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

Greentown Labs combines forces with MassChallenge to support more climate startups

strategic partnership

Climatetech incubator Greentown Labs has formed a strategic partnership with global zero-equity accelerator MassChallenge.

The two organizations have headquarters in the Boston area, while Greentown Labs is also co-located in Houston. MassChallenge has a hub in Dallas, as well as others in Israel, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

The new partnership aims to strengthen the ecosystem for early-stage climatetech startups by providing more mentorship, support and a broader commercialization network for members, according to a news release.

Greentown Labs will share its expertise with the 23 startups in MassChallenge's first climate-specific accelerator, known as the MassChallenge Early Stage Climate program. Additionally, Greentown Labs members will benefit from MassChallenge's network of expert mentors, judges, entrepreneurs, partners, investors, philanthropists and others.

“There are so many synergies and shared values between MassChallenge and Greentown that launching a collaboration like this feels like a natural next step for our organizations as we strive to support as many early-stage climate founders as possible,” Georgina Campbell Flatter, Greentown Labs CEO, said in the news release. “We want to reduce the friction and barriers to market for these climate entrepreneurs and ultimately increase their opportunity for success—ecosystem collaboration is an essential part of solving these challenges together.”

Combined, Greentown and MassChallenge report that they have supported more than 4,500 founders and more than 1,000 climate startups. MassChallenge has awarded more than $18 million in equity-free grants to startups, which have gone on to raise over $15 billion, since it was founded in 2009. Greentown Labs has helped more than 575 startups raise more than $8.2 billion in funding since it launched in 2011.

Greentown recently added five startups to its Houston community and 14 other climatetech ventures to its Boston incubator. It also announced its third ACCEL cohort, which works to advance BIPOC-led startups in the climatetech space, earlier this year. Read more here.

Houston cleantech accelerator names 12 startups to 2025 cohort

early-stage accelerator

The Rice Alliance Clean Energy Accelerator has named 12 early-stage startups to its latest cohort.

The hybrid program, which operates in a hybrid capacity based out of the Ion, runs for 10 weeks and provides energy transition startups with training focused on fundraising, pilots, partnerships and sale. It begins July 8 and will be led by executive director Kerri Smith and program director Matthew Peña with support from executives-in-residence Lynn Frostman, John Jeffers, David Horsup and Dev Motiram.

The accelerator will culminate with a demo day on Sept. 18 at the Rice Alliance Energy Tech Venture Forum during the Houston Energy and Climate Startup Week.

Members of this year's cohort come from the Houston area as well as across the U.S. and Canada.

Class 5 for the Rice Alliance Clean Energy Accelerator includes:

  • Aqua-Cell Energy, which builds industrial-scale overnight batteries to provide affordable solar power
  • Arculus, a company that provides multilayer internal coating for pipelines that lowers friction, extends pipeline life and enables carbon dioxide transport and hydrogen blending
  • AtmoSpark, a Houston-based sustainable cooling and freshwater company that provides an electric field-driven air separation system that reduces dehumidification energy costs for data centers and industrial facilities
  • AtoMe, which delivers durable metallic composites to energy and aerospace companies using an eco-friendly dry blade method that eliminates harmful chemicals
  • ConceptLoop, a company that converts plastic waste into eco-friendly, low-carbon aggregate
  • Fathom Storage, which provides a more solidly embedded and steel-efficient anchoring solution for offshore service providers, wind energy developers and research institutes
  • GeoKiln, a Houston-based company that addresses issues of subsurface hydrogen extraction by applying proven oil and gas techniques to accelerate natural hydrogen reactions, enabling hydrogen production
  • Innowind Energy Solutions, a company that provides nonintrusive, active flow control devices to boost energy production and extend turbine lifespan
  • Lukera Energy, which transforms waste methane into high-value methanol using a breakthrough nanobubble technology
  • Metal Light Inc., which has developed a scalable, cost-effective Metal-Air generator to replace diesel generators
  • Moonshot Hydrogen, a company that converts food and agricultural waste into clean hydrogen and bioethanol
  • Resollant, a Woodlands-based company that delivers compact, zero-emission hydrogen and carbon reactors to refineries, petrochemical plants, steel and cement manufacturers and fuel producers

The Rice Alliance Clean Energy Accelerator has supported 55 ventures since it was founded in 2021, collectively raising over $250 million in funding, according to the university. See last year's cohort here.