On June 23rd, 1988, the director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, testified to Congress that the greenhouse effect had been detected and was beginning to show significant changes to the climate. Climate change had already been discovered and discussed by scientists earlier in history, however, this time scientists were coming together to discuss climate change with urgency and its threat to the human population. Hansen’s announcement shook the political establishment, and in 1994 and the United States became a founding member of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, otherwise known as the UNFCCC. Of course, this was not enough. It has now been over 30 years since Hansen testified to Congress about the arrival of climate change and today climate change is at an all-time high. Earth’s temperature is rising, glaciers are melting, human-caused sea level rise is 10 times that of natural sea level rise (2), and Carbon dioxide emissions have gone up over 68% (1) and will continue to rise if action is not taken. As humanity continues to progress in the digital age, the question is do we have the technology to fight climate change, and if so, why has it not been implemented? The short answer is yes, we have the technological advancements to prevent climate change, but the shortage of implementation is due to the lack of political will. The reason for the current absence of climate action–that is, our world leaders' failure to disinvest from fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy, and the enduring power of the entrenched interest dedicated to pulling every last barrel of oil and bucket of coal from the Earth for profitability. Politicians and world leaders need to make immediate efforts to scale up green technologies to prevent the effects of climate change and the deterioration of our planet.
The effects we are seeing today are only a fraction of the severity these will develop into if action is not driven. As greenhouse gas concentrations rise, so will the global surface temperature. Higher temperatures increase heat-related illness and make working outdoors more difficult, leading to supply chain issues and inflation. As temperatures rise, more moisture will evaporate, accelerating extreme rainfall and flooding, causing more destructive storms, flash floods, and mudslides. The surge in temperatures will also increase water shortages in already water-stress regions, leading to risks in agriculture, crops, and vulnerability in the ecosystem. The ocean soaks up most of the heat from global warming, causing a rise in sea levels, ice sheets melting, and loss of species, and the list of effects will continue to grow. (3) From more extreme weather to increasing food prices to decreased opportunities to appreciate the natural world, people everywhere will feel its effects. Technology itself has been the cause of global warming; it has changed our skills, behaviors, and numbers. It is no secret that humanity has become dependent on energy for the functionality of everyday life and fossil fuels will eventually run out or lead to the downfall of our planet. However, big oil companies have long recognized the profitability to continue in the oil industry for energy rather than transitioning to green technology.
The tools needed already exists
The center of this issue is transitioning to renewable energy and away from fossil fuels. Politicians and businesses need to scale up proven existing green technologies to make immediate emission cuts and prevent global warming from spiraling out of control. Today’s public conversation from these businesses revolves too much around the future of climate technologies, such as machines that will suck carbon out of the air, instead of focusing on implementing already existing and proven technologies. That is not to say that carbon removal technology is unworthy of investment, but there is no use in putting a higher focus on those technologies if they will not be ready until our deadline has already come and gone. Putting greater focus on developing technologies creates an illusion that blowing past the atmosphere’s carbon threshold is okay because technology like carbon capture will be created and save us all. It is also a diversion tactic used by these big oil companies to make it seem as if they are taking steps to fight off climate change and transition to renewable energy when, in reality, they are putting off the necessary and available steps, otherwise known as greenwashing. The blind truth is that big oil, businesses, and politicians hold the power to begin accelerating the world's transition to sustainable energy but choose not to. Take for instance Shell, a major U.S. oil company leading production in fuels, oils, and natural gases. In 2021 Shell promoted efforts to research and develop decarbonization technologies such as “mobile hydrogen” to help achieve their dream of “making the world cleaner, reducing air pollution, and decreasing the amount of waste that goes to landfills” (4) while simultaneously “[bombarding] Facebook with hundreds of ads opposing climate legislation in Congress that [were] viewed 23 million times.” (5). Following President Bidens $2 trillion climate plan in 2020, American Petroleum Institute (API), Exxon Mobil Corp., Shell, and other fossil fuel companies launched that $10 million ad blitz on Facebook, exposing the value of their optimistic top-line statements on climate. Today, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) are all facing lawsuits from the state of New Jersey for their “knowingly false claims to deceive the public about the existence of climate change and the degree to which their fossil fuels products have been [exacerbating] anthropogenic global warming.” (9) These oil companies have known for decades the effects of burning fossil fuels, and not only did they fail to warn the public, but they also made efforts to lie and cover it up. Over the past five years, the attorney generals of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and numerous other states and cities have filed lawsuits against these major oil and gas companies for deliberately misleading and deceiving the public about the role their products have played in climate change. These are just some of today’s many two-faced, tenacious, and aggressive leaders unwilling to disinvest in fossil fuels due to their profitability. They greenwash by “investing” in technologies that won’t be developed until it's too late, giving them the luxury to postpone any immediate actions. Instead of directing importance to future technologies, the focus needs to be shifted to the policy realm to hold these companies accountable and make it easier to scale up and transition to existing green tech like renewable energy.
The hurdles to our progress
The political efforts and interest to tackle climate change are in short supply around the world. Although renewable energy advancements could continue to use improvement, what is needed is not so much improved solar panel performance but rather a policy change that encourages widespread adoption. For instance, in residential solar power, upward of 70% of price costs come from “soft costs”, which are things like permitting, inspections, installation, and financing rather than the cost of the hardware itself. Solar can of course always be cheaper but overcoming this first hurdle is what will drive the momentum and practicability in scaling up green technologies. There needs to be an increase in attention to these issues to actually achieve the levels of progress that we desperately and urgently need. These roadblocks are affecting the development of many clean energy projects because they have to wait to get access to the grid. As stated by Joanna Chao Kreilick, President of Union of Concerned Scientist,
“These wind, solar, and energy storage projects total 1,300 gigawatts of electric generating capacity, which represents more than $2 trillion in investments, and is roughly the same amount needed to get the U.S. to 80 percent of electricity from zero-carbon resources by 2030.”(8)
Attention needs to be turned to the electric utilities and regional transmission organizations operating under hidden market rules that favor fossil fuels over renewable energy sources. The number of green energy projects waiting to get access to the grid is absurd and truly reveals the lack of interest from politics to disinvest in fossil fuels. There are hundreds of projects out there waiting for grid access that could get our country to 80% of electricity from zero-carbon and today's leaders and businesses pretend to be oblivious to it. Meanwhile, every year, governments around the world pour around half a trillion dollars into artificially lowering the price of fossil fuels, which is more than triple what renewables receive. (10)
Fossil fuel subsidies are one of the biggest financial barriers hampering the world's shift to renewable energy and are being controlled by powerful political groups who advocate fossil fuels. Removing consumption subsidies in 32 countries would cut their greenhouse gases by an average of 6% in 2025 (10), and the reduction could be amplified if the money that would have subsidized fossil fuels was instead used to support renewable energy. Nevertheless, these political groups utilize vague definitions when developing new subsidies like “blue hydrogen” and “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” as backdoor entrances to continue running the fossil fuel industries. Blue hydrogen is a term used for the process in which hydrogen is made from fossil fuels and the carbon dioxide emitted as a byproduct is captured and stored. The development of these new subsidies is misleading and intentionally used to appear as emission reductants on paper, yet continuously funding the same fossil fuel industry. Democratic West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin has shut down policies in support of climate change that would dramatically expand the rollout of green energy while simultaneously throwing billions of dollars to support the progress of technologies like blue hydrogen. Instead of putting money into fluctuating fossil fuel subsidies, this money could be invested into simplifying processes and regulations for those hundreds of clean energy projects waiting for approval.
Clean Energy on Hold
The solution to climate problems created by our past technology can only be solved by new technology, fortunately, some extraordinary progress has already been made in renewable energy. The price of solar electricity has dropped 89% since 2010, onshore wind energy costs have fallen 70% in the last decade, and lithium-ion batteries have declined in price by 97% over the last 30 years, making renewables the cheapest source of electricity production globally. (6) These technologies all share a common trait, their feasibility to scale up or down. A few solar panels could power a home and thousands strung together could power an entire city. Wind farms are easily scaled from several turbines to hundreds. Lithium-ion battery cells have the ability to power anything from a cell phone to an aircraft. The feasibility of scaling up these green technologies means that tiny performance gains and price drops quickly add up making them more cost-effective. In contrast, a large-scale nuclear power plant requires years to build and billions of dollars upfront. Not to mention, nuclear energy is one of the few technologies in the United States for which cost has gone up over time. With these massive strides in performance and cost for clean energy, shifting the world away from fossil fuels should be easier than ever. Today, new wind or solar farms would be more affordable and could produce just as much if not more energy than running existing fossil fuel plants. However, fossil fuels still account for more than 80% of global energy consumption (7).
A common misconception about switching to renewable energy is that it is a rather expensive transition. Nevertheless, a recent Oxford study suggests that transitioning away from fossil fuels will save trillions across the globe. This is due to the significant decrease in clean energy costs, and these costs will only continue to decrease as the world scales up in green energy. "The faster we go, the more we will save," says lead author Dr. Rubert way, a postdoctoral researcher at Oxfords Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment.
The misconception of transitioning being expensive and tedious is based on previous outdated models. In fact, renewable energy has actually been trending downward for the last decade, and most forms of green energy are actually cheaper than fossil fuels. In 2019, costs continued to fall for solar and wind power technologies. Furthermore, in 2020, renewable energy prices hit a record low. The figure attached below shows the downward trend of solar and wind power technologies during 2019.
Statistics have shown that decarbonizing the energy system will save trillions of dollars. The recent invasion of Ukraine by Russia has severely inflated the price of fossil fuels around the world. Resultantly, the prices of green energy have also been inflated, but not as severely as fossil fuels. However, if we accelerate the transition to renewable energy by 2050, it is estimated that around 55% more energy services will be available globally than today through wind, solar, batteries, and electric vehicles. So if accelerating this transition will provide more energy services while simultaneously saving money globally, why aren’t there bigger efforts in making this transition?
Simply outlined, the upsetting reality is that the leaders running our very own planet have become fixated on maximizing profitability and the expansion of their businesses. The fossil fuel industry is simply more profitable than any green tech industry and these leading big oil companies are not ready to make the transition to clean energy yet. Although they claim to be climate conscious, the reality is that any technology development they are investing in or contributing to is merely being used to greenwash and add time to the ticking clock of the fossil fuel industry. In doing so, they can pull out every last barrel of oil and bucket of coal in exchange for a Benjamin.
As the climate crisis becomes more serious and more obvious, Americans remain resistant to decisive and comprehensive action on climate change. In “The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming,” David Wallace-Wells paints a frightening picture of the coming environmental apocalypse. Whole parts of the globe will become too hot for human habitation and those left behind will die of heat. Diseases will increase and mutate. Food shortages will become chronic as we fail to move agriculture from one climate to another. Whole countries like Bangladesh and parts of other countries like Miami will be underwater. Shortages of fresh water will affect humans and agriculture. The oceans will die, the air will get dirtier. “But,” as Wallace-Wells argues, “what lies between us and extinction is horrifying enough.”[1] That’s because, as climate change takes its toll on Earth’s physical planet, it will also cause social, economic, and political chaos as refugees flee areas that can no longer sustain them. If this prediction seems a bit extreme, all we have to do is look at recent weather events that keep breaking records to confront the possibility that the threat from climate change may indeed be existential.
Instead of watching the slow downfall of our lovely planet, we need to drive action to hold these big oil companies accountable and spark change in the policies that are holding back the transition to renewable energy. The corruption and lack of honesty in big oil is not a new topic, but not enough has been done to prevent it. Society needs to take action on making soft costs in green technology an easier process. If we do not take action now our children will never get to experience our beautiful planet for what it is today and the effects of climate change will eventually reach a point that becomes irreversible.
Works Cited
1. Pearce, R. (2019, February 11). Analysis: Global CO2 emissions set to rise 2% in 2017 after three-year 'plateau'. Carbon Brief. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-set-to-rise-2-percent-in-2017-following-three-year-plateau/
2. Climate Indicators. (2022, August 25). 30 years of sea level rise in 2 charts. World Economic Forum. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/08/nasa-30-year-sea-level-rise/
3. United Nations. (n.d.). Causes and effects of climate change. United Nations. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/causes-effects climate-change
4. Shell. (n.d.). 2021 future of Energy Challenge: Net-Zero Emissions – final pitch competition. 2021 Future of Energy Challenge: Final Pitch Competition | Shell United States. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://www.shell.us/sustainability/future-of-energy-challenge/2021-future-of-energy-challenge-net-zero-emissions-final-pitch competition.html
5. Waldman, S. (2021, December 7). API targets climate legislation with Facebook Ad Blitz. E&E News. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://www.eenews.net/articles/api targets-climate-legislation-with-facebook-ad-blitz/
6. Irfan, U. (2022, May 6). This is what we need to invent to fight climate change. Vox. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://www.vox.com/23042818/climate-change-ipccwind-solar-battery-technology-breakthrough
7. Ritchie, H., Roser, M., & Rosado, P. (2020, November 28). Energy mix. Our World inData. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
8. Kreilick President, J. C., & Dahl, K. (2022, June 13). Do we really need new technology to fight climate change? The Equation. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://blog.ucsusa.org/johanna-chao-kreilick/do-we-really-need-new-technology-tofight-climate-change/
9. Surran, C. (2022, October 18). New Jersey AG files climate change lawsuit against five Big Oil Companies (NYSE:XOM). SeekingAlpha. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://seekingalpha.com/news/3892327-new-jersey-ag-files-suit-against-five-big-oilcompanies-including-exxon
10. Timperley, J. (2021, October 20). Why fossil fuel subsidies are so hard to kill. Nature News. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-02102847-2
11. Robinson, E. (2022, September 24). Could new technology solve climate change? USAPP Could new technology solve climate change Comments. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2022/09/24/could-newtechnology-solve-climate-change/
12. Shukla, S. (2022, January 12). Big Tech and climate change: There's more to it than meets the eye. ORF. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://www.orfonline.org/expertspeak/big-tech-and-climate-change-theres-more-to-it-than-meets-the-eye/
13. Kamarck, E. (2022, March 9). The challenging politics of climate change. Brookings. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-challengingpolitics-of-climate-change/
14. Garza, A. de la. (2022, April 7). We have enough climate tech. what we need is political will. Time. Retrieved October 19, 2022, from https://time.com/6165094/ipcc-climate-action-political-will/