fbpx
01 / 05
Technology, Not Politics or Penance, Solves Climate Change

Blog Post | Pollution

Technology, Not Politics or Penance, Solves Climate Change

Is it finally time for the carbon capture revolution?

Summary: Roger Pielke Jr.’s Iron Law of Climate Policy says that reducing atmospheric carbon was never going to succeed by appealing to people’s judgment, as economic growth invariably takes precedence over emissions reductions. At the moment, green technologies are insufficient to replace the fossil fuels that dominate global energy consumption. However, advancements in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, exemplified by companies like Carbfix, may provide a practical solution despite their current inefficiencies and high costs.


We were never going to reduce atmospheric carbon by appealing to people’s better judgement. When the kids are hungry and our subsistence and livelihood is on the line, concerns for a changing climate — today or fifty years into the future — go out the window.

This is climate scientist Roger Pielke Jr.’s Iron Law of Climate Policy: whenever policies for economic growth run up against emissions reductions, economic growth will win out. That is why the Biden Administration stopped pushing high gas prices as a climate change-mitigating measure when the cost of filling up the tank hit records in 2022-23.

We can’t stop economic growth, and considering how valuable growth is for almost every other aspect of human well-being, we definitely shouldn’t. Green technologies are promising and improving, but incapable of replacing the 85%+ of primary energy that come from fossil fuels. What then?

For years, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies have been seen as a possible silver bullet for those who worry about climate change. For an equally long time, all such technologies were too expensive and impractical, but that may be changing.

Carbfix is a company that emerged from a collaboration between the University of Iceland, Reykjavík Energy, the French research institute CNRS, and the Earth Institute at Columbia University. The company believes that its method for turning carbon dioxide into basalt rock will revolutionize the CCS industry. In October, Carbfix was the cover story of National Geographic. In November, its CEO Edda Aradóttir was named among Time magazine’s 100 most influential business climate leaders.

Is it finally time for the carbon capture revolution?

Rush Forward, Slowly

Not quite. If anything, carbon capture projects sink money more than they sink carbon. They’re inefficient and energy intensive. “It’s so energy-intensive that if you add CCS to a coal plant, you’re roughly doubling the amount of coal you need,” says Emily Grubert, a sustainable energy professor in a recent Bloomberg interview.

But none of that matters to many of the participants of a carbon capture conference in Reykjavík this fall. All new technologies must “climb the cost mountain,” said an untroubled Jan Wurzbacher, CEO of Climeworks, whose direct air capture plant Orca outside Reykjavík is the world’s first and largest such facility in the world.

Orca captures about 10 tons of CO2 a day by running industrial-sized fans with specially designed filters to absorb carbon from the air, liquify it, deliver it to Carbfix, which then pumps the CO2 two thousand feet underground using huge amounts of water. The Carbfix method for storing carbon involves dissolving the CO2 into water which then reacts with the Icelandic bedrock, thus starting the mineralization process. The process mimics the slow-moving geological process that makes volcanic rock, and has been investigated in academia and attempted to replicate for decades.

By setting up a scrubbing tower onto an existing power plant—basically a sophisticated filter capturing emissions on-site before sending it down a well to the bedrock to mineralize—Carbfix can get the price of capturing carbon down to the truly impressive mid-$20 range.

When we take all the infrastructure and construction expenses into account, however, the full life-cycle analysis of a direct air capture plant like the one Climeworks operates, is in the hundreds of dollars per ton of CO2 captured and stored—still well above the highest estimates of the social cost of carbon.

All successful innovations take off only when entrepreneurs and inventors bring prices down.  Wurzbacher thinks that’s just a matter of time, hoping that direct air capture and mineralization “can change the way we deal with global warming.”

Mineralization “basically has to be the solution,” said Klaus Lackner of Arizona State University, an early proponent for mineralization. It’s a process that is permanent, scalable, and verifiable. “I’m a technology optimist,” Lackner told the National Geographic, “but I’m a policy pessimist.” Seeing how limited the results are from the tens of thousands of politicians, lobbyists, and scientists making the pilgrimage to Dubai for the UN climate summit this month, it’s hard to disagree.

The state of mineralization as carbon capture might look unpromising. It might be expensive. It might only be workable in some select corners of the world where the bedrock and access to water and electricity are favorable. And we might need some nine million of Orca-type plants—enough to carpet the whole of Maryland—just to offset what humanity emitted in 2021 (i.e., not even reducing the overall atmospheric levels of CO2). 

Yet, what’s so wonderful about CCS, is the implicit admission that plastic straws and “flying shame” were never going to amount to much. Having quotas, limits, taxes, restrictions, and altogether less access to goods and services was never going to fly. Having some hard-working tinkerers experiment and find a way to undo some of the emissions of the last two centuries just might.

Blog Post | Mental Health

The Kids Need Optimism, Not Doom and Degrowth

Not only is the embrace of degrowth misguided, but research suggests that this doomsday mindset is causing widespread anxiety in young people.

Summary: Degrowth solutions to climate problems are environmentally misguided, and also they foster anxiety and guilt in children, damaging the mental health of young people. Technological innovation is the best path to ecological protection and improved living standards. For these reasons, and also for the improvement of mental health, empowering pro-growth solutions to climate concerns are preferable to degrowth and pessimism.


My kids love nature and we go camping as a family frequently, but as a parent, I’m concerned about some of the messaging they receive on conservation. My husband and I talk about environmental stewardship with our children by emphasizing the eco-modernist approach: Human beings have the unique ability to innovate their way out of problems, creating technological solutions that benefit both people and the planet. Unfortunately, children today are often bombarded with messages of an impending apocalypse that can only be warded off by lowering living standards and embracing “degrowth.”

After a movie at her school about garbage in the oceans left her in tears as a teenager, Greta Thunberg came to believe that “technological solutions” and nondestructive economic growth are “fairytales.” But in the years following that formative experience, scientists have invented cleanup ships that consume ocean plastic as fuel and developed a type of plastic that harmlessly dissolves. Since the 1960s, global carbon dioxide emissions per dollar of gross domestic product have steadily declined, as technologies become greener and businesses cut energy costs. Yet Thunberg’s mindset still mirrors the messages she received growing up.

In the United States, many public elementary schools now devote one day during Earth Week to “zero waste” through the reduction of consumption. But it’s also possible to reduce waste through dematerialization: doing more with less via technology. Just think of all the devices a single smartphone replaces.

Even popular culture sometimes promotes this apocalyptic degrowth mindset to children. In a recent animated Disney movie called Strange World, the characters must give up electricity and drink cold coffee to protect a giant turtle-like creature and save their planet. In reality, protecting wildlife and rising living standards go hand in hand: Beloved species such as the loggerhead turtle are rebounding in wealthy parts of the world, which have far more resources to devote to environmental protection than poor areas. Richer countries usually score higher on Yale’s Environmental Performance Index.

Not only is the embrace of degrowth misguided, but research suggests that this doomsday mindset is causing widespread anxiety in young people. More than half of US youths aged 15–29 report experiencing “eco-anxiety,” a level of psychological distress that affects daily life, according to a 2024 poll. Another 2024 poll found that American middle and high school students’ most commonly reported emotional reactions to the thought of climate change were sadness, discouragement, helplessness, and uneasiness. A peer-reviewed paper explains how “climate anxiety can lead to symptoms such as panic attacks, loss of appetite, irritability, weakness and sleeplessness.” And that anxiety is international: A study from 2021, surveying 10,000 children and young people aged 16–25 in 10 countries, found that 59 percent of respondents were very or extremely worried about climate change, and more than 45 percent of respondents said those feelings negatively affected daily life and basic functioning.

On Earth Day, my kindergartner came home from school having been told a familiar message: Riding a bike is better for the planet than driving a car. Her preschool had emphasized the same idea the year before. Many people love bicycles, but as the economist Tyler Cowen has pointed out, outside of poor countries, most people prefer cars to biking—and for good reason. For instance, without our minivan, it would be nearly impossible for my family to get around with three young kids, along with their snacks, spare clothes, and everything else.

Rather than romanticizing bicycling, what if we focused more on technological solutions that make driving cleaner or reduce commutes? That could mean greater freedom to innovate in fuel efficiency, easing regulations that limit electric cars’ potential to compete with traditional cars in the market, or removing outdated government barriers to remote work—such as telemedicine restrictions—to cut commutes. Zoning reform allowing more housing near workplaces could also reduce commutes and the associated pollution.

Instead of rushing to solutions that require lowering living standards via coercive government mandates or expensive taxpayer-funded subsidies, we should focus on the freedom to make technological advances that raise our standard of living while also mitigating environmental harm. An advantage of that approach is that it may also improve the mental health of young people—which would set this mom’s mind at ease.

This article was originally published in the summer 2025 issue of FreeSociety.

CNN | Conservation & Biodiversity

Colossal Biosciences to De-extinct Giant Flightless Bird

“Genetic engineering startup Colossal Biosciences has added the South Island giant moa — a powerful, long-necked species that stood 10 feet (3 meters) tall and may have kicked in self-defense — to a fast-expanding list of animals it wants to resurrect by genetically modifying their closest living relatives.

The company stirred widespread excitement, as well as controversy, when it announced the birth of what it described as three dire wolf pups in April. Colossal scientists said they had resurrected the canine predator last seen 10,000 years ago by using ancient DNA, cloning and gene-editing technology to alter the genetic make-up of the gray wolf, in a process the company calls de-extinction. Similar efforts to bring back the woolly mammoth, the dodo and the thylacine, better known as the Tasmanian tiger, are also underway. 

To restore the moa, Colossal Biosciences announced Tuesday it would collaborate with New Zealand’s Ngāi Tahu Research Centre, an institution based at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, that was founded to support the Ngāi Tahu, the main Māori tribe of the southern region of New Zealand.

The project would initially involve recovering and analyzing ancient DNA from nine moa species to understand how the giant moa (Dinornis robustus) differed from living and extinct relatives in order to decode its unique genetic makeup, according to a company statement.”

From CNN.

Oceanographic Magazine | Conservation & Biodiversity

Maldives Coral Reef Restoration Takes Pioneering Step Forwards

“Coral reef restoration in the Maldives is taking a pioneering step forwards thanks to a cross-collaborative effort between local marine biologists and scientists from the Australian Institute of Marine Science that has engaged groundbreaking new technology to enable reef restoration in some of the world’s most remote underwater locations.

Using this pioneering new, portable reef aquaculture system – one known as ReefSeed – researchers from the Maldives Marine Research Initiative (MMRI) have now successfully reared more than three million larvae and deployed more than 10,000 juvenile corals on 720 seeding devices at nine different reef locations.”

From Oceanographic Magazine.

European Environment Agency | Pollution

European Union Reports Pollution Lower in 2023 than in 2005

“In 2023, emissions of all pollutants were lower than in 2005 (or in 2000 for PM) (Table 3.1).Emission trends for NOX, NMVOCs, SOX, NH3 and PM 2.5 are presented in Figure 3.1. For the main pollutants, the largest reductions, in percent, across the EU were for SOX emissions. SOX reduced by 95% since 1990 and by 14% since the previous reporting cycle. This was followed by NOX,which reduced by 66% since 1990 and by 3% since the previous reporting cycle. NMVOCs reduced by 63% since 1990 and by 4% since the previous reporting cycle. NH3 reduced by 36%since 1990, while the emissions did not reduce since the previous reporting cycle. PM 2.5 reduced by 41% since 2000 and by 6% since the previous reporting cycle.”

From European Environment Agency.