FAST-TRACKING THE ENERGY TRANSITION

WHY SPPEEDING UP THE PACE OF CHANGE IS BETTER, & HOW TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN WRITTEN

- DAMIEN MARTIN

Change is tough. Humans are creatures of habit. We like what we like. We like what we know. The bigger the change, the harder it can be to embrace. But change is also inevitable, and many times the cost of staying the same is much higher than the cost of change. In the case of the clean energy transition, the scale of change is monumental. It affects everyone in myriad ways. In that regard, it's no surprise that there's some resistance to changing at all, and that others push for a gradual change. We'd be better off, though, fast-tracking the energy transition.

NATURE-POSITIVE

We've already seen lots of ill effects of climate change, from wildfires to intense hurricanes to floods to crop failures. Even as we act to reduce carbon emissions, we can't undo the damage that is already done. With lagging indicators, we could see bad results from climate change for years and decades after achieving net zero. So, decarbonizing as fast as possible is paramount.

When it comes to the impact of fast-tracking the energy transition, a study by Boston Consulting Group and the World Wildlife Fund found that a rapid transition would yield better outcomes for nature and the climate than a business-as-usual continuation of current energy policies in 27 of 30 metrics. The three metrics that showed worse results under a rapid transition were land use, water use, and free-flowing rivers. In the case of land use, the extra land taken up for renewable energy infrastructure would pale in comparison to the amount of land lost or degraded by climate change in the business-as-usual scenario.