Everything from seat belts and condoms to healthcare and bank bailouts invites riskier behavior, or what economists call “moral hazard.” Even the most justified and well-meaning policy interventions can have unintended — and undesired — consequences. In the 1960s and 1970s, many environmentalists objected to nuclear power because its promise of cheap, limitless energy ran counter to their own push for energy efficiency and conservation.
The debate continues today. Which climate technologies deserve our support and which are distractions that could lull us into complacency with the false promise of a silver bullet? The list of climate “solutions” is constantly expanding and now includes everything from futuristic fusion technologies to green hydrogen, from heat pumps to induction stoves to better insulation, and — of course — solar and wind.
The media love to fawn over greentech “unicorns” (start-ups with valuations above US$1 billion) that promise to provide the breakthrough innovation we have all been waiting for, but while innovation is certainly essential, not all technologies are created equal, and lists of what counts as “climate tech” often become political litmus tests.
Many, for example, now look beyond solar to newer, sexier technologies. Yet the plummeting cost of solar energy is a result of technological breakthroughs and research and development subsidies, and the fact that it is becoming an established climate technology does not make it any less essential.
SOLAR ISSUES
Of course, solar is not the whole solution. We cannot talk about solar without also talking about its land-use and grid implications, nor can we talk about green hydrogen without addressing the potential consequences of hydrogen leakage, a problem that has quickly turned natural gas from a promising “bridge” technology into a cause of major environmental problems.
It is right to cheer the rapidly growing electric vehicle (EV) market, but it is similarly important to consider the vast potential not only of transportation alternatives like e-bikes (or old-fashioned bicycles), but also of better cities.
Many of these debates are simply moot. It is not EVs or e-bikes; it is both. Climate beggars cannot be choosers, but debates about tradeoffs are crucial, and reveal quite a bit about our priors, priorities and worldviews. Why zero in on the folly of Germany’s nuclear phase-out 10 years ahead of its planned exit from coal, but not on German building codes, which should be a model for the rest of the world? Germany’s “well-sealed windows” do not make headlines, but investments in this admittedly boring climate technology could ultimately do more for cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than some of the most enthusiastically hyped innovations.
What really matters is the interplay between technology, policy and behavioral change. While induction stoves alone will not make a big dent in global or personal GHG emissions, swapping an old gas range for a new induction stove is often the last step before shutting off a home gas line altogether.
Induction stoves and heat pumps are the two main climate technologies that have allowed new buildings to go without gas altogether. And as everyone needs to eat and regulate the temperature in their home, neither technology creates much moral hazard.
CARBON REMOVAL
Now consider carbon-removal technologies. They, too, have a crucial role to play in bringing about a low-carbon future, and yet they also hold the promise — justified or not — of allowing us to keep chugging along without changing our production and consumption patterns.
What to preserve is a political question. While some will welcome EVs as a way to decarbonize their suburban commutes, others will see a new moral hazard. After all, the more efficient cars become, the more guilt-free driving we can do.
Rather than preserve long commutes, why not use zoning changes to create more walkable neighborhoods? Rather than always surveying the cutting edge, we can find some of the most powerful technofixes already at work in the real world.
Just look at the traditional European city. As Andrej Karpathy, the former head of artificial intelligence at Tesla, marvels, it is “more compact, denser ... [more] pedestrian/bike friendly.”
A final consideration is how some climate technologies might introduce the exact opposite of moral hazard. Solar geoengineering, for example, might be considered to be so radical and controversial that the mere mention of it could motivate us to cut more carbon pollution sooner.
Of course, people must not bank on this effect. That, ironically, would be another case of falling into the moral-hazard trap.
How, then, to assess whether any given climate technology will deliver as promised? While there is no foolproof method, much can be learned from looking at the degree of decarbonization that has already been achieved. By and large, there are dozens of ways to cut emissions by 5 percent, 10 percent, or even 20 percent in each industry or economic sector. Most of these involve small process changes aimed at teasing out additional efficiencies. A more efficient gas furnace, for example, will reduce a fuel bill and emissions by 10 percent or 20 percent overnight, and much the same can be said for a more efficient turbine at the gas plant.
EFFICIENCY LIMITS
However, making existing fossil fuel-based processes more efficient can go only so far. Moving well beyond the 20 percent cuts to 80-90 percent or more typically means switching from fossil fuels to zero-carbon energy sources. In most sectors, there are really only one or two ways to cut emissions by that much. In the construction sector, for example, large cuts require installing insulation and heat pumps. In steel, the two options involve green hydrogen or full-on electrification, with a closed-loop carbon-recycling system emerging as a strong contender for a third path.
The key question when considering climate moral hazard, then, is whether a technology moves a company, industry, or sector closer to implementing an 80-100 percent solution, as opposed to a 10 percent or 20 percent measure that merely kicks the can down the road.
A new EV will not cut transportation emissions to zero by itself — not until firms have also decarbonized the steel used to make it and the electricity that powers it.
It at least holds the potential to be an 80-100 percent solution.
It is moral hazard to think that technology will save us. However, it is equally hazardous to ignore innovations that could be game changers if they are accompanied by the right kinds of policies, investments and political commitments. Whether a climate solution creates a moral hazard has little to do with the solution itself and everything to do with us.
Gernot Wagner is a climate economist at Columbia Business School.
Copyright: Project Syndic
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS