Capitalists and consumers respond to prices, costs and profits. The only sure way to encourage a rapid shift to sustainable technology is a large carbon tax. $5 a gallon for gasoline will get consumers to shift from SUVs and trucks into electric vehicles. Shippers will go to hybrid long haul trucks or put freight onto railways, and use electric delivery vans for local delivery. Business and homeowners will add solar panels, insulation, and low energy buildings. Voluntary and good will actions by companies are nice, but we need to close the petroleum/gas/coal industries down within 20 years. A large carbon tax with the tax revenues immediately rebated back per capita to consumers will create the market for a sustainable planet.
62
@john
And none of that will be even close to enough. The scale of the problem is so much bigger than you realize. We need to close the fossil fuel industry twenty years AGO. Scientists have been telling us we are out of time for DECADES and we've ignored them. Capitalism got us into this mess. It can't get us out because it is fundamentally incapable of sacrifice.
People do not understand that in order to do this, we must accept sacrifice without gain. Any money to be made in the next twenty years will be 100% worthless fifty years later. This problem is more than humanity has ever—EVER—faced, and we cannot expect a silver lining.
10
Oh please! Don’t blame this planet wide tragedy on companies. Companies survive by giving people what they want, and people want. If anyone takes away they their stuff they will burn you down, just like they did in Paris when they tried to raise the gas tax by two cents. Get used to it - humans are not willing to give up anything to save the planet - everyone thinks it’s someone else’s problem - including Kara Swisher.
2
100 Seconds to Midnight.
Says it All
3
Will Microsoft be selling desk top computers in boxes or wood instead of metal?
The power crazed eco-manics will destroy the world and feel so good about themselves. They are getting rich (like fat Albert) off this scam.
Someone please explain how 'climate change' caused South America to break off from Africa? Carbon dioxide? Methane? The manufacture of lipstick?
The oceans rise, the oceans sink. It's normal. But those pushing this are criminals. Why did Obama buy a $15milion oceanfront property?
When? When young enough people are in charge everywhere. Talk to college kids - they’re terrified and furious. See also, Greta Thunberg.
2
It's almost as if Carbon Credits are a scam.
Ahem.
1
The reason no one gets into green tech, Kara, is that it’s expensive and while you’re pouring massive money into it, the oil and gas companies will be pouring in equal amounts to destroy you.
1
A lot can be solved by having a federal gov't that wants to solve the problem as they can mandate national laws and action to combat emissions and make the required changes necessary via the law. Why Americans keep voting for people who don't care about this nor their own futures is beyond me. What will profits, money or anything matter if the world becomes uninhabitable for our species? The shortsightedness of some voters, many corporations and our current administration is astounding. Denial? Cognitive dissonance? Suicidal? Have old dying psychopaths taken over the world? The current status is insane.
7
It has been nearly 30 years since the first report by the IPCC. Nearly 30 years during which we could not plead ignorance yet global emissions have increased 60 percent since then.
As a result we've learned the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is retreating irreversibly and its 10 feet of sea level rise equivalent of ice could end up in the ocean before the century is out.
We've seen the wreck the northern polar jet stream has become.
The summer Arctic sea ice which restrains global temperature is in a death spiral along with a large fraction of the permafrost which also restrains global temperature.
Deep ocean ventilation which supports global biodiversity is slowing.
And as we've seen in Australia that the world is starting to literally burn.
Where have these companies been?
3
The best example for climate change advocates comes from World War II. Our commitment to the war effort was total. The government led and everyone else, including corporate America, followed. Women and minorities were mobilized into the work force. Employment levels hit the roof. And production for the war effort, though huge, was matched by production for the home market.
Government made extraordinary efforts during the war to foster cooperation with the private sector. It let up on regulations and antitrust enforcement, though staying the course on unionization. The goal was to bring the captains of industry into the defense effort and that was achieved because compromise won the day.
The lesson is simple. The government must set the course and work cooperatively with private business, with all focused on the urgent challenge posed by climate change. Compromise must be the rule of the day, Blaming, attacking, and forcing submission are all losing strategies.
2
Many people apparently find it hard to grasp the scale and scope of the climate problem. For starters, we have to replace the entire global fossil fuel-based energy system -- electricity, transport, heating and cooling -- with alternatives that don't destroy the climate. And we have to do it quickly, because we've wasted decades and will reach a tipping point after which the warming feeds on itself and becomes unstoppable. Until we achieve that, warming continues.
But even achieving that just stops making matters worse. If we are to return to the climate humans evolved to live in, we'll need to remove a lot of the extra CO2 we've exhausted to the atmosphere by burning enormous quantities of coal, natural gas and petroleum -- and store it back in the ground or into some other form resistant to re-emission.
The ONLY hope of doing any of this (and it's slight at this point) is through serious action by governments of all the major emitters, i.e., the rich countries. Individual action will be far too little and definitely too late.
This will cost a lot of money. But consider the alternative. Consider that you're in a car heading toward a cliff and you can spend a lot of money to stop the car. We, as a species have so far decided to "save" the money. Off the cliff we go!
4
Stop with the trillionaire stuff. Our future depends on resilient communities, not wealthy individuals. It depends on spreading economic well being, not concentrating. I want to see businesses that empower lots of people to earn a living and help build strong local economies.
1
You note that " China... has a staggering lead in solar photovoltaic module production and also a big head start in other renewable technologies...", yet fail to mention that China has 121 gigawatts of coal plants under construction, which is more than is being built in the rest of the world combined. All while the U.S. continues to close coal fueled power plants, bringing us closer to the Paris Climate Accord targets than nearly every other country in the world.
3
For example, in a recent meeting I had with the Starbucks chief executive, Kevin Johnson (who was a longtime Microsoft executive), the main line of discussion was around tech solutions to climate change. While banning plastic straws is all well and good, Mr. Johnson sees a bigger role in bolstering his company’s bottom line by focusing on sustainability (and also on the health of his workers).
How many people are encouraged to drive ( or GrubHub) to Starbucks each day to buy a beverage served in a non recyclable container when it could probably just as easily and more cheaply be made at home.. hard to see SBUX as a green business model at all as their success is based on increasingly promoting this type of behavior.
2
Someone, I don't know who, once made the statement that Silicon Valley and the VCs who fund it, are only interested in technology that replaces the things your mother used to do for you or "disrupts" occupations low-wage earners would do to get a leg up.
Aside from commercial space exploration a la SpaceX, or biotech companies that are researching new drugs, I don't see a lot of tech for the betterment of society. Even the aforementioned industries aren't altruistically driven.
So I think the answer to your headline question is, they will step up when they are forced to step up, i.e. by worldwide government regulation. Privacy laws when it comes to our data is a great example--European countries are far stricter and companies are complying because they have to.
4
Spot on, Kara. There is a lot of money to be made selling climate solutions. And far too little investment.
But I would add that, while we need innovation and investment, we have many of the solutions we need - and that as we deploy them at scale, they get cheaper and better. The technology cost curves for wind, solar, and batteries over the last few decades are astounding.
We set off on a moonshot a decade or two ago to make solar and wind cheaper than coal and natural gas - and we've pretty much succeeded. We're also making progress on EVs - but need to drive scale rapidly to drive costs down. (And we should invest in transit, denser development in cities, and other solutions to clean up mobility.)
Meanwhile, too many people are focused only on whiz-bang new technology (like direct air capture) - which we need, but **in addition** to moving like gangbusters on the solutions we have today, not **instead** of it.
We need policy - market rules - that guides the market along a decarbonization pathway consistent with science. Most of corporate America is silent on these policies - while the fossil fuel industry is very vocal combatting them.
It's time for corporate America to go all in on climate - especially as strong advocates for climate policy, everywhere they operate. Their silence is not neutrality, it's complicity in perpetuating the status quo.
2
Spot on, Kara. There is a lot of money to be made selling climate solutions. And far too little investment.
But I would add that, while we need innovation and investment, we have many of the solutions we need - and that as we deploy them at scale, they get cheaper and better. The technology cost curves for wind, solar, and batteries over the last few decades are astounding.
We set off on a moonshot a decade or two ago to make solar and wind cheaper than coal and natural gas - and we've pretty much succeeded. We're also making progress on EVs - but need to drive scale rapidly to drive costs down. (And we should invest in transit, denser development in cities, and other solutions to clean up mobility.)
Meanwhile, too many people are focused only on whiz-bang new technology (like direct air capture) - which we need, but **in addition** to moving like gangbusters on the solutions we have today, not **instead** of it.
We need policy - market rules - that guides the market along a decarbonization pathway consistent with science. Most of corporate America is silent on these policies - while the fossil fuel industry is very vocal combatting them.
It's time for corporate America to go all in on climate - especially as strong advocates for climate policy, everywhere they operate. Their silence is not neutrality, it's complicity in perpetuating the status quo.
1
If climate change corrections were easy, we'd have done it by now. It is a giant, new problem and thus, the solutions are varied and prone to failure. Invariably, it will be the tech companies and universities that will generate the successes. They should be encouraged and applauded for their efforts; even if they do it for profit....which pays for the research.
1
In a market economy the consumers hold ALL of the power. Why is the attitude that we should all wait for them to CHOOSE? Boycotts are the best way to address anything related to businesses. We could grind the economy to a halt if we collectively mobilized a successful boycott against, say, the meat industry or the fossil fuel energy corporations. Look at how fast Gluten Free foods dominated the market. Americans simply do not yet realize that WE as citizens have all of the power because we are the ones who do the spending.
Companies are profit driven. The few examples that act differently are drops in a bucket. How can we expect change, if emitting Carbon does not affect the bottom line? A revenue-neutral fee on Carbon is the best vehicle out there to affect change. We could implement such a fee at the local, state, or country level.
“When Will Companies Finally Step Up to Fight Climate Change?”
The answer is; the day after it becomes obvious to everyone else on Earth that it is too late to save humanity.
The reason that I think tech hasn't meaningfully addressed global warming, and in my view, won't likely do so, is that it is a very complicated problem that requires hardware-oriented problems grounded in physical science. The tech community has backed away from these investments (i.e. chip-oriented start-ups) due to the difficulty in predicting the cost and timelines associated with achieving science-based breakthroughs.
In fact, of the hardware oriented tech investments in the limelight today, many (e.g. Tesla) are not a positive for the environment. Buying a $80,000 electrical car isn't as good for the environment as a $15,000 compact combustion energy driven vehicle.
As unglamorous as it may be, the keys to reducing global warming are dramatically curtailing consumption of physical goods. There isn't a great business model in that, I'm afraid. As such addressing the environmental problems before us is a problem for governments, and until the industrialized nations accept this, I don't think we can expect much progress.
Interestingly Stanford University has pledge to be carbon free by 2022 yet none of their alums who run big companies have followed their example.
1
This author like many others blame the leaders of the big corporations for climate change.
It is much simpler than that.
The primary cause of climate change is population growth.
If we had been able to respond to the warning of Malthus in 1798, world population might have stopped at under a billion. Since the current population of earth is 7.8 billion, that would have cut global carbon emission by a factor of about 8.
OK, it would be less than that, because controlling population growth would have many of the poor in the third world to raise themselves out of poverty, and as more wealthy consumers would be using more fossil fuels. But that would be a good thing. And we would still likely have much lower consumption of hydrocarbons and an easier path towards a future free of fossil fuels.
In 1968, Paul Ehrlich published the Population Bomb, and in Meadows et al published a more extended treatment of possible scenarios under continued population increase in 1972. The population then was about 3.6 billion.
Pundits and journalists held these prophets up for ridicule. It was said that controlling population growth was "similar" to eugenics. That it was an attempt to keep the number of poor people down. Therefore it was "racist."
What did we do in 1968 or 1972? Nothing.
Now talking heads everywhere deny that the doubling of population in Africa is a problem. We should not interfere with the divine act of procreation.
They could not be more wrong.
1
I think most people still think of climate change as a future issue - like we need to do something now so the future isn’t full of food insecurity, refuge camps, extreme weather events that cause massive destruction far more often than we can afford, cities becoming unlivable through a combination of sea rise and extreme weather, and quickly advancing destruction of our coral reefs.
Well people, look around! Check out the underlying causes of the Syrian Refugee Crisis, think about the waves of people who are leaving Central America because they do not have enough food, look into what life is like for survivors of the Camp Fire, total up the cost of disasters from just last year and plot that against the past 100 years, investigate the number of cities and towns that are right now determining how to handle water that has already risen.
The heat waves and storms aren’t harbingers of what is to come, and we won’t reverse course if we stop using carbon today. This, plus some, is already baked in to the system. We crossed that line back in 2016.
Right now, our options are between bad or disastrous for the entire human race - not to mention the millions of utterly blameless species that live on the planet today.
It would be nice instead of talking about some great green hope because even Black Rock is making some changes, or covering the forgone conclusion that is the impeachment, the NYT made every effort to educate people about the on-the-ground realities.
It's not that our greatest minds aren't focused on stopping environmental collapse. It's that the oil and gas industries are entrenched and the Republican Party is in power. According to Joe Romm, even the renewable energy technology we do have would be enough to stop climate change if it were deployed. Yes, carbon capture and storage for factories, as well as atmospheric scrubbing, are potentially game changers. I've worked on some of this technology. But even if that is perfected, there are hurdles to the technology being deployed because of dirty money politics.
Some wealthy people at the top of corporations and government believe they will be able to survive climate change by hiding in bunkers. Many are also christians and may think they are aiding in the second coming. Then also, many probably only care about themselves and thus care not that the future will be grime. They get to live high now and that is what matters. I mean think about it, what makes anyone try to accumulate wealth beyond all conceivable need? They are sick. These sick people are not likely at all to care about anything but themselves. Pretending that humans are rational and moral is a bit delusional. Humans are primarily just dumb animals with little or no self determination and absolutely no real empathy.
Expecting others to do what you will not is insane. If you, for instance, won't give up single use plastic bottles (for pleasure mind you) how can you expect business to give up something they consider essential for profits?
The point is that we are ALL part of the problem. When oceans of people quit using troubling products the market will adjust. Waiting for government to solve problems might be an excuse for individuals to do nothing.
Go ahead, inconvenience yourself just a little. Refill the plastic water bottle a few times from your kitchen tap. Or better yet, quit buying the stuff altogether.
14
@Donna V Yes, indeed. We stopped with the plastic bottles years ago. The idea that I had to pay for what came out of my tap or fridge just didn't appeal. We stopped with the plastic grocery bags, also. I use reusable cloth bags for groceries. Wherever we can, we keep Mother Earth from becoming a big garbage dump.
My mom used to say, "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." She was ahead of her time.
6
@Donna V Bless you for saying what needs to be said. People and businesses think nothing of setting their AC so low that you need to put on a jacket to stay warm. They will throw a towel or a pair of jeans in the laundry after a single use, producing 0.1 lb of CO2 per instance.They eschew leftovers oblivious to the high energy cost of producing food.
3
@Donna V
Since the inception of plastics corporations have been trying to blame consumers for the plastic waste these companies themselves produce - one individual refilling a plastic bottle cannot stop a company from producing 1000 more.
As humans we're all "part of the problem", but only some of us have the power to actually fix these supply chains.
3
Let us hope. Finding ways to perform carbon recapture, economically speaking, are pretty rare. Short of planting trees, it takes energy to recapture carbon emissions. Companies that make and research battery storage devices for electric vehicles are snubbed in favor of apps to tickle the brain. I hope Fink is right, but I still see "capitalistic" thinking as short term, driven by the next buck that can be made. The railroads used to advertise to get settlers next to their concessions in the West, "rain follows the plow". I really don't think things have changed that much in the business world.
4
Who the heck is Brad Smith? Who the heck is Larry Fink? They are benevolent despots. As are all despots, they are susceptible to the palace coup. After Mr. Smith and Mr. Fink's heads are on the block, will the new kings of Microsoft and BlackRock be back in the carbon business as quickly as the United States got back into it after Obama?
“…When Will Companies Finally Step Up to Fight Climate Change…
Right back at ya…
When will activist journalists finally step up to first focusing on totally stopping coal burning – for electricity generation, to start – instead of babbling unactionable abstractions…
During the recent dust-up – you know, where somebody did something to somebody – I was thwarted, trying to drive the streets of Tehran on Streetview…
But – droning in on the point-by-point 360 images – was taken aback by the neat rows of spruce trees planted on the desert hillsides encompassing the city…
Which might last – at most – three weeks into the summer heat…
And then, realized – likely some sort of CO2 offset scheme…
Likely cooked up in cahoots with the Frau’s financiers…
In this country, we have the abject nation-scale moral bankruptcy of flyover state Senators leaning on West Coast governors to permit the building of large coal ports…
Go investigate that, Kara – but try not to exhale too much…
Your CO2 footprint already outsize…
In fact, you wouldn’t have to leave your desk – just read your own paper…
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/opinion/washington-state-should-stop-blocking-planned-coal-export-terminal.html
But make sure your office window is closed – so as to keep claiming a CO2 sequestration credit…
PS
When will you finally start talking about things like this, when you mention Microsoft or Bill Gates...
https://www.geekwire.com/2020/bill-gates-terrapower-ge-hitachi-team-proposal-build-nuclear-reactor-research/
For clarity, I don't think this is a good thing...
I think it's a fantastic thing...
Ironically, this nonsense comes on the same day that the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight than it's ever been, even in the height of the Cold War. Not only are things getting worse, but they're getting worse *quicker*. A coalition of the world's top scientists, engineers, political scientists, etc. know much better than an op-ed writer.
Relying on technology currently in development to save us is naïve and foolish: the crisis is now, not twenty years from now.
The idea of a trillionaire is terrifying and disgusting. If a green energy capitalist is a trillionaire, they're causing harm by hoarding resources they don't need.
But the worst part of this whole thing is that for the author, climate action is only doable if it's profitable. It's a disturbing argument climate supporters make to capitalists: that clean energy represents an opportunity to make a ton of money.
It's. Not. True.
The Climate Catastrophe is going to be orders of magnitude more expensive to fix than all the world's wealth combined. This is not an issue where profit is possible. But as long as people keep promoting capitalist "green" politics, giving people the expectation that this is all a good thing, we're done.
We have no time left. If it doesn't work now, we can't rely on it coming to save us. We need to sacrifice. That's what this author doesn't accept.
2
How about "never"? Capitalism is all about extraction, and in our system, there is no cost to "externals" - spew as much as you want into the sky, drill all you want, methane be damned. The system has to be stopped - or collapse - "companies" have no interest in reducing profit, they are in a death match because of greed.
Oh boy. A good counterexample is cigarettes. We sued, lambasted, shamed, dismantled, outlawed; did everything in our power to force the blame for smoking on tobacco executives who, indeed, buried data about the health risks of smoking (even though pretty much everyone knew, even in the 1960s, that cigarettes caused cancer). At any rate, what worked? A brilliant, organized public campaign that made smoking undesirable, unfashionable and disgusting, together with taxes that made cigarettes unaffordable. Consumers responded by smoking less (to a point). Can it be done with energy? Probably not because unlike, say, gasoline, cigarettes serve no public good. None. Zero. Aside from the pleasure of smoking and the jobs the industry supported, as a product, cigarettes are pure, negative social value. Gasoline, for all of its environmental costs, also has immense social value that doesn't need to be explained. So demonizing gasoline won't work when it has so many demonstrable beneficial uses. But there are substitutes (electric cars) that are gaining traction, that's good. But the point is, going after the corporations and evil executives, even with an easy target like cigarettes, didn't change public attitudes and get people off of cigarettes (although it made a lot of plaintiff lawyers rich). It took a big change in consumer behavior for that, and it happened because consumer attitudes shifted, prices went up, and demand plummeted.
If you ran a company, would you undertake to spend a great deal of money to do something that you knew was a futile effort?
China emits so much that its emissions alone are enough by themselves to cause global warming. And, China is committed to continue increasing its emissions for at least 10 more years. China has authorization and approval from the US and European nations to continue increasing its emissions (granted by Obama as part of the Paris Climate Accord).
Therefore, expensive effort to reduce emissions by Americans and Europeans is futile (less expensive measures may have some public relations advertising value to improve image but are also, of course, futile).
I suspect that world leaders already have given up any hope of limiting emissions enough to stop global warming and climate change. I suspect they are pinning their hopes on geoengineering to come up with ways to block sunlight and extract greenhouse gasses from the air. Only foolish Americans and Europeans want to punish their fellow citizens by forcing severe and expensive actions that are utterly futile because of China and, to a lesser extent, other developing nations like India.
Oh, Ms. Swisher, I wish I thought your idealism about companies were justified. The answer to the question about when companies finally will step up to fight climate change is: never. Most companies will fight tooth and nail not to do so, while loudly patting themselves on the back for whatever minimal steps they're forced to take. The companies that say that they're going into business in order to provide green solutions will turn out either to be driven out of the marketplace by less idealistic companies or will prove to be drastically less green than they claim to be. Think of The Times' recent articles on the realities of "recycling" in Indonesia and Southeast Asia. And I don't expect better from governments. We're all too likely to see an eventual collapse to a soundtrack of burps from companies and governments patting themselves on the back for doing almost nothing. Only relentless, extremely hard pressure from people everywhere has any hope of producing a better outcome. So far, "people everywhere" need to do a lot better, too.
1
Do you really think that the guys who got us into this mess are going to be able to lead us out?
I'll believe it when I see them planting trees, video conferencing rather than flying, biking to work, and eating Impossible Burgers.
The owners/controilers of the present status quo will fight tooth and nail to forestall public policies and investment strategies that diminish their hold on the future. When we see the Koch brothers and the banks who continue to fund the extraction of coal, oil, and gas, run out of town on a rail, then we'll know that we've turned a corner. When climate denial is made a crime punishable by prison sentence, then we'll know that we've turned a corner. Given the history of western capitalism, I'm not hopeful, absent a breakthrough on the level of "Mr Fusion" on Back to the Future.
Thanks for this revealing commentary, but "some movement in the private sector" is not going to do it. Always evident to me is that capitalism rests upon three major interrelated industries: cars, fossil fuel, and real estate, and all rest upon the exploitation of wage labor - the mainstay of the profit system. 'Mother Earth 'cannot tolerate this system any longer. Production of use not profit must replace what Frank Lloyd Wright called, "the death system". For further enlightenment go to www.slp.org.
I've been thinking a lot about recycling. We have almost no recycling in our area...anymore. I suspect that the things we used to recycle were just dumped in the ocean. That giant plastic gyre can't be explained by seaside trash contamination, but it would be explained by illegal dumping on a world-wide scale.
To really get a recycling program up and running would require some government intervention. You need suppliers and users in equal numbers. Plastic has so many variations its hard to sort and reuse. The reason for a lot of those variations are "looks" not use requirements.
Fast Food could be a major leader in recycling.
Unfortunately, recycling isn’t as effective as it once was without China purchasing it. We would need to be much more careful in how we sort our recycling -like washing off all food and removing labels... and we won’t be. But making trash cans smaller and charging for overages makes people really conscious of what they are throwing away. That will irritate people, but it works.
One option is commercial composting. If all cities has that the growth of compostable “plastics” would be huge. There is a direct benefit to cities as well in the form of the compost which can be used for maintaining greenery (or planting more).
Individual solutions aren’t nearly effective enough and significant progress won’t be made through individual actions - but commercial composting is worth advocating for!
Climate change is real.
That doesn't mean it is necessarily harmful. Harmful effects like sea level rise are offset by beneficial effects like longer growing seasons. No one knows how the balance works out.
Lamenting about why capitalists aren't jumping on green energy is like lamenting why capitalists aren't producing antibiotics: there's not enough money in it. That's why the free market doesn't always work to solve our problems. I know the author means to encourage investment for its own sake, but we need to also acknowledge that the free market will be no savior. In fact, having placed all our reliance on it up to now, and having forsaken government regulation of carbon pollution that is overheating our planet up to now, there is a good question whether there is even time to benefit from green energy technology, or whether our failure to regulate the market has already sealed our doom.
Of course there's money to be made in green technology. One way to get that money flowing in the right direction is to put a price on carbon. Industries that pollute should pay to put that pollution into the air, ground, or water. Meanwhile, companies that remove pollution will get paid for doing so.
Two things will happen. First, companies will pollute less to save money. Second, other companies will find ways to capture that carbon and store it or convert it into products that can be sold.
Unfortunately, people like Trump assume they will be dead before the effects of climate change impact them. So, waiting for them to provide leadership on this matter is a fool's game.
2
The dilemma facing tech companies and our government has parallels with the one facing the Norwegian government. That government prides itself on creating and protecting a clean environment, taking the lead in incentivizing Norwegian drivers to go electric. Also, their sovereign wealth fund, one of the largest, is divesting in companies linked to fossil fuel industries. But their economy relies heavily on profits from their own gas and oil industries, the products of which are exported around the world. The Norwegian government is acutely aware of this untenable dilemma, and presumably is working to resolve it.
1
How do we create a powerful incentive to rapidly reduce GHG emissions throughout our economy? Apply a national carbon fee that increases annually to meet the emission reductions we need. This will make emission reductions highly profitable for businesses.
What about the financial impact of increasing energy costs on individuals and households? Use the revenue from the carbon fees to provide generous monthly dividends. This will provide a net financial benefit to low and middle income people.
What about international trade? Apply a border adjustment that will protect American businesses and encourage other nations to apply equivalent carbon fees.
This policy has been proposed in Congress. It is the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, HR 763. For more information: www.energyinnovationact.org
5
Green innovation will follow the path of all other innovation. It will only be developed as a cost saving measure that improves profitability. Each new innovation will reduce some pollution, just enough to say it's good for the environment and make money at the same time. It's a low hanging fruit approach. It takes decade for real change.
If you want to spur investment which will bring about green innovation more quickly, the corporate law needs to be changed. For the last one hundred and fifty years the duty of directors has been to make money for shareholders. This was the businessman's mantra up until a few months ago. "Our job is to make money (while complying with laws that we write.)"
Recently, America's business leaders in the form of the Business Roundtable recognized that business has broader duties to protect the public interest, including the environment. That's a huge step.
To spur investment in green innovation this change should be codified in the duty of directors. Their duty going forward should be to make money for shareholders, but not at the expense of the environment. Read, "Time to Change Corporations" (available on Amazon) to see why that will work and is necessary.
Business has all the rights of citizenship. It's time it was forced to recognize the obligations which go with it.
1
They won't, we will.
1. Stop calling these selfish, short sited, narrow minded exploitation specialists "our greatest minds"
2. Money will never solve this problem, it created it.
3. Stop waiting to be saved - we have to save ourselves...
Microsoft is still funding Mitch McConnells campaign. Can’t get much done on climate with Mitch in charge
3
Not until the government makes them.
1
i catch my breath ... a NY Times columnist writing about climate change ... miracles can happen.
granted, tech is ms. swisher's portfolio, but new photovoltaic cells and agricultural practices are not computational problems.
the scenario here seems to be that google can diversify into engineering efficient houses in the same way that philip morris might diversify into school lunches.
while "surprisingly major contributor" implies a recent plunge into the climate change literature, there are "surprisingly many" solutions that have nothing to do with tech.
public education, for example: companies that simply include climate impacts in their product labels, auto stickers that include carbon emissions with gas efficiency. (the point is to put "carbon" in front of buyer eyes, not to measure something unique.) a newspaper, like the NY Times, putting climate change articles on the front page -- every day.
miracles can happen, right?
next, consumer change -- LEDs for incandescents, public for private transport, better heaters, solar panels.
then -- the big one -- infrastructure retrofitting and new building and trade standards. for the $140 billion needed to build a NYC littoral wall, we can get two dozen new power plants.
but: "greed is green" or "profits of boom" ... while that may get pavlovian capitalist dogs salivating, you have to understand the "growth forever" capitalism is the problem, not the solution.
we've eaten enough planet already. time for a diet.
If we had only listened to Jimmy Carter.
6
@FJR - ATL
Yes. The first thing Reagan did was tear down the solar panels on the White House. That was the beginning of Republican mockery and denial of climate science which they doubled down on when Al Gore ran for President. Now we have Trump, and every year is hotter than the last, and the trend is too pronounced to stop. Their mockery has sealed our fate.
The article advocates big tech making "the next great fortunes" to motivate them to do the right thing about the climate emergency.
Can anyone name a company that has gone into business to make great fortunes, but only after they have put their profits into a completely green operation?
What & who do you think has caused the crisis? Plastic straws? And who do you think will NOT eat into their profits to fix it? The "best minds" at Davos? The author should have just said "the world's wealthiest minds" at Davos.
BTW: Do you know how many indigenous people in Bolivia they killed to get their hands on its lithium?
Please read “Kochland” by Christopher Leonard to see who is driving the planet off the cliff.
Koch’s political machine and money are responsible for our lack of concerted effort to address climate change (which of course they deny). As long as it affects their bottom line positively they will continue to buy the politicians necessary to continue this abhorrent behavior.
1
I agree with Ms. Swisher that of the next great fortunes to be made, at least some of them will be in green energy/technology, and I suspect that a few of those future trillionaires are playing around with stuff in out of the way garages as I write.
The question is, though, can they upscale efficient technologies fast enough to win the race against the complete collapse of the economic systems they'd like to get to the top of. The rate of climate change has accelerated, and there's no guarantee we're going to have that type of civilization and economic system in fifty years; by then the climate situation may have well resulted in government collapses and famine/drought/resource war deaths on a massive scale.
There may not be enough pieces to pick up.
36
@Glenn Ribotsky We've been around in modern form by some estimates at 200,000 years. We've managed to come through several events that caused mass extinction of myriad species. Sure when we re-emerge it's primitive, back to the stone age type living. But if your scenario materializes, out of the ashes might survive a few hundred thousand.
I won't ever excuse bad behavior by homo sapiens who, as a species seem bent on pulling disaster down over their own heads. It's disheartening when we cannot even stop doing simple things on our own that would greatly benefit the efforts to maintain our once-pristine planet.
It seems to me that to expect business, who has fomented much of the problem, to solve the problem, is irrational. Good if I am wrong.
1
@Glenn Ribotsky
I agree; but with every year hotter than the last, and the rate of change rising even faster than expected, I wonder if we have fifty years before our economic system collapses. I suspect the electric grid under strain will be first to go.
@Glenn Ribotsky
You're believing a pipe dream. Climate catastrophe is not an opportunity to make money because there's no money to be made. If we can't act now, understanding what the word sacrifice means, then we are done for.
Green energy only becomes more profitable when people are forced to develop it because the climate crisis has gotten so bad. The only way it becomes profitable in the future is if the world is still on fire. And then it's too late. Actually, it's already too late.
Never. It's on the public to regulate the emissions of profit-driven enterprises. Reducing emissions costs too much in the short term for most companies to do voluntarily. The fossil fuel industry especially deserves to be nationalized for a managed decline. Private industries will never save us, only collective action to limit their damage will.
43
@Ted B It would be really helpful if we demanded that our tax dollars stopped being used to subsidize the fossil fuel industry as well.
I personally resent paying these companies to continue to drill and burn long after they realized the consequences of their actions were devastating to the planet.
26
@Ted B - Reducing emissions costs nothing - in fact, it saves money - for individuals and for corporations. All we Fossil Fuel addicts have to do is stop burning the stuff. Fewer carbon atoms burned = $$$ saved + reduced GHG.
There are a Yooge number of minor steps we each could take to reduce our consumption. Americans WASTE 2/3 of the energy we produce. We could choose to reduce that WASTE - if we gave a rat's patootie.
It's not the fault of; (R)s, Exxon, China, GoodBrain yada, yada. We are the Oil Tribe, we're the Fossil Fuel addicts and we can choose to end our addiction - if we care.
4
Why is this mysterious? They will step up when there is profit in it, when it allows them to dodge taxes, when it helps them get rid of labor, when it raises stock prices. Climate denial, we know, isn't about scientific evidence, it is the morbid fear that the government will now place people and firms at a disadvantage and interfere with their incomes - in ways that are irreversible. Republicans fear that climate science helps immigrants and blacks - and hence are against it.
59
"Republicans fear that climate science helps immigrants and blacks - and hence are against it."
As an easy corollary, their "Lib'rul Coastal Elites" slur is not just a lie (calling we the coasts' mostly poor-or-middle-caste-on-public-assistance "elite" is a WILD stretch), but a deliberate attack to desensitize voters as their criminal climate cataclysm claims coastal cities.
Is a “decarbonized” future possible? No. Not if you look at the facts which this writer clearly didn't. Last month the NYT reported that Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil company, Saudi Aramco, set the price of its IPO at a level that would raise $25.6 billion, a sum that is expected to make it the world’s biggest I.P.O. Do you think for a billionth of a second that the Saudi's, the Nigerians or anyone else in OPEC is going to stop drilling for oil? It's NEVER going to happen in our lifetime. NEVER. Every ounce ...& I mean every ounce is coming out of the ground into our cars & factories. Oil is the source of Saudi Arabia's power. The kingdom relies on oil revenue to pay for its massive domestic & military spending. Just to break even, the Saudis needs a pump as much oil as possible. Huge production cuts would force Saudis to drain their shrinking pile of cash, borrow money or scale back dividends paid by Aramco. According to CNN oil output from non-OPEC countries is expected to surge too, by a record 2.3 million barrels per day in 2020. That would easily top the previous record of 1.96 million sets in 1978. The US shale oil revolution is a big contributor to the coming gush of oil. US production is expected to climb by 1.1 million barrels per day in 2020. Norway & Brazil are also expected to add 1 million barrels per day next year. In the next ten years, we will be drowning in an ocean of oil. That's our reality. There's absolutely nothing we can do to stop it. Nothing.
1
@Bill Brown - you're right, Bill. The oil companies are gonna frack the whole fracking planet until there's no place left to frack. Why do you think Trump wanted to buy Greenland from Denmark? Frack Greenland! Yippie Ki-Yay!!! He and his American and Russian and Saudi oil cohort (secretly) can't wait for the planet to melt so they can frack the Arctic Circle and even Antarctica. They're gonna frack and frack until there's nothing left to frack. They've forgotten that oil is a nonrenewable resource. What happens, though, when fewer and fewer people and companies stop using their fracking fracks?
We need to give coal companies and oil companies a new sense of purpose. Send them off planet. Subsidize the coal people to go out to the asteroid belt and mine them for precious metals; subsidize oil companies to go out to Jupiter and frack for hydrogen, take it back to the inner solar system in huge hydrogen tankers, and then inject it into Venus' atmosphere to reverse its greenhouse effect, turning it into a habitable place. Might take a while, but it would be a noble effort, not unlike the effort they took to create the industrial revolution.
2
So the only hope for our existance...is what/who can profit off of saving it.
Hey...it's a start.
Tic Toc people.
1
Ms Swisher, you are from the Tech industry. You need to do your homework before writing such an article. Check out the construction industry. They are under tremendous pressure to respond to the demands of the architects and builders for ‘green’ products. Start with the US Green Building Council (USGBC). And check out ‘Architecture 2030’.
What we need is a whole new system. Pass the Green New Deal!
2
When? When the Atlantic Ocean is nearing the second floor of corporate headquarters...as for the rest of us...
Never.
Aren’t individuals also culpable?
Corporations sell us stuff because we buy it.
Anyone ready to stop flying for vacation or business?
Anyone electing not to buy an SUV and/or commit to public transportation?
Anyone supporting a $1/gallon tax on gasoline?
Answer is resoundingly no and please don’t tell me it’s Trump.
America has been making these decisions for decades, Blue states and Red states.
“We have met the enemy and he is us”
20
@maguire - "Answer is resoundingly no and please don’t tell me it’s Trump."
That's your answer. I posit you wouldn't make a good lawyer if you asked that question of a random witness in court, did not know beforehand what their answer would be. You'd have a pretty good chance of losing your case more often than you believe. I know i could go for two of the 3, though for those who wouldn't give up an suv you could try for either of these. Auto makers are sure paying attention to squeezing more mileage out of them.
EPA Class Vehicle Combined MPG
Small Sport Utility Vehicles Hyundai Kona Electric A-1, 150 kW ACPM/B EV 120
Ford Escape FWD HEV 2.5 L, 4 cyl, Automatic (variable gear ratios) Hybrid 41
As for the 3rd, flying, while i've cut mine in 1/2 that's been more due to climate than climate change itself. But would you rather have me drive like 7,000 miles each way a couple of times a year (vs the 5,000 and a few hours each way on the more straight line flight)? One doesn't have to give up their life to reach the goals. One does have to realize they can cut substantially without going that far.
1
@maguire
While your argument on paper is correct, there is a fallacy to what you say, what you are basically telling people is to suddenly pull back and not live their lives,you are blaming people, rather than the institutions that should be acting.
Want an example (and wanna have fun, try telling this to a republican, they will tell you it is a lie). Back in the early 1970's the EPA issued pollution rules for cars, that at the time were getting on average around 9mpg. The big three grumbled, conservatives said it would put the companies out of business, and there was a rough transition period with claptrap like air pumps and detuned engines, along with unleaded gasoline (which of course got rid of all that free lead in the air, that conservatives claimed wasn't a problem..).
Want to know a dirty little secret? The technology they developed to meet those levels, the computers and control systems, not only made cars put out 1000 times less pollution today than in 1970, it did something else amazing. A base corvette today, that puts out 450HP, can get 24 mpg on the highway, the same mileage my early 70's small car got. SUV's that once got 5 or 6 mpg, now can get over 20 on the highway. Another little benefit? Back then, car engines started wearing out at 30,40k miles, these days because they burn so clean, they last 200k or more.
9
@maguire You are correct about the public and political will, on many important issues, but they are constrained by many factors
We live in an economic system that actively encourages waste, and in one way or another, most of us profit from that in the short run. In a world in which money is to people as krill is to baleen whales, short term profit is hard to turn down.
This fundamental approach to design--that whatever you purchase is not worth repairing--is endemic. Sometimes, as with appliances, they are designed to discourage repairs. When it comes to clothes, the ideal is to speed up changes in fashion to make them "obsolete." In both cases, the upside for the consumer is that--in the short run--the costs are down.
As individuals we can decide to buy fewer clothes despite the incentive, but we have little ability to shift the market so much that longer-lasting clothes are made. We can try to travel less, but vacations aside, so many families and businesses are spread across the country that restraint in travel can only go so far. Our social and business institutions assume the ability to go long distances, and Skype is not the same as a hug.
For all their flaws, the "Green New Deal" ideas do recognize this interplay between family income and the ability to think ahead. Hopefully, soon, we can find ways to shape these reforms to create clear advantages for individuals to change and to improve our response to this slow rolling but accelerating crisis.
4
Will it negatively affect the next quarter's stock price or CEO bonus? Then no....
And it's not just about the thriving, or even survival, of humans. There are uncountable other beings sharing this thin biotic crust with us. Discounting their right to exist is amoral.
Do we want to commune only with other bipedal, hairless primates? What a barren, ugly and spiritless ephemera our lives would be without the multiplicity of sentience this little blue dot has produced.
1
I do not get their motivation. Oh, I hear this stuff about their kids and grandkids, but their actions are zero. BlackRock policy? Window dressing for the naive.
I am a 69 yo man. I agree with Greta. All talk.
3
I will believe it when I see it. I have worked in Corporate America. $1 billion fund? $999 million for administrative fees, executive salaries, advertising....
1
Expecting capitalist corporations to join the fight against climate change is like expecting the drug cartels to fight substance abuse. The lifeblood of capitalism is dirt-cheap energy and the ruthless exploitation of nature this cheap energy facilitates: these are fundamental to the capitalist business model. Any meaningful campaign to slow and reverse climate change must fundamentally change this business model. Anything else is merely window-dressing.
Sorry but this column lacks precision.
To say below 2 degrees of rise in temperature carbon capture technology is required. There are so many fossil fuel using generators, vehicles, companies and homes that you won't get there if you only added clean energy from this point forward. And clearly we are not only adding clean energy.
If you are going to write about this topic you need to do your homework and speak accurately.
Thanks for this column. I've gotten awfully tired of the way the press continues to ignore the green economy's potential, along with the economic impact of climate change and overpopulation.
The big reinsurance companies have been worrying about economic collapse from climate change for decades now. And yet this somehow never gets reflected in the information the average investor hears or the investment alternatives they see. It's as though the financial industry is ignorant or corrupt.
Yes!
And healthcare? Why do companies want to bear the burden of managing healthcare?
Some of the smartest people I know work for Amazon and Google (Alphabet). What are they working on, AI and robotics. What I never hear are these two companies working on solutions to Global Warming. Sad choice of priorities.
1
"battery storage, urban mobility, renewables, software and artificial intelligence"
Who would deny that hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, can be potentially made from these applications, but Swisher doesn't make clear how, except for renewables, any of these would fight climate change.
It seems more like their impact would be incidental on climate change on this path to trillions of dollars.
And as to "Lithium, by the way, is often referred to as the “white petroleum.”, white petroleum has been around forever, it's available every where and commonly known as Vaseline
Lithium, by the way, is often referred to as the “white petroleum.”
The answer to your question is when Trump leaves the presidency and is replaced by someone who, once again, is looking after the welfare of America's citizens.
2
"…a lot of the focus from tech companies has been around direct air-capture of carbon…"
"…the main line of discussion was around tech solutions to climate change."
"…none of this makes a difference unless alternative low- and no-carbon energy solutions are pushed forward over oil and gas."
However, techy "solutions", "…only ameliorate the problem with creative cleaning-up rather than by solving it at the source."
Do you want to "solve it at the source"?? All you have to do is - Use Less and Waste Less. Reduce your GHG, make your kids' future lives better and save money - right now, today!
An unburned carbon atom creates no GHG. America creates more GHG/capita than any other large nation. We WASTE 2/3 of the energy we create, including 75% of transportation energy. We WASTE half of our food and all of it's embodied energy.
Want to save Big Bucks and reduce your Carbon Footprint? Drive less, drive slower, drive smaller, walk, ride a bike, carpool, take the bus. Don't fly. Don't eat meat - especially beef. Seal the leaks in your house, insulate, turn the thermostat up/down, use LEDs, use power strips, blah and blah.
It's not rocket science, nor does it need to be. While we sit around (actually drive around) waiting for our Big Oil-owned Congress Critters or our pointy-headed scientists to solve the problem for us, it only gets worse.
Of course, these actions mean that we have to change our wasteful ways. Do we care enuf' to do so?
1
Someone should tell Kevin Johnson that Starbucks branches here in South Africa still give out plastic straws. It's a global brand, why aren't their policies being enacted at EVERY branch?
I believe Bill Gates but I'm afraid of Kaiser Soze, pardon, Climate Crisis!
I believe in Bill Gates because he devours science; can one scientifically cultured individual with deep pockets not fight to prevent human extinction?
But I'm still afraid of Kaiser Soze, I mean The Climate Crisis! It could kill us all!
What we don't want to say about Kaiser Soze - pardon, Climate Crisis - is that overpopulation and current economic models are not addressed as being the killers lurking and must be met with frontal action!
So there will be a Kaiser Soze lurking in the recesses of out minds until we quit believing in boogey men and tackle reality - which is science driven, so let's address the threats of overpopulation and the shift from greed on which current economic models are predicated on...!
The planet has a better chance of being “saved” by my reusable grocery bag than by Silicon Valley.
1
Money will be made in green tech for sure, but politics is a big part of the equation. And politically, sucking carbon is an easy sell.
They won't, until someone forces them to.
1
Check out Silicon Valley Bank, whose Energy & Resource Innovation teams bank clean tech companies and provide venture debt, working capital and project finance.
Trump has a plan to mitigate climate change, he just doesn't know it: Kneecap the EPA and kill us all off by allowing moneyed interests to poison our air and water.
3
Tech geeks love benchmarks. For corporate climate cred, we need to quantify and compare in order to make the cause truly grippy. Gamify...
1
It is not the low hanging fruit. Far too many tech businesses are not even "successes" but they make money for "angels" and 'VC's" when they hand off the lousy companies to the public in IPO's. For this crowd, easy greed is the best kind.
Instead, they back worthless apps and fairy tale pitch decks. Why? Because they know that there is a bigger sucker waiting at the end of the line.
The solution can and must come from government(s). Do you think that the TVA or Hoover Dam or the interstate highway system ever would have happened any other way?
Always remember: They don't call it Silly Dot "Con" Valley for no reason.
11
@USNA73 The interstate highway system has been very harmful and should never have been built. It has destroyed cities, paved over vast stretches of farmland. It shows that government projects may be deleterious.
@Jonathan Katz
"government projects may be deleterious"
When private business won't budge in a constructive direction, what else do we have?
1
There has been talk of lowering emissions for 30 years yet carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are still increasing as are methane and nitrous oxide levels. We have seen a lot of ambitious goals by governments and companies but how many of these goals have been met or are on track to be being met? Actually even the weak goals of many countries for the Paris Climate Agreement are not on track to be being met. The emissions reductions to stay under 1.5C would have to be so drastic that this goal is in question as a real possibly. Just staying under 2C would require reductions in emissions that would be extremely challenging. But everything helps, even if it ultimately it is to stay under 3C or 4C so whatever Microsoft and BlackRock can accomplish ti matters.
Amazon is committed to eliminating single use plastic packaging in India by 2020. Why not in the United States?
1
Investing in sustainability is certainly a positive thing, but we can't lose sight of the role that of governments must play. Our capitalist economy should not be relied on to do any more than generate profits. It's for governments to set the rules that guide us to a more sustainable future, and it's those rules that will make these investments successful.
2
Ultimately all useful energy - including transportation, heating and cooling, and industrial process has to come from carbon free electricity. At present the vast majority of this is fossil-fuel derived. The only present commercially-viable power sources of carbon free electricity are solar, wind, and nuclear.
Converting all primary energy consumption to electrical will require at least a doubling of the current capacity to generate and distribute electricity.
Solar and wind can be important contributors, but my estimate is that infrastructure constraints will limit full build-out capability of wind and solar to 30-40% of what is required. The only current technology that can fill the remaining gap is nuclear power - 4th generation nuclear power if current technology is unacceptable. Let's accelerate the design and prototype testing of these technologies.
In the meantime, there is a lot that can be done through conservation and recycling to minimize the need for superfluous primary energy.
A few other thoughts, and please do your own research: Wood burning power is more polluting than coal; hydro power dams create a habitat dead zone equivalent to clear cutting or burning over land; incinerating waste is preferable to producing methane in a landfill; natural gas plants are necessary as a stop gap to the ultimate carbon free future.
What's your plan?
2
@Jack Ludwig
The plan is, get started, twenty years ago.
Today, Trump will be putting the lynchpin into dissolving all water, air and soil protections.
So, Kara, by the end of the day you should have your answer of "When", since it has not been any day up until now.
And I wouldn't put too much stock in the fact that a half-dozen have spoken up. There's always a half-dozen, no matter what the cause or how great the profit.
Seriously: It's later than they think.
1
Climate Change seems, finally, to get a hearing, however lame, because all proposals are timid at best, and where 'the talk is not followed by the walk' into action. Hypocrisy in the making? Perhaps. The need to deny it's importance if our salary depends on denying it? Indeed.
Decarbonizing the environment, without a more purposeful and massive application towards 'green energy', may fail...to the point of no returm from the harm already in process and mighty difficult to stop. And we are not even talking about the Trumpian imbecility of calling this crisis a hoax, denying the evidence already biting our tail-ends. Incidentally, we are witness to Trump's impeachment now, for abuse of power and obstruction of congress. Wouldn't it make more sense to sue him for denying Climate Change, and putting mother Earth at risk, and our very survival, and adding cruelty and suffering of poorer countries, unable to adjust to the awful warming of the planet?
This is the kind of action that leads me to be more inclined towards Microsoft products.
I believe that the survival of our species and other species depends on the rapid transition to green energy. What makes me nervous is the batteries. They are toxic and require rare minerals. (They are already taking steps to literally scrape the bottom of the ocean to access these minerals.) Maybe someone can help me, but can these batteries be recycled or use less toxic ingredients? We already have hundreds of tons of electronic/ computer components sitting in landfills.
2
Fossil fuels will eventually run out and, accordingly and wisely, investments are being made in renewable energy. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry has served mankind well, employs millions of people and should be allowed to die a natural death.
Those fanning the flames of climate change hysteria would just like to see the return on their investments in renewable energy sooner rather than later: While they argue that mankind's carbon footprint is driving up global temperatures, they( in their models) conveniently hold constant any countervailing( unpredictable) conditions which mother nature will inevitably serve up. Also, even if global warming stands, they don't account for the fact that some areas(i.e., Canada, Siberia) would actually benefit from it. Mankind has migrated in response to climate change from the beginning so why should now be any different? In sum, sense can be made of all this by just following the money.
1
Dunno the answer to your question but what i do know is mnuchin is the latest who got caught in trump's orbit and turned into a fool given his taunting of thunberg today. We need a leader, a chief that recognizes the danger and leads his little indians in the fight against it. Not a chief who is willing to sacrifice my country, and my world, in order to make himself rich, famous, and, ultimately, infamous. Those who revolve around trump will do as he commands.
What they think that gets them i really don't understand. More money? Like they really need it. Fame? Fleeting, and likely just the opposite. Historical derision when all is said and done. They have nothing to lose in the present. It's those who follow us, inherit from us, that will face the full consequences of their folly. So these today dance mindlessly on their puppeteer's strings, and business, being business to make profit, follows their lead. Easiest to make profit in non-green, then follow that course. Most capital flows to where the quickest, easiest buck can be made. Gotta make it profitable to go green. Like those subsidies for solar electricity generation. Imagine how far behind the curve we'd be now if they hadn't been instituted. Only the truly genius and bold will chance your proposed initiatives otherwise. Those are very few and very far between.
5
Solar, wind and battery storage with micro grids are all we need to completely re configure our energy systems. It exists now. I'ts only a matter of entrenched petroleum interest.
We can use solar as well to separate water into Hydrogen and Oxygen to power Hydrogen cars that don't create range anxiety.
3
@jason carey
Actually, it's not all we need. This is a false and ultimately dangerous idea. Sure, renewables can work with a widely connected smart grid plus adequate and economical storage. Right now we have neither. It comes down to what value you place on affordable cost and reliability. Can political will be sustained in the absence of either/both? Think yellow vests.
That's not even the real problem. It's displacing coal in the parts of the world where demand is increasingly gigantic and cost is king.
We need R&D into any/all possibilities to do that if we want a livable planet down the line.
It is great that more investment is likely to go towards sustainability.
Still, a major problem is how the market for "cheap" fossil fuel energy is preventing new technology from being adopted.
If there was a meaningful carbon tax to account for the externalities of the cost of CO2 pollution (and fugitive Methane), it would make alternatives a lot more valuable past the R&D and demonstration stage. [$1 per gallon of gazoline or $100 per MT of CO2 phased in would be good to fix this because it would cover the cost of taking it out at the source, if you can do better then you get to grow to 1T$].
Example: Plastic precursor synthetic route that generate less CO2 than the thermal cracking with the CO2 co-product purified and ready for sequestration or industrial use (Methanol for example) in the process.
The tech worked, the economics for first gen where not great but Ok because no one gives you credit for CO2 emission reduction. Still the company that develop the technology folded delaying adoption by many years if ever.
The technology potentially could take out 500M tonnes of CO2 per year out. DOE was willing to support first plants build because of this. [Out of 10GT, it is 5% target].
5
"I still do not get why Silicon Valley largely scorns green tech — except that perhaps it is a lot harder to get right than offering a new app in which teenagers can do dance-offs."
Answer: Greed
Capitalism
Profits, profits, profits
6
The business activity associated with producing the carbon free economy will generate wealth. Not addressing climate change and running into the climate wall will impoverish our grandchildren. Why is this a hard choice? Because the wealth may go to different people.
4
Carbon capture technology is necessary because so much carbon pollution continues to contribute to global warming. Fossil fuel powered utilities, vehicles, factories and homes aren't going away. Carbon taxes can help but may hit the neediest hardest and hurt economic growth.
3
The vast cloud computing services that companies like Microsoft run require lots of electricity, most of which comes from a natural gas or coal fired power plant. It will be interesting to see if Microsoft can produce electricity from non carbon sources.
1
There's a bumper sticker sported by some gun owners: I'll give up my gun when it's pried from my cold, dead fingers. Substitute companies (or simply Americans) for gun owners, and fossil fuels for guns, and there's the answer to you question.
2
When it’s tied to their bottom line.
The government needs to define the playing field through regulations and protections or corporations and consumers will continue to contribute towards turning our environment into a useless heap of artifacts.
1
When it comes to solar, as far as I can tell, we are still stuck on clunky, heavy and unwieldily solar panels. There are huge swaths of the US where sunshine is in great abundance and for the life of me I can’t understand or accept that we haven’t developed solar building materials like siding, roofing and decking. To move forward we need to embrace rapid R&D into green technologies. I accept that energy storage is a challenge that once solved will be a game changer, but in the meanwhile let’s please develop and greatly expand technologies that will generate green energy.
4
@Frank
I believe it was Elon Musk that built solar roofing material (shingles?) for one of his homes.
On the Internet I saw street material that was solar. It lite up at night and was warm enough that it melted the snow. Look at what a cost savings for cities and states not to have to invest in salt, sand, or snow plows. Drivers would not get stuck on roads in the snow, accidents caused by snow, etc. Driveways could be incorporate the material as well as sidewalks. Look at just the medical bills, the pain and suffering from falls. and heart attacks that invention would save.
So the technology is there, but profits? Evasive.
1
One of the largest problems surrounding climate change is mensuration, the ability to determine the total and true costs of our adaptations to our environment.
Fossil fuels and green technology are two largely opposing ways to fundamentally transfer energy to meet our needs. But little accounting is done to add up the costs and benefits. Consider all the externalities for both and the outcome is less certain. We must consider many things:
For fossil fuels:
- Subversion of good governance by petro-states (cf. Equatorial Guinea)
- Ecological effects of fracking, mountain top removal and drilling on the local regions where they occur
- Issues with transportation including pipeline rupture, oil spills from tankers, "bomb trains"
- Effect on cancer rates from aerial hydrocarbons
- Losses from evaporation or inefficient engines (e.g. lawn mowers)
- Mercury and cadmium contamination from coal burning
- PM 2.5 pollution from combustion
- Rupture of coal ash confinements
For green tech:
- Electrical line losses
- Nuclear waste disposal
- Difficulty in obtaining rare earth minerals for generators
- Intermittency of sun, wind and tides
- Battery inefficiency
Each approach has difficulties. We've got enough work to do for everyone.
if big money is to be made by going green it will not go into an American wallet. Our desire to become a third world country already firmly entrenched.
19
Lot of money to be made and lots of power to be grabbed. Answer to the question why aren't the Climate Activists saying anything about the population problem?
Because no one gains power by reducing population growth.
3
@GregP, I have long asked this question, and the answer I've found is not about power, it's about not offending large swaths of the very people needed to make the changes. If you tell a mom she's cruel for bringing five children into this world, it's unlikely she's going to vote for your green new deal.
Aside from trump being a buffoon, I believe Kara is right about her assessment. My house is run with solar and I own an electric vehicle. I also own one of those gas powered vehicles, but it's like driving an antique so it hardly ever gets used. There is going to be a tidal wave of change occurring and I plan to be a part of it. Just like the amazing technology of electric vehicles, I will never again buy a fossil fuel burner. We are only now beginning to crack open this new and amazing future. What took the horse and buggy age decades to transform the world, this new tech will start becoming reality in the decade we are in now.
1
@Bella No one I know owns an electric vehicle, and aside from Tesla, no one is buying the offerings from the Big Three not even their hybrids which are only less than 2% of the total car market. It will be a decade or more before your tidal wave takes place, no one I know can afford to live in your phantasy world. I cant remember the last time I saw an all-electric Nissan Leaf or Toyota Prius.
1
@Bella Sounds great but where I live a plugging station does not even exist. It will be a long time before electric vehicles hit areas outside of the big cities IMHO.
1
As we push our Prime Minister hard on going green here in Canada, so we win economically now and down the road, I am absolutely astonished that America is allowing their 'leader' to cede leadership in what will inevitably be the biggest capitalist boom known to humankind. There's a lot of cheddar in them there green hills, and Trump is throwing it all away and will prove his country a fading empire.
Good luck competing with China in the energy transition in 10 years, America.
17
@Karolina Hordowick
Your Alberta Crude is selling for $40.00 less a barrel than what we produce here and what you Import from Saudi Arabia. Way to lead.
@Karolina Hordowick
Your economy will be better in the near future, but you, as the rest of us, have a hopeless economic future. This isn't something we can solve in twenty or even fifty years. This will take coordinated, considered, direct action by people and systems around the world for several decades.
Stop pointing out that there's money to be made because it isn't true. It's like buying a mugger's gun, selling it back to him for a 10% markup, and being like, "I'm rich!" This isn't about money and money will not fix this.
1
The Green Revolution is certainly coming but we ought to learn from the changes wrought by the internet to see how this may play out.
Let's go back to 1997. The internet was in its infancy. Of course, lots of people understood that the internet would change commerce, but it was not at all clear exactly how it would change, or how to make money on an internet investment.
By 2001, thousands of companies and millions of investors put money into internet-oriented companies, the dot com bubble burst, and collectively we lost billions, including millions of people out of work.
Move ahead 15 years. Making money off the internet is quite common, but let's not forget that for every dollar earned by Amazon, Macy's or Kohl's loses a dollar. Malls are empty of major stores. Plenty of people are losing retail jobs, just as technology jobs are plentiful.
No one argues that green technology won't have a huge impact on society, but prudent corporate managers need to figure out exactly how to make money off green before investing the billions required.
We also need to figure out how to retrain all those workers whose livelihoods depend on coal, gas, and oil.
Elizabeth Warren and AOC rashly claim we can create millions of green jobs, but they have yet to articulate exactly what those jobs are, what training is needed to perform those jobs, where those jobs will be located, and how much they will pay.
It's easy to make bold claims, a lot harder to make it happen.
4
The Big Lie is that private investment can save us from climate change. It cannot and will not because it does not have the money.
Angel investors and tech startup investors and hedge funds operate to make money. No one makes money on the basic science that still needs to be accomplished. The government and only the government has the 20 year horizon of funding, personnel, and scientific infrastructure (in national labs and government-sponsored research universities) to accomplish it. No investor group can do a Manhattan Project.
Just some of the science is: catalysis for hydrogen production, genetic engineering for biofuel, plasma containment for nuclear fusion, carbon dioxide conversion to synfuel, alternatives to fossil fuel-based ammonia production, long-term stationary battery systems for grid services, perovskite-based solar panels that are durable and can be made by mass-production, and seawater and brackish water desalination technology.
There is no money to made in the basic technology research needed to accomplish this. The timeline for a fair ROI is beyond their ability to withstand. Hope is not a plan. Hope in fickle investors looking for a quick profit is suicide.
1
@Revoltingallday
Question?
Is it easier or harder for Government to have the money needed for the research if we destroy our current fossil fuel based economy?
@Revoltingallday
I do work with Universities. You cannot count on them to develop viable engineered solutions. They no idea how to do that and they do not have the funding.
From the proof of concept to a pilot, a demonstrator, process scale up with life cycle analysis... You have to spend tens of millions of dollars to do that.
Even then, routes to market and capital formation is a huge problem for any first of kind plant, factory,...
The valley of death in green tech is very deep and wide as cost of scaling up in the hundreds of millions and returns that can never be "IT, web commerce stars" like.
Tesla lost a lot of money for many years until turning a profit [at least 1B$ spend before that], Bloom same thing, Solyndra - bust, algae plays - bust mostly,...
I am an optimist (or a masochist) since I am still working on chemical innovation to make the world greener after having seen many fail delivering technology success.
New power generation in the US is dominated by solar, wind, and gas. The pipeline of AE projects is solid, at current $/kwh. Even conservative scenarios of cost reductions in AE project further decline in FF generation, and what little FF comes online is dominated by NG. What is destroying FF generation is not the government, it’s the market with modest and declining AE and battery incentives.
Mobility is a race between battery and high-mileage engines. The total cost of ownership of a battery vehicle is not yet lower to 200k on a Tesla because the sticker is way over 30k. When there is no more cost to buying a Tesla over a Corolla, people will buy the Tesla (or other OEM) because the cost of getting to 200k miles will be far less due to fewer repairs on fewer moving parts with fluid in them.
So does a carbon tax or cap and trade destroy the FF economy at less than $30 a ton co2e? Not any more than market forces have already accomplished.
If we slap 60 bucks per ton, yea you could do some real damage. But till you get that high, I think the FF market still functions.
Aside from noting that governments are increasing their support for electric vehicles, this editorial, like most we see these days, makes no mention of civilization's need stop driving carbon-dioxide emitting vehicles. It barks up the wrong tree.
1
We all need hope that our lifestyles and communities will survive the climate catastrophe. Very few national or international actions have helped reduce emissions. Corporations and industries have money, power, and social or civic responsibilities that go beyond quarterly earnings. The private sector seems our only hope at this point.
We need to solve the problem at the source (reduce emissions to carbon neutrality, and fast). It is reckless to argue that untried and unproven 'clean up' methods of carbon capture will save us.
I don’t disagree with the promise of the profit incentive to drive positive corporate change, but with each passing year the climate case against misbehaving corporations (like oil companies) becomes less persuasive. Of course their products increase atmospheric carbon, but the premise of the lawsuits against them is that, 1) for years they suppressed information that, 2) had we had access to it, it would’ve enabled the world to take the necessary steps to convert to clean energy and halt or mitigate the damage.
The first is true, but the second is increasingly being shown to be incorrect. Even Exxon, since early in this century, has acknowledged human-affected climate change and supported a carbon tax as a way to fight it. In the past two decades that the science has become overwhelming and widely acknowledged (Republicans in the US the notable exception), there have been targets set and missed, and we’ve seen many examples of the global public resisting short-term sacrifice to address an existential longer term problem.
The problem is now us, not evil corporations. We demand their products and refuse to sacrifice our cheap, disposable, comfortable lifestyles to save the world. Shame on us until WE change.
9
I agree with almost everything in the column, and certainly there are immeasurable (can we even measure beyond trillions? ) opportunities, but the most basic one is water. (not mentioned, and actually ever mentioned )
The planet simply cannot sustain all of us at this level of population NOW, nor can it in the future. (especially at the rate we and companies/including tech are going)
I would further say that even IF ALL of the tech companies got together, and every other company on earth as well, it would not be possible to address where we are. (if we have already passed the point of no return)
To talk about achieving some such carbon 0 level decades in the future with offsets is ridiculous. It truly is. We need every single column and every single pundit/scientist screaming from the mountaintops about doing everything possible NOW.
We also need every single government on earth working in tandem (please take a break from war) to even have a CHANCE to save ourselves. Things are beyond critical.
You may not agree with me assessment, but why would we take a chance with our future? The whole idea of profit margin, or even money will have to take a back seat I fear.
Time to get real, as well as talk real.
31
@FunkyIrishman
I agree that water is a commodity that we cannot ignore any longer. Fracking wastes millions of gallons of water which is so polluted that it cannot be reused. Livestock in feedlots use and produce hundreds of gallons of water. We need to discover a way to recycle that water to feed it back safely to the livestock.
YouTube has many videos on no plow agriculture that reduce water usage, and actually put water back into aquafers. Mature trees also do that too.
Unless we stop once and for all the anti-abortionists, and the anti-sex-education in our schools (which add to overpopulation), and the waste of water in livestock and agriculture, people are doomed. The next wars will be over water.
3
@FunkyIrishman One moderate catastrophe will plunge civilization into possibly unrecoverable chaos.
Think viral outbreak ack on corn crops world wide. Think pandemic of disease in humans. Think asteroid or solar burp knocking out the electric grid for literally months. Sorry to sound so dreary but as you said "Time to get real, as well as talk real."
People who are off grid now - people back in forests living the indigenous life - will be the ones who stand a shot at survival. Amazon forests, Australian tribal folk, maybe a few nomads in the middle of Kazakhstan. When the big plug is yanked think of no gas, no groceries, no banking. Simply nothing works. So yeah, it's time to get real my fellow humans.
1
@FunkyIrishman
We also need to stop pretending that there's money to be made in the climate crisis. There isn't any. Anything earned in the next couple decades will be worth exactly dirt a couple decades later.
We have to sacrifice for the benefit of people we will never see. That's why I'm 90% sure we will continue to suffer until there's no one left to suffer.
4
Trillions, billions, millions -these enormous sums will not be the only rewards of efforts to address climate change! Very soon populations in low lying coastal areas will have to move-ditto people living in the areas with driest vegetation-people cannot survive constant flooding and forest fires.We have seen a preview of the future and as Einstein said”it will come soon enough”.Good for Microsoft for taking the lead for tech-any other tech willing to compete or are you still stuck in Apps?
2
I can't believe Ms. Swisher is so naive. Dealing with climate change is an international political problem. It demands negotiated solutions and an agreed upon framework. So far that hasn't happened, but to then turn to industry and say, "you fix it," is insane. You can't expect thousands, even millions, of companies to all of a sudden start acting in concert. You can't even expect big companies like Intel to start a program while competing on the world state with Chinese or Korean or French companies that are not acting on the same goal.
2
No such thing as a food production ecosystem. Food production however is destroying ecosystems.
1
Green tech and other green companies, sure, they'll be riding the green wave. All others: when you hold a gun to their head in the form of tough, industry wide regulation. You can't expect a corporation to betray its stockholders and do stuff that will make it less profitable. This is the exact place that smart regulation should meet the free market in a sensible economy. This is also where bad people--I'm looking at you Mr. President--like to demagogue a simple issue and call it "socialism". It's common sense, not socialism.
2
Green trillionaire.
Gonna be a lot of carbon burned to reach such a pinnacle, like this is the greatest end of cosmic and human evolution.
So, we are dependent on the bezo-ization of green to save us the bezo-ization of fossil? That further concentration of wealth is going to save us from all the tyrannies and hegemonies of fossil?
Is there no alternative vision for creating distributed power in local economies that would give rise to communities that retain wealth for the regeneration and restoration of local ecosystems that can sustain them indefinitely?
Or must we continue the path toward the concentration and giantification of systems that keep us on the path of creating ginormous maladaptive systems that solely determine the fate of the world?
4
If someone makes a battery that is a true game-changer - enabling meaningful storage of wind or solar power, for example - then investors will step in, consumers will buy, revenues will flow and production will follow. Maybe. Because the real driver behind all of this is the consumer. This article and so many others rest on the popular myth that corporations are somehow decoupled from people. Well, they’re not. They are formed and run by people, they serve people and they respond to people. If consumers continue to demand cheap plastics, cheap fuel, cars, air conditioners, roads, planes, etc, etc, corporations will respond to the demand. We’ve tried centrally planned, supply-side economies that ignored or sought heroically to shape consumer demand - Soviet Union for one - and they failed miserably. When consumers show a willingness to change their purchasing behavior, corporations will respond. It can be done (with a helpful government, also run by people) but right now we get more virtue-signaling than anything else. Stop simply blaming the easy bogeyman, share some responsibility for the fix we’re in and maybe corporations - filled with people like us - will respond by doing something real.
13
@MWR This comment is spot on. Exxon isn't the problem. Voters are. They will NOT respond to climate change the way progressives want them to. It will NEVER happen. The lofty goals activists are demanding aren't unachievable in a democratic society. Not in a country like ours where voters have zero appetite for more economic sacrifice. Millions of people are two paychecks away from being in dire economic straits. They simply won't tolerate higher gas taxes. I've heard people say that if it's too expensive to commute people will have to live closer to their work. But people are moving further away from economic centers because the cost of housing in urban areas is unaffordable. The left by proposing a high carbon tax are trying to make their way to work unaffordable as well. Low wage earners spend a lot to fill their cars up. For most mass transit isn't an option. Politicians that want a carbon tax rarely think of the poor & the hardship it will cause them. I find it interesting that the Democratic left is calling for the exact kind of tax that the French are up in arms against. What's happening in France has made many reconsider this questionable notion. No one accepts the way progressives are framing the issue which is why they aren't getting any political traction in Congress. The left is basically saying fight climate change OUR way or all life on Earth will perish. No one is buying it. NO ONE. This will be a slow process that will require a lot of adaptation on our part.
8
@MWR
Consumers (and our culture) are manipulated and shaped by corporations, not the other way around. People mostly purchase what corporations make available, often without being happy about their choices. Amazon has given consumers a bit more choice power, hence its great success.
Same goes for investment..the average mutual fund investor is offered mostly funds dominated by the same tiresome array of big banks, Walmart, big tech, and oil/gas companies. Small investors who want to invest in green tech will have a very hard time.
5
@Bill Brown - We WASTE 2/3 of the energy we produce. We WASTE 75% of transportation energy. We WASTE half of our food and all of the energy embodied therein.
It does not need to be a "slow process". We Fossil Fuel addicts can change it today - if we cared. Yes, it will require adaptation on our part.
3
Shouldn't there be a broad approach to fight global warming?
1) Encourage others to see the financial benefits (risk analysis and long-term productivity and sustainability)
2) Work to increase efficiencies for the sake of profits
3) Write laws to require greater efficiencies (miles/gallon, for example)
4) Work on changing a consumerist mind-set (not easy, but necessary).
5) Reduce population growth
6) Learn about low-cost low-key happiness.
6
@Just Thinkin’
The broadest possible approach is necessary. Your list is good, but must include a carbon price. Anthropogenic climate change is a Tragedy of the Commons: a result of our freedom to socialize the marginal cost of our carbon emissions whenever we buy fossil fuels, or goods and services made with them. A revenue-neutral carbon tax, such as a US carbon fee and dividend with border adjustment tax, would internalize the cost of climate change in the price of fuels, harnessing consumer thrift and the profit motive to build out the carbon-neutral US and global economies. See citizensclimatelobby.org for more info and proposed legislation.
1
Kara's analysis is the same as the neophytes at Microsoft or Blackrock. The "batteries, circular economy" rubbish hides the dirty (sic) little secret policies and initiatives to reduce carbon are based on ignorance of even a basic understanding of heat and mass balance. Electric cars are great if they weren't charged at night or periods when the grid is supported by GT peakers, otherwise they are plainly higher carbon vehicles. Batteries or other storage offer a solution but at present and for a decade or more in the future there's not enough lithium in the world to cover the nighttime of California let alone the US. Meanwhile, waste is ever present with power and steam plants, petrochemical facilities continuously spewing millions of tons of carbon as the price of efficiency to reduce such is higher than the price of fuel.
1
@Robert Benz Not sure what this gents point is. Lithium shortage, I think not. It is a fairly abundant mineral. Its' major sources are three "friendly" countries. Furthermore, there is even a mine in Nevada which contains his city. The rest of his missive (using one of his words) was rubbish.
@Robert Benz - "…higher than the price of (heavily subsidized) fuel."
1
Capitalism is based on the concept that acquisition of personal wealth is the prime motivator of all actions. Governments have the power to manipulate the flow of wealth. Nature is the ultimate source of all wealth. You take it from there.
4
As long as corporations in America are people and money is speech the only climate change and environmental protection that matters is their shareholder owners homes.
36
Physics Today this month reviews the options offered by Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration. The opportunities for profiting from these array of technologies are immense and range from the local scale to the state and federal levels.
1
I disagree.
We really can't go wrong betting against the future as a return to green and healthy. That is just not the way of cutthroat capitalism, for it loves desperation, it only grows if there is scarcity and huge numbers of people at the bottom of the economic pyramid willing to work for peanuts.
There are too many people on this earth, and that number is growing...not as fast as Malthus predicted but still, we are headed for a Blade Runner future.
Trump is no more an aberration than is Putin in Russia, they are both the way of the future, the way the elites rule the rest of us. If you notice, they aren't committing environmental suicide, for they own the land outside the cities, the places still green and healthy, and that won't change.
Democracy would destroy the "Royals" of wealth, for sooner or later we would vote to tax them mightily, so of course, democracy must die, like it died in Russia, in China, and I fear, in India.
Let's watch as the coming depression after our own "roaring 20's" destroys our economy and takes down many of our social programs, and our right to clear water, clean air, and not mentioned by most, our right to be free from noise pollution.
Hugh
11
@Hugh Massengill
The only thing I'd add is that they only *believe* they're safe from the climate catastrophe. They just haven't realized they live in the same climate we do. They're committing suicide, they just won't see the effects of it for another decade or two. And then it'll be too late.
HYDROGEN IS KEY To the future of sustainable energy. Yet it is AWOL in this piece. There is an integration of hydrogen into natural gas, to the tune of about 20%, that renders the gas more efficient and decrease emissions of carbon monoxide, a lethal gas. Hydrogen can be reliably be stored in underground caverns and pumped up when it's needed to keep electricity flowing at times when solar and wind generation is limited. Batteries may work well for energy storage in cars. But they're too expensive to store excess energy generated by solar and wind sources. It is estimated that a significant proportion of that sustainable energy is currently wasted due to lack of storage capacity. And hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Scarcity will never be a problem. Me, I'm going with hydrogen with my investments.
1
@John Jones fracking for natural gas gives off huge amounts of methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas