Why does it matter?
Because you can’t win a war by marching in the wrong direction.
The war against climate change is no exception. Nor are efforts to reduce energy prices, increase energy security, and help industries burdened by energy costs.
The world may have the budget for the war, the machines and the men. They may be motivated and marching fast. But if they are marching in the wrong direction … .
We’ve thrown trillions at emissions reduction. We’ve got smart people working hard on everything from climate modelling to investing newer, better, cheaper green technologies, to rolling them out everywhere.
But are we winning? Can we meet the 1.5 degree target (no chance) or even the 2 degree target? Are power prices low enough? Or are they fueling political discord and extreme politics? Can Western, especially European, industry compete?
We can’t win these struggles without the right strategies. And if you have seen or heard about our work, and how we have identified novel or overlooked ways to reduce emissions by gigatons, with big benefits for energy prices, energy security and industry (everything from heavy industry to AI), generally while lowering costs, you know that our work is all about the strategy – about marching in the right direction.
Is supporting the ISE the only way I can reduce emissions by gigatons, reduce energy prices, increase energy security, and save industry?
No. You could instead donate around two trillion dollars to building new nuclear power plants. That’s about enough to deliver the same emissions and power price benefits over 20 years when the plants are operating.
We don’t want to discourage you from supporting new nuclear. But if you need to choose between donating two trillion dollars to new nuclear or zero trillion dollars to the ISE, note that the changes our work supports would bring roughly the same benefits much sooner.
We can only do it with your help. It would be great if we could keep moving full speed ahead at no cost, but moving at any speed has costs (see below) and we need to cover them.
If you are reading this, you probably already know one answer: Groundbreaking studies and analysis that the world needs to see.
There is another answer. We focus on energy and related decisions and policies, almost all of which affect emissions. And there are lots of organizations focused on emissions. The difference? We are neither climate scientists (there are, fortunately, many smart people working for great organizations who are), nor sustainability experts or green experts. Yes, there is a lot of green on our website – we like green as much as anyone. But green websites don’t save the climate.
Saving the climate requires reducing energy emissions. Around 75% of man-made emissions are from producing electricity, or from using energy for things that the world aims to power with more electricity. Finding the best way to reduce those emissions requires energy expertise. We are energy experts – with analytical, economic, and modelling skills, training, and experience. This is rather unique. The portion of energy related climate change studies authored by people from the energy sector is shockingly low. Whereas our combination of energy expertise and other skills enables us to produce those unique studies and analysis that the world needs to see.
Put another way, much of what makes us different is summed up by our mission – Clear thinking about energy, the economy, the environment, and fighting climate change.
It would be nice if it were enough to just do the analysis right, find the best solutions, and the world would adopt them. But while seeking the truth may be admirable, there is something to be said for Lux et veritas – truth and light.
Our efforts are divided between research and analysis on the one hand, and getting the word out on the other, including writing articles, speaking and presenting, preparing videos and webinars, and communicating with journalists, and policy makers and influencers.
If you want to change the world, it is not enough to say something once. You have to say it again and again. And you have to respond to comments, questions and objections. From policy makers, journalists, companies, and from people who know in their hearts – or wallets – that what they are doing is right.
To say it again, to be heard above the noise, and to further improve our analysis and recommendations, we need to keep working. Each new study, new update, or new analysis focused on a particular question is a new opportunity for new media and social media coverage and attention. And each bit of coverage can lead to more, as well as to meetings with policy makers, speaking engagements, and so on, potentially with a snowballing effect.
Planned new research and analysis includes:
- More detailed global studies. Though we have demonstrated that results are very unlikely to be fundamentally different in most countries, it is much more compelling and convincing to do the modelling and show actual results for (power markets in) the US, for China, for India and Japan, and other countries. Ideally for the rest of the EU states as well. We also aim to identify outlier countries where the results actually will, at some point, be fundamentally different – the exceptions that prove the rule.
- Adding more details and scenarios. Though we have demonstrated that various uncertainties or things that could happen in the future are very unlikely to fundamentally change any conclusions, many will not be convinced until we actually model the “what if’s” and show the results. Especially in a world where so many will cling to reasons not to change their minds.
- Updates. The world is always changing. Among other things, tomorrow’s current policy scenario will always be different from today’s. So why should anyone believe us if the world has changed – even if we have demonstrated how incredibly large changes would need to be to change the key conclusions? The answer is to stay on top of the story with updates.
- More detailed and specific recommendations for individual countries or power-markets, as well as for business and consumer decisions.
Our studies are not the last word on their topics. They cannot possibly be. If you want to know for sure what the world will look like in 2040, wait until 2040. Rather, given how they have invalidated much of what came before, they are almost the first word. There is room for more and more work building on our studies. But if we become silent, the conversation risks being dominated by those who do not like the first word. It could even appear that they have objections that cannot be answered, as we are the first place journalists and policy makers will turn to for answers to objections to our work. We need to keep pushing forward so that cannot happen.
It would be nice if it were enough to just do the analysis right, find the best solutions, and the world would adopt them. But while seeking the truth may be admirable, there is something to be said for Lux et veritas – truth and light.
Our efforts are divided between research and analysis on the one hand, and getting the word out on the other, including writing articles, speaking and presenting, preparing videos and webinars, and communicating with journalists, and policy makers and influencers.
If you want to change the world, it is not enough to say something once. You have to say it again and again. And you have to respond to comments, questions and objections. From policy makers, journalists, companies, and from people who know in their hearts – or wallets – that what they are doing is right.
To say it again, to be heard above the noise, and to further improve our analysis and recommendations, we need to keep working. Each new study, new update, or new analysis focused on a particular question is a new opportunity for new media and social media coverage and attention. And each bit of coverage can lead to more, as well as to meetings with policy makers, speaking engagements, and so on, potentially with a snowballing effect.
Planned new research and analysis includes:
- More detailed global studies. Though we have demonstrated that results are very unlikely to be fundamentally different in most countries, it is much more compelling and convincing to do the modelling and show actual results for (power markets in) the US, for China, for India and Japan, and other countries. Ideally for the rest of the EU states as well. We also aim to identify outlier countries where the results actually will, at some point, be fundamentally different – the exceptions that prove the rule.
- Adding more details and scenarios. Though we have demonstrated that various uncertainties or things that could happen in the future are very unlikely to fundamentally change any conclusions, many will not be convinced until we actually model the “what if’s” and show the results. Especially in a world where so many will cling to reasons not to change their minds.
- Updates. The world is always changing. Among other things, tomorrow’s current policy scenario will always be different from today’s. So why should anyone believe us if the world has changed – even if we have demonstrated how incredibly large changes would need to be to change the key conclusions? The answer is to stay on top of the story with updates.
- More detailed and specific recommendations for individual countries or power-markets, as well as for business and consumer decisions.
Our studies are not the last word on their topics. They cannot possibly be. If you want to know for sure what the world will look like in 2040, wait until 2040. Rather, given how they have invalidated much of what came before, they are almost the first word. There is room for more and more work building on our studies. But if we become silent, the conversation risks being dominated by those who do not like the first word. It could even appear that they have objections that cannot be answered, as we are the first place journalists and policy makers will turn to for answers to objections to our work. We need to keep pushing forward so that cannot happen.