Investing in Black Swan Technologies

Black-swan-technology

What matters isn’t just technology investment, but also the kind of technology investment. Near-term carbon reductions -- such as switching from coal to natural gas, building wind turbines, or incrementally increasing residential energy efficiency -- are nice, but they’re not enough. What we need are more efforts to speed up and expand the search for “black swan” technologies: innovations that disrupt our current trajectory and establish economically feasible means of reducing carbon, to build what I call our “economic carbon reduction capacity.” These advances are crucial for the simple reason that the clean technologies we have now are not enough -- we are not yet at a point where we can simply “deploy” our way to a prosperous, ultra-low carbon future. Our current suite of policies makes the mistake of putting nearly all of our efforts into using the limited tools we have in our carbon-reduction toolbox today, when we should also be focusing on developing the better tools of tomorrow.  

First, let’s look at the problems with the status quo approach. Given a 3.1 percent global GDP growth rate, McKinsey has estimated that the carbon efficiency of the world’s GDP needs to grow at about 5.6 percent per year to meet the recommended global targets of 80 percent carbon reduction by 2050. Many argue that since we already have some technology today, we should simply deploy it. I believe doing this alone runs the risk of spending a significant amount of money on infrastructure that will require continued subsidies to survive. By diving into ambitious deployment efforts -- for instance, massively scaling wind farms or today’s geologic carbon capture and sequestration technology -- too early, we will be yoking ourselves to a carbon-reduction plan that is massively expensive to build and maintain.

As an alternative, we could aggressively develop next-generation technologies which build our economic carbon reduction capacity, while continuing to deploy current technologies on a limited basis to drive continuous improvements. This shift in focus will help change the cost equation by developing more economic clean technologies, and increase the likelihood that economic gravity -- not subsidies or government imperatives -- drives large-scale deployment on a broad scale. This strategy may yield fewer emissions reductions in the short term, but will enable faster and more economic carbon reduction in the coming decades.

I am most interested in consumer Web startups and the venture capital relating to them. However, I've been known to write about cleantech and climate change from time to time too.

The above excerpt is from a great piece in Foreign Policy by Vinod Khosla, a renowned cleantech investor and visionary. In it, he articulates better than anyone I have heard so far the argument for the correct types of cleantech investment. He argues that the incremental innovations as he calls them, or the near-term carbon reductions such as incrementally increasing residential energy are nice but not enough. Our society and government, he goes on to say, is currently too focused on the incremental innovations of today, instead of the black swan technologies, or the truly disruptive technologies of tomorrow. 

These black swans will have a high failure rate of course, but the successful ones will finally provide the economically feasible means of reducing carbon that we need. As Khosla mentions, 
"Even 10 Google-like disruptions out of 10,000 shots will completely upend conventional wisdom, econometric forecasts, and, most importantly, our energy future."
Instead of deploying what is currently available today we need to aggressively encourage development of more long shot black swans.

Simply put, we need more shots on goal. 

Filed under  //  cleantech   climate change   venture capital  
Posted

California Defends Climate Law, Cleantech Industry Set to Take "Quantum Leap" Forward

California voters defended their landmark climate law by rejecting Proposition 23 yesterday, ending questions over whether the state's 2006 legislation aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions would be suspended until the state unemployment rate fell by more than half.

While election results in the rest of the nation make the outlook for federal climate legislation dim, yesterday's vote in California solidifies the position of the state as the country's bastion of the clean energy economy, whose outsized GDP will unavoidably influence policy and commerce across the nation as its climate law gets implemented.

Some 61 percent of voters rejected Prop. 23. While pre-election polls indicated they were likely to turn down the controversial ballot measure, which was largely funded by out-of-state oil interests, the overwhelming defeat has advocates thrilled. 

What It Means for California: Clean Energy Agenda to Take "Quantum Leap"

Governor-elect Jerry Brown, who served two terms as the state’s governor in the 1970s, promoted a detailed clean energy jobs plan during his campaign and has said he supports the Global Warming Solutions Act, which sets targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Broad public support combined with AB 32’s policy muscle “positions California very well to take a quantum leap forward for clean energy,” Crowfoot said. “We’ve made clean energy a mainstream issue here.”

To me, this was the most important proposition on the California ballot this year. Had Prop 23 passed it would have drastically slowed VC investment into cleantech and sent the sector back for years.

The cleantech industry in the U.S. has already struggled for years due to uncertainty in the venture market (too few exits) and fears that businesses will require too much capital over their lifetime. Meanwhile, investment and innovation in cleantech has been flourishing internationally (read: China).

Cleantech is an industry that the U.S. cannot afford to be behind in. Hopefully this strong victory will serve as a vote of confidence and recharge investment in the sector.

Filed under  //  cleantech   climate change   venture capital  
Posted

Obama shifts Copenhagen visit to boost deal

The move means Obama will be at the summit on Dec. 18, considered a crucial period when more leaders will be in attendance, as opposed to his scheduled stop in Denmark on Wednesday on his way to Nobel Peace Prize events in Oslo.

It also means that Obama will be squeezing in a separate, 10th foreign trip before Christmas — a record pace of travel for a first-year president — as a means to giving momentum to a deal aimed at combatting global warming.

Obama will now leave for Oslo late Wednesday, attend Nobel events Thursday and return to Washington on Friday.

Obama had said that he would travel to the Copenhagen conference if his appearance would help clinch a deal. His decision to go early to the two-week meeting was looked upon by many as a sign that an agreement was still a long shot.

But now with the U.S., India and China all with specific proposals on the table for the first time, a political agreement seems more likely. World leaders are no longer expected to reach a legally binding agreement, as had long been the goal, but are aiming for a deal that includes commitments on reducing emissions and financing for developing countries.

This is great. I'm really glad to see that Obama is getting serious about Copenhagen. We may get an agreement there after all.

Filed under  //  climate change   politics  
Posted

Climate change cover-up? You better believe it

Sadly for the potential fate of human civilization, rumors of the demise of climate change have been much exaggerated. The past decade recorded nine of the warmest years in recent history as well as the rapid dwindling of Arctic sea ice, surely the result of imminent global cooling if climate change contrarians are to be believed. After all, one of the most "damaging" emails in question from Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., is actually mourning the paucity of Earth observation systems and data in the past decade, such as satellites (gutted by a lack of funding and launch miscues in recent years) to monitor climate change in the midst of natural variability.

The "Copenhagen Diagnosis" released today reveals that by any objective measure—melting ice sheets, greenhouse gas concentrations, sea level rise—the climate is warming faster than anticipated. And when the natural variability induced by massive climate systems such as oscillations over decades in ocean temperatures, currents and even sunspots reverts to the mean, the roughly three warming watts per square meter added by greenhouse gases will still be there to drive climate change.

Filed under  //  climate change  
Posted