Everyone Loves a Factory

As the American West burns this summer I’m reminded of an earlier era (lo these many years ago) when the smart phone was invented.  At that time there were some unknowns, like how quickly fast networks would come online and propogate, how ubiquitous smart phones would eventually become, and what layers of the ecosystem would claim value.  On the other hand, it was already very clear that most people would carry a powerful, network-attached computer with them wherever they went, and that this computer was more important than anything else one might carry, including physical keys or a physical wallet.

This awareness SHOULD HAVE driven a clear investment path but it often did not.  Sharing public information, for example, should have conclusively shifted to network-attached devices, and investment should have shifted toward software optimized for the hardware held by the public, increasing capability of such devices, and deploying networks that support them.  This has largely been true (Google maps and social networks for example), but it often has not.

One common example of “hardware” investment in a “software” world is those great big digital signs on a road, warning of slowdowns ahead road closings, or adverse weather ahead.  Surprisingly, these improvements can cost millions of dollars to set up and manage.  The messages could much more easily, conveniently, reliably, and dynamically be conveyed through Google maps or other electronic means, but they are not. 

Another example is the digital signage presented at transit hubs.  My favorite is the physical monitors on the New Jersey Transit platform near Newark Airport.  Someone spent millions to set up this network.  Because of the proprietary hardware and software system, there is limited flexibility or innovation. You most certainly need to be an insider to interpret the presented gobbledeegook. 

Why do we continue to favor physical infrastructure investments even when they are less effective and less certain than other kinds of investments?  And what’s that got to do with society fiddling while western forests burn?

One answer is that people, governments, and businesses LIKE investments in physical infrastructure.  You can have a ribbon cutting.  A politician can point to physical plant built.  Local contractors can provide products and services.  People can readily observe the situation is better—or at least different--than before.

We continue with the same biases now in the Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) space.  Instead of immediately addressing emissions from forest fires without the need for sizeable investment, we seem to favor investment in physical infrastructure, including pipelines, Carbon Capture and Storage add-ons, Direct Air Capture, and Biochar Reactors.  Why?

Businesses, individuals, governments and other institutions don’t need a factory, super advanced technology, or super-expensive equipment to durably fight climate change.   Today Biomass-based carbon can be durably stored at relatively low cost, without long-distance transportation, injecting material or gas deep underground, and without combustion or pyrolyzation.  THIS CAN HAPPEN ALMOST ANYWHERE ON EARTH, AT LOW RISK AND WITH LOW INVESTMENT.

But we choose to wait for expensive equipment, expensive factories, and uncertain technologies that may or may not pan out over decades.  Why?  Because everyone likes a factory, a ribbon-cutting, a ceremony, a line on a CV, press, shiny equipment, and proprietary technology.