The world can't keep on with what it's doing and expect to reach its goals when it comes to climate change. Radical innovations are needed at this point, writes Scott Nyquist. Photo via Getty Images

Almost 3 years ago, McKinsey published a report arguing that limiting global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels was “technically achievable,” but that the “math is daunting.” Indeed, when the 1.5°C figure was agreed to at the 2015 Paris climate conference, the assumption was that emissions would peak before 2025, and then fall 43 percent by 2030.

Given that 2022 saw the highest emissions ever—36.8 gigatons—the math is now more daunting still: cuts would need to be greater, and faster, than envisioned in Paris. Perhaps that is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted March 20 (with “high confidence”) that it was “likely that warming will exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century.”

I agree with that gloomy assessment. Given the rate of progress so far, 1.5°C looks all but impossible. That puts me in the company of people like Bill Gates; the Economist; the Australian Academy of Science, and apparently many IPCC scientists. McKinsey has estimated that even if all countries deliver on their net zero commitments, temperatures will likely be 1.7°C higher in 2100.

In October, the UN Environment Program argued that there was “no credible pathway to 1.5°C in place” and called for “an urgent system-wide transformation” to change the trajectory. Among the changes it considers necessary: carbon taxes, land use reform, dietary changes in which individuals “consume food for environmental sustainability and carbon reduction,” investment of $4 trillion to $6 trillion a year; applying current technology to all new buildings; no new fossil fuel infrastructure. And so on.

Let’s assume that the UNEP is right. What are the chances of all this happening in the next few years? Or, indeed, any of it? President Obama’s former science adviser, Daniel Schrag, put it this way: “ Who believes that we can halve global emissions by 2030?... It’s so far from reality that it’s kind of absurd.”

Having a goal is useful, concentrating minds and organizing effort. And I think that has been the case with 1.5°C, or recent commitments to get to net zero. Targets create a sense of urgency that has led to real progress on decarbonization.

The 2020 McKinsey report set out how to get on the 1.5°C pathway, and was careful to note that this was not a description of probability or reality but “a picture of a world that could be.” Three years later, that “world that could be” looks even more remote.

Consider the United States, the world’s second-largest emitter. In 2021, 79 percent of primary energy demand (see chart) was met by fossil fuels, about the same as a decade before. Globally, the figures are similar, with renewables accounting for just 12.5 percent of consumption and low-emissions nuclear another 4 percent. Those numbers would have to basically reverse in the next decade or so to get on track. I don’t see how that can happen.

No alt text provided for this image

Credit: Energy Information Administration

But even if 1.5°C is improbable in the short term, that doesn’t mean that missing the target won’t have consequences. And it certainly doesn’t mean giving up on addressing climate change. And in fact, there are some positive trends. Many companies are developing comprehensive plans for achieving net-zero emissions and are making those plans part of their long-term strategy. Moreover, while global emissions grew 0.9 percent in 2022, that was much less than GDP growth (3.2 percent). It’s worth noting, too, that much of the increase came from switching from gas to coal in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine; that is the kind of supply shock that can be reversed. The point is that growth and emissions no longer move in lockstep; rather the opposite. That is critical because poorer countries are never going to take serious climate action if they believe it threatens their future prosperity.

Another implication is that limiting emissions means addressing the use of fossil fuels. As noted, even with the substantial rise in the use of renewables, coal, gas, and oil are still the core of the global energy system. They cannot be wished away. Perhaps it is time to think differently—that is, making fossil fuels more emissions efficient, by using carbon capture or other technologies; cutting methane emissions; and electrifying oil and gas operations. This is not popular among many climate advocates, who would prefer to see fossil fuels “stay in the ground.” That just isn’t happening. The much likelier scenario is that they are gradually displaced. McKinsey projects peak oil demand later this decade, for example, and for gas, maybe sometime in the late 2030s. Even after the peak, though, oil and gas will still be important for decades.

Second, in the longer term, it may be possible to get back onto 1.5°C if, in addition to reducing emissions, we actually remove them from the atmosphere, in the form of “negative emissions,” such as direct air capture and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in power and heavy industry. The IPCC itself assumed negative emissions would play a major role in reaching the 1.5°C target; in fact, because of cost and deployment problems, it’s been tiny.

Finally, as I have argued before, it’s hard to see how we limit warming even to 2°C without more nuclear power, which can provide low-emissions energy 24/7, and is the largest single source of such power right now.

None of these things is particularly popular; none get the publicity of things like a cool new electric truck or an offshore wind farm (of which two are operating now in the United States, generating enough power for about 20,000 homes; another 40 are in development). And we cannot assume fast development of offshore wind. NIMBY concerns have already derailed some high-profile projects, and are also emerging in regard to land-based wind farms.

Carbon capture, negative emissions, and nuclear will have to face NIMBY, too. But they all have the potential to move the needle on emissions. Think of the potential if fast-growing India and China, for example, were to develop an assembly line of small nuclear reactors. Of course, the economics have to make sense—something that is true for all climate-change technologies.

And as the UN points out, there needs to be progress on other issues, such as food, buildings, and finance. I don’t think we can assume that such progress will happen on a massive scale in the next few years; the actual record since Paris demonstrates the opposite. That is troubling: the IPCC notes that the risks of abrupt and damaging impacts, such as flooding and crop yields, rise “with every increment of global warming.” But it is the reality.

There is one way to get us to 1.5°C, although not in the Paris timeframe: a radical acceleration of innovation. The approaches being scaled now, such as wind, solar, and batteries, are the same ideas that were being discussed 30 years ago. We are benefiting from long-term, incremental improvements, not disruptive innovation. To move the ball down the field quickly, though, we need to complete a Hail Mary pass.

It’s a long shot. But we’re entering an era of accelerated innovation, driven by advanced computing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning that could narrow the odds. For example, could carbon nanotubes displace demand for high-emissions steel? Might it be possible to store carbon deep in the ocean? Could geo-engineering bend the curve?

I believe that, on the whole, the world is serious about climate change. I am certain that the energy transition is happening. But I don’t think we are anywhere near to being on track to hit the 1.5°C target. And I don’t see how doing more of the same will get us there.

------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally ran on LinkedIn.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

1PointFive secures new buyer for Texas CO2 removal project​

seeing green

Houston’s Occidental Petroleum Corp., or Oxy, and its subsidiary 1PointFive have secured another carbon removal credit deal for its $1.3 billion direct air capture (DAC) project, Stratos.

California-based Palo Alto Networks has agreed to purchase 10,000 tons of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) credits over five years from the project, according to a news release.

The company joins others like Microsoft, Amazon, AT&T, Airbus, the Houston Astros and the Houston Texans that have agreed to buy CDR credits from 1Point5.

"Collaborating with 1PointFive in this carbon removal credit agreement highlights our proactive approach toward exploring innovative solutions for a greener future,” BJ Jenkins, president of Palo Alto Networks, said in the release.

The Texas-based Stratos project is slated to come online this year near Odessa. It's being developed through a joint venture with investment manager BlackRock and is designed to capture up to 500,000 metric tons of CO2 per year. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency recently approved Class VI permits for the project.

DAC technology pulls CO2 from the air at any location, not just where carbon dioxide is emitted. Under the agreement with Palo Alto Networks and others, the carbon dioxide that underlies the credits will be stored in a below-the-surface saline aquifer and won’t be used to produce oil or gas.

“We look forward to collaborating with Palo Alto Networks and using Direct Air Capture to help advance their sustainability strategy,” Michael Avery, president and general manager of 1PointFive, said in the release. “This agreement continues to build momentum for high-integrity carbon removal while furthering DAC technology to support energy development in the United States.”

Chevron gets green light on $53 billion Hess acquisition

Mega Deal

Chevron has scored a critical ruling in Paris that has given it the go-ahead for a $53 billion acquisition of Hess and access to one of the biggest oil finds of the decade.

Chevron said Friday that it completed its acquisition of Hess shortly after the ruling from the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris. Exxon had challenged Chevron’s bid for Hess, one of three companies with access to the massive Stabroek Block oil field off the coast of Guyana.

“We disagree with the ICC panel’s interpretation but respect the arbitration and dispute resolution process,” Exxon Mobil said in a statement on Friday.

Guyana is a country of 791,000 people that is poised to become the world’s fourth-largest offshore oil producer, placing it ahead of Qatar, the United States, Mexico and Norway. It has become a major producer in recent years.

Oil giants Exxon Mobil, China’s CNOOC, and Hess squared off in a heated competition for highly lucrative oil fields in northern South America.

With Chevron getting the green light on Friday, it is now one of the major players in the Stabroek.

“We are proud of everyone at Hess for building one of the industry’s best growth portfolios including Guyana, the world’s largest oil discovery in the last 10 years, and the Bakken shale, where we are a leading oil and gas producer,” former Hess CEO John Hess said in a statement. “The strategic combination of Chevron and Hess creates a premier energy company positioned for the future.”

Chevron also said that on Thursday the Federal Trade Commission lifted its earlier restriction, clearing the way for John Hess to join its board of directors, subject to board approval.

Chevron announced its deal for Hess in October 2023, less than two weeks after Exxon Mobil said that it would acquire Pioneer Natural Resources for about $60 billion.

Chevron said at the time that the acquisition of Hess would add a major oil field in Guyana as well as shale properties in the Bakken Formation in North Dakota.

“Given the significant value we’ve created in the development of the Guyana resource, we believed we had a clear duty to our investors to consider our preemption rights to protect the value we created through our innovation and hard work at a time when no one knew just how successful this venture would become,” Exxon Mobil said Friday. “We welcome Chevron to the venture and look forward to continued industry-leading performance and value creation in Guyana for all parties involved.”

Chevron's stock rose more than 3% before the market open, while shares of Hess surged more than 7%. Exxon's stock climbed slightly.

Houston researchers develop strong biomaterial that could replace plastic

plastic problem

Collaborators from two Houston universities are leading the way in engineering a biomaterial into a scalable, multifunctional material that could potentially replace plastic.

The research was led by Muhammad Maksud Rahman, an assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at the University of Houston and an adjunct assistant professor of materials science and nanoengineering at Rice University. The team shared its findings in a study in the journal Nature Communications earlier this month. M.A.S.R. Saadi, a doctoral student in material science and nanoengineering at Rice, served as the first author.

The study introduced a biosynthesis technique that aligns bacterial cellulose fibers in real-time, which resulted in robust biopolymer sheets with “exceptional mechanical properties,” according to the researchers.

Biomaterials typically have weaker mechanical properties than their synthetic counterparts. However, the team was able to develop sheets of material with similar strengths to some metals and glasses. And still, the material was foldable and fully biodegradable.

To achieve this, the team developed a rotational bioreactor and utilized fluid motion to guide the bacteria fibers into a consistent alignment, rather than allowing them to align randomly, as they would in nature.

The process also allowed the team to easily integrate nanoscale additives—like graphene, carbon nanotubes and boron nitride—making the sheets stronger and improving the thermal properties.

“This dynamic biosynthesis approach enables the creation of stronger materials with greater functionality,” Saadi said in a release. “The method allows for the easy integration of various nanoscale additives directly into the bacterial cellulose, making it possible to customize material properties for specific applications.”

Ultimately, the scientists at UH and Rice hope this discovery could be used for the “next disposable water bottle,” which would be made by biodegradable biopolymers in bacterial cellulose, an abundant resource on Earth.

Additionally, the team sees applications for the materials in the packaging, breathable textiles, electronics, food and energy sectors.

“We envision these strong, multifunctional and eco-friendly bacterial cellulose sheets becoming ubiquitous, replacing plastics in various industries and helping mitigate environmental damage,” Rahman said the release.