The unsustainable reality of green technology

On Friday 7 February, Secretary of State for Energy Ed Miliband confirmed the government’s commitment to the introduction of carbon capture technology. This commitment was announced despite concerns raised by the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee regarding its effectiveness and its impact on taxpayers. The plan to invest in carbon capture has been under discussion since October last year, with the government pledging £22 billion to the scheme.

Research into carbon capture began in the mid-1990s as a possible way to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. The technology works by capturing CO2 at the source, before compressing it and transporting it through pipelines to be stored deep underground. This can be used in places such as oil refineries, cement factories, or power plants utilising fossil fuels which inevitably release CO2. This means that the use of carbon capture allows for the continued use of fossil fuels but with the wonderful, shiny promise of near-zero carbon emissions.

Green technologies such as electric cars, solar, and wind energy have their own ugly, dirty realities

As reported by the BBC, Miliband said that he was “100% committed” to the government’s climate goals to reach carbon net zero by 2050, seemingly taking the view that the use of carbon capture is necessary to this goal. Indeed, carbon capture is considered a form of green technology and in recent years green tech has been gaining huge amounts of traction globally, with the industry growing over 500% in just 20 years. But while aiming for net-zero emissions is obviously a good cause, I cannot help but feel that our focus on “green” and “clean” energy utterly misses the point.

Carbon capture is one thing. Its critics argue that it only allows for the continued use of fossil fuels at the benefit of powerful oil and gas companies despite their clear damages to the earth. But it’s not just carbon capture – green technologies such as electric cars, solar, and wind energy have their own ugly, dirty realities.

Experts at the UNEP-WCMC have predicted that there needs to be a sixfold increase in production of minerals such as aluminium, copper, lithium, and zinc in order to achieve net zero by 2050 – this of course is counting the relative growth in energy demand. This statistic highlights the vast number of raw materials required in the coming “energy revolution”, and given the destruction that mining can leave in its wake – especially when driven by profit – this industrial revolution looks as bloody as the last.

In 2022, each Briton produced 200 times the climate emissions of the average Congolese

Mining is a hugely taxing industry, one that requires heavy labour and involves the extreme degradation of land; 99% of this labour is in the Global South. As reported by Max Wilbert, the global mineral supply chain is rife with violence, sexual abuse, displacement, and environmental destruction. But what is more horrifying is the way in which this violence is sanctified in international free trade organisations made by, and for, the wealthy and their corporations.

Wilbert gives an example of an incident in 2019. After facing the threat of a fine that could amount to a quarter of its government’s budget from arbitrators at the World Bank, Pakistan was forced to permit an Australian mining company’s opening of a copper-gold mine, despite concerns over community opposition and the company’s lack of environmental considerations. And as the world’s wealthy scramble to gain dominance of these resources as a solution to its climate problem, incidents such as these will increase.

Thijs Jozef Willem Schmidt explains how our current economic system and climate change are interlinked, noting how capitalism and industrialisation have transformed our consumption habits from basic needs to mass consumption. It is thought provoking to observe how this consumption has also been tied to a supposed “high-quality of life” in so-called “developed” countries. In 2022, each Briton produced 200 times the climate emissions of the average Congolese. Consider what we accept in our daily lives, from huge supermarkets of pristine-plastic-packaged foods imported via fossil fuels from the Global South, to the fashion corporations which turn hundreds of styles a week, and the whole fanfare of “innovation” and “advancement” over the latest AI technology.

We cannot expect to continue with our high-carbon, high-energy lifestyles if we are to put an end to the climate crisis

But the truth is the fashion industry is a hugely polluting industry. Our supermarket culture contributes to a plethora of environmental issues, and AI only demands more energy and water than what we can afford. Not only is this telling of the West’s climate hypocrisy, but also of the dangerous levels of energy consumption and consumerism that the West deems as necessary to its “development”. It demands the use of raw materials and energy consumption at an excessive speed and volume that is placing a damning strain upon our environment.

Expecting green tech to keep up with this demand seems no better than business as usual, both in humanitarian and environmental terms. Some thinkers view industrial capitalism as an “iron cage“, where this economic system based on profit and consumption will undoubtedly lead to climate breakdown. On the other hand, some argue that capitalism can be “greened”, seeing it as a flexible system which responds to market demand. But, as sociologist Andrew Sayer points out, we cannot expect to continue with our high-carbon, high-energy lifestyles if we are to put an end to the climate crisis. It will require a radical change to our habits, cultures, and especially our economic systems. Our governments need to also be ready to accept this fact as the climate further deteriorates and urgently prepare for this shift.

As put by Sayer: “the world cannot afford the rich“, and something has to give.