Obtain the data you need to make the most informed decisions by accessing our extensive portfolio of information, analytics, and expertise. Sign in to the product or service center of your choice.
One of the big takeaways from the International Energy Agency's
(IEA) recently published net-zero "roadmap" is that public and
private institutions will have to rapidly and substantially
increase clean energy investments if the world is to reach
carbon-neutral energy production and use.
"Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for
the Global Energy Sector" laid bare the gap between the
commitments that governments have been making to reach net zero by
2050 and the actions taken to date. It outlined comprehensive
strategies that could close that gap, such as a halt this year to
all investment in expansion of coal mines, construction of unabated
coal-fired power plants, and exploration of new oil and natural gas
fields.
Speaking at the Columbia Global Energy Summit
on 19 May, Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEA, said global
investment in energy production today is about $2 trillion per
year, with about $800 billion of that going toward fossil fuels and
$1.2 billion on clean energy. Investment will need to rise to about
$5 trillion per year by 2050, almost all of which needs to be
devoted to clean energy, Birol said. "The key is mobilizing the
investments," he said.
"There are technologies that are under development today, such
as advanced batteries, hydrogen, direct air capture—and we have
to push the button of innovation," Birol said.
"Now, is it possible?" he asked. "When I look at the global
capital that's available, I believe it is possible."
Speaking 20 May during another session of the Columbia
University summit, venture capitalist Carmichael Roberts, managing
partner of Material Impact and investment co-leader at Breakthrough
Energy, agreed wholeheartedly. "Financing [presents] a phenomenal
opportunity to aggregate the resources you need for breakthrough
energy," he said.
"Public and private investment are both critical; they need to
work synergistically," Carmichael said. "On the private side now,
every category [of investor] is participating in overall climate
funding. Seed funds, venture capital firms, hedge funds, Fidelity
Investments, T. Rowe Price, Barclays, Goldman Sachs. All of a
sudden, we have [special purpose acquisition companies] that allow
companies to go public and people to own a share" of the energy
transition.
Venture capitalists bring an entrepreneurial mindset to the
energy transition. "There's almost a revolution going on from a VC
perspective that climate has become, arguably, the most exciting
thing to invest in ... if you look at dollars and the number of
firms directly or indirectly investing in climate change
[solutions]. And I will go on record that this won't change for the
next two or three years. We see entrepreneurs leaving other
industries and coming over to clean energy ... [chasing] amazing
opportunities to solve problems," Carmichael said.
On the public side of the energy transition, governments can
play two critical investment roles, Carmichael said. First, they
can directly support companies in the early stages of testing and
demonstrating a technology. The US Department of Energy's ARPA-E
program is a prime example of successful collaboration, he said.
ARPA-E is the US Department of Energy's Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy, which funds early-stage
energy, energy distribution, and energy efficiency
technologies.
Second, governments can create the environment for those
technologies to thrive, such as clear regulations and consistent
policies. "I am depending on policies to be smart. At the least,
they may slow you down, but at the worst they can eliminate the
ability of technology to reach the masses," he said.
Birol agreed that governments can provide the "framework" that
signals to investors where they should put their money. "Capital
goes where it feels it will make profit," he said.
While investors' actions show that they see clean energy profits
in the US and Europe, Birol said hesitancy to invest in the
developing world remains significant. It's a mismatch of where
dollars are attracted and where they are most needed. "The issue is
what will happen in India, what will happen in Indonesia, what will
happen in Africa. The bulk of emissions growth will come from those
countries, not from Switzerland, the UK, or Canada," he said.
China, India, and Indonesia have 45% of the world's population,
and they depend on coal for 60% of their power generation, Birol
said. Helping them decarbonize is critical, but they can't simply
abandon coal use. External funds for carbon capture and storage and
direct-air capture technology will be needed beyond the sums that
developing countries already are providing, according to the IEA
roadmap.
Securing external funding for these efforts will be taken up in
a new paper that IEA is writing with the World Bank and World
Economic Forum, Birol said. Due to be released on 9 June, it's
titled "Financing Clean Energy Transitions in the Emerging
World."
G20 governments must drive investors' decisions, Birol said.
"They should give an unmistakable signal to the investors, 'You
investor, if you invest in clean energy options, this is a
lucrative option for you'.... And they should also give an
unmistakable signal to investors that you [need to] be careful [if]
you are investing in a technology which is working against climate
change. You are taking a big risk that you will lose money," Birol
said.
Carmichael concluded by reminding the conference's audience that
there can be a virtue to the urgency that venture capitalists and
entrepreneurs bring to the table. "We're out of
time in terms of climate change, so the term patience can be
misconstrued," he said. "The entrepreneurs who run these cleantech
companies are not patient. They are hungry and purposeful."
This speed-oriented mindset can pay off with solutions,
Carmichael said. While acknowledging that targets for net zero are
three decades away, he said that in terms of clean energy
development, "the entrepreneurs are there, the money is there, the
public sector is behind it, and so are the large [energy]
companies. All that's missing is the chef [who] you need to combine
those ingredients. They're not going to pop up and change the
climate by themselves. But as we see their products adopted on
global basis, you begin to realize, 'We can do this,'" he
concluded.