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

Report shows geoscientists earn largest salary premium in Texas

Career Day

A move to Texas bolsters earnings for some, and a new SmartAsset study has revealed the top professions where the median annual earnings in the Lone Star State exceed the national median.

The report, "When it Pays to Work in Texas — and When It Doesn’t," published in April, analyzed over 700 occupations to determine which have the biggest "Texas premium" — meaning jobs where the price-adjusted median annual pay in Texas most exceeds the national median for the same occupation — and which jobs have the biggest “Texas penalty,” where the statewide median annual pay falls furthest below the national median. Salaries were sourced from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and adjusted for regional price parity.

According to the report's findings, geoscientists have the biggest "Texas premium" and make a $159,903 median annual salary. Texas' salary for geoscientists is 61 percent higher than the national median for the same position (after adjusting for regional price parity).

"Texas’s large petroleum industry helps explain why employers in the state retain so many geoscientists," the report's author wrote. "In fact, the Lone Star State is home to more geoscientists than any other state except California."

There are more than 3,600 geoscientists working in Texas, SmartAsset said.

These are the remaining top 10 occupations with the biggest "Texas premiums" (salaries are price-adjusted):

  • No. 2 – Commercial pilots: $167,727 median Texas earnings; 37 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 3 – Sailors: $67,614 median Texas earnings; 36 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 4 – Aircraft structure assemblers: $83,519 median Texas earnings; 35 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 5 – Ship captains: $108,905 median Texas earnings; 27 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 6 – Nursing instructors (postsecondary): $100,484 median Texas earnings; 26 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 7 – Tax preparers: $63,321 median Texas earnings; 25 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 8 – Chemists: $104,241 median Texas earnings; 24 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 9 – Health instructors (postsecondary): $128,680 median Texas earnings; 22 percent higher than the national median
  • No. 10 – Engineering instructors (postsecondary): $129,030 median Texas earnings; 22 percent higher than the national median
---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

Solar manufacturer expands Houston footprint with new 4 GW factory

coming soon

Houston-based SEG Solar plans to open a new 4-gigawatt solar module manufacturing facility in Cypress.

The facility represents more than a $200 million investment and will raise SEG's total annual U.S. module production capacity to approximately 6 gigawatts, according to a new release. The expansion is part of SEG’s long-term goal of becoming one of the largest 100 percent U.S.-owned module manufacturers.

The new 500,000-square-foot facility will be located on Telge Road and is expected to create 800 new jobs, according to reports.

“This new facility marks an important milestone for SEG,” Timothy Johnson, VP of operations, said in the release. “It will further strengthen our U.S. manufacturing capabilities while supporting ongoing technology innovation. The plant is designed with the flexibility to integrate next-generation technologies, including (heterojunction solar technology) as the industry evolves.”

Commercial operations at the new facility are expected to commence in Q3 2026.

SEG is also developing a 5-gigawatt ingot and wafer manufacturing facility in Indonesia. Construction on the facility is expected to begin in Q2 2026.

In 2024, SEG Solar opened a new $60 million, 250,000-square-foot facility in Houston to house its production workshops, raw material warehouses, administrative offices, finished goods warehouses and supporting infrastructure. Read more here.

Fervo Energy bumps up IPO target to $1.82B

IPO update

Houston-based geothermal power company Fervo Energy is now eyeing an IPO that would raise $1.75 billion to $1.82 billion, up from the previous target of $1.33 billion.

In paperwork filed Monday, May 11 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Fervo says it plans to sell 70 million shares of Class A common stock at $25 to $26 per share.

In addition, Fervo expects to grant underwriters 30-day options to buy up to 8.33 million additional shares of Class A common stock. This could raise nearly $200 million.

When it announced the IPO on May 4, Fervo aimed to sell 55.56 million shares at $21 to $24 per share, which would have raised $1.17 billion to $1.33 billion. The initial valuation target was $6.5 billion.

A date for the IPO hasn’t been scheduled. Fervo’s stock will be listed on Nasdaq under the ticker symbol FRVO.

Fervo, founded in 2017, has attracted about $1.5 billion in funding from investors such as Bill Gates-founded Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Google, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Devon Energy (which is moving its headquarters to Houston), Tesla co-founder JB Straubel, CalSTRS, Liberty Mutual Investments, AllianceBernstein, JPMorgan, Bank of America and Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank.

Fervo’s marquee project is Cape Station in Beaver County, Utah, the world’s largest EGS (enhanced geothermal system) project. The first phase will deliver 100 megawatts of baseload clean power, with the second phase adding another 400 megawatts. The site can accommodate 2 gigawatts of geothermal energy. Fervo holds more than 595,000 leased acres for potential expansion.

Cape Station has secured power purchase agreements for the entire 500-megawatt capacity. Customers include Houston-based Shell Energy North America and Southern California Edison.