Sparking a revolution

A three-parter in what we have to do to start an energy revolution and save the planet

This is the second in a three-parter on where the environmental movement is going and where it matters. The first is here, setting out how we’ve moved from why (getting the message out that man-made climate change is affecting the planet and something needs to be done), to what (climate commitments, following the Paris Agreement), to how (how the hell you switch a modern industrial economy from fossil fuels to clean energy?). This second one is about the systemic nature of the changes we’re seeing, and why this is more (and less) of a challenge than it appears. The third will be about the implications for climate communications and journalism, which is where I can certainly talk from experience. So let’s get down to it…

We’ve been through this before. As a species, I mean. Most obviously the industrial revolution led to an enormous shift towards fossil fuel power, from steam pistons to the miracle of the internal combustion engine. Henry Ford may not have said that if he “had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses,” but the adage neatly conveys the difficulty most people had in imagining the mass redundancy of an existing technology in the face of such a revolution.

We’re in the early stages of something just as incredible, and most people – once again – are failing to see just how complete this shift will be in how the world works. Fossil fuels are on the way out, replaced by cleaner forms of energy that are also going to be vastly cheaper and, critically, far less damaging for the planet.

Some of the tech involved in this already exists: methods of harnessing forces such as wind, sunshine, tides and the like are getting massively more efficient and capable (along with nuclear).

Some other forms of tech are much earlier in the process of being invented or refined. Think about hydrogen as a way to store power generated by renewables, or new forms of battery chemistry. For eternal optimists who are happy to think in decades there is also the semi-magical possibility of fusion.

The reason why I’m an optimist lies partly in the figures we’re already seeing for new tech, plus the ever-growing imperative to get things done for the climate. But it’s also about tipping points and what happens when something takes off. Tech suddenly starts evolving on a learning curve. Behaviour change flips. The climate action lobby has been less good at seeing the potential of these extraordinary shifts - graphs don’t all simply extrapolate (however much of a staple this is for lazy journalism). They have also tended to prefer the stick to the carrot.

So far, so fairly routine. But wait! There’s a disconnect: if there’s this pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, then why are so many countries kicking up such a fuss about the transition? Shouldn’t we all be rushing towards the opportunity? There are several answers to this.

1.       Politicians love the short term. Nick Clegg, Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister, famously argued against new nuclear infrastructure in 2010 for the reason that it wouldn’t come on line until around 2022. The political marshmallow test would be for a leader to eschew a small number of benefits during a current electoral cycle for a larger number eight or ten years down the line. Few would pass it.

2.       We’re talking systemic change, and systemic change is hard. The entire guts of a modern industrial economy, from home heating to industrial processes to transport to the grid itself, has been established on fossil fuel. It’s tough thinking about all those interlinked pieces and winners and losers and disruption. Look at the carnage inside the media industry when the internet came along. If you ran a small high-end manufacturing company in Germany, when would you jump, and in what direction?

3.       There is recognition that it’s an opportunity, even if it’s a bit patchy. Solar power got an enormous boost from the helping hand of first the German and then the Chinese state. EV production and purchases are being encouraged from Beijing to Brussels to Washington. The Inflation Reduction Act is squarely aimed at making sure those clean energy technology supply chains are brought home to the US, and meanwhile in Europe the EU Green Deal is nothing if not a recognition that for the continent’s economies to have any relevance in the 21st century it needs to embrace this shift now. Government has a large role to play in this, priming the pump, creating infrastructure and rethinking markets. They can help companies jump the right way.

There are two things to watch out for now. One is setting a path dependency for fossil fuels through investment in infrastructure such as LNG or gas pipelines. For instance, the German government’s response to the current energy crisis sparked by the Ukraine War is first and foremost to get through the winter. Fair enough. But if that natural short term response also leads to locking in longer-term fossil fuel replacements for the Russian gas that its economy has relied upon, then that’s a big concern. What’s critical is the time lag that it takes to make the sectoral systemic shift from gas-dependence to something else. For home heating, this could be a combination of heat pumps and better insulation, with an eye on other tech as and when. Industrial processes obviously vary enormously, but there’s nothing like high prices to force both greater efficiencies and alternative ways of making the entire thing happen. We don’t want path dependency; we want a glide path to the clean energy world.

The second thing to watch is politicians. Do they pepper talk with words like ‘jobs’ and ‘opportunities’, or do they hit that same tone that climate campaigners are stuck with, endlessly walking a ghastly tightrope between sacrifice and annihilation? This is where I’m taking part 3 of this series, but for now it simply needs saying that the types of systemic change that we need to see will only come with the application of massive political capital.

Political capital for such a change isn’t just about convincing President X that climate change is real and leaving it to them to pull a lever. It’s about building the political consent of the governed - so enough of that sacrifice and annihilation talk please - and about bravery. The former is growing, faster than you might imagine given the widespread anger at the antics of the direct action squad. And the bravery? In the age of Liz Truss? Olaf Scholz? Xi Jinping? Trump or Biden? Ramaphosa? Modi? We’re a bit short of that at the moment.

Sat here in moribund Europe this is frustrating. What’s at stake is a way to lead the way in the 21st century, opening up enormous possibilities and opportunities, while also solving the generational challenge of climate change. It’s not just about convincing a suburban family to recognise that EVs function well as family cars and that a spare solar panel on the roof can trim their energy bills. It’s about a clean, circular economy being the way the world works in 20, 30, 50 years time, and being at the forefront of that.

The next post will be about what we can do to unlock it, to nudge those naughty politicians in the right direction.