The Brief – Technology can save the world, if we let it

If you follow the EU’s, say, transport policy, there is one term you will hear over and over again: Technology neutrality.

Politicians, so the argument goes, should acknowledge their limited knowledge of the world by not picking what they believe are winning technologies, but instead leaving this to much smarter engineers, researchers, and consumers who know best what they want.

There’s a slightly different German version of the term, “technology openness” (Technologieoffenheit), which points even more to staying open-minded to innovation that could solve some of our current problems sooner than we might expect.

Both terms are particularly used on the right side of the political spectrum — including German liberals — and presented as an alternative to a “ban policy” (as the EPP calls it in their recent draft manifesto) that Greens and Socialists are suspected of wanting.

“We need more enthusiasm for inventing than for bans,” FDP (Renew) chief Christian Lindner, the poster boy of Technologieoffenheit, said. 

Bavarian leader Markus Söder (CSU/EPP) tweeted “YES to the car – NO to bans,” calling for “innovation and technological openness”.

Tragically, this has led to a counter-reaction on the left side of the political aisle, where everyone who calls for technological solutions to solve pressing issues such as climate change is eyed with scepticism and considered a potential denier — or at least delayer – of actual solutions.

When Berlin mayor Kai Wegner (CDU/EPP) suggested a magnetic train to solve the city’s congestion problem, he was met with derision – social democrats told him to build infrastructure such as cycle lanes instead.

But if you meet a Dutch start-up working on a real-world hyperloop, a magnetic train within a tube, they will say how motivating such announcements are for them.

These people are getting up every morning and working on a technology that many people think is just a pipe dream – which is a spirit that we urgently need, and should encourage.

In all honesty, no one knows for sure whether technologies like the hyperloop will contribute to significantly cutting transport emissions. Or whether lab meat will do so for agriculture. Or small nuclear reactors for the energy sector. Or new genomic techniques. Or nuclear fusion. Or insect burgers. Or, or, or…

But chances are that some of them will. And given the size of the challenge to become climate neutral within the next 26 years, we’d better give them a shot.

Perhaps even more tragically, the centre-right – who espouse this approach – have not fully embraced openness to innovation.

For example, the conservative governments of Italy and Austria have recently, together with France, led an attack on “cell-based meat”, a lab-grown alternative to actual cows or chicken, which could potentially help to solve the agricultural sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane.

In a document presented at the EU’s agricultural ministers’ meeting on Wednesday (24 January), they “raised questions” about the potential impact of lab meat (many of which are absolutely worth discussing), but, in fact, already pre-empt the answers by concluding that it does “not constitute a sustainable alternative to primary farm-based production”.

Don’t forget that – as things stand now – our climate targets will only be reached if technologies such as electric cars, heat pumps, hydrogen, e-fuels, carbon capture and storage, direct air capture, and – above all – wind and solar power will ramp up at a pace so far unprecedented to humankind.

But these might not be the cheapest or fastest – or, let’s face it, coolest – way.

So rather than throwing a spanner in the work on developing new technologies before it has even properly started, or pitting them against each other, we should let researchers and developers do their work and judge only after, if there is something to be judged.

The “default” attitude towards technology that can potentially help to solve important problems should urgently change from “nah” to “yes”. (You can build cycle lanes nevertheless).

And the next time a politician tells you we have to stay “open to technology” to solve our climate problem, please remind them that such an attitude – by definition – includes technologies that you don’t like.

The Roundup

The European Commission is due to table a 90% climate target for 2040, according to a leaked draft, while a coalition of 11 EU countries including France and Germany have issued a letter calling for ambitious targets.

The EU’s Platform Workers Directive is on life-support and might be split in two after European governments voted down a provisional agreement found in December. “Better no deal than a bad deal,” sources told Euractiv.

The In Vitro Diagnostics Devices Regulation follows the path of its “sister” regulation on medical devices as the European Commission has extended the implementation guidelines for both legislations due to delays in compliance.

Israel must take steps to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on Friday but stopped short of ordering a ceasefire as requested by South Africa.

Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said on Friday he would “not negotiate” with Hungary over Sweden’s NATO bid despite Budapest now the sole holdout after Turkey’s ratification.

Belarusian propaganda positions the EU as its main enemy, but several other features make it a unique case among its European neighbours.

For more policy news, check out this week’s Agrifood Brief, Economy Brief, and  the Tech Brief.