Choosing among Implausible Leaders

China is an implausible leader for the globalization of a bio-digital energy paradigm, but the United States and European Union are even less plausible candidates. The chapter shows how the fracking revolution has turned the United States into an energy-secure fossil fuel superpower. No US president can close down the fossil fuel industry. The New Green Deal is unlikely to have much impact on US politics and is only of modest interest to Wall Street. The European Union’s Energy Union initiative is important. But the European Union’s leadership of the bio-digital energy paradigm is hampered by the different energy and industrial interests of its members. Despite China’s corruption problems, it is the least implausible leader of an energy revolution. China’s improved standard-setting capacities are outlined. The chapter concludes by discussing China’s pressure-driving mechanism, a distinctive tool of governance that allows China to overcome problems of fragmentation in its system.

The Argument in Summary

Chapter 1 summarizes the entire argument of the book. Only China can organize the exogenous shock that is needed to save world capitalism from the worst climate change scenarios. China could do this by using its cities as large-scale experimental sites to trial innovations to support the bio-digital energy paradigm. The chapter introduces the key concepts of survival governance, the geo-energy trilemma, and the bio-digital energy paradigm. The role that China’s Belt and Road Initiative might play in the globalization of the bio-digital energy paradigm is outlined. The chapter concludes by describing the interview data that was obtained in seventeen different countries and how this data informs the argument of the book.

City Pathways to the Bio-Digital Energy Paradigm

New cities might be the levers of change that China can pull to switch from an industrializing carbon economy at destructive odds with nature to a postcircular economy in which the sustainability and resilience of the economy rests on the management of ecological networks. Cities such as Shenzhen contributed to China’s export model of growth. China is now building cities that will ground an innovation model of growth. Its experimental cities include eco-cities, forest cities, hydrogen cities, smart cities, and sponge cities. China’s city networks are being deepened and extended through the Belt and Road Initiative. They could function as networks of demand for innovative solutions to problems of drought, air and water pollution, wet bulb temperatures, transport congestion, as well as networks of rapid diffusion for climate and energy technologies. The size of China’s city networks means that multinationals cannot stay out of China.

India, the Janus Energy Sovereign

India is at an innovation crossroads in which it can choose between staying on its well-worn path of an incremental imitation of mature technologies developed elsewhere or becoming an innovator in the bio-digital energy paradigm. India has an incentive to do the latter because climate models suggest it and its region will be one of the most severely affected by climate change. India has launched the “Solar India” mission, but it has also opened its coal sector to private firms. India like China is undergoing a monumental urbanization. It could use its cities to urbanize innovation. India, with its successful high-tech experience in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, aerospace, and information technology, along with its large population of poor people, could combine high technology with the value of frugality.

China’s Limits to Growth

China’s rapid economic growth has taken it closer to the frontiers of ecological collapse. Evidence of the ecological limits of its coal-based economic growth model began to emerge in the 1980s. China’s model did deliver strong economic growth rates and the electrification of its economy. This model also delivered technology spillovers from multinationals, setting the scene for the emergence of a new economic model based more on innovation and environmental sustainability. This new model has started to appear. China’s innovation success threatens US hegemony. Intellectual property rights and trade wars are a proxy for US fears about losing its dominance of innovation and military technology. Successful innovation by China represents the best chance of avoiding the worst climate change scenarios.

Survival Governance

The success of the project of survival governance, which requires states to focus on the repair of ecosystems, depends on the success of China’s experimental cities and whether China can manage to develop core technologies in the face of opposition from the US national security state. The technologies that are central to the construction of the bio-digital energy paradigm are also the ones that matter to US military power. The United States is using regulatory mechanisms such as intellectual property and export controls to block or slow China’s acquisition of core technologies. The United States has already created a technological fork in global technology markets, making it more or less impossible for companies like Google to deal with Chinese companies like Huawei. Less clear is whether multinational capital will support this fork. It may choose to support the new circuits of accumulation that emerge as states embrace survival governance.

“Winners” and “Losers” in Hotter Worlds

The oil and gas industry remains an innovative industry, constantly improving its access to resources and attracting investors. States have sent mixed and dissembling signals about their preparedness to act swiftly in the face of a climate emergency, which has enabled Saudi Arabia to slow down climate action. The global oil and gas industry is more confident than might be expected about its future. Of the large fossil fuel producers in the world, the most potent resistance to rapid action on climate change comes from the United States. Smaller oil states such as Norway also play an important role in slowing action on climate change. China with its large cities offers the best hope for radical and swift action on addressing climate policy.

Technology Choices

States have an ever-increasing basket of technologies to choose from when it comes to renewable energy. After the OPEC oil crisis, states funded research in renewable energy sources, but this fell away as the crisis passed. State funding of research remains a vital component of creating a rich basket of renewable technology options. The more technology options, the better, as one can cover the risks of the other. Open science is vital to the diffusion of technology options. Large-scale hydropower may be a fragile source of power in a drought-stricken world. The commercial secrecy of nuclear power providers is one of the key reasons the technology will remain expensive.

The Geo-Energy Trilemma and Its Mismanagement

States, motivated by military concerns, have mismanaged the geo-energy trilemma with the result that they face a much deeper climate emergency than they otherwise might. The geo-energy trilemma consists of climate mitigation, energy security, and economic/military development. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has been central to the creation of a data path that prioritizes fossil fuels over the development of renewable energy. The International Energy Agency sent states down the track of more coal development even though carbon capture storage was never a realistic prospect. The IEA failed to build trust among states on energy and climate change issues. The creation of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) is an important step forward globally for the renewable energy industries.

Backing the Bio-Digital Energy Paradigm?

The transition that China and the rest of world needs this century is to a postcircular economy in which service to ecosystems becomes a primary value, much as it has been in the cultures of indigenous people. This primary value has to be tied to the construction of a bio-digital energy innovation paradigm. China has taken steps toward the circular economy. Much more will be needed to construct the bio-digital energy paradigm. From the history of the coal innovation paradigm, the chapter extracts four lessons. First, energy transformations take longer than you think. Second, constructing the energy innovation paradigm involves more than putting a price on carbon. Third, incremental innovation can kill you. Fourth, don’t delay disruptive innovation by giving it to the market alone.