Does your preferred climate solution pass the “Mom Test”?
Getting Candid about Climate Solutions
Climate change: We know it’s happening. We know we are heading for a Hothouse Earth. We know we have to do something about it. Not just “something” — something significant.
@Peters_Glen: If we are heading for a Hothouse Earth, or just want to stay “well below 2°C”, the challenge is the same. Emissions must go to zero in the space of decades, or we need large-scale negative emissions (with the associated risks) to compensate for slower emission reductions.
The longer we delay getting to zero (ZERO!) the more we will need negative emissions — that is, to literally remove carbon from the atmosphere (go BEYOND zero!!!)
That’s a huge challenge. We need all hands on deck. We need to roll up our sleeves and figure out exactly what we’re going to do. And then we need to actually do it.
Don’t panic! We’re amazingly capable people when we put our minds to it. Look at all the things we’ve done on this planet so far! Look at the amazing things you do on a regular basis. You’ve got skills. Take the Player’s Pledge.
If we focus, if we get systematic and candid — we can do this. We can find a creative, practical way through this problem. We need to check out the Zero Carbon Coaching Clinic to assess your options, and...
What’s that you say?
We don’t need to trouble ourselves with some coaching clinic. We already know the solutions.
Do we, though?
Yes. 100% renewables. The main problem is political will. Al Gore said so.
Did he, though? In the last post, we looked to Al Gore and the Climate Reality Project. We found that he/they do a fantastic job explaining climate change is real and inspiring people to do something about it. Unfortunately, they aren’t clear on what that something is.
They, like many organizations, do a great job asking for 100% commitment to solving the problem.
But a commitment is not a solution. And your solution needs to pass the “Mom Test”…
What are you talking about? The solutions are obvious! Everybody knows what the solutions are. Like they say. 100% Renewable energy! Mom and everyone would surely approve.
Well yes, I know it seems that way…
“The Public wants 100% Renewable Energy and Quick”
You may have seen David Roberts’ article, “Utilities have a problem: the public wants 100% renewable energy and quick.”
Utilities, he reports,
…do not like the idea of being forced to transition entirely to renewable energy, certainly not in the next 10 to 15 years. For one thing, most of them don’t believe the technology exists to make 100 percent work reliably; they believe that even with lots of storage, variable renewables will need to be balanced out by “dispatchable” power plants like natural gas.
And they are “terrified” of the Public, “stampeding” in the direction of 100% renewables.
The Edison Electric Institute, a trade group for utilities, conducted market research and polling that shows:
- 70% of the public want 100% renewable electricity now.
- 50% say they want it, even if the electricity will cost 30% more!
That’s a slam dunk!
The public wants 100% renewables, and are willing to pay for it!
The takeaway: Renewables are a public opinion juggernaut. Being against them is no longer an option. The industry’s best and only hope is to slow down the stampede a bit (and that’s what they plan to try).
Three Action Camps, One Mom Test
Another takeaway from the article is that there are basically three groups in the 100% renewables debate. Which one are you in?
The first, with most activists and advocates, supports 100 percent renewables as a clear, intuitive, and inspiring target, an effective way to rally public support and speed the transition.
The second camp believes that the cheaper, safer way to get to carbon-free electricity is not to rely entirely on renewables but to supplement them with “firm” zero-carbon alternatives like hydro, nuclear, geothermal, biomass, or fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration. (See this paper, from a group of MIT researchers, for the best articulation of that argument.) This camp supports the strategy California has taken, which is to mandate 100 percent “zero carbon” rather than “renewable” resources, to leave flexibility.
The third camp, containing many utilities and conservatives, flatly doesn’t believe 100 percent carbon-free electricity is possible anytime soon, and would just as soon not close working fossil fuel power plants before the end of their profitable lives. They would like to continue balancing the rising share of renewables with natural gas.
Which camp is mom (Mother Earth?) in? Before we take a shot at answering that…
Disclosure
I’m the founder of Footprint to Wings, a 501c3 that is turning the race to “zero carbon” into a national pastime.
That puts us in the second camp. We’re open to whatever gets you to zero carbon. If you can figure out a 100% renewable path — more power to you! If you’re struggling, that’s OK too! We won’t force people to be 100% renewable if they don’t want to be. We’ve taken the Coaches Pledge and promise to uphold the Player’s Rights, including:
The right to play at a level determined to match my commitment, political-economic orientation and ability. (The race is trans-partisan)
The right to explore all the options, presented in a clear and comparable manner free of double standards, with full disclosure of conflicts of interest.
Now as an activist or advocate for 100% renewable, you may think we are being too lax with people: 100% renewables is the only way to go. We don’t need that “zero carbon” fall-back. That’s just a distraction! Anyway, as you just read, the market research shows the people want 100% renewable.The people have spoken!
The people have spoken.
But have they?
Does this market research pass the Mom Test?
“The Mom Test” is a book by Rob Fitzpatrick about how to get reliable, non-biased feedback from people when you’re starting a business.
According to “The Mom Test,” we live in a world where everyone is lying to you, even your mom.
“They say you shouldn’t ask your mom whether your business is a good idea, because she loves you and will lie to you. This is technically true, but it misses the point. You shouldn’t ask anyone if your business is a good idea.”
If everyone is lying to you, the trick is to ask questions in a way that people can’t lie to you.
How does that work?
Substitute “energy solutions” for “business” and let’s get back to the Utility Market Research in progress.
Utility: “Do you want 100% renewable electricity?”
Public: “Yes. Of course!”
Utility: Even if it costs 30% more?
Public: “Yes! Bring it on!”
Utility: “We would need to put solar panels and wind turbines on thousands of acres of land.”
Public: “Land in the US is plentiful. That’s the worst argument I’ve heard.”
Now let’s compare those answers with actual experience.
Time to visit Six Flags.
What Happened at Six Flags?
Six Flags decided to go renewable.
The Public rejoiced.
Then Six Flags revealed their plan — to cut down 15,000 trees on 90 acres of their property adjacent to a wildlife preserve for the solar farm.
“Don’t cut the trees! Put the panels on your parking lot.”
“We need the parking lot for events” said six flags, “and anyway, it’s cheaper to cut the trees.”
Environmentalists took Six Flags to court, and lost. Because, as the judge said — solar is green, you said so yourself. 100% renewables. Remember?
After 3 years of lawsuits, they came to a settlement. Now Six Flags is only cutting down 6,000 trees on 40 acres.
All of this for 23 MW nameplate capacity. Which, because the sun doesn’t shine at night, actually comes to 4 MW equivalent end use power delivered.
4 MWe.
To put this amount of energy in context, New Jersey consumes 9,000 MW equivalent of electricity each year. 4 MWe out of 9000 MWe means the Six Flags drama is one out of 2,250 potential dramas yet to unfold. For electricity only. Before we even get to transport and heating.
There’s a disconnect here.
When asked, “Do you want 100% renewables?” the Public says “YES!”
If asked: “Do you want Six Flags to cut down 90 acres of forest adjacent to natural preserve to install a solar farm?” the Public (and many activists) say: “Heck no, and here’s 3 years of lawsuits to stop you.”
It’s the same question in a more candid form. The second answer shows this solution doesn’t pass the Mom Test.
At this point in the Mom Test, you realize the public may not be truly sold on 100% renewables, so you need to pivot. That means going back to the drawing board and figuring out a range of zero carbon solutions!
Great! Let’s fire up that Zero Carbon Coaching Clinic and…
Not so fast! Six Flags was just one case, poorly handled. The People want 100% renewables and there’s plenty of other land that can be used.
Let’s do another test.
First, let’s get clear on how much land and sea we’re talking about. Mark Jacobson of the Solutions Project has run some numbers. Here are the numbers for a 100% renewable California. Here they are for a 100% renewable New Jersey (video clip).
As you see from the video, a 100% renewable plan for New Jersey involves, among other things, 9,401 offshore wind turbines. The New Jersey coastline is 130 miles long. 9,401 divided by 130 is 72.
So that’s 72 wind turbines. Per mile. Down the entire coast.
When asked, “Do you want 100% renewables?” the Public says “YES!”
If asked: “Do you want 72 wind turbines per mile down the entire East Coast?” what will the Public say?
What are we really saying “Yes” to?
Another test.
What will it take to roll out 100% renewables? In Legal Pathways for a Massive Increase in Utility-Scale Renewable Generation Capacity, Michael Gerrard:
…discusses the four most important legal processes and obstacles involved in this enormous project: site acquisition and approval; the National Environmental Policy Act; state and local approvals; and species protection laws. It also presents recommendations for lowering the obstacles and briefly discusses several corollary actions that are needed.
Six Flags is not a one-off.
Think about those species protection laws. Are you sure the Public wants to roll those back? Here’s a petition to Secretary Zinke to stop the Trump administration assault on the endangered species act. 275,000 signatures so far (add yours today!) suggest the Public is not a fan of this move.
What does this do for our Mom Test?
When asked, “Do you want 100% renewables?” the Public says “YES!”
If asked: “Do you want to strip species protection laws like Trump is doing, except this would be to enable wind and solar power?” what will the Public say?
Coaching Team 100% Renewables
100% Renewables is one of the hardest plays in the playbook. It’s the most technically ambitious, high maintenance, land hungry play. If you are an activist advocating this play, I encourage you to dig deeper into the requirements of the play. Make sure you’ve done your homework, thought through your endgame, realize what’s involved and aren’t just giving a superficial “yes” to the play.
If you’re still enthusiastic about the play after that, you’re still in the game!
We’ll support you in that play and help you figure out all you need to do to make it work. The Race to Zero Carbon is a 50 state race, and we are curious to see which states can actually pull off a 100% renewable game. We expect Team 100% Renewables to keep advancing and improving their game. With help from technology advance, lifestyle change, demand reduction, super smart grids, there may be a way to pull this off.
If you think it through and you’re not enthusiastic about going all the way with 100% renewables, you’re still in the game!
This is a race to Zero Carbon. We’ll support you in exploring alternatives to 100% renewables.
We realize what a HUGE challenge 100% renewables is, and give people permission to swap in zero carbon alternatives. There’s no judgment from us if you get an assist from other zero carbon plays.
There may be judgment from your fellow activists.
Speaking of which, here’s another coaching tip for 100% renewable activists and advocates. You may be thinking, sure, I’d LIKE to do the more flexible “zero carbon” mix, but my supporters want 100% renewables, and they would think I sold out to the utilities and I’d be ostracized and…I can’t let them down!
Well, here’s some good news:
One of the survey’s findings is that under a range of questions, the public does not have a strong preference between increasing renewables and reducing carbon emissions. I doubt most people differentiate the two at all — they are vaguely good, environmental-ish things.
In other words, the majority of your supporters may be more flexible and “zero carbon” oriented than you realize. You may not have to limit yourself. You may have just been asking them the wrong questions. Indeed, your own communications may have generated some kind of option limiting feedback loop.
Whatever way you choose, “…these are implementation details. The decarbonization ship has sailed.” We need to — and it looks like the Public wants to — get to net zero carbon. Except we’re still not sure HOW.
So let’s get on with it, hammer out the path to zero carbon! And figure out what blend of options actually passes the Mom Test!
Like this article? Contribute to Footprint to Wings for more!
And now for a different kind of Mom Test.
Mom Earth is telling you to do your homework: to figure out how to get to zero carbon. Because we’re in the middle of a Test: the test of our ability to solve the existential threat posed by climate change.
Does Footprint to Wings pass the Mom Test for you?
Contribute to validate and advance this work.
To zero carbon, and beyond!
