The BreakThrough Weekly

 

Will clean energy transitions free countries from the energy security game? Not quite, says Seaver Wang. While decarbonization will dramatically alter the relationship between energy and geopolitics, we should expect this relationship to evolve, not disappear. After all, the networked power grids of a clean energy world come with their own strategic considerations —  including raw materials supply chains, cybersecurity, and electricity exchanges — meaning that in all likelihood, energy will remain a critical security issue for many governments, even in a decarbonized future.  Nevertheless, decarbonization represents a rare opportunity for countries to completely reinvent their energy sectors and overturn existing energy dependencies, giving governments a valuable chance to capture geopolitical rewards through the process of transitioning to clean energy. How the rules of the game will change >>>

"Seaver Wang on Where Reality and Fiction Align"

Many a science fiction plot has involved a rich new energy resource and the ensuing scramble of corporations and world powers to secure it. From unobtanium in James Cameron’s Avatar to Sakuradite in the classic anime series Code Geass, we as the audience take it for granted that energy features heavily in geopolitics.  Why, then, would we assume in our real world that transitioning to clean energy sources will make energy conflicts and insecurity into phenomena of the past?  While we should avoid obsessively thinking of tomorrow’s energy trade as a zero-sum competition, we should still consider how decarbonization could alter international power relationships, and plan proactively to minimize future risks and vulnerabilities. Hydroelectric dams account for about 20% of the US’s emissions-free electricity, making them one of the largest and most useful sources of clean energy in the nation. But this distinction has come at a high cost to both humans and the environment and, consequently, drawn frequent calls for dam removal from environmentalists. But is dam removal a compatible goal with decarbonization? On the surface, that appears unlikely, but a thorough analysis reveals that many of the US’s most hazardous dams are quite small and could be removed without significant impacts to our clean energy supply. What’s more, numerous, less damaging methods could compensate for our lost capacity.  That being said, whatever decisions we make, dam removal will always have human impacts that must we must consider. Why dam removal doesn’t have to be a dam shame >>> This is what we're "reading" this week  Leah Stokes on the "fog of enactment" in law-making. BTI's Emma Kovak in The Journal of Science Policy & Governance! Much love to our fellow Oakland neighbor/rapper-turned vegan restauranteur. Who Burns for the Perfection of Paper?

thebreakthrough.org follow us on Twitter