fuel cell
Stephen Rees/Flickr
Is green hydrogen the fuel of the future? This CEO is betting on it
Plug Power’s long-time CEO is repositioning the fuel cell maker to be a producer of hydrogen fuel made from water and renewable power to cut climate-warming industrial carbon pollution from the steel, oil and agricultural industries.
Amazon strikes green hydrogen deal with fuel cell maker Plug Power
Shares of hydrogen fuel cell maker Plug Power surged as much as 8% Thursday morning after Amazon said it struck a deal with the company to power some of its operations with green hydrogen.
www.cbc.ca
Green shift? How the trucking sector is exploring ways to power big rigs into the future
As automakers make electric pledges, the heavy-duty truck sector is also looking at how it might power the industry in the future.
vancouversun.com
Automakers show off fuel cell hybrids at 2019 Vancouver car show
“Cars can go up to almost 600 clicks on a full (fuel cell) tank now and this is going to be something that's formidable in the future," says auto show executive director.
Fuel-cell cars finally drive off the lot.
While consumers can now buy their own hydrogen-powered vehicles, industry looks to expand the refueling infrastructure and lower the cost of fuel-cell cars.
While consumers can now buy their own hydrogen-powered vehicles, industry looks to expand the refueling infrastructure and lower the cost of fuel-cell cars
By Mitch Jacoby
Credit: Toyota
In brief
The idea of powering a car with a fuel cell has been around for decades. In principle, these cars, which run on electricity generated on board by electrochemically combining hydrogen with oxygen from the air, could reduce global dependence on petroleum while emitting just water from their tailpipes. But despite extensive fleet testing, fuel-cell passenger cars have always seemed to be another five years away. No longer. Motorists can now buy or lease their very own fuel-cell cars. The numbers today are low, and the cars are available only in a few geographic regions equipped with public hydrogen-filling stations. But the industry is gearing up to manufacture more of these cars and expand refueling infrastructure. And researchers continue to look for ways to reduce fuel-cell costs and improve durability.
Raymond Lim, a psychology and statistics instructor, describes himself as an “automobile enthusiast who likes to try out new technology.” Celso Pierre also has a thing for cool gadgets. He’s a mechanical engineer who loves hiking and the great outdoors. Anytime Pierre hears about new technology, he rushes to learn about it. For both men, that excitement has long included electric vehicles and fuel-efficient cars. So Lim and Pierre jumped at the opportunity to join the small but growing number of motorists who zip around California’s roadways in their own fuel-cell vehicles. Lim drives a Toyota Mirai and Pierre motors around in a Hyundai Tucson.
These hydrogen-powered, all-electric cars have been in development for decades as alternatives to conventional cars; they do not depend on fossil fuels and do not pollute—they emit just water vapor. During that time of development, numerous prototypes and fleets of fuel-cell demonstration vehicles logged millions of miles, advancing the transportation technology far beyond the laboratory test stage. Yet industry watchers grew disheartened at the seemingly endless delays that kept fuel-cell vehicles from auto dealers’ showrooms. And upon hearing projections year after year that these cars would hit the market “five years down the road,” technology enthusiasts figured the automobile industry had largely given up on mass-producing fuel-cell cars.
That impression is just plain wrong. The industry continued working away on the technology, and those “five years down the road” projections finally came true in the past couple of years. Although the numbers of fuel-cell cars for sale or for lease today are relatively low and the vehicles are available only in select geographical areas, it is finally possible for a private motorist to drive one off the lot. Meanwhile, industry is expanding the hydrogen-refueling infrastructure in the U.S. and other countries and continuing to find ways to make the vehicles cheaper and more durable.
Rise of the fuel cell
The fuel-cell concept dates back to the 1800s. But it wasn’t until the past century that various types of demonstration units proved that these electrochemical devices could reliably produce electric current. They came to be recognized as reliable devices when the U.S. National Aeronautics & Space Administration used these power generators in the 1960s and 1970s in the Gemini and Apollo missions and other space programs.
Similar to their electrochemical cousin the battery, fuel cells contain electrodes that extract usable electricity from chemical reactions. In both batteries and fuel cells, redox reactions occur when a positive electrode is connected to a negative electrode through an external circuit. When oxidation reactions take place at an anode and reductions proceed at a cathode, electrons flow through the circuit, powering the device connected to it—an electric motor, in the case of a fuel-cell car.
Fuel-cell cars by the numbers
$57,500
Manufacturer’s suggested retail price for 2017 Toyota Mirai
370
Number of fuel
cells in Mirai’s
fuel-cell stack
~5
Mass in kilograms of hydrogen stored in Mirai’s fuel tanks
≥480 and
Driving range in kilometers on one tank of hydrogen and range for various battery-powered electric cars, respectively
Minutes for hydrogen refueling and electric-car battery recharging, respectively
But unlike batteries, which store the oxidant and reductant within the electrochemical package, fuel cells draw oxidizers and fuels from the outside. As a result, fuel cells don’t get used up or need to be recharged like batteries do. In principle, fuel cells can continue generating electricity as long as fresh reactants continue to flow into the devices.
Numerous types of fuel cells have made their way through research and development stages, and several versions have been commercialized. The devices differ principally in terms of the electrolyte, which is the medium that transports ions between the electrodes; the materials that make up the electrodes and other components; and the intended application.
Fuels also vary from device to device. In a basic fuel cell, hydrogen serves as the fuel and oxygen as the oxidant. But there are also systems that derive hydrogen from alcohols or hydrocarbons, as well as ones that use methanol directly, without first converting it to hydrogen.
Fuel cells in automobiles rely on a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM). The micrometers-thick film serves two functions: It’s a solid electrolyte that conducts hydrogen ions from the anode to the cathode, and it’s a gas separator that prevents direct, uncontrolled mixing of hydrogen and oxygen. Such mixing wastes fuel, causes the fuel cell to operate inefficiently, and leads to by-products that can degrade fuel-cell components.
The number of fuel-cell vehicles has been growing steadily since they entered the retail market in mid-2015, when Toyota began selling them in Japan and California. Hyundai and Honda have also moved into the retail market, and so the numbers are starting to climb.
In 2016, Toyota boosted production of its four-seat fuel-cell car, the Mirai, which means “future” in Japanese, from the 2015 level of 700 units to approximately 2,000 cars. This year the carmaker plans to produce about 3,000 of them.
According to Bo Ki Hong, a research fellow at Hyundai’s Fuel Cell Research Lab, the South Korean carmaker expects to produce about 1,000 of its Tucson Fuel Cell compact sport-utility vehicles by the end of this year and distribute them to 18 countries. Honda is producing similar numbers of its Clarity, a sporty five-passenger fuel-cell sedan. And all three automakers, which are currently the only companies selling or leasing fuel-cell passenger cars in the U.S., collectively aim to boost production levels to the tens of thousands by the end of the decade.
So what allowed fuel-cell cars to move from perpetually five years away from dealership lots to finally parking in people’s garages? To begin with, carmakers have continuously been gaining engineering and manufacturing experience, which has helped lower production costs. They have also steadily improved the efficiency of PEM fuel cells and learned how to significantly reduce the amount of costly platinum needed to make the devices work effectively. Those advances translate to less-expensive, smaller, and more-powerful devices that provide flexibility to design cars in a range of sizes and prices attractive to customers.
How hydrogen powers a car
Credit: Adapted from Toyota
Room for growth
But whether or not carmakers will reach their production goals will depend in large part on how satisfied owners are with their fuel-cell cars. “Customers expect the same level of performance and overall driving experience they get with gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles,” Hong says.
Lim raves about the handling and performance of his Mirai. “This car is wonderful,” he says. “The ride is smooth, quiet, and powerful.” And when it comes to refueling, the process is quick—“less than five minutes, and that gets me over 300 miles [about 480 km] of driving,” he says.
These similarities to gasoline-powered vehicles stand out as advantages for fuel-cell vehicles over battery-powered, all-electric cars. Many of those kinds of cars, which are also known as plug-in electrics, require from 30 minutes to 12 hours for a full charge, depending on the type of charger. And many of them travel less than 150 miles (about 240 km) per charge.
Those factors seem to make a strong case for fuel-cell vehicles. But fuel-cell cars need hydrogen, and currently there are only 29 retail hydrogen filling stations in the U.S., all in California.
“It’s a chicken-and-egg scenario,” says Joseph Cargnelli, chief technology officer at Hydrogenics, a Toronto-area fuel-cell manufacturer.
Fuel-cell carmakers hesitate to ramp up production if customers don’t have convenient access to hydrogen, he says. And gas suppliers are iffy about building hydrogen filling stations without ample demand for the fuel.
But the number of hydrogen stations is about to grow. California expects to see 36 more stations by 2018, half in the north and half in the south.
Hydrogen filling stations are also coming to the Northeast. According to Jana L. Hartline, a Toyota communications manager, Toyota, in partnership with Air Liquide, is supporting construction of 12 hydrogen fueling stations in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The first of those stations should be completed before the end of the year, she says. And in Japan, Air Liquide, Toyota, and nine other Japanese companies agreed to build 160 hydrogen stations and aim to put 40,000 fuel-cell vehicles on Japan’s roads by 2020.
Fuel-cell passenger cars massively outnumber other types of vehicles powered by this electrochemical technology, and as a result, they get the most attention. Yet other vehicle types have seen notable success. For example, nonpolluting, fuel-cell-powered transit buses have traversed congested city streets since the early 2000s. According to a U.S. Department of Energy report, worldwide, 370 fuel-cell buses were delivered or were on order in 2015.
Also, although 18-wheelers aren’t likely to be propelled down the highway by fuel cells anytime soon, Toyota earlier this year began experimenting with one prototype semitrailer at the Port of Los Angeles.
Fuel-cell forklifts rack up far larger numbers than higher road vehicles. Major warehouse operators in North America, including Amazon, Walmart, and FedEx, use some 15,000 of these indoor vehicles to shuttle products and equipment to and fro. Unlike standard battery-powered versions, these fuel-cell-powered versions don’t have to sit idle for 30 minutes or longer to recharge.
You may have issues viewing the animation below when using Internet Explorer. Please try another browser, or view it as a PDF here.
Keep reading...Show less
Tokyo to Paris: Could city waterways ease air pollution?
Waterways offer new transport options in some towns and cities, but there are still some challenges to overcome.
Waterways offer new transport options in some towns and cities, but there are still some challenges to overcome
A SeaBubbles prototype on the Seine in Paris.
A test run of an electric, lithium battery-powered water taxi on the Seine river in Paris. Photograph: Francis Demange/SeaBubbles
Supported by
Heathrow
About this content
Adam Forrest
Thursday 31 August 2017 02.00 EDT
Last modified on Thursday 31 August 2017 02.01 EDT
Once bustling thoroughfares for boats of all kinds, to some entrepreneurs the rivers in major cities are a source of untapped potential.
They envisage passenger vessels expanding beyond sightseeing trips and becoming a daily means of travel for residents.
If successful it could ease the pressure on congested roads and crowded public transport and help tackle air pollution.
But boat operators face some major challenges. They have to be able to scale up their services to carry larger numbers of passengers, as well as trying to reduce the environmental impact of boats dependent on high-polluting diesel fuel.
French company SeaBubbles shows the challenge faced on scale. It has been testing its electric water taxi, powered by lithium batteries, along the Seine in Paris this summer. CEO Anders Bringdal says he wants to make waterway transport easier, as well as reducing its associated noise and pollution levels.
He says the company plans to build multiple docking stations at several piers so dozens of boats can be zipping along the river at any one time. However, the craft can only accommodate four passengers.
Some of those trying to grow also face administrative battles to use waterways.
In Japan, Tokyo Water Taxi is hoping to have a fleet of 60 yellow vessels on the network of rivers and canals flowing into Tokyo Bay in time for the capital hosting the 2020 Olympic Games, having launched its first two diesel-powered boats last summer.
“The Odaiba area of downtown Tokyo in particular could benefit,” says CEO Hajime Tabata. “The volume of traffic for land transportation is often at maximum capacity, so waterways could be used to alleviate the congestion.”
Despite its ambitions, however, the biggest challenge for Tabata’s company is the lack of available landing piers, with more than 100 wharfs along Tokyo’s waterways subject to a complex web of regulations and ownership disputes.
In other cities, travelling by water is already more commonplace. In Hong Kong, the Star Ferry fleet carries more than 70,000 people over the bay between Hong Kong island and Kowloon each day. And in Istanbul, around 300,000 people a day use a variety of private ferries and water taxis to cross the Bosphorus, the river that divides the city in two.
But this is still only a fraction of the commuters and holidaymakers travelling in both cities. And ferries and water taxis have not prevented Istanbul being rated one of the most congested cities in the world.
These ferries and water taxis are also all running on diesel fuel, part of a maritime industry that contributes a growing amount of nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and particular matter alongside carbon dioxide emissions.
Uber for coaches: can these startups revolutionise intercity travel?
Read more
In London, MBNA Thames Clippers has been slowly building a service geared toward daily commuters as well as tourists, helped by Transport for London’s decision to integrate ticketing, allowing Londoners to hop on and off boats by swiping their Oyster and contactless cards. It carried 4 million passengers in 2016.
But while the company claims its retrofitted catamarans have cut particulate emissions by 50% and nitrogen oxide emissions by 40%, the boats are still powered by diesel.
There are examples of boat operators changing this. In Hamburg, one operator has added a hybrid-powered ferry to its fleet crossing the Elbe river, a prototype vessel that uses both diesel and electric power sources.
And in Southampton, a company called REAPsystems has developed a hybrid system for water taxi boats, one able to switch easily between a fuel engine and electric motor.
The company will take their hybrid water taxi boat to Venice next year, where a hotel operator will run it on a passenger route through the canals and out to the airport throughout the summer.
“We wanted to show that a more sustainable system is possible – hybridisation is a step toward getting rid of diesel,” said REAPsystems’ founder Dennis Doerffel. “Ultimately we have to replace existing transport technologies, if they pollute, with more sustainable ones.”
However, without a growth in passenger numbers, the major investments in cleaner river transport technology are unlikely to come to fruition, says Rupert Fausset, a transport and energy expert at Forum for the Future.
“It remains very challenging to scale up river transport and make it sustainable too,” says Fausset. “But I’m an optimist, so I would not rule out people developing more sustainable systems using new kinds of propulsion and new fuel cells in the future.”
Topics
Guardian sustainable business
Transport
Transport
Rivers
Water transport
features
Keep reading...Show less
It's critical to go 'all in' on climate optimism.
I've been thinking a lot recently about catastrophic climate risk, because, well, how can you not?
It's critical to go 'all in' on climate optimism
James Murray
Friday, August 11, 2017 - 1:20am
ShutterstockHarvepino
I've been thinking a lot recently about catastrophic climate risk, because, well, how can you not?
There are multiple reasons for this bout of introspection. My wife and I are expecting our second son later this month, which has simultaneously pulled our personal concern horizons towards the short term — "should we order newborn nappies this week?" — and pushed them a few years further into the next century.
Then there's the glaring inadequacy of so many of our political leaders in the face of escalating climate risks. It is impossible to shake the nagging feeling the best years of my generation's careers face a second lost decade, marred by irresolvable constitutional riddles, economic arguments that would shame a kindergarten class and the fear a nuclear arsenal resides in the hands of a reckless real estate mogul whose personal arrogance is only matched by his geopolitical ineptitude.
I've also been listening a bit too much to the nihilistic, yet strangely uplifting new album by Father John Misty, which deals with the agony of childbirth, gender inequality and the raw battle for survival — and that's just the first verse of the first song. Environmental apocalypse, religious absurdities, social media addiction, the vacuity of modern culture, and polluted air and water soon follow (sample lyric: "if you want ecstasy or birth control/ Just run the tap until the water's cold"). The lyrics are accompanied by gorgeous, California-infused piano melodies, and are all the more unsettling for that.
And, inevitably, there's this:
However, the main spark for some environmentalist soul-searching was David Wallace-Wells' sweeping New York magazine exploration of the plausible worst-case climate scenarios we could be facing and the deeply unsatisfactory response from much of the green community to this ear-splitting clarion call.
I'm not about to re-prosecute the arguments the article's dystopian vision ignited, not least because (as is the case with most things) Vox's David Roberts already has done a far better job than I ever could.
Suffice to say the widespread misunderstanding of the article's rationale (of course it is alarmist; it is deliberately exploring worst case scenarios, it is meant to be alarming), was, to borrow Robert's term, irksome.
The handful of factual flaws in the piece were both marginal to the overall argument and were corrected immediately in an updated annotated version that demonstrated a degree of journalistic integrity we can but wish those who fixate on the most staggeringly optimistic climate projections would emulate. The sound and fury contained in the attempts at debunking the article largely failed to engage with its central premise that while exploring low risk, high impact scenarios may not be "balanced," it is still a valid exercise when you consider that what is at stake is civilization itself. As such these critiques signified, if not nothing, then very little.
A world of fear
The unbending reality continues to intrude: 6 degrees C of warming within the lifetime of people alive today may be extremely unlikely, but nor is it inconceivable. At that level of warming, or anywhere close to it, all bets are off. We really don't know how the experiment we are playing on the atmosphere plays out. What we do know is that if 6C of warming is highly unlikely, 4C is entirely plausible; that is plenty bad enough.
The wider criticism that the article was too doom-laden and was therefore "unhelpful" deserves a simple response: Grow up.
There may be plenty of studies suggesting optimistic messages are more effective at stimulating action than pessimistic assessments of the future, but Roberts is right when he says this is a field where none of the research is conclusive.
Cataclysmic projections may prove stultifying for some, but motivating for others. #Climateoptimism may spur some into action, while lulling others into a false sense of security. Columnist Zoe Williams offered some sage advice recently, observing that we should be careful about calling things we want to discourage "high risk" as it only serves to encourage those who are risk-takers. We contain multitudes and effective messaging should recognize this complex fact.
Back when he was the first Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband did his bit for climate optimism with an anecdote about a Labour Party member who reminded him that Martin Luther King never said: "I have a nightmare"; it was the "dream" that motivated people. It's a nice line, but it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. Yes, the hope of a better world was critical to the success of the civil rights movement, but plenty of effort also was expended highlighting appalling injustice, the damage wrought by segregation and the growing risk of civil unrest. The dream was critical, but the nightmare already existed and would only worsen with inaction.
Faced with a threat of existential proportions, a strategy that centers on telling everyone everything will be fine is laughably insufficient (it's hollow laughter, obviously). Far better to acknowledge that we need both a full understanding of the risks we face and a healthy dose of optimism about how they can yet be overcome. It is an argument brilliantly expounded by Renee Lertzman in her response to the controversy sparked by the New Yorker article. It deserves quoting at length:
It's not about hope or despair or solutions versus warnings. It's about openly acknowledging that climate change is a classic both-and situation. Yes, things are very bad, and yes, things are likely to get worse; and yes, many people are working on mind-blowing innovative solutions; and yes, humans have tremendous capacities; and yes, it's also really hard and frustrating; and yes, you yourself as a citizen and an individual have a vital role to play in this unfolding mess. And yes, you may feel pretty bummed out at times. If climate change feels hopeless, that's a natural feeling to have. All the more reason to come join us. You matter…
The truth is, no one really knows the magic formula for motivating people.
But there are a few things we do know. Humans are motivated by love, belonging, meaning and mattering. People love good stories — even ones (or especially one) that have shame, fear, guilt and anxiety. To understand such stories, one has to have a conscience and care about the world.
There's no need to sugarcoat the situation we're in; let's put a rest to that argument. What we need is heaps of fierce compassion and bravery.
The crucial question, of course, is how to generate and then harness that "fierce compassion and bravery." How do we apply it at the political, the corporate and the individual level?
It is here that I found the response to Wallace-Wells' article from what Roberts accurately describes as the "Hope Police" reached its most, erm, irksome. Because if the primary criticism was that it is debilitating and counter-productive to be overly downbeat in the face of climate risk, where were the responses that hit back with a narrative of climate optimism? That provided a credible vision for delivering a world where warming is limited to less than 1.5 degrees C, a vision that is even more compelling than Wallace-Wells' apocalyptic scenarios?
I know you could argue this hope-filled vision is everywhere if you know where to look. It's an argument I've made plenty of times in the past. It is contained in the plummeting cost of renewables, the extended range of zero emission vehicles and the blueprints for smarter, greener cities. It is evident in pretty much everything we write about and thankfully, it is a vision that post-Paris Agreement has been adopted to varying extents by virtually every government on the planet and vast swathes of the business community (with one bright orange exception).
Cataclysmic projections may prove stultifying for some, but motivating for others. #Climateoptimism may spur some into action, while lulling others into a false sense of security.
And yet it too often feels like attempts to generate a hopeful narrative of global decarbonization remain badly underpowered, even after Paris. Our collective efforts are still not commensurate to the scale of the risk, nor fully cognizant of the scale of the opportunities. They are certainly not up to the task of mitigating the catastrophic risks we are facing.
What does an effective climate optimism strategy look like? How do you generate sufficient hope to balance out the despair triggered by the climate threat?
I am increasingly of the view that the only strategy left is one of full-spectrum prioritization, where pretty much every political and policy lever, every business decision, every economic strategy is put at the service of climate mitigation and resilience. That does not mean condemning every move that falls short of this level of prioritization, but it does mean acknowledging that it is far too late for half measures.
In a column penned in the midst of the 2014 floods crisis that briefly engulfed a coalition government that had overseen cuts to flood defense spending, columnist Matthew D'Ancona made a timeless observation that has stayed with me ever since:
[David] Cameron evaded questions about Cabinet unity on climate change, insisting only that his own views have not altered. But if that is the case — if the PM truly believes that anthropogenic global warming is responsible for potentially catastrophic changes in the weather — then it ought, logically, to be his priority, more important even than economic recovery. One cannot be 'pragmatic' or 'in favour of sensible compromise' about a threat to the survival of the human race. So what's it going to be, Mr Cameron?
The question still stands and all political and business leaders need to find an adequate answer.
What could such an answer look like? What does a commensurate response to the prospects of catastrophic climate change entail?
Let's take a look at three quick examples from the interlocking worlds of politics, business and campaigning.
In September, the U.K. government should publish its long-awaited Clean Growth Plan detailing how it plans to meet emissions reduction goals through to the early 2030s. The plan should contain bold new commitments covering the near complete decarbonization of the power system, the rapid expansion of ultra-low emission transport, a national energy efficiency program and a raft of other measures to curb emissions from industry, agriculture and waste. It should amount to nothing less than the most comprehensive economic and infrastructure transformation plan the U.K. has seen. It will touch all our lives, boost the U.K.'s competitiveness and modernize whole industries to make them fit for the 21st century. The open question is, will it be presented as such?
Judging by past experience, the plan is likely to be briefed to the Sunday papers, almost certainly with some triangulation to try to nullify the elements of it the climate sceptic press hate. Business Secretary Greg Clark then will give a speech, the plan will be published, green groups will criticize it for not being ambitious enough, business leaders will praise the potential for new investment, neo-con think tanks and rent-a-quote Ayn Rand fan-boys will slam the green takeover of the government, there will be a poorly informed debate on Radio 4, almost certainly featuring the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the mid-1980s, and then the whole circus will move on.
The crucial question, of course, is how to generate and then harness that 'fierce compassion and bravery.' How do we apply it at the political, the corporate and the individual level?
But if this is really meant to be a credible part of an international effort to stave off submerged cities and methane-belching plains, is this in any way adequate?
Here's what is required (leaving aside Theresa May's electorally hamstrung inability to deliver much of it): The entire cabinet and every business leader the government's black book can muster, on stage for the launch of the new strategy; an explicit declaration that this, full decarbonization of the economy, is the post-Brexit economic strategy; clear and attractive retail policies, such as a diesel scrappage scheme, tax breaks for green investment, new apprenticeships, a green home building program; an open invitation to all opposition party leaders to share a platform to support the plan with a declaration that while they may not agree on every component they fully endorse the over-arching goal; a willingness to shame those party leaders who play party politics and refuse to turn up; a fortnight-long program where each day sees a new cabinet member explain how the plan will transform parts of the economy; a Royal Commission on the flaws of GDP as an economic measure and the viability of alternative quality of life metrics; and, yes, a brave assertion that carbon intensive industries will have to transform or be scaled back, backed by a decarbonization adaptation fund to help affected communities respond to this global trend.
Stand with us
What happens if some cabinet members refuse to play ball? Simple: Sack them. This is non-negotiable. This is critical to the U.K.'s economic, infrastructure and national security strategy. You are either on board or you are not.
No government has tried this. No world leader has gone truly all-in on climate action, although it is worth noting that those who have gone furthest with this narrative — Obama, Merkel, Macron, Xi — have enjoyed considerable political dividends as a result. With over 70 percent of the British public voicing support for clean energy, making this one of the few areas where the country is united, why shouldn't the government present its strategy as the exciting, transformational and yes, hope-filled agenda that it is?
Environmental campaigner Bill McKibben has characterized such a strategy as a war effort, but it is actually even bigger than that. As David Powell of the New Economics Foundation observed recently, "fact is there's no historical analog for climate. So we need moonshot, WWII, suffrage, revolt, market diffusion, love. All of it. And more."
What is the business equivalent of this approach? It boils down to the simple question, what would Elon do?
The importance of Tesla boss Elon Musk extends far beyond the company's share price. For all the admirable positions taken by many business leaders on climate change, Musk is the only high-profile figure to publicly envisage the true scale of the transformation that is required over the next three decades. His brash style may not be to everyone's taste; some of his goals (hyperloops, Mars missions and the like) might prove overly ambitious; the whole endeavor could yet falter, but the sweeping vision contained in Tesla's master plan has to be the benchmark for any and all businesses seeking to prosper in a decarbonizing economy. If you are not delivering a strategy that enables zero emission operation within a few decades, you are not doing it right.
Consequently, incremental environmental improvement strategies look increasingly dated. Carbon-intensive operations need to be treated like the soon-to-be-stranded assets they must become. Corporate strategies need to begin with science-based emissions targets and 100 percent clean energy and build from there. They need to be embedded in every part of the organization, unveiled and led by the chief executive, and become a defining part of the company's DNA. Anything less is not worth the digital annual sustainability report it is written on. If this is too ambitious for many companies in their current form, then a public recognition of the scale of transformation that is required may suffice as a starting point, but it has to be that — a starting point to be swiftly followed by comprehensive and relentless action.
What does an effective climate optimism strategy look like? How do you generate sufficient hope to balance out the despair triggered by the climate threat?
Every business has to be able to answer the question that soon will be heading their way thanks to Mark Carney's Financial Stability Board climate disclosure recommendations: what is your plan for a scenario where full decarbonization occurs over the coming decades? What is your plan for coping with 4 to 6 degrees C of warming? Provide the right answer and we might be able to justify the last-ditch optimism attached to emerging clean technologies.
What of campaigners? There is no need to tell campaigners of the need to prioritize climate action, but here too the despair-hope dialectic needs tweaking. No one should demand campaigners temper their environmental warnings; if anything, they could do with taking a leaf out of Wallace-Wells' book and identifying more visceral ways of highlighting quite how bad things could get during the second half of the century. But equally they have a crucial role to play in more effectively throwing a spotlight on the sources of hope that are emerging.
I once shared a drink with a campaigner at one of the U.K.'s top environmental charities who confided that in the wake of the Climate Change Act nearly a decade ago, there had been a plan for a new high-profile campaign to decarbonize communities across the U.K. and publicly demonstrate the attractiveness of meeting the goals the law set out. But beyond the admirable but scattershot Transition Towns movement and the sterling work of 10:10, the idea never really went anywhere and the campaigning community returned to its default setting of attacking government at every turn.
This is a concept that urgently needs reviving. Every stunt that highlights the environmental crises we face needs to be matched by one that shines a light, perhaps literally, on the majestic wind turbines that are delivering much of our power. They need to help get people test driving electric and fuel cell cars, embracing new consumption patterns and welcoming positive policy developments at least as vigorously as they oppose policy failures. Hope is essential, but it won't generate itself, and in the face of continuing political, media and corporate communications failures civil society needs to move beyond sounding the alarm, important as that is.
We are in a world of trouble. We need to openly and honestly recognize that fact and then bring the optimistic power of business, technology, politics and society at large to bear in pursuit of the emissions cuts that might just avert catastrophe.
In order to do this, we must pose D'Ancona's old question to every political and business leader. No sensible compromise is to be found here; you need to go all-in. What's it to be? Are you compassionate and brave enough to recognise the true scale of the challenge and the opportunity we face?
The Father John Misty album closes with a repetition of the line "there's nothing to fear." Given the context, it is hard to tell whether it is ironic, nihilistic or reassuring. He's wrong, though; there is plenty to fear. But there are plenty sources of hope, too. We just need to throw everything we've got at nurturing them. The problem is that for all the progress we've made, we're not there yet. And that's why, in between the nappies, I keep thinking about catastrophic climate risk. Again, how can I not?
This story first appeared on:
BusinessGreen
Topics:
ClimateCommitments & GoalsMarketing & Communication
Tags:
climate change
share this article
James Murray
Editor
BusinessGreen
Related Content
Rethinking the language of environmentalism
ByJames Murray
Why the Paris Agreement ratification bodes ill for oil
ByJames Murray
Weekend read: Is this the beginning of the low-carbon economy?
ByJames Murray
Meet the Four Horsemen of the Climate Apocalypse
ByDavid Crane
Green car revolution: 10 lessons to accelerate progress
ByJames Murray
Trending
Chemical footprinting strides to become mainstream with Walmart
It's critical to go 'all in' on climate optimism
Episode 88: Salesforce opts into SuperGreen; RE100 surfs change
How far would you run to change a polluting industry?
The race to embrace ESG ratings
Featured Videos
Microsoft on the value of power purchase agreements
The versatile spirit of the Hawaiian ukelele
More from Video
Featured Whitepapers
Facility Managers: Putting Energy & Sustainability Practices to Work
14 Strategies to Save up to 70% in Energy Costs Using the Latest in Warehouse Lighting...and More
View Program & Speakers
Get your copy
Save the Date
Footer menu 1
About Us
GreenBiz Team
Editorial Team
Media Kit
Contact Us
Footer menu 2
Executive Network
Research Reports
White Papers
Webcasts
Footer menu 3
GreenBiz 350 Podcast
Career Resources
Jobs
Subscribe
Twitter Facebook Google+ LinkedIn This site (RSS)
Secondary Footer menu
Privacy Policy
© 2017 GreenBiz Group Inc. GREENBIZ® and GREENBIZ.COM® is a registered trademark of GreenBiz Group Inc.
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
