Will technology save us?

The opinion piece in the previous step presents a very optimistic perspective on the role of technology in tackling the climate crisis.

It argues that technological solutions and future technological progress will solve the issue – a position known as ‘technological optimism’. However, such heavy reliance on technological solutions is highly contested.  

In this step, we’ll take a closer look at the potentials, limitations and pitfalls of technological solutions.  

Potentials, limits and risks of technological change 

Technological change is undoubtedly essential for tackling the climate crisis. A transition to renewable energy, electrified forms of transport and efficiency improvements all play a central role in reducing emissions. However, it’s crucial to recognise that technological change alone is insufficient to reduce emissions at the pace that is needed, particularly in Global North countries, as these need to reduce their emissions the fastest (Vogel and Hickel, 2023; Haberl et al., 2020).  

Relying heavily on technological solutions, especially on speculative future inventions, often means delaying or underutilising key emission reduction measures that we could implement here and now. This may not be coincidence. Those who promote heavy reliance on technology often explicitly oppose solutions that shift or reduce production and consumption, and often they have a vested interest in doing so (Stoddard et al., 2021). Finally, some technological ‘solutions’ also have severe side-effects, such as impacts on biodiversity, food production, water availability or energy demand. 

With this in mind, let’s explore specific technologies often presented as solutions to climate change. Each technology has both potentials and limitations, and some may even be misleadingly presented as “quick fixes” to avoid more difficult but necessary actions. 

Negative emissions technologies (NETs) 

Promise 

NETs are designed to remove CO₂ directly from the atmosphere, reducing the accumulated emissions from human activities. For example, direct air capture technology extracts CO₂ from the air and stores it underground, making it distinct from carbon capture and storage (CCS), which captures emissions directly at their source, such as power plants. Promoted as a potential future solution, NETs are often presented as a way to offset emissions, allowing continued emissions now while ‘cleaning up’ the atmosphere later. 

Limitations 

Many climate experts warn that NETs pose a serious “moral hazard” (Lenzi, 2018). The idea that we’ll be able to just clean up our emissions problem in the future can encourage delaying necessary mitigation action now. Given that large-scale NETs are largely unproven and might never work at the necessary scale, relying on them is very risky – like jumping out of a plane and hoping someone will build a parachute on the way down. 

Carbon capture and storage (CCS)  

Promise 

CCS technology captures CO₂ from industrial processes and power plants and stores it underground to prevent it from entering the atmosphere. Viewed as a way to continue using fossil fuels with reduced emissions, CCS is a popular option for industries and countries heavily reliant on fossil energy. 

Limitations 

CCS is costly, increases energy demand, and while it reduces emissions from fossil fuels, it does not eliminate them. Its use – or even the promise of its future use – risks sustaining fossil fuel reliance, delaying the transition to zero-emissions renewable energy. Large-scale adoption of CCS on fossil fuel power plants would also require massive infrastructure investments and deployment at a pace and scale that many experts think is highly unrealistic (Martin-Roberts et al., 2021). Relying on the large-scale use of CCS on fossil power plants thus carries large risks and may well be a step in the wrong direction. 

Electric vehicles (EVs)  

Promise 

Electric vehicles run on electricity instead of gasoline, eliminating exhaust emissions and the use of fossil fuels. Promoted as a solution for lowering transportation emissions, EVs claim to offer an eco-friendly alternative to traditional vehicles.  

Limitations 

EVs eliminate emissions at the point of use but producing and charging them still requires electricity generation and thus contributes to emissions. Additionally, EV batteries use rare metals like cobalt. Cobalt mining often entails severe local environmental impacts and human rights abuses, including exploitative labour practices in the Global South (The Verge, 2023). While electric cars generate fewer emissions than petrol cars overall, a shift to electric cars needs to be embedded in an overall reduction in car traffic. It needs to accompany a transition to public transport, cycling and walking, to achieve rapid and deep cuts in energy use and emissions.  

Green hydrogen  

Promise 

Green hydrogen, produced using renewable energy, is a clean fuel with the potential to decarbonise sectors like heavy manufacturing and shipping, where electrification is challenging. It is promoted as a key solution for replacing fossil fuels in hard-to-electrify industries. 

Limitations 

Producing green hydrogen is highly inefficient (it uses much more energy than what is available for use afterwards) and is currently costly. Hydrogen that is made using spare renewable electricity (when supply is more than demand) may be useful in specific applications (for example, heavy industry and heavy-duty trucking). However, in the near-term it cannot function as a large-scale low-carbon replacement for fossil fuels (Romm, 2025).

Sustainable aviation  

Promise 

Sustainable aviation technologies, including biofuels, electric planes and hydrogen-powered engines, aim to reduce the carbon footprint of air travel. These advancements promise to make flying greener, enabling continued air travel while lowering emissions. 

Limitations 

Currently, aviation is unsustainable. Electric and hydrogen planes face significant technical hurdles and are unlikely to be available commercially and at scale for decades (Peeters et al 2016, Bardon and Massol 2025). Biofuels come with significant side effects on biodiversity and food security, limiting the scale at which they can be used sustainably. While technological change may contribute to minimising aviation emissions in the long term, that’s too little too late for averting climate breakdown. Reductions in total air travel are required to rapidly reduce aviation emissions now.

Battery storage  

Promise 

Battery storage systems store renewable energy for use during high demand or low generation (for example, at night or on cloudy days). They stabilise energy grids, enhance renewable energy reliability, and support electric vehicles, reducing emissions in electricity and transportation. 

Limitations 

Current battery production relies heavily on mining rare metals, such as lithium, cobalt and nickel, which have significant environmental impacts and violate human rights in the Global South (Luckeneder et al., 2021). Additionally, batteries have limited lifespans and recycling them is challenging and costly. While battery storage is a crucial technology, scaling it sustainably and efficiently to meet current energy demand remains a challenge, which is why reducing overall energy demand is vital. 

Limitations highlight the need to reduce consumption 

While some of these technologies hold promise, their limitations highlight the critical need to reduce overall demand for the services they aim to provide. Scaling technological solutions sustainably will take time and resources. Relying on them without addressing consumption patterns risks exacerbating environmental and social challenges. Reducing energy demand, flying less and prioritising public transport, cycling and walking over car use are immediate actions that can significantly lower emissions. 

Share your thoughts 

Having explored these technological solutions, consider the role you believe technology should play in tackling the climate crisis. Can technology alone be enough, or are other types of change necessary? Reflect on how these insights might influence your view of the opinion piece from the previous step, particularly paragraphs 2, 3 and 6.

In the Comments section, share and discuss your thoughts with other learners.