guest column

Houston expert: Why climate action needs better PR and how to love the climate apocalypse

Houston climate tech founder weighs in on his observations on what's true, what's exaggerated, and what all humans can agree on about the climate crisis. Photo via Getty Imagees

The last thing anyone wants in 2024 is a reminder of the impending climate apocalypse, but here it is: There is a scientific consensus that the world climate is trending towards uninhabitable for many species, including humans, due in large part to results of human activity.

Psychologists today observe a growing trend of patients with eco-anxiety or climate doom, reflecting some people’s inability to cope with their climate fears. The Edelman Trust Barometer, in its most recent survey respondents in 14 countries, reports that 93 percent “believe that climate change poses a serious and imminent threat to the planet.”

Until recently reviewing this report, I was unaware that 93 percent of any of us could agree on anything. It got me thinking, how much of our problem today is based on misunderstanding both the nature of the problem and the solution?

We’ve been worried for good reason before 

It’s worth keeping in mind that climate change is not the first time smart people thought humans were doomed by our own successes or failures. Robert Malthus theorized at the end of the 18th century that projected human fertility would certainly outpace agricultural production. Just a century and a half later, about half of all Americans expected a nuclear war, and the number jumped to as high as 80 percent expecting the next war to be nuclear. Yes, global hunger and nuclear threats still exist, but our results have outperformed the worst of those dire projections.

We are worried for good reason today 

Today changing climate conditions have grabbed the headlines. The world’s climate is changing at a rate faster than we can model effectively, though our best modeling suggests significant, coordinated, global efforts are necessary to reverse current trends. While there’s still lots to learn, the consensus is that we are approaching a global temperature barrier across which we may not be able to quickly return. These conclusions are worrisome.

How did we get here?

Our reliance on hydrocarbons is at the heart of our climate challenge. If combusting them is so damaging, why do we keep doing it? We know enough about our human cognitive biases to say that humans tend to “live in the moment” when it comes to decision making. Nobel Prize-winning economic research suggests we choose behaviors that reward us today rather than those with longer term payoffs. Also, changing behaviors around hydrocarbons is hard. Crude oil, natural gas and coal have played a central role in the reduction of human suffering over time, helping to lift entire populations out of poverty, providing the power for our modern lives and even supplying instrumental materials for clothes and packaging. It’s hard to stop relying on a resource so plentiful, versatile and reliable.

How do we get out of here?

Technological advances in the future may help us address climate in new and unexpected ways. If we do nothing and hope for the best, what’s the alternative? We can take confidence that we’ve addressed difficult problems before. We can also take confidence that advancements like nuclear, solar, geothermal and wind power are already supplementing our primary reliance on hydrocarbons.

The path forward will be extending the utility of these existing alternatives and identifying new technologies. We need to reduce emissions and to withdraw greenhouse gasses (GHGs) that have already been emitted. The nascent energy transition will continue to be funded by venture capitalists, government spending/incentives and private philanthropy. Larger funding sources will come from private equity and public markets, as successful technologies compete for more traditional sources of capital.

Climate Tech will be a large piece of the climate puzzle

My biases are likely clear: the same global capitalism that brought about our complicated modern world, with its apparent abundance and related climate consequences, has the best chance to save us. Early stage climate tech funding is increasing, even if it’s still too small. It has been observed that climate tech startups receiving funding today fail to track solutions for industries in proportion to their related production of GHGs. For instance, the agriculture and food sector creates about 18 percent of global GHGs, while climate tech companies seeking to address that sector receive about 9 percent of climate tech funding. These misalignments aside, the trendlines are in the right direction.

What can you do?

From a psychological perspective, healthy coping means making small decisions that address your fears, even if you can’t eliminate the root causes. Where does that leave you?

Be a voice for reasonable change. Make changes in your behavior where and when you can. Also, take comfort when you see existing industries adopting meaningful sustainable practices at faster rates. Support the companies you believe are part of the solution.

We are already seeing a burgeoning climate tech industry across the globe and here at home. With concerted efforts like the Ion and Greentown Labs, the Houston climate tech sector is helping to lead the charge. In what was even recently an unthinkable reality, the United States has taken a leadership role. Tellingly, we are not leading necessarily by setting targets, but instead by funding young startups and new infrastructure like the hydrogen hubs. We don’t know when or where the next Thomas Edison will emerge to shine a new light in a dark world. However, I do suspect that that woman or man is alive today, and it’s our job to keep building a world worth that person saving.

---

Chris Wood is the co-founder of Houston-based Moonshot Compost.

Trending News

A View From HETI

Jian Shi, Chuyue Wang and Kailai Wang have developed a model that aims to make recycling e-waste economically viable and help recover critical minerals needed for EVs. Photo courtesy UH.

The “missing link” in critical minerals may have been in our junk drawers all along, according to new research from the University of Houston.

Jian Shi, an associate professor in the UH Cullen College of Engineering, and his team have unveiled a new supply chain model that aims to make e-waste economically viable and could help make large-scale recycling possible.

Shi, along with professor Kailai Wang and graduate researcher Chuyue Wang, published the work in a recent issue of Nature. Their study outlines how gold, lithium and cobalt from discarded electronics can be kept circulating in the U.S. through the process of “urban mining.” It was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) through the Vehicle Technologies Office.

The team’s research found that e-waste is the fastest-growing solid waste stream in the world. When waste from smartphones or tablets is left unmanaged, the devices can leak hazardous waste and pose significant fire risks due to aging batteries. Additionally, when they are shipped off to foreign landfills, the U.S. loses the potential to recycle or reuse the critical minerals left inside.

“A lot of people have iPads or old iPhones sitting in their drawers right now, and that’s a waste of a critical resource,” Shi said in a news release. “Urban mining allows us to extract the same high-value materials found in traditional mines without the environmental destruction. More importantly, it helps secure our domestic supply chain for the technologies of tomorrow.”

According to UH, recycling e-waste has not succeeded in the U.S. due to a fragmented recycling system, in which manufacturers, collectors and recyclers operate separately, driving up costs.

The UH team's research looks to change that.

In the study, the researchers modeled streamlined recycling efforts by mapping the interactions between manufacturers and independent recycling markets. Their dual-channel closed-loop supply chain (CLSC) model identified how these players can transition from competitors to partners, which can distribute profits more equitably and make recycling efforts more financially attractive.

According to UH, the research has particular significance due to the growing demand for electronic vehicles and their batteries.

“We can improve the performance of the entire recycling ecosystem and make the profit distribution more balanced,” Wang said in the release. “This ensures that the materials we need for EVs and advanced electronics stay right here in the U.S.”

“By making recycling work at scale, we aren’t just cleaning up waste,” Shi added. “We’re building a foundation that benefits both our national security and our economy.”

Trending News