Starting from this beautiful and inspiring quote, I must admit that listening to the raging debate on the future of our planet, the disastrous effects of climate change and everything related to it, it seems as if there are very few beautiful dreams floating around these days.

Let us not despair and see if we can still recover a beautiful dream from all of this.

Within our line of work or “space” we usually do not talk about dreams, but about scenarios; future scenarios. Usually such a scenario starts with questions like: “What if we could do this and that, would we be able to change the world for the better?”

In the early sixties and seventies Shell pioneered scenario planning. Here you ‘dream’ about possible futures and see how this would affect the business. Based on that a business plan can be developed including what needs to be done to prepare for the future. It seems that Shell’s success in deep sea drilling was based on a scenario anticipating an energy crisis, which happened in 1973, enabling SHELL to exploit the technology they had developed anticipating this scenario.

More recently SHELL’s scenarios (which they partly publish) have become less detailed and less colorful, and I was told that this was caused by the fact that it was hard if not impossible these days to come up with a positive scenario for the future of our planet.

Personally, I have become completely confused and lost between the extreme scenarios proposed by on one hand the hardline environmentalists (“De-carbonize: Stop Fossil Fuels”) and on the other hand the business as usual big-oil CEO’s (“Full speed with Fossil Fuels”). This last scenario is usually tempered a bit by applying more biomass/biofuels and/or the application of Carbon Capturing and sequestration.

The environmentalists call this greenwashing and point to examples like the publicity stunts from ExxonMobil promoting their R&D on Algae and Algae fuels, which eventually was dropped completely.

Recently Direct Air Capture (DAC) of CO2 was called “the Most Dangerous Idea in the World.”  (www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2023/08/03/direct-air-capture-of-co2-the-most- dangerous-idea-in-the-world)

Having worked on DAC myself I am biased, but I obviously do not agree with such an extreme statement. I understand the point that the Fossil fuel industries are using minor token investments in these fields as a cover (“Green washing”) to continue their exploitation of fossil fuels and thereby the pollution of our planet with CO2.

As mentioned, Exxon was not so long ago extensively using their limited R&D on Algae in the media to give the appearance of being green until they stopped their whole masquerade. (See: All Gore’s TED presentaGon: hHps://youtu. be/xgZC6da4mco?si=jeg6FGLdhvvhcRSx)

In my view we should promote multiple solutions: and may the best technologies win!

In order to have a big impact, like for instance in CO2 reduction the real large producers/polluters need to take corrective action, and they are not. On the contrary, companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and others, are still active in denying the effects of CO2 and climate change, although they have known for many years (1970-1980’s) that the continuous burning of fossil fuels would have disastrous effects on our planet.

Moreover, from the governmental side, only minor action is taken to stop or limit the pollution caused by the industry. This can most likely be explained by the fact that many of those in power are funded by the same industry of polluters. The industry presently has the “Freedom to pollute” and externalities are not included as a cost item when calculating the ROI. The new Shell CEO recently clearly stated that the ROI’s of Shell’s fossil fuels projects are higher than those of renewables and consequently Shell will stick to higher investments in fossil fuels.

Presently ROI and shareholder value seems to be the only thing that counts. If this is the case, it does not really mather which technologies we develop, they will not be able to save our planet as they will not be implemented.

The most dangerous idea in the world we are dealing with is the freedom to pollute!

Having noted the foregoing, I must admit that the “Stop Fossil Fuels” scenario proposed by the hardline environmentalist is just as unlikely to solve our problems. Pulling the fossil fuel business out of business would mean an enormous loss in economic activity, employment etcetera by pulling the fossil fuel business out of business. Furthermore, it will cost a gigantic amount of investments to replace the energy and materials now being supplied by the fossil fuels industry by Solar, Wind, Hydrothermal and or Nuclear. All these investments and mega projects would need to occur within the next 20 years or so.

My conclusion: Both scenarios are unrealistic and will not result in sufficient reduction in the temperature increase of our planet, meaning that we are toast! (Or will be toasted)

Not too fast, there must be a way out!

Like in the old-style Hegelian fashion, where we have a thesis (Big Oil) and an anti-thesis (Environmentalist), what about a synthesis of the two? Is it possible to work together by combining the ideas of both sides

I believe there is a way, and that way opens if we are able and willing to revisit the issues we are trying to solve.

The emphasis from the environmentalist is on decarbonization, meaning reducing and even stopping completely the use of fossil hydrocarbons as fuels and chemicals. The term decarbonization has caught on and there are now many conferences, websites, publications, action groups all focused on decarbonization

But is Carbon the real problem we are facing?

There is nothing wrong with Carbon, in fact we are made (mainly) out of Carbon:

“We are stardust, billion-year-old* carbon.” (Woodstock – Joni Mitchel)

(*The atoms in our bodies are billions of years old, when stars die, they emit Carbon.)