Whenever particular economic sectors, potential carbon abatement technologies or energy strategies are addressed in the climate policy debate, the same fundamental question arises: To what extent can we trust “easy”, preferably “cheap” technological solutions?
Can climate change be addressed by counting on people switching to lower carbon technologies, or will more fundamental changes be required in the way we live and organize as a society?
It is not just about philosophical or academic issues.
In today's political culture, they are among the issues that most divide left and right.
One side trusts that markets and new technologies will fix everything, while the other insists that public policies must play a leading role.
Yes, this cartoon is too crude.
But acknowledging that this is how many politicians, debaters, and their supporters present the issue can help us analyze, and ultimately improve, how new advances in cleantech are received.
Consider the obvious scientific breakthrough in nuclear fusion that emerged last month.
Old debates about nuclear power came back to the fore.
Techno-optimists clung to the idea that we might have discovered a truly limitless source of clean energy.
This would result in benefits for all, regardless of political positions, and would seem to confirm that human ingenuity holds the key to our salvation.
But even the most fervent techno-optimists cannot claim that technology alone will save us.
After all, this first fusion ignition occurred at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a US federal research facility where government scientists conduct experiments paid for with taxpayer money.
Yes, there are also start-ups working on fusion, hoping to get the first demonstration plants online in the next decade.
But they, too, clamor for government funds, whether direct grants or the Department of Energy loan guarantees enabled by the Inflation Reduction Act.
The picture is no different in the UK or anywhere else, nor is it limited to fusion technology.
Silicon Valley, that bastion of techno-libertarianism, depends on government funding and favorable policies more than many other industries.
None of this will come as a surprise to those who work in the energy sector, which comprises some of the most regulated, taxed and subsidized industries in the world.
Governments always pick the winners, and the lobby has an important role in the process.
Let us now consider a second recent episode.
Kitchens have been catapulted into the center of America's culture wars, following a statement from a federal consumer protection agency expressing concern about their effects on home air quality.
Induction represents the new technology, gas the old, and the debate includes too much nuance and nonsense for the public to easily make sense of.
In this case, many on the right - who would normally hope that technology can save us - side with old technology in the name of opposition to government "overreach".
But unlike in the past, they can no longer argue against induction on the grounds that it costs more.
Now you can get an induction cooktop at IKEA for $70.
Going from gas to induction could be seen as largely symbolic in the fight against climate change.
Yes, most homes in temperate and cold climates use significantly more gas for heating than cooking.
But this step would go far beyond mere symbolism in homes where it would mean cutting off the gas connection entirely.
Debates over fusion and cooking demonstrate why getting technology right requires going beyond simplistic yes-or-no shouting contests.
In general, no one should argue that we need both new technologies and new policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions at the necessary rate and scale.
If you believe that new technologies are the answer to climate change, you should want the state to use political levers to speed up their implementation.
But the problem is that many of those who lobby for these policies do so in private, while those who lobby against new technologies are much more explicit about it.
Consequently, public discourse remains a caricature.
With a more nuanced discussion, the public would understand that not all technological solutions are created equal.
Induction cookers, heat pumps (the most efficient electric alternative to gas), retrofitting, and solar and wind power are ready to be installed on a large scale…immediately.
But other technologies - mainly nuclear fusion, but also green liquid fuels for uses where electrification is much more efficient - are not.
At best, they are a distraction or, worse yet, an excuse to keep doing nothing.
Technology alone will not save us.
But neither will anything else by itself.
Economist from Columbia Business School, USA.
Copyright Project Syndicate, 2023.
Translation: Elisa Carnelli.
