Peter Thiel and Blake Masters, Stanford alumni, wrote in 2014 that at the start of the 21st century, everyone agreed the next big thing was clean technology (“cleantech”) — yet it didn’t work; instead of a healthier planet, the world got a massive cleantech bubble. It’s undeniable that cleantech — technology that aims to be carbon‑neutral or carbon‑negative — is trying to be everywhere. However, the reality is that many cleantech innovations have yet to be proven capable of even reaching said neutrality. A prime example of this is cleantech low‑orbit satellites (LOS), technology aimed to provide rural mapping data for workers such as conservationalists, that have only resulted in mass environmental casualties since their production, according to Dr. Bonface Osoro, a researcher at George Mason University (2023). At the same time, technology that is able to reach carbon‑neutrality isn’t being used long enough to do so, as it’s being replaced faster than the time it takes to reach neutrality (S&P Global). This creates a paradox where cleantech may be actually environmentally harming because of production and distribution: the extraction of resources, transportation emissions, and even the roads for transportation all contribute to global warming or other negative environmental effects.
Yet at the same time, Harvard alumnus and Microsoft CEO Bill Gates notes how cleantech’s fundamental goal in the long term has net succeeded (2025) — though it could be doing so at a more efficient rate if production impacts were reduced, and if funding allocation was given strategically to the highest environmentally promising cleantech startups.
This raises the question: what is the best pathway to mitigate short‑term environmental harms resulting from cleantech development, while maximizing the long‑term environmental conservation that cleantech development may produce? Solving this paradox is urgent, as cleantech production (CP) is increasing faster than ever, meaning the short‑term impacts of such production are growing faster than ever too (Masters, 2014). Hence, Masters, Gates, and Osoro suggest that a solution which could help guide innovators and manufacturers toward more sustainable CP would immensely benefit local and global environments immediately.
As regulation intrinsically controls production and steers its direction, research suggests the answer lies in deregulatory changes (Masters, 2014). Further, the manufacturing concern of cleantech remains largely avoidable through recycling (Wendler, 2019). Hence, this paper argues that the best answer to the above question is a) deregulatory policies in the cleantech industry, such as incorporation easement, and b) supply‑side policy pushes for more recycling plants.
The start of cleantech production is research: startups innovating new cleantech. However, the vast majority of cleantech startups fail — up to 95% in a given year (Masters, 2014). This creates the first short‑term “waste” of CP: investments, both monetary and timely. While such intangible losses appear harmless to the environment, Gates writes that these lost expenditures could be used vastly more efficiently in other sectors (2025). This suggests that failed startups indirectly harm the environment, as lost funds slow production and efficiency in other cleantech that could have been producing positive results. When a cleantech startup fails, the loss is often massive — startups like Solyndra or Better Place equated to over $200M and thousands of hours combined (Masters, 2014). This inefficient use of funds and labor is a potentially damaging yet under‑researched concern (Masters, 2014). However, the larger environmental concern of cleantech lies in its manufacturing.
At the University of Shanghai, researcher Dr. Xin Lai and colleagues illustrate the next major environmental impact of CP: the mining of already‑scarce rare earths, which cleantech requires an extraordinary amount of (2022). Lai finds that lithium‑ion batteries — the type included in almost all new energy‑focused cleantech — carry a high environmental impact due to the resource‑ and energy‑intensive nature of battery production (2022). Reinforcing this research, Dr. Tobias Wendler, Chair of Economics at the University of Bremen, found that the extreme resource usage required to extract scarce rare earths like lithium is disproportionately high compared to other types of manufacturing, demanding extensive energy and exploration (2019). He further notes that extracting such material is far more resource‑intensive than recycling and remanufacturing cleantech from old technological parts (2019). However, the “energy” aspect of CP highlighted by Lai points to another catastrophic issue: oil mining and usage (2022). Nur Alami, writing for the National Institute of Health, describes how oil mining and usage traditionally pose negative effects on the environment through crude oil pollution (2023). Alami points to mining sites in Indonesia found extensively contaminated with high levels of crude oil (2023), noting that such pollution damages ecosystems and degrades biodiversity by disrupting healthy genes in plants and soil bacteria — including a decline in hydrocarbon‑degrading genes, a genome cluster directly tied to soil‑bacteria longevity (2023). She notes these second‑order effects are already causing destruction in Indonesia, including the loss of indigenous bacteria essential to soil health (2023).
Finally, the manufactured product has to be transported — the most environmentally damaging short‑term aspect of cleantech. Ben Goldfarb’s article “How Roads Have Transformed the Natural World,” published in the Smithsonian, illustrates the environmental impact of roads themselves (2023), pointing to two main causes: extensive roadkill and vehicle emissions. Goldfarb writes that roadkill, at current levels, is already directly driving population decline across a wide range of roaming mammals, and has even surpassed hunting as the leading direct human cause of wild‑animal mortality on land (2023). Goldfarb also finds that roads indirectly harm ecosystems through emissions, since the majority of transportation remains oil‑reliant — noting that nearly a fifth of America’s greenhouse gas emissions come from cars and trucks on roads (2023). Alami’s findings align with Goldfarb’s, noting that oil usage directly drives oil mining, and therefore environmental impact both on the ground and through emissions (2022). Hence, the construction of more roads to rural mining towns, and the increased usage of roads and transportation for cleantech, will have further environmental impacts (Goldfarb, 2023).
This destruction creates the paradox: to counteract its initial emissions, cleantech must offset another technology that would have produced more emissions — and must do so for long enough.
So how long does cleantech have to be used to neutralize these short‑term damages? Osoro argues that the answer might be never for some cleantech (2023). He illustrates this with LOS: a technology meant to provide environmental and social benefits, such as helping conservationists map rural areas and surface data and trend insights, but which has instead resulted in mass environmental casualties via CO2 emissions since its production (2023). He notes that common LOS, such as the Falcon‑9, are hydrocarbon‑reliant and produce extensive emissions (2023). Osoro also investigated next‑generation cleantech LOS powered by hydrogen, yet found that even these satellites have produced massive net environmental consequences since production (2023). None of the LOS Osoro studied have realized carbon neutrality or any sustainable net‑positive effect, even after decades of research and use (2023). Thus, even some highly funded cleantech — such as hydrogen‑powered LOS — may hold no potential to ever reach carbon neutrality.
However, another reality is that even cleantech with the potential to reach carbon neutrality often isn’t used long enough to do so. International data‑analytics leader S&P Global identifies cases that illustrate exactly this pattern.
However, while cleantech appears to carry devastating short‑term environmental impacts, research supports that the historic net effect of cleantech overall has actually proven positive. The United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects emissions over the coming 20–30 years to be almost 50% lower than their peak in the early 2000s (2025). The EIA also finds that actual American emissions have steadily dropped since their 2005 peak. Reinforcing the EIA, Gates writes that projected emissions have been cut by more than 40% over the past ten years, citing specific innovations in renewable energy cleantech, and states that he remains optimistic that cleantech works and should continue to be pushed forward (2025). This strongly suggests that one viable answer to the research question is a controlled push for cleantech across all industries — an approach already proven to net‑reduce emissions over the long run. This would allow emissions to continue dropping at a possibly higher rate, and would let future cleantech production carry less environmental impact, since cleantech itself would make future manufacturing and distribution less destructive. Gates, however, also proposes an alternative path that focuses on the long term: cooling cleantech development to allow investment and time to be spent improving human lives directly — solving inequality and educational crises around the world — so that future cleantech production can be developed more ethically (2025). Under this approach, innovation could be produced more efficiently and ethically once the world is on better footing educationally. However, this solution overlooks the reality that most cleantech is currently produced in already‑developed nations, and shifting that reality would take decades (Masters, 2014). Such a slow transition would let current CP continue unchanged while offering no near‑term solution to reducing short‑term damage.
Cleantech clearly has the potential to be carbon‑neutral; further, while short‑term damages are a real and present concern, the long‑term results of faster cleantech production overwhelmingly appear to maximize future environmental amelioration. This paper argues that the path there runs through deregulatory policy, since deregulation intrinsically makes it easier for entrepreneurs to act on, manufacture, and test ideas — speeding up innovation and production (Masters, 2014). Further, since Wendler finds that the destructive extraction of rare earths for cleantech is almost entirely avoidable through recycling, this paper also argues that increasing recycling‑plant capacity is the best complementary lever to pull (2019). Wendler notes that cleantech made from recycled materials produces virtually identical results to that made from newly mined materials, and that this approach is logistically feasible, since rare earths may be easier to extract from existing above‑ground sources than from new mining (2019).
Thus, in the status quo, this paper argues for a two‑step pathway to mitigate short‑term environmental obstruction while maximizing the long‑term environmental conservation that cleantech development may produce: a hard push for cleantech innovation through deregulatory policies, such as lowering incorporation and periodic fees, paired with a supply‑side policy push for metals‑recycling plants via tax credits. A remaining limitation of these solutions is a stability concern tied to federal budget politics. However, as research consistently demonstrates that some currently funded initiatives may not fulfill their stated environmental goals, it remains feasible for policy to reallocate existing funding toward causes such as recycling‑plant tax credits.
Hence, for maximum long‑term environmental protection, society must prioritize the fast push of cleantech paired with the push for rare‑metals recycling plants — a feasible and beneficial solution.
This essay is in no way intended to offend or dissuade/persuade any person, technology, or organization, and is purely experimental research conducted for learning, under the guidance of peers, as an educational activity. The author has no personal issue with any companies or technologies mentioned and finds all the technologies outlined in this essay fascinating and potentially highly beneficial to society. Where this essay frames a technology as a current source of environmental impact, the author also believes that same technology may hold significant potential to improve environmental and societal conditions going forward — nuance not fully explored here for reasons of scope and timing.
Comments on this post have been limited.