Every year at the end of January, the World Economic Forum holds its annual meeting. It’s believed that much of the planet’s future is decided by the conference attendees, and in the era of climate activism, Greta Thunberg has become a highly quotable and increasingly influential presence. Her concern for the future of the planet is genuine and she speaks for millions of young people worldwide. In Jim Anderton’s opinion, however, what she and climate activists worldwide are calling for is not only irrational but may also be counterproductive on the path to a cleaner planet.
Access all episodes of End of the Line on Engineering TV along with all of our other series.
* * *
Episode Transcript:
Every year at the end of January, in the mountain resort town of Davos in the Swiss Alps, the World Economic Forum holds its annual meeting. Founded by Professor of business and mechanical engineer Klaus Schwab, the WEF meeting is possibly the most influential and important international summit on Earth today—gathering heads of state, powerful business leaders and leaders of major NGOs on the relatively neutral ground of Switzerland.It’s widely believed that much of the planet’s future is decided by the people that attend this conference, and in the era of climate activism, Greta Thunberg has become a highly quotable and increasingly influential presence. This year, hard on the heels of her detention in Germany while protesting a coal mine, she publicly berated global leadership, and in particular International Energy Agency director Fatih Birol, for continued investment and operation of the fossil fuel industry.
Her concern for the future of the planet is genuine, and she speaks for millions of young people worldwide. In my opinion, however, what she and many other climate activists worldwide are calling for is not only irrational, but may also be counterproductive on the path to a cleaner planet.
It doesn’t take a degree in economics to understand how energy works. The planet currently runs on fossil fuels. That’s especially true of the transportation industries. Plus, where the majority of the world’s population lives, these societies often lack the capital and technological know-how to use alternate energy sources even if they want them. As a result, the demand for fossil fuels is high, and is still growing. High demand means high prices, and high prices mean high returns for shareholders and companies that extract and refine this resource.
Where there is demand, there will be supply—and an economic incentive to create that supply. No one sensible believes that the global energy industry will simply decide to close up shop, cap all the oil and gas wells and drive the planet back to an 18th-century economy.
Instead of fighting the realities of market economics, Greta and like-minded people need to look to engineering. The goal is to create alternate, cleaner forms of energy that are as cheap and as readily available as fossil fuels. From that moment forward, demand for fossil fuels will fall and eventually disappear, because the economic incentives will drive it that way.
The result will be that economic efficiency will improve worldwide, meaning lower cost products, less poverty and yes, better returns for shareholders.
Are there engineering solutions to achieve this? Yes, with everything from the multiple fusion energy technologies in development, to the continuous fall in the price of solar photovoltaics, again driven by those market forces. There are multiple jurisdictions around the world where it’s already cheaper to use wind and solar than to build a fossil fuel fired power plant.
So, instead of demanding that the global oil industry do the impossible—shut down—it seems to me that the logical strategy is to drastically increase funding for rapid technological development of alternates that are cost-effective and deployable worldwide.
The roof of my home is covered in asphalt shingles, and it has been for half a century. The technology exists to make that surface a collector of solar energy. But it isn’t cost-effective—yet.
To make it cost effective requires a large capital infusion and the kind of delayed gratification that most investors will not stomach, unless there is a clear pathway to the real returns in a timeframe of months rather than decades.
It isn’t rocket science. So, it’s not about stopping investment in oil, it’s about drastically increasing investment in engineering solutions that are not only clean but are also more cost-effective than petroleum.
We need clean energy. But just as importantly, we need affordable clean energy. That will come only from investment in engineering solutions, not political ones.
Instead of fighting the realities of market economics, Greta and like-minded people need to look to engineering. The goal is to create alternate, cleaner forms of energy that are as cheap and as readily available as fossil fuels. From that moment forward, demand for fossil fuels will fall and eventually disappear, because the economic incentives will drive it that way.
The result will be that economic efficiency will improve worldwide, meaning lower cost products, less poverty and yes, better returns for shareholders.
Are there engineering solutions to achieve this? Yes, with everything from the multiple fusion energy technologies in development, to the continuous fall in the price of solar photovoltaics, again driven by those market forces. There are multiple jurisdictions around the world where it’s already cheaper to use wind and solar than to build a fossil fuel fired power plant.
So, instead of demanding that the global oil industry do the impossible—shut down—it seems to me that the logical strategy is to drastically increase funding for rapid technological development of alternates that are cost-effective and deployable worldwide.
The roof of my home is covered in asphalt shingles, and it has been for half a century. The technology exists to make that surface a collector of solar energy. But it isn’t cost-effective—yet.
To make it cost effective requires a large capital infusion and the kind of delayed gratification that most investors will not stomach, unless there is a clear pathway to the real returns in a timeframe of months rather than decades.
It isn’t rocket science. So, it’s not about stopping investment in oil, it’s about drastically increasing investment in engineering solutions that are not only clean but are also more cost-effective than petroleum.
We need clean energy. But just as importantly, we need affordable clean energy. That will come only from investment in engineering solutions, not political ones.