The fallacy of static analysis and why so many arguments against decarbonization are based on it
I’ve noticed over the years that whenever I try to talk discuss the greatest technological transition in history — the abandonment of fossil fuels and their replacement by electricity, I usually come up against objections about the scarcity of the raw materials required, or the difficulty of recycling some components.
Like moths to a candle, these naysayers churn out the same old arguments: “there isn’t enough lithium for so many batteries”, “rare earths are very scarce and are controlled by China”, or “batteries cannot be recycled and their impact on the environment is terrible.”
The reality? Practically all of these arguments are rooted in a static analysis, which makes no sense when applied to technological transitions. Imagine if someone had tried to estimate the number of solar panels and batteries needed to supply electricity somewhere, 20 years ago? With the price of solar panels and batteries at that time (which have been reduced by 99% and 97% respectively) and their efficiency (which has increased significantly), the idea was simply unimaginable. However, the behavior of these technologies as they developed was empirically well known and predictable, and making decisions based on a static analysis that did not take this evolution into account was…
