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.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

3 Houston sustainability startups score prizes at Rice University pitch competition

seeing green

A group of Rice University student-founded companies shared $100,000 of cash prizes at an annual startup competition — and three of those winning companies are focused on sustainable solutions.

Liu Idea Lab for Innovation and Entrepreneurship's H. Albert Napier Rice Launch Challenge, hosted by Rice earlier this month, named its winners for 2024. HEXASpec, a company that's created a new material to improve heat management for the semiconductor industry, won the top prize and $50,000 cash.

Founded by Rice Ph.D. candidates Tianshu Zhai and Chen-Yang Lin, who are a part of Lilie’s 2024 Innovation Fellows program, HEXASpec is improving efficiency and sustainability within the semiconductor industry, which usually consumes millions of gallons of water used to cool data centers. According to Rice's news release, HEXASpec's "next-generation chip packaging offer 20 times higher thermal conductivity and improved protection performance, cooling the chips faster and reducing the operational surface temperature."

A few other sustainability-focused startups won prizes, too. CoFlux Purification, a company that has a technology that breaks down PFAS using a novel absorbent for chemical-free water, won second place and $25,000, as well as the Audience Choice Award, which came with an additional $2,000.

Solidec, a company that's working on a platform to produce chemicals from captured carbon, and HEXASpec won Outstanding Achievement in Climate Solutions Prizes, which came with $1,000.

The NRLC, open to Rice students, is Lilie's hallmark event. Last year's winner was fashion tech startup, Goldie.

“We are the home of everything entrepreneurship, innovation and research commercialization for the entire Rice student, faculty and alumni communities,” Kyle Judah, executive director at Lilie, says in a news release. “We’re a place for you to immerse yourself in a problem you care about, to experiment, to try and fail and keep trying and trying and trying again amongst a community of fellow rebels, coloring outside the lines of convention."

This year, the competition started with 100 student venture teams before being whittled down to the final five at the championship. The program is supported by Lilie’s mentor team, Frank Liu and the Liu Family Foundation, Rice Business, Rice’s Office of Innovation, and other donors

“The heart and soul of what we’re doing to really take it to the next level with entrepreneurship here at Rice is this fantastic team,” Peter Rodriguez, dean of Rice Business, adds. “And they’re doing an outstanding job every year, reaching further, bringing in more students. My understanding is we had more than 100 teams submit applications. It’s an extraordinarily high number. It tells you a lot about what we have at Rice and what this team has been cooking and making happen here at Rice for a long, long time.”

———

This article originally ran on InnovationMap.

ExxonMobil's $60B acquisition gets FTC clearance — with one condition

M&A moves

ExxonMobil's $60 billion deal to buy Pioneer Natural Resources on Thursday received clearance from the Federal Trade Commission, but the former CEO of Pioneer was barred from joining the new company's board of directors.

The FTC said Thursday that Scott Sheffield, who founded Pioneer in 1997, colluded with OPEC and OPEC+ to potentially raise crude oil prices. Sheffield retired from the company in 2016, but he returned as president and CEO in 2019, served as CEO from 2021 to 2023, and continues to serve on the board. Since Jan. 1, he has served as special adviser to the company’s chief executive.

“Through public statements, text messages, in-person meetings, WhatsApp conversations and other communications while at Pioneer, Sheffield sought to align oil production across the Permian Basin in West Texas and New Mexico with OPEC+,” according to the FTC. It proposed a consent order that Exxon won't appoint any Pioneer employee, with a few exceptions, to its board.

Dallas-based Pioneer said in a statement it disagreed with the allegations but would not impede closing of the merger, which was announced in October 2023.

“Sheffield and Pioneer believe that the FTC’s complaint reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the U.S. and global oil markets and misreads the nature and intent of Mr. Sheffield’s actions,” the company said.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said it was “disappointing that FTC is making the same mistake they made 25 years ago when I warned about the Exxon and Mobil merger in 1999.”

Schumer and 22 other Democratic senators had urged the FTC to investigate the deal and a separate merger between Chevron and Hess, saying they could lead to higher prices, hurt competition and force families to pay more at the pump.

The deal with Pioneer vastly expands Exxon’s presence in the Permian Basin, a huge oilfield that straddles the border between Texas and New Mexico. Pioneer’s more than 850,000 net acres in the Midland Basin will be combined with Exxon’s 570,000 net acres in the Delaware and Midland Basin, nearly contiguous fields that will allow the combined company to trim costs.