equivalent of having 72 billion people on earth.
With ravenous economic growth still prized as the main objective of society by all political leaders the world over, that 72 billion would be just the beginning. At 3% annual growth, 25 years later it would be the equivalent of 150 billion people. A century later it would be over a trillion. Something’s got to give. And indeed, it already is. It’s time for us to call it a crisis and respond with the proportionate radical action that is needed.
We need profound change – not only government measures and targets but financial systems, the operation of corporations, and people’s own expectations of progress and success. Building a new economic democracy based on meeting human needs equitably and sustainably is at least as big a challenge as climate change itself, but if human society is to succeed the two are inseparable.
Instead of asking how to continue to grow the economy while attempting to cut carbon, we should be asking why economic growth is seen as more important than survival.
• Merrick Godhaven is an environmental writer and activist. He co-authored the Corporate Watch report Technofixes: A Critical Guide to Climate Change Technologies.
Great ideas aren’t enough
Clean technology entrepreneurs need help to make their low-carbon brainwaves succeed commercially
The UK has a great track record in innovation. A quick look through the history books reveals an illustrious history of invention, from the telephone and the jet engine through to genetic fingerprinting and the internet.
When it comes to tackling climate change, the diversity of the ideas in this week’s Manchester Report shows there is certainly no lack of British ambition or creative thinking. With suggestions such as cheap biomass cooking stoves to harvesting the oceans for energy, many readers might have been wondering why these ideas aren’t already widely deployed. Particularly given their potential to deliver such great rewards for the planet, entrepreneurs, investors and the economy as a whole.
Sadly, the truth is that great ideas alone are not enough to transform the way we generate energy or the carbon-intensive industries that underpin modern living. Serious blood, sweat and tears are needed to ensure that ideas become commercial reality. Investors speak of the journey from “lab to listing”, and finding the right path on this journey is essential if low-carbon entrepreneurs want to see their ideas succeed.
The bottom line, of course, is that the technology needs to work. And this means both in the lab and in the world outside. Having tested the initial concept, the much bigger challenge is then to prove that the technology can be scaled up and replicated on a much larger, commercial scale.
Solar energy from photovoltaic cells is a case in point. The technical potential of generating electricity from the sun’s rays is well-recognised. Making the technology cost-effective when deployed at scale, however, is an issue that must be overcome. To make this a reality, it is vital that we develop advanced photovoltaic technology that can be manufactured at large scale and low cost. That is why the Carbon Trust is currently running a major R & D project to make this vision a commercial reality.
And this gets to the crux of the matter, because development of the technology is only half the battle when it comes to its success. The clean tech sector, like any other, is governed by the basic market principles of supply and demand. There needs to be an appetite for the product and it must be possible to deliver it on the scale required, at the quality required and at an acceptable price.
For this reason, the innovators behind any great low-carbon idea must build a thorough understanding of the market from the outset. Understanding who the key players are and establishing relationships with them is essential – both to build credibility and to understand the needs and wants of the organisations that may well be the customers of the future. Innovators also have to show they understand their final customers, and what they want. This requires a focus on moving them from a state of indifference (we know you exist, but… ) through curiosity, and on to where they have a genuine desire to purchase your product.
We have seen this sort of transition with fuel cells. Over the past five years, UK fuel cell companies have moved from small research-focused organisations to companies with listings on the Alternative Investment Market, partnering with household-name utilities and maintaining order books worth tens of millions of pounds.
Finally, the ability to build a capable and financially stable company as the organisation grows is a key factor in determining whether a technology lives or dies in the real world. The reality is that the best inventors aren’t always the best business leaders, so pulling in the right skills from a commercial and production perspective and attracting significant, private, external funds to fuel growth, is key.
Not all clean tech brainwaves will see the light of day but, with the UK on the cusp of a clean tech revolution which could generate fantastic economic opportunity, it is imperative that we speed up the process of commercialising new ideas. As the Manchester Report demonstrates, there is a wealth of innovative thinking ripe for the picking. The key will be to provide flexible but targeted support for these companies, to help them navigate the innovation journey. They can then emerge from the lab and grow into successful commercial businesses that will sit at the heart of the low-carbon economy.
• Garry Staunton is Technology Director at The Carbon Trust