r capture technologies capable of producing what has been called “air-to-fuels.” If we can find a way to put carbon dioxide to beneficial use, we have the potential to address the climate challenge while reducing the near-term disruption to economies, communities, and systems that depend on the production and transformation of fossil fuels and liquid fuels.
In the realm of nuclear energy, new designs are being tested that could lead to the deployment of small modular reactors, or even microreactors, in remote locations.
Outside of energy, nascent efforts are under way to develop low-emissions technologies for the production of cement, chemicals, steel, and other materials that lay the foundation for modern life.
Policy Design Principles
What does a comprehensive and technology-inclusive strategy, that drives toward net-zero emissions, imply for policy design? It means we frame our ultimate policy goals in terms of net emissions, rather than limiting ourselves only to goals that specify the set of viable technologies, or to policies that require every individual source to release zero emissions. Such policies would become increasingly difficult as deeper reductions are sought. The clean energy sources that are thriving today, such as wind and solar energy, may well play a dominant role in achieving those goals. But the key is that we don’t predetermine the outcome; instead, we allow a diverse set of technologies to compete to achieve our goals at the lowest possible cost and to the greatest effect.
A technology-inclusive approach is facilitated by broad carbon pricing. This policy shift creates the right incentives for producers and consumers and is feasible the world over: governments around the world and in various US states have adopted some version of carbon pricing, either in the form of carbon fees or cap-and-trade programs.
Properly pricing carbon can also take the form of incentives for early-stage deployment of low-carbon technologies and correct accounting for climate risks in public and private investment decisions, using metrics such as the social cost of carbon.
A technology-inclusive approach applies performance standards that are flexible, tradable, and can be met through a range of approaches, rather than limited to only a subset of technologies. Automobile fuel economy and appliance efficiency standards are two examples that require companies to meet certain benchmarks of performance for the products they sell. And increased interest in low-carbon alternatives is emerging for a range of products—from fuels to concrete to food—and coming from both producers and consumers.
Companies themselves are seeing value in achieving higher performance in the products they manufacture and buy than may be required by policy. Take, for example, the wide range of companies that have committed to using 100 percent clean power, or have set ambitious goals for decarbonizing their business.
In the United States, there is substantial interest in the possibility of Clean Energy Standards for electricity, through which a range of technologies—from renewables and nuclear to natural gas and carbon capture and storage—could make the power sector 100 percent clean (net-zero emissions) over time. For liquid fuels, California’s low-carbon fuel standard includes a broad set of pathways for lowering carbon content, from biofuels and electric vehicles to emission offsets through direct air capture.
And, crucially, a technology-inclusive approach means investing heavily in developing new innovations; seeking the approaches that are the most effective, scalable, and cost efficient; and ultimately deploying the most promising technologies to address the multitude of emissions sources across the globe. This approach is a humble one; it acknowledges that governments do not—and cannot—predict the future of technological development. Nor can any of us. Instead, the approach leverages a confidence that human ingenuity will surprise us all, as it has many times in the past.
If we want these new technologies to move from the lab or the pilot stag