Carbon emissions and future technology

On May 16th in an interview with the BBC, John Kerry, the US climate envoy, stated that 50% of the carbon reductions needed to get the US to net zero before midcentury will come from technologies that have yet to be invented: “I am told by scientists—not by anybody in politics, but by scientists—that 50 percent of the reductions we have to make to get to net zero by 2050 or 2045 as soon as we can, 50 percent of those reductions are going to come from technology that we don’t yet have.”

Perhaps he meant for this to sound optimistic, but to me, and many others, it sounded like anything but. And coming as it did on the heels of so much good work by the Biden administration on climate, I was surprised.

The advocacy community responded with dismay. Emily Atkin, who brought the incident to my attention through her newsletter, shared tweets mocking the statement, and quoted others who pointed out that we already have the technology needed.

Kerry had started the interview by mentioning that the markets are taking the right steps towards decarbonization. Although both statements have truth to them, I think that it is important for each sector (tech, financial, government) to take ownership and responsibility for their role in helping the world avoid a climate disaster. As an architect and as an environmental advocate in the built environment, I try to create change in my field. I do not simply pin my hopes on future technologies. I believe that is a way of deflecting responsibility, as Michael Mann very well put it on the House on Fire podcast.

Most of the technology is here and we anticipate more to come, but shouldn’t rely on it. We constantly see and welcome advances in efficiency to building products and systems that we use. Changes to both policy and personal choices will matter. The US is second to China in total CO2 emissions with the latter emitting almost double the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, but each Chinese citizen consumes less than half of what each person in the US does.

Mr. Kerry reassures us that “You don’t have to give up quality of life to achieve some of the things we know we have to achieve”. On this point, I wholeheartedly agree. But again, the focus need not be on technological innovation alone. Europeans consume in comparison about a third of what Americans do. No one would argue that the quality of life in Europe is inferior to that in the US, yet per-capita emissions are much lower.

Technological innovations on climate and energy - many of which are already available - must be combined with a shift in our culture, toward less consumption, more efficiency, and a focus on sustainability. Policy makers like Kerry have a role to play in spurring on the technological breakthroughs, but also in ushering in the cultural shift. I hope Mr. Kerry understands the full scope and weight of his role and I will be paying close attention to what else he has to say.