Business and technology policies to help ensure a stable climate for our children

Summary

Many policy makers do not have deep backgrounds in climate change. As such, most do not grasp the urgency of the crisis and the degree of mitigating action needed. On top of this, due to the nature of politics, short-term thinking takes precedent over long-term strategy - the latter being key to fighting climate change. Policies to win a stable planetary environment for future generations include renewable energy roll-out, widely adopted carbon credit markets and carbon tax, energy efficient HVACs and building insulation, national reforestation programs, new climate legislation which protects the rights of nature and youth while holding policy makers liable, nuclear energy roll out, eFuels development, aggressive electrification of the transportation industry starting at the government level, establishment of ocean blue zones and no-fishing coastal areas, accelerated development of carbon capture technology and the cessation of all fossil fuel subsidies. But most critical is the confidence that through sustained effort and willpower, we can eventually win a stable climate for our children.

Introduction

Last month I tried out a game developed by the Financial Times [i]. I play the hypothetical “Global Minister of Future Generations” and navigate climate disasters that take place up to 2050. Along the way, I make critical policy decisions and deeply test my knowledge of climate change. In 2050, an assessment is made on how I did, along with the global average temperature of the planet, largely determined by my decisions as minister. The first time I played, despite having worked in climate tech for fifteen years, I failed to hit the IPCC 1.5C warming limit. My ego damaged, I reflected that if I?—?as a relatively young individual with a technical background and history of working in climate tech—couldn’t beat this game, how on Earth do older, more conservative politicians in power today stand a chance?

Hence my inspiration to write this article. As many times as the topic has been expounded, not least by the IPCC reports and Bill Gate’s latest book, How to Avoid the Climate Disaster , I’ll reiterate here up-to-date thinking on critical actions required for humanity to beat global warming. Needless to say, these actions will represent a level-up from what we’re currently doing today (which isn’t enough, fyi).

Carbon Tax

The En-ROADS simulation developed by MIT takes into account numerous factors which will affect average global temperatures [ii]. These span from the rate of clean energy deployment, investment in nuclear power and reforestation programs to carbon capture investment. By far, the factor which stands out as most effective is the level of carbon tax and pricing of carbon credits.

By placing a cost on the negative externality that is society’s CO2e emissions (just as we do on high sugar products, cigarettes or alcohol due to the cost they place on our healthcare systems), we make up for the costs of severe weather events and other consequences of a warming planet caused by said emissions. And by creating an incentive to actively remove CO2e emissions, we enable an entirely new industry to develop - one which will happen to benefit our environment too.

Carbon taxes have been implemented around the world but are either completely voluntary or levied upon a small percentage of national emissions. The EU-ETS now applies to carbon-intensive imports to Europe, which is an improvement [iii]. The US has recently launch a voluntary program and also is awarding a fixed price for carbon sequestered [iv],[v]. However, carbon tax still needs to be more consistent across industries and geographies. Other developed and developing nations need to be persuaded to get onboard as soon as possible, especially China.

Carbon tax forces industries to be more efficient (the stick) and credits support the carbon capture industry (the carrot). The tax revenue generated is put into rolling out new climate solutions or is directly offset by reducing tax elsewhere, such as personal income tax.

Renewable energy

Solar energy is probably the lowest-hanging fruit in our fight against global warming. In most geographies, solar energy is now the cheapest form of electricity. That wasn’t always the case and as result, people have the impression that it’s still expensive. Numerous companies now offer solar panel installation for free. In exchange, leasing plans are set up which cost much less than the energy savings incurred by the customer. In other words, payback is immediate – something that used to be antithetical in the solar industry.

However, more solar energy projects need to be encouraged in sunny locations. These could include the southern states in North and South America. They should also be embraced in the Middle-East and Africa – alas both still woefully dependent on fossil fuels.

What cannot be condoned is the construction of new fossil fuel plants, of any form. It’s understandable that existing plants can’t all be shut down overnight, as countries need to function. However, the building of new coal plants or gas refineries, while there are so many renewable energy alternatives out there, is unforgivable.?

Fossil fuel subsidies should also be stopped, immediately. Why would governments support them beyond political gain? We must think further ahead than the next election cycle, as China is doing. Instead, energy storage and flexible grid management systems should be supported by governments.

?

Electrification

Electric cars have proven themselves as viable alternatives to Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles. Range is certainly an issue but battery technology only improves. What governments must do is support the roll-out of charging stations. In addition, we need to swap out existing government vehicle fleets such as public transport, logistics and emergency vehicles, with battery powered alternatives. Tax credits for buyers of electric vehicles should be maintained while tax and regulation of ICE vehicles ever increased.

It should be noted that vehicle fleets can be electrified without the need to replace the vehicles themselves. Many companies offer the service of removing combustion engines and installing battery packs instead (eg. Felton , UK).

?

Reforestation & re-wilding

Reforestation and re-wilding too is low-hanging fruit (pun intended). A few thousand years ago, there were 8 trillion trees on our planet. Today there are 3 trillion. Based on the amount of arable land which can be re-wilded and land which is simply barren but able to support trees, that number could be increased by a trillion (which would represent a forest about the size of the United States). [vi]

Over two hundred billion tons of CO2 will be sequestered that way (four years worth of humanity’s current output) but perhaps just as importantly, the forests will provide habitats for endangered species, cooling and shade for people in hot regions and even defence against soil erosion and flooding.

Re-wilding of arable land simply means empty fields used for grazing can be partially covered with trees. Doing so has the added benefit of providing shelter for the farm animals as well as wildlife corridors for local flora & fauna. Beyond farmland, coastal mangroves have huge carbon sequestration potential and also protect coastlines from erosion and nearby settlements from flooding. They too, will need to be replanted.

In short, all governments need serious, well-funded reforestation and re-wilding programs. They represent such a low cost effort in comparison to other solutions, it’s madness these national programs do not already exist. With the increasing number of forest fires spewing more and more carbon into the air, and as illegal logging continues in full swing (pun intended), it’s more urgent than ever to make up for our biomass loss.

Nuclear energy: pebble beds & SMRs

It’s weird that when we talk about renewables, we tend to leave out nuclear. Nuclear energy may not be ‘renewable’ but the amount of waste it produces compared to the energy it supplies is miniscule. And it should be noted that traditional renewables can’t be considered absolutely ‘clean’; noise, visual and materials pollution come included.

Nuclear energy was effectively killed in the 80s by the same environmentalists now calling for swifter action against climate change [vii]. Due to negative public sentiment, Germany recently closed down all its existing reactors and to make up for their loss, now burns much more natural gas and coal than it used to. Yes, there have been nuclear disasters and people have been killed. However, shall we put things into perspective? Particulates, ozone and VOCs generated by fossil fuel emissions kill over seven million people a year [viii]. And if we do nothing about our emissions, extreme weather events (eg. flooding, hurricanes and heat waves) will unfortunately kill orders of magnitudes more.

Beyond looking at statistics and facts, politicians need to understand that nuclear technology today is not what it was fifty years ago. Newly developed pebble bed reactors make meltdowns impossible (full stop). The storage of nuclear waste has been partially solved by companies such as Veolia , which have developed processes to turn nuclear waste into glass (vitrification) and counteract the risk of radioactive leakage over time. [ix]

Nuclear energy admittedly has an economics problem. Nuclear plants today are extremely expensive to build and maintain - in fact they represent the most expensive form of energy in the Western world today. However, we should note that China does not have this problem. It’s able to build nuclear plants at half or even a third of the cost of the US and Europe [x]. The country has built over twenty nuclear plants in the last ten years alone, putting its total today at x55 operational plants [xi]. So if they can do it, can’t we??

A solution to the economics problem could be “Small Modular Reactors” (SMRs) which are being developed most intensely in the US. These miniature reactors reduce upfront capital required, allow for more flexible deployment based on customer need and are quick to build. SMRs employing the latest in safe reactor technology could be a solution to our nuclear sector's cost and safety issues.

?

Insulation and better HVACs

Energy consumed by buildings represent 37% of all emissions today [xii]. And of that, half of all energy consumed by a building, depending on geography, is driven by heating and cooling. The problem is exasperated by ever more buildings going up in regions of the world which are hot and require lots of air-conditioning. Here I’m mainly referring to the Middle-East and India, but the same applies to countries in South-East Asia including Indonesia.

Energy efficiency is the name of the game here. We can’t simply ask people to make do in their mud, wooden or tin houses. Or continue to go without AC if they can afford otherwise. There are two major approaches; the first is better insulation and the second is better technology.

Improved insulation through the use of better materials and incorporating smart air-locks, Building Management Software (BMS), double or triple glazing in windows and living walls (it’s always fun to optimise for energy and nature) is a start. There are many other methods for insulating buildings such dynamic insulation and phase change materials, aerogel or vacuum panels, all of which will play a major role in the future.

Beyond better insulating methods, is improved HVAC technology. The easiest way to reduce energy required to maintain a building’s temperature is to reduce the amount of indoor air which actually needs to be heated or cooled. Typically, buildings go by standard ventilation (air-exchange) rates as regulated by local governance. But the only reason these requirements exist is to ensure good air quality for the building inhabitants. Now with the advent of cheap, highly sensitive Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) sensors, easily integrated with an overarching BMS, ventilation rates can be dynamic and tailored to minimize air exchange without sacrificing air-quality. An obvious example of this is reducing air exchange at night versus the day, or on weekends versus weekdays. Such a technique will quite easily lead to double digit gains in building energy efficiency.

Combine optimized air-recirculation with ground, air or water heat pumps, and we’ve levelled-up building energy efficiency altogether. To boot, these measures generally pay for themselves in a couple of years though saved energy costs. It’s even possible to scrub CO2 from building air to affect even higher recirculation rates [xiii]. Hereby, greater energy savings are obtained and indoor air becomes cleaner than outdoor air. Two pioneers of the technology are EnVerid and Soletair Power .

?

Carbon capture

There exists four basic forms of carbon capture ;

1.???? Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS): This involves placing massive filters (liquid or solid) on top of flue stacks and removing all the CO2 from the piping hot gas furiously escaping from furnaces below.

2.???? Direct Air Capture (DAC): Doing the same thing but only once the CO2 has left the flue stacks and has diluted itself in ambient air. There are many more ways to achieve effective DAC than there are CCS, the design context allowing for more flexibility. DAC is necessary in the long-term while hopefully CCS will cease to exist as fossil fuel power plants are disbanded.

3.???? Nature-based solutions: These incorporate everything natural and range from engineered (BECCs, rock weathering) to more organic techniques (re-wilding / reforestation, seeding of kelp farms). They are harder to manage and typically require lots of land area but are generally quite cost effective.

4.???? Conversion: Here, CO2 from the air or in a concentrated form from DAC, power, steel or cement plants, or gas refineries, is converted into useful stuff. This stuff can either retain CO2 for a long period of time (eg. CO2-impregnated cement or plastic) or displace fossil fuels as its source (eg. eFuels, food or graphene).

Let me clear; we need all of these, all at once. And they will all thrive from a healthy carbon tax and credit incentive. In some cases, they out compete existing industries. Two companies already doing so are Skytree and Solar Foods . Skytree has managed to develop modular DAC systems, that are flexible and end up being more cost-effective than sourcing CO2 in its traditional forms. Solar Foods is creating protein by combining CO2 and nitrogen in the air with water. Literally food out of thin air and healthier than many alternatives on the market.

Most of these technologies are expensive and offer little in return. However, as we transition to a circular economy, we must limit emissions from traditional sources. At the same time, we must develop the means to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Many technologies were expensive at first (think computer chips or solar power) only to revolutionize their sectors over time. The same will be true for carbon capture and if properly supported by governments, the revolution will happen sooner.

?

eFuels

eFuels, otherwise known as synthetic fuels, are engineered and do not depend on fossil fuel as a feedstock. The carbon they require comes from the atmosphere and the energy needed to power the conversion process is renewable. This leads to the intriguing ability to burn liquid fuel without adding CO2 to the atmosphere (ie. emissions are "net-zero").

eFuels are most interesting in the transportation industry, especially those segments which are hard to electrify, but in the case of hydrogen, may also be applicable to the automotive industry. Aviation and shipping will be the primary focus of our efforts however. The development of eFuels is crucial to a future where we re-use Earth’s resources in a sustainable, longterm manner, otherwise known as a "circular economy".

Climate legislation

Perhaps a less obvious, but just as consequential development in our fight against climate change is climate legislation. Typically, when individuals, youth or indigenous communities take companies and governments to court for climate negligence, they lose. However, this trend is reversing, and that should be celebrated by anyone setting climate policy.

The trend reversal was kicked off by the popularity of Greta Thunberg, followed recently by a legal victory for youth in Montana (represented by Our Children’s Trust ) against the state government [xiv]. They argued that the subsidizing of a new fossil fuel power plant was gross climate negligence, imminently endangering their health. A multitude of similar court cases around the world are now ongoing, and it looks like many will win.

Holding people accountable for their actions is probably the most effective way to change behaviour. People in positions of power in politics and private industry, typically have not been held accountable, ever, for any decisions that have adversely affected our environment (here I exclude short-term events such as contamination of waterways or toxic leakage). The prospect of being fined, jailed or even deposed due to climate negligence will induce many in power to act more responsibly.

Another development is the assignment of legal personhood to nature eg. rivers, mountains, wildernesses. The most notable example of this is Whanganui river in New Zealand, which last year was assigned the same legal rights as a person [xv]. The initiative was spearheaded by a Maori tribe and will be replicated by indigenous groups around the world. This development should be supported as it helps preserve our nature. Legal personhood is assigned to non-human entities all the time (ie. companies), so why not something more tangible?

Ultimately, making everyone more accountable for climate negligence and giving those most affected a voice will be good for the planet.

Other policies

Rishi Sunak’s rolling back of UK’s climate legislation, namely the banning of ICE vehicles by 2030 and the restriction of coal plants without CCS, shows how unaware many politicians still are of the urgency of the climate crisis [xvi]. Climate mitigation and adaption spending must be increased, not rolled back. There is about a ten year latency in emissions and their visible effects. So for the next decade, and likely the next two or three decades, the effects of climate change will continue get worse despite implementing our most ambitious plans.?

Governments need to prepare for this climate fallout. And they need to follow through with pledges to help other countries prepare. A global adaptation fund has been created but needs actual funding. The establishment of ocean blue zones (effectively wildlife reserves for the sea) is hugely important. As our oceans warm, coral is being killed at an alarming rate [xvii]. The death of coral reefs will mean a decline in fish populations, and in turn, the ocean’s ability to feed us. To counter this effect, no-fishing zones need to be established around the world, in parallel to ocean blue zones.

To conclude (hopefully on a somewhat upbeat note), I urge you to first play the Financial Times’ The Climate Game to test your knowledge of climate change. It highlighted to me just how drastic our actions need to be in order to avoid the worst of climate change. Unfortunately, it seems that short-term election cycles and a lack of education in politicians is causing most governments to fall short. Despite rational arguments about economic growth, supporting jobs and saving consumers money, ultimately these legislators just suffer from short-term thinking. And almost all ‘rational’ arguments just reflect the underlying sentiment and emotion of those presenting them. As applied to this article, my underlying sentiment is concern for people’s future (especially those without resources) and also an optimism; that we as a civilisation, with enough sustained effort and willpower, can take the necessary action to win a safe and stable environment for our children.

?

References

[i]. ????????????? Financial Times. (2022) The Climate Game: Can you reach net zero by 2050? https://ig.ft.com/climate-game/

[ii].????????????? MIT / Climate Interactive. En-Roads Version 23.11.0 https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?v=23.11.0

[iii].??????? European Union. (2023) Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets_en

[iv].??????? The White House. (May 2024) Voluntary Carbon Markets Joint Policy Statement and Principles https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/VCM-Joint-Policy-Statement-and-Principles.pdf

[v].?????????????? Congressional Budget Office. (December 2023) Carbon Capture and Storage in the United States ????? https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59832

[vi].??????? Bastin, J.-F., Finegold, Y., Garcia, C., Mollicone, D.,? Rezende, M., Routh, Zohner, C. M., Crowther, T. W. (2019) The global tree restoration potential. SCIENCE Vol?365,?Issue?6448 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848

[vii].??????????? Gyorgy, A., (1999) No Nukes: Everyone's Guide to Nuclear Power, South End Press?https://www.ebay.com/itm/144987038338

[viii].???? UN Environment Program. (2023) Pollution Action Note – Data you need to know https://www.unep.org/interactives/air-pollution-note/

[ix].??????? Veolia (2024) Transforming Waste Into Glass: Vitrification Processes to Stabilize Radioactive Waste https://www.nuclearsolutions.veolia.com/en/our-expertise/solutions/transforming-waste-glass-vitrification-processes-stabilize-radioactive

[x].????????? World Nuclear Association. (2023) Economics of Nuclear Power https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power

[xi].??????? Liu F.,?Wei L.,?Pan Y.,?Wang X., (2023) Comparison of Nuclear Power Industry Between China and the United States. Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Finance, Trade and Business Management (FTBM 2023) doi: 10.2991/978-94-6463-298-9_26 ?

[xii].?????? UN Environment Program. (2024) The Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction?(Buildings-GSR). https://globalabc.org/our-work/tracking-progress-global-status-report

[xiii].???? Baus L.,?Nehr S. (2022) Potentials and limitations of direct air capturing in the built environment. ScienceDirect / Elsevier. Building & Environment Vol. 208 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132321010209

[xiv]. Wired. (2023). Montana Youth Win a Historic Climate Case. https://www.wired.com/story/montana-youth-win-a-historic-climate-case/

[xv] Parliamentary Counsel Office. (2017). Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017. Ministry of Justice. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2017/0007/latest/DLM6831607.html

[xvi].?????? CarbonBrief: Clear on Climate. 2023. In-depth Q&A: What do Rishi Sunak’s U-turns mean for UK climate policy? https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-what-do-rishi-sunaks-u-turns-mean-for-uk-climate-policy/

[xvii].????? Eddy T.D.,?Lam V.W.Y.,?Reygondeau G.,?Cisneros-Montemayor A.M., Greer K., Palomares M.L.D,?Bruno J.F.,?Ota Y.,?Cheung W.W.L. (2021). Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services. One Earth 4, 1278–1285 Elsevier Inc https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.08.016

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The author is a former employee of Skytree B.V., based in the Netherlands. This research received no external funding.

?