top of page
Search

Two Essays on Climate Investment—And What They Overlook

I read two contrasting pieces today, back to back. One by Chris Wright, the current U.S. Secretary of Energy. The other is by Vinod Khosla, founder of Khosla Ventures, known for backing climate tech like TeraWatt (lithium-ion batteries), TerraBlaster (agriculture tech), and Realta Fusion (yep, fusion energy).


Chris Wright accepts that climate change exists, but treats it as collateral. He sees rising emissions as a fair price for longer lifespans and rising living standards. His policy stance leans toward conventional fuels—gas, coal, nuclear—with little room for clean energy support. He raises valid concerns about wasteful subsidies and a narrow focus on climate solutions at the expense of the broader economy.


Vinod Khosla offers a different narrative. Clean tech is mature, he says—wind, solar, and EVs no longer need help. But in the same text, he calls for government support for fusion, high-temperature geothermal, and green steel. These are not cost-competitive yet, and won’t be without major public backing. That includes e-fuels, which he openly admits will forever remain on government life support.


Both pieces make reasonable points, but neither addresses the present bottleneck.


Wright looks to fossil fuels and nuclear for affordable energy and grid stability. In practice, this won’t deliver. Wind and solar are already cheaper than gas and coal across most of the world. Even in the U.S.—where solar modules cost triple what they do in Europe or China—they still win on price. As for gas turbines, lead times are long and growing. Any new capacity won’t arrive in time to ease the current market strain.


Khosla is correct to argue that we should prioritise technologies that are already commercially viable. But that shortlist doesn’t include fusion, geothermal, or green steel. The real contenders are wind, solar, and EVs—technologies with global supply chains, proven economics, and a scale-up path already in motion.


The missing link is not invention. It’s production. The U.S. can’t build fusion plants when it’s struggling to manufacture heat pumps. It can’t decarbonise steel when it’s not even assembling its own solar panels. What’s needed now is not moonshots but execution on technologies that already work.


Apart from Tesla’s impact on global battery and EV markets, the U.S. has not played a leading role in the deployment of clean technologies. Most of the industrial scale-up has happened elsewhere.


If the goal is to decarbonise quickly and cost-effectively, then the strategy must start with what can be delivered now. And it must be built, not imagined. Sadly, both the US government and its most forward-looking investors seem to be missing the point.




  • X
  • LinkedIn
  • alt.text.label.Instagram
  • alt.text.label.Facebook

© Emin Askerov, 2023.

bottom of page