The winning strategy is to go green, just look at China
How investments in green technology is putting China far ahead for years to come.
Every Sunday, when I press send, I think some version of “I should really start writing earlier”. But then the week is filled with small events taking up my brain space, and here we are.
This week, I did a last-minute talk about AI and the future of sports broadcasting (!) for a Swedish TV Channel. I got so many great questions, not only about the impacts on sports and broadcasting, but about where the world is going, and what kind of future we want.
There are so many smart and thoughtful people on this earth, and I think we need to appreciate that a lot more. It makes me think about the Margaret Mead quote, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. “
If we take the time to talk to each other, not through algorithms owned by big tech, but through thoughtful in-person conversations where you can ask questions in safe spaces, things will change.
(Also, thanks to , Cecilia and Ulrika for letting me bounce TV-related cases in my research process.)
I still feel spoiled every day that part of my new day job is to read research and listen to people presenting research.
This week, it was Frank Geels, a professor of system innovation and sustainability at the University of Manchester, who showed data on how China is investing massively in the green transformation. China don’t make these investments necessarily to save the planet, but because they want to come out ahead. And it is working.
A few insights were insightful, and I will share them below:
- The Long Game. When a country makes investments in green electricity (solar and wind primarily), it costs a lot in the present, but then the cost goes down to almost zero to maintain. But when you use fossil fuels or nuclear energy, the cost is high as long as you keep drilling or running the nuclear plant. China is preparing to run on practically zero energy cost in the future, while the EU and the US are preparing to keep paying for their energy (if they stay on current strategies).
- The Green Divide. This strategy is also relevant on an individual level. Households that can transition to green alternatives (electric vehicles, solar-powered electricity, etc.) will make a significant upfront investment, but their costs will go down over time. This means the people who need the transition the most, for reducing their own long-term cost of living, are the lower-income groups who cannot afford the investment out of pocket. Subsidies for green investments should therefore go to lower income groups, not higher income groups, which has been the strategy up until now. If not, we will get an even larger societal divide between those who can afford to transition away from costly fossil fuel alternatives and those who cannot. In China, there are electric car alternatives in all price ranges — and it is the only real option.
- People are positive – at least from the start. But when we don’t listen to them or take their needs into account, they will become negative. And transitions need to feel fair. Today, we expect people in rural areas to live next to solar plants and mines, and they don’t get anything back. No jobs, no income. Instead, we close down the local school because there are too few students, and we expect people to travel hundreds of miles to visit a doctor. This is not perceived as fair, and naturally, they get upset and critical towards the change and politicians at large. China doesn’t have to care about this, because its leaders are not elected in democratic elections. But in the West, the best strategy instead seems to be a solution where a fair share of investment goes back to the municipalities where they are made, making the people who live there feel like they gain from the change, too.
- The forest matters. China is making extensive and strategic re-forestation investments, both domestically and globally, tied to its global influence and carbon goals. While there are still (relevant) criticisms that its global supply chains are causing significant indirect deforestation, primarily in the Amazon, they are still net-positive and way ahead of the United States and the EU, both from a pure financial volume and symbolic leadership perspective.
- US billionaires are at fault. While not part of Frank’s paper per se, I could not help but ask about who is fueling the NIMBY’s (“not in my backyard”) and societal negativity towards a lot of the green transformations he presented. And while we (at least in Sweden) hear about Chinese disinformation campaigns trying to meddle in Western elections and fuel domestic polarisation, he said that the main disinformation on climate originates from US billionaires who have their own agendas for moving towards less democratic societies. China instead needs the West to transition, because that would mean we would buy their green solutions, like solar panels and electric cars, fueling their economy.
- Positive tipping points. One final concept that we didn’t go into in detail was the idea of “positive” tipping points for the climate. We hear about the negative tipping points that we need to avoid at all costs (the first one already breached), but there are also positive ones. This can, for example, be when enough investments go into a transition, so that the logic starts to benefit the new system instead of the old. This is apparently the case with green energy. The world will move towards green energy because the cost-benefit of that is massive in the long run. This means countries clinging to fossil fuels or building new nuclear plants are not very strategic. But there can be other tipping points as well, like changing transportation or food systems. And while actions on an individual level are not making a big difference in themselves, the focus on our personal consumption is just a way to derail from the real challenges; Changing behaviours does contribute to shifting perceptions, which might help us reach more positive tipping points faster.
As a climate-conscious individual, I reflect a lot on the changes I make to my consumption patterns. I don’t believe my actions have a direct impact on a larger scale. Instead, I realise that the choices I make make me less dependent on energy prices, food prices, inflation, and lots of other things that put stress on households and individuals.
There is so much research on what humans need to thrive, and I’ve yet to come across a research paper that concludes that buying more stuff contributes positively to our lives.
It’s a purely egoistic choice to live more intentionally. But it is also a luxury I can afford — the critics would call it “elitist behaviour”.
/Anna
—
RECOMMENDATIONS THIS WEEK
CLIMATE and STRATEGY — A group of climate experts argues that carbon offsets are failing to reduce emissions and are instead weakening global decarbonisation by making pollution cheaper than it should be.
