top of page
Search

Ecomodernism and the Earth Rise Institute: Aligning Nuclear, DAC, and Hydrogen Initiatives

  • Writer: Eric Anders
    Eric Anders
  • Apr 10
  • 29 min read

Updated: Apr 17

Introduction

The Earth Rise Institute (ERI) is dedicated to advancing an ambitious climate strategy outlined in its Earth Rise Manifesto, which centers on nuclear energy, direct air capture (DAC) of carbon dioxide, and hydrogen fuel as key pillars of a global energy transition. ERI’s approach is both technological and geopolitical – it advocates deploying cutting-edge clean technologies while engaging internationally to drive decarbonization in major regions like Canada, China, and Norway. In parallel, environmental thought leaders Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger have championed a similar vision through their work and writing. As co-founders of The Breakthrough Institute and (in Shellenberger’s case) Environmental Progress, they have pioneered the philosophy of ecomodernism – a “new environmentalism” that embraces human innovation, critiques traditional environmentalist orthodoxy, and strongly defends nuclear power as essential for climate mitigation (About Landing | The Breakthrough Institute). This report examines how Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s climate activism and ideas align with ERI’s mission, especially regarding nuclear, DAC, and hydrogen. It also explores ERI’s initiatives in Canada, China, and Norway, evaluating how collaborations or partnerships with The Breakthrough Institute and Environmental Progress could amplify impact in those regions.


ERI’s Mission: A Nuclear, DAC, and Hydrogen Transition

According to the Earth Rise Manifesto, ERI envisions a “nuclear-DAC-hydrogen” transition as a pragmatic, robust, and innovative pathway to stabilize the climate while simultaneously meeting growing global energy needs. In this ambitious vision, nuclear power plays a foundational role by providing abundant, reliable, and carbon-free electricity and heat to completely replace fossil fuels. This abundant nuclear energy is crucial not only for meeting everyday electricity demands but also for powering essential climate technologies, including direct air capture (DAC) and hydrogen production.


Direct air capture technologies play an equally crucial role in ERI’s strategy by actively removing excess CO₂ directly from the atmosphere, achieving genuine negative emissions essential for reversing climate change, rather than merely mitigating it. Complementing these two pillars, hydrogen serves as a versatile, scalable, and clean fuel capable of addressing challenges posed by sectors traditionally considered hard-to-decarbonize—such as heavy industry, maritime shipping, aviation, and long-duration energy storage.

ERI's integrated approach specifically emphasizes the combined deployment of these transformative technologies through nuclear-powered DAC and hydrogen production systems. Such systems uniquely enable the efficient, large-scale production of so-called "pink" or "red" hydrogen—clean hydrogen produced exclusively using nuclear power. Furthermore, ERI strongly advocates combining this nuclear-derived hydrogen with the CO₂ captured from DAC processes to synthesize truly carbon-neutral or even carbon-negative synthetic fuels. These synthetic fuels effectively replace traditional fossil fuels across critical sectors, dramatically reducing emissions without compromising economic growth or energy reliability.


Alignment with Ecomodernist Thought

ERI explicitly aligns itself with the stance articulated by prominent ecomodernist environmental thinkers Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, particularly regarding nuclear power. ERI recognizes, as Nordhaus and Shellenberger have consistently argued, that nuclear energy possesses an exceptionally strong safety record, making it one of the safest energy sources ever developed. ERI affirms Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s analysis emphasizing that nuclear waste, often portrayed as a daunting issue, is highly manageable and does not represent a significant environmental or public health threat. ERI agrees with Shellenberger's detailed arguments in his book Apocalypse Never (2020), highlighting nuclear waste storage solutions as straightforward, secure, and technically feasible. He explicitly notes, "nuclear waste has never posed a serious environmental or public health threat," and asserts that public fears about waste disposal are drastically disproportionate to empirical realities.


Additionally, ERI aligns closely with the Breakthrough Institute—co-founded by Nordhaus and Shellenberger—which frequently publishes rigorous, data-driven analyses demonstrating nuclear power’s superior safety record relative to all other major energy sources. Breakthrough’s extensive research shows nuclear energy’s significantly lower lifecycle impacts and fatalities per unit of energy produced compared to fossil fuels, and even compared to some renewable energy sources like wind and solar, which have substantial environmental footprints of their own. Moreover, ERI explicitly shares Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s determination to combat decades-long misinformation campaigns unfairly portraying nuclear energy as inherently unsafe or economically unfeasible. ERI recognizes clearly that much of this misinformation has historically been funded and propagated by fossil-fuel interests, often indirectly through well-meaning but misled environmental organizations. This campaign of misinformation has significantly impeded public understanding and acceptance of nuclear power, unnecessarily delaying broader adoption and prolonging dependence on fossil fuels.


Strategic Focus on Petro-states

ERI’s mission and advocacy efforts strategically concentrate on wealthier petro-states—particularly Norway and Canada—nations with substantial financial resources and significant existing fossil-fuel infrastructures. Ironically, both British Columbia (Canada) and Norway currently maintain explicit bans or moratoriums against nuclear energy deployment, despite their vast resources and the availability of advanced nuclear technologies. These regions often enthusiastically support hydro-powered DAC-to-synthetic-fuel initiatives, exemplified by ventures like Carbon Engineering in British Columbia, owned by Occidental Petroleum (Oxy)—a fossil fuel major. ERI highlights the inherent contradictions in these petro-states’ energy policies: specifically, their insistence on promoting renewable-driven DAC and synthetic fuel technologies while arbitrarily excluding nuclear power. ERI’s strategic focus involves urging these nations to reconsider anti-nuclear policies, enabling them to leverage nuclear’s unparalleled benefits—particularly its unmatched reliability, high energy density, and minimal environmental footprint—to scale DAC and hydrogen production at levels unachievable by renewables alone, thereby significantly accelerating paths toward true climate leadership and global decarbonization.


Regional Initiatives: ERIN, ERICH, and ERICA

Expanding its global impact, ERI has launched region-specific initiatives including:


  • ERIN (Earth Rise Initiatives, Norway): Targets Norway's role in pioneering decarbonization technologies, advocating for nuclear inclusion alongside existing carbon capture and hydrogen efforts.


  • ERICH (Earth Rise Initiatives, China): Leverages China’s expansive capabilities and rapid clean-tech growth, aiming to facilitate large-scale deployment of nuclear-powered DAC and hydrogen production systems, crucial for global emissions reductions.


  • ERICA (Earth Rise Initiatives, Canada): Focuses on Canada’s technological potential, urging policy changes to support nuclear power in regions currently restricting its deployment and advocating for integrated nuclear-DAC-hydrogen hubs.


Thus, ERI presents a clear, scientifically grounded, and strategically coherent vision, fully aligning with Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s rigorous advocacy, and committed to confronting fossil-fuel-funded misinformation and counterproductive policy contradictions directly. ERI is dedicated not only to advancing technical innovation but also to transforming policy frameworks and public perceptions—ensuring nuclear power, direct air capture, and hydrogen solutions are deployed efficiently, responsibly, and comprehensively at a global scale.


Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s Ecomodernist Philosophy

Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger rose to prominence by challenging mainstream environmentalism and proposing a new paradigm grounded in optimism about technology and human creativity. In their 2004 essay “The Death of Environmentalism,” they argued that the 20th-century environmental movement’s focus on limits, regulations, and apocalyptic rhetoric was ill-suited to address complex 21st-century problems like climate change (About Landing | The Breakthrough Institute). Instead, they called for an affirmative vision that inspires innovation and aligns environmental goals with economic development. This perspective laid the groundwork for ecomodernism – a term they and colleagues use to describe an environmentalism that embraces modernization, scientific advancement, and big solutions. “We call ourselves ecopragmatists and ecomodernists,” they wrote, aiming to put “humankind’s extraordinary powers in the service of creating a good Anthropocene” (The Breakthrough Institute | An Ecomodernist Manifesto - English).

At the heart of ecomodernism is the idea of “intensifying” human activities to use less nature. Nordhaus and Shellenberger argue that by concentrating agriculture in high-yield farms, urbanizing populations, and generating energy from dense sources like nuclear, humanity can spare more land and resources for nature (The Breakthrough Institute | An Ecomodernist Manifesto - English). This is a direct contrast to traditional green thinking that often advocates living more “in harmony” with nature at small scales; ecomodernists believe the path to sustainability is through scaling up efficient technologies so that fewer wild areas and less atmosphere are impacted by human needs (The Breakthrough Institute | An Ecomodernist Manifesto - English). As the Ecomodernist Manifesto (co-authored by Nordhaus, Shellenberger, and others in 2015) states, nuclear power, aquaculture, and desalination are examples of powerful tools that “reduce human demands on the environment, allowing more room for non-human species” (The Breakthrough Institute | An Ecomodernist Manifesto - English).

Another key aspect of Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s philosophy is a critique of “mitigation only” approaches in climate policy. They have often highlighted that simply setting carbon targets and restricting fossil fuels is politically and economically difficult unless viable clean alternatives become cheap and abundant. Thus, they advocate to “make clean energy cheap” as the most effective way to cut emissions (About Landing | The Breakthrough Institute). This view influenced the Breakthrough Institute’s strategy from its founding in 2007: rather than focusing on ever stricter emissions caps, Nordhaus and Shellenberger pushed for major investments in energy innovation – from solar and battery research to advanced nuclear reactors – to outperform fossil fuels economically. By pursuing innovation, they argued, climate action can become a positive-sum game that aligns with development aspirations, especially for billions in developing countries seeking to escape poverty (About Landing | The Breakthrough Institute).

Importantly, Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s stance often put them at odds with segments of the environmental movement. They criticized what they saw as climate alarmism and the opposition to technologies like nuclear or genetic modification on ideological grounds. Michael Shellenberger, for instance, has been vocal in accusing mainstream environmental groups of exaggerating climate risks and being overly hostile to pragmatic solutions – themes he explored in his 2020 bestseller “Apocalypse Never.” While controversial to some, these critiques underscore a willingness to challenge conventional wisdom. ERI’s approach appears sympathetic to this heterodox mindset. Like the Breakthrough Institute, ERI emphasizes pragmatism over ideology – favoring any solution that works, whether it’s politically fashionable or not. This shared heterodoxy opens the door for collaboration grounded in problem-solving rather than adhering to a single dogma.


Shared Advocacy for Nuclear Energy

One of the clearest intersections between ERI’s mission and the work of Nordhaus and Shellenberger is a strong advocacy for nuclear energy. Both see nuclear power as indispensable for achieving deep decarbonization, and both work to counter the skepticism or opposition that nuclear energy has faced in mainstream discourse.

ERI’s manifesto positions nuclear power as a cornerstone of the clean energy transition. Nuclear reactors can generate massive amounts of reliable electricity without carbon emissions, which is crucial for powering modern economies and also for driving energy-intensive climate solutions like DAC and hydrogen production. ERI emphasizes that today’s reactors and tomorrow’s innovations in advanced nuclear can provide the “abundant, cheap, safe, and reliable” energy needed to displace coal and gas globally (About Landing | The Breakthrough Institute). This language closely mirrors arguments made by Nordhaus and Shellenberger over the past decade. In fact, since the 2011 Fukushima accident, the Breakthrough Institute (led by Nordhaus) has focused heavily on the future of nuclear energy, arguing alongside scientists and engineers that climate change cannot be solved without a large expansion of nuclear power (About Landing | The Breakthrough Institute).

Nordhaus and Shellenberger frequently highlight nuclear energy’s unmatched track record in delivering clean power. In An Ecomodernist Manifesto, they point out that nuclear fission is the only present-day zero-carbon technology capable of meeting most energy demands of a modern economy (The Breakthrough Institute | An Ecomodernist Manifesto - English). They acknowledge challenges – high costs, public fears, and institutional hurdles – but insist that innovating to produce safer, cheaper nuclear technologies is pivotal for climate mitigation (The Breakthrough Institute | An Ecomodernist Manifesto - English). Their optimism extends to next-generation solutions: “advanced nuclear fission and nuclear fusion represent the most plausible pathways toward the joint goals of climate stabilization and radical decoupling of humans from nature,” the manifesto notes, while also recognizing that scaling them will take time (The Breakthrough Institute | An Ecomodernist Manifesto - English). ERI’s mission aligns with this outlook, as it likewise supports developing new reactor designs (such as small modular reactors or molten salt reactors) and deploying nuclear in more countries as a long-term climate strategy.

Perhaps more concretely, Michael Shellenberger’s activism with Environmental Progress (EP) has demonstrated how pronuclear advocacy can achieve results – something ERI can draw inspiration from. EP, founded by Shellenberger in 2016, has led grassroots and policy campaigns to prevent the premature closure of existing nuclear plants and to promote nuclear new-builds as a matter of “climate and energy justice” (About Us — Environmental Progress). Some of EP’s biggest victories include helping save nuclear reactors in Illinois, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and overseas in countries like South Korea and Taiwan (About Us — Environmental Progress). In South Korea, for example, EP rallied support for nuclear power in 2017 when a new government debated cutting back on it, contributing to a decision to continue building reactors. In Taiwan, Shellenberger personally spoke out against a proposed nuclear phase-out, echoing ERI’s stance that losing nuclear capacity would set back climate progress. These efforts resonate with ERI’s goals: keeping existing nuclear plants running (safely) avoids backsliding to coal or gas, and expanding nuclear in new regions can leapfrog dependence on fossil fuels.

(About Us — Environmental Progress) (About Us — Environmental Progress) Environmental Progress staff and fellows celebrate a pro-nuclear victory (saving reactors in South Korea, 2017). EP has helped build a humanistic, fact-driven movement that reframes nuclear energy as a vital solution for climate change and global development.

ERI and the Breakthrough Institute also share an understanding that public perception is the biggest barrier for nuclear, more than engineering or physics. A 2021 New Yorker article profiling pro-nuclear activists (including Shellenberger) encapsulated this: “Much of what we think we know about nuclear is wrong… Instead of being the most dangerous energy source, it is one of the safest… It has been steadily providing low-carbon electricity for decades… The most significant problem with nuclear power, by far, is public perception.” (About Us — Environmental Progress). Changing this perception is central to both EP’s and ERI’s mission. Nordhaus’s Breakthrough Institute works on communications and framing, publishing analyses on how exaggerated fears of radiation or accidents don’t match the scientific evidence, and how nuclear’s benefits for the climate and health (in lives saved from air pollution) far outweigh its risks. ERI can leverage this work to inform its own messaging. By presenting nuclear in a human-centric way – as a means to ensure affordable energy for all while protecting the planet – they can continue to shift the narrative from one of fear to one of possibility.

In summary, the pro-nuclear alignment between Nordhaus & Shellenberger and ERI is strong and multifaceted. Both camps believe that achieving a high-energy, low-carbon future is impossible without nuclear power. They promote policies to extend the life of current reactors, finance new projects, streamline licensing, and invest in innovation. They also share lessons on coalition-building: Breakthrough operates as a think-tank generating supportive research (e.g. on nuclear costs, safety record, and policy reform), while EP operates as an advocacy network putting that research into action. A partnership with ERI could marry these strengths in the regions ERI is focused on (as discussed later in the report), helping to enact concrete nuclear initiatives in those countries.

Embracing Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Carbon Removal

Another pillar of ERI’s strategy is Direct Air Capture (DAC) – using technology to literally pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is a form of carbon dioxide removal that ERI sees as critical for meeting climate goals, especially in scenarios where some emissions are hard to eliminate or global carbon budgets are exceeded. Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s ecomodernist perspective likewise acknowledges the importance of negative emissions technologies like DAC as part of a comprehensive climate solution set.

The Breakthrough Institute has written extensively on the need for carbon removal. As one Breakthrough analysis noted, climate models increasingly rely on negative emissions because the world has “blown past” many emissions targets already (Building Bridges to Negative Emissions | The Breakthrough Institute). Initially, models focused on approaches like planting forests or BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage), but those face limits such as enormous land requirements (Building Bridges to Negative Emissions | The Breakthrough Institute). In contrast, direct air capture is seen as “arguably the most promising” source of large-scale negative emissions, since it does not compete for arable land and can, in theory, be scaled up to remove billions of tons of CO2 (Building Bridges to Negative Emissions | The Breakthrough Institute). This echoes ERI’s manifesto, which positions DAC as a crucial tool to actively reverse climate change (not just slow it), by drawing down legacy carbon from the sky.

Both ERI and Breakthrough advocates understand that DAC, while promising, is not a magic bullet and faces practical hurdles. DAC machines require significant energy input to capture and then sequester CO2. If that energy does not come from carbon-free sources (like nuclear or renewables), the net benefit diminishes. Additionally, captured CO2 must be stored securely – likely underground – or utilized in products, which necessitates a network of pipelines, storage sites, or conversion facilities. As Breakthrough experts observed, scaling DAC would entail building a massive new infrastructure for handling CO2, “a magnitude that could rival that of the U.S. Interstate Highway System” in terms of pipelines and facilities (Building Bridges to Negative Emissions | The Breakthrough Institute). This won’t happen without supportive policy. Encouragingly, the United States has begun to provide incentives (e.g. the 45Q tax credit that pays $50/ton for captured CO2 stored geologically) and even larger programs under recent legislation to kickstart a DAC industry (Building Bridges to Negative Emissions | The Breakthrough Institute). ERI’s initiative can build on these developments by advocating similar or greater support in other countries.

Ecomodernists like Nordhaus and Shellenberger approach DAC with a pragmatic enthusiasm that aligns with ERI’s position. They see it neither as a get-out-of-jail-free card nor as a distraction, but as a necessary complement to emissions reduction. In their view, mitigation and removal are both essential: we must cut as much emissions as possible and likely remove billions of tons of CO2 to stabilize the climate, especially at 1.5°C targets. Shellenberger himself has not written as prolifically on DAC as he has on nuclear, but he has acknowledged the role of carbon capture and removal in numerous talks and interviews, often pointing out that fossil fuel industries could become allies in carbon management. (For instance, oil companies have the drilling and pipeline expertise for CO2 storage, and some like Occidental Petroleum are investing in DAC to eventually supply CO2 for making synthetic fuels or for sequestration in old oil fields.) This nuanced view – engaging incumbent industries to deploy climate solutions – resonates with ERI’s techno-realism.

ERI can leverage the Breakthrough Institute’s research on DAC to strengthen its own initiatives. Breakthrough’s publication “Building Bridges to Negative Emissions” provides policy roadmaps for DAC, suggesting the need for government procurement (such as carbon removal mandates or contracts-for-difference), public-private partnerships, and international collaboration to drive down costs (Building Bridges to Negative Emissions | The Breakthrough Institute) (Building Bridges to Negative Emissions | The Breakthrough Institute). These ideas could feed into ERI’s work in countries like Canada and Norway, which have strong energy sectors and suitable geology for CO2 storage. Moreover, Breakthrough’s emphasis on innovation-friendly regulation is relevant: just as they argue for “loosening the regulations” to accelerate hydrogen (as discussed in the next section), a similar case can be made for streamlining permits for DAC projects or CO2 pipelines. In sum, ERI’s championing of DAC finds a solid foundation in the ecomodernist community, reinforcing the notion that mass carbon removal is a feasible and important project for humanity – one that complements the deployment of clean energy.

Hydrogen as a Transition Fuel and Energy Carrier

The third key element of ERI’s manifesto is hydrogen, envisioned as a flexible clean fuel and energy carrier that can aid the transition to a net-zero emissions economy. Hydrogen can be used to store energy, fuel vehicles (especially heavy trucks, ships, possibly planes), and provide high-temperature heat for industry – all areas where direct electrification is difficult. ERI highlights hydrogen as a way to connect nuclear and DAC in its strategy: for example, nuclear plants could produce low-carbon hydrogen (via electrolysis or high-temperature processes) which in turn could fuel industrial processes or even combine with captured CO2 from DAC to synthesize carbon-neutral fuels. This integrated vision aligns well with thinking at the Breakthrough Institute and Environmental Progress, though hydrogen has sometimes been a secondary topic compared to nuclear in their writings.

Ecomodernists view hydrogen as a crucial tool for achieving deep decarbonization, provided it is produced in a low-carbon way (often termed “green hydrogen” when made from renewables, or “pink hydrogen” when made from nuclear energy). A Breakthrough Institute commentary by Matthew L. Wald bluntly noted that nuclear reactors have an advantage in making hydrogen, since currently the dominant production method (steam methane reforming of natural gas) emits CO2 (Make Carbon-Free Hydrogen with Nuclear Energy?). By using nuclear electricity or heat for hydrogen, we could decarbonize the supply of hydrogen itself, which then decarbonizes its end uses. Nordhaus and colleagues have analyzed the emerging hydrogen economy in pieces like “Two Pillars, Not Three” (2024), where they discuss how to balance immediate emissions concerns with long-term growth of the hydrogen industry (Two Pillars, Not Three | The Breakthrough Institute). They argue that overly strict rules on what counts as “clean hydrogen” in the early stages could slow investment and innovation, advocating for a bit more flexibility to get the hydrogen ecosystem going (Two Pillars, Not Three | The Breakthrough Institute) (Two Pillars, Not Three | The Breakthrough Institute). This stance – prioritizing innovation over perfection – matches ERI’s pragmatic ethos.

In practice, hydrogen is rapidly gaining traction around the world, a trend both ERI and ecomodernists are keen to harness. Canada, China, and Norway – ERI’s focus regions – all have ambitious hydrogen plans (as discussed in the next section). For instance, Canada’s national hydrogen strategy aims for hydrogen to deliver 30% of the country’s energy by 2050 (Canada - Country Level Assessment of Strategic International Hydrogen RD&D Collaboration Opportunities). China’s state-owned energy companies like Sinopec are investing billions in hydrogen infrastructure, with Sinopec pledging a five-year investment of $4.6 billion to build 1,000 hydrogen refueling stations and produce hundreds of thousands of tons of green hydrogen (The Hydrogen Stream: new plans in the Nordics, China, Canada and Australia – pv magazine International). Norway, with its abundant renewable power and offshore expertise, is pioneering projects to make “blue hydrogen” from natural gas with carbon capture and “green hydrogen” from electrolysis powered by hydro and wind. In 2024, Norway opened one of Europe’s largest green hydrogen plants – a 24 MW electrolyser facility at Herøya – to produce hydrogen and ammonia for fertilizer and shipping fuel, cutting tens of thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions per year (Yara opens renewable hydrogen plant: “A major milestone” | Yara International). ERI’s emphasis on hydrogen as a transition fuel is validated by these real-world developments.

Where Nordhaus and Shellenberger come in is by providing a framework to ensure hydrogen fulfills its promise in synergy with nuclear and DAC. Shellenberger’s Environmental Progress has highlighted that a high-energy future with widespread hydrogen use likely requires firm power inputs (like nuclear) to make that hydrogen without emissions, especially when the wind isn’t blowing or sun isn’t shining. In public talks, Shellenberger often underscores that countries like France (with nuclear) or Norway (with hydro) are better positioned to produce clean hydrogen at scale compared to those relying solely on intermittent renewables. The Breakthrough Institute has similarly examined coupling nuclear with hydrogen: e.g., exploring how a new generation of small modular reactors could be co-located with industrial plants to provide hydrogen through high-temperature steam electrolysis (Make Carbon-Free Hydrogen with Nuclear Energy?). These insights support ERI’s advocacy for cross-sector integration – essentially using the output of one clean technology to enable another (use nuclear to make hydrogen, use hydrogen to decarbonize industries, use DAC to neutralize the remaining carbon).

Additionally, ecomodernists pay attention to the geopolitics of hydrogen, which complements ERI’s global outlook. If hydrogen becomes a major internationally traded commodity (as oil and gas are today), it could reshape energy geopolitics. Countries with cheap clean electricity (solar-rich deserts, windy plains, or nuclear-powered grids) could export hydrogen or derived fuels (like ammonia) to countries that need energy imports. This prospect is why we see partnerships forming – for example, Canada and Germany have signed agreements on hydrogen trade, and China is eyeing hydrogen to reduce reliance on imported oil. The Breakthrough Journal’s issue on Climate Geopolitics likely delves into these dynamics. For ERI, which works in Norway (a potential exporter of blue/green hydrogen and ammonia) and in Canada (which could become a supplier to energy-importing allies in Europe or Asia), understanding these geopolitical currents is key. The alignment here is that both ERI and Nordhaus/Shellenberger view hydrogen not just as an engineering matter, but as a strategic asset that can foster international collaboration or, if mishandled, competition.

In summary, hydrogen’s role as envisaged by ERI is strongly reinforced by the narratives coming from the Breakthrough Institute and Environmental Progress. All agree that hydrogen can connect multiple pieces of the clean economy puzzle. To make this a reality, they promote policies such as investing in electrolyzer R&D, building initial infrastructure (pipelines, refueling stations), and creating market signals (like credit programs or blending requirements) to drive demand for clean hydrogen. They also support the inclusion of nuclear alongside renewables in hydrogen production – a stance that is increasingly recognized, as even the U.S. and U.K. have launched projects for “nuclear hydrogen.” For ERI, having the thought leadership of ecomodernists behind its hydrogen push provides intellectual backing and practical ideas to advance hydrogen as a global transition fuel.

Focus Regions and Geopolitical Initiatives: Canada, China, and Norway

ERI’s mission is not confined to theory – it extends to on-the-ground initiatives in specific countries and regions. In particular, ERI has identified Canada, China, and Norway as key focus areas for implementing its nuclear-DAC-hydrogen transition. These three countries represent diverse contexts: a North American economy with vast resources and stable institutions (Canada), the world’s largest developing economy and emitter rapidly scaling up clean tech (China), and a smaller wealthy nation leveraging its energy heritage to innovate in climate solutions (Norway). By working in these regions, ERI aims to demonstrate and catalyze its strategies in real-world settings. The Breakthrough Institute and Environmental Progress likewise operate (or can operate) on international fronts, and their involvement in these regions could greatly enhance ERI’s impact. Below, we explore ERI’s work in each country and how collaboration with Nordhaus, Shellenberger, and their organizations could take shape.

Canada: Clean Tech Innovation and Policy Leadership

Canada is a natural partner for ERI’s objectives. It is a country with strong climate ambitions and a resource base that includes uranium, vast renewable potential, and geological capacity for CO2 storage. ERI’s work in Canada focuses on leveraging these strengths: supporting the development of advanced nuclear reactors (including small modular reactors in provinces like Ontario, Saskatchewan, and New Brunswick), promoting DAC projects in places like Alberta (which has both suitable storage sites and direct air capture companies emerging), and advancing Canada’s national hydrogen strategy.

Canada has shown leadership with a comprehensive hydrogen plan – aiming for hydrogen to meet 30% of the country’s end-use energy by 2050 (Canada - Country Level Assessment of Strategic International Hydrogen RD&D Collaboration Opportunities) – and is pursuing multiple large-scale DAC initiatives (one example is the planned Air Products DAC plant in Alberta, partly backed by Canadian and US incentives). It also has a longstanding nuclear industry (CANDU reactors) providing clean power in Ontario and exporting reactor technology abroad (e.g., CANDU reactors operate in China). ERI likely engages with Canadian policymakers, industry, and researchers to integrate these efforts, for instance by ensuring that SMR development and deployment stays on track (Canada is working on deploying SMRs at off-grid sites and possibly replacing coal plants) and that carbon removal gets the needed funding and regulatory support to scale up.

Collaboration with the Breakthrough Institute in Canada could involve joint research and advising on innovation policy. Breakthrough’s experts (such as senior analyst Seaver Wang, who has written on Canada’s energy/climate scenario modeling (Two Pillars, Not Three | The Breakthrough Institute)) can provide insight into how Canada can meet its net-zero goal while growing its energy sector. A partnership could produce a white paper on, say, “Making Clean Energy Cheap in Canada”, analyzing how federal programs (like Canada’s Strategic Innovation Fund or Infrastructure Bank) could invest in nuclear-hydrogen hubs or DAC hubs. Breakthrough’s network can also connect ERI to global dialogues; for example, Canada is part of Mission Innovation and the Clean Energy Ministerial’s hydrogen initiative (Canada - Country Level Assessment of Strategic International Hydrogen RD&D Collaboration Opportunities) (Canada - Country Level Assessment of Strategic International Hydrogen RD&D Collaboration Opportunities) – arenas where Breakthrough has a presence and could elevate ERI’s ideas.

Environmental Progress, on the other hand, could engage the public and political side in Canada. While Canada’s public is generally pro-climate-action, there have been contentious debates (e.g., carbon tax politics, pipeline protests, nuclear waste siting). EP’s experience in reframing debates could be useful. Michael Shellenberger has testified to the U.S. and Japanese governments (About Us — Environmental Progress); he could do the same in Canadian forums, making the case that Canada’s large hydro and nuclear base position it to be a “clean energy superpower” exporting clean fuels (instead of just oil). EP could also help organize civil society voices – for instance, mobilizing environmentalists who support nuclear and carbon removal to speak out, countering any anti-nuclear or NIMBY resistance to new projects. One practical strategy might be hosting a Canada edition of the “Ecomodernism” event (Breakthrough has an annual event in Washington, DC (About Landing | The Breakthrough Institute)) in Ottawa or Toronto, co-sponsored by ERI, Breakthrough, and Canadian partners, to share success stories and build a pro-nuclear, pro-DAC coalition across party lines.

China: Scaling Solutions in the World’s Largest Energy Market

China is arguably the most crucial player in the global climate equation. It is the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, but it is also the biggest builder of clean energy infrastructure – including wind, solar, and significantly nuclear power. ERI’s interest in China likely stems from the recognition that any technological pathway (nuclear, DAC, hydrogen) must succeed in China to succeed globally. ERI may be involved in dialogues or cooperative projects to help China adopt and improve these technologies, as well as to learn from China’s experiences in rapid scaling.

China’s nuclear energy expansion is unparalleled: over the last decade it added 34 GW of nuclear capacity (bringing it to 55 operating reactors as of 2024) and has 23 more reactors under construction ( China continues rapid growth of nuclear power capacity - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) ). The government’s plans call for increasing nuclear capacity to 70 GW by 2025 and potentially 150 GW or more by 2030 (China is building half of the world's new nuclear power despite ...). This growth aligns perfectly with Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s view that nuclear is essential for climate mitigation. Indeed, Shellenberger often contrasts China’s approach with countries that have rejected nuclear: “China is building half of the world’s new nuclear plants” while, for example, Germany shuttered theirs and ended up with higher emissions. The Breakthrough Institute has noted how quickly China achieved what took others decades ( China continues rapid growth of nuclear power capacity - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) ), underscoring that political will and centralized investment can rapidly deploy nuclear at scale. ERI could collaborate with Breakthrough to study and publicize how China managed to cut costs and time for nuclear builds, and what lessons can be applied elsewhere (or vice versa, how Western designs and safety practices could benefit China).

On the DAC and hydrogen fronts, China is still in earlier stages but moving fast. The Chinese government has included carbon capture and carbon removal in its long-term plans (recognizing that to reach carbon-neutral by 2060, they likely need some negative emissions). Companies like Sinopec are piloting DAC (for instance, China’s first DAC plant launched in 2022 capturing CO2 for use in soda manufacture, albeit small scale). Sinopec’s aforementioned massive investment in hydrogen fueling and production (The Hydrogen Stream: new plans in the Nordics, China, Canada and Australia – pv magazine International) also indicates a top-down drive to lead in hydrogen technology. ERI’s role in China might involve knowledge exchange: helping Chinese researchers and firms connect with their counterparts in the West. Breakthrough Institute, which has Chinese translations of its ecomodernist writings (About Landing | The Breakthrough Institute) and has engaged with Chinese scholars, could serve as a bridge. For example, Breakthrough could co-host workshops with ERI and Chinese think tanks on topics like advanced nuclear regulation (China is developing SMRs and even fusion research), or on building DAC hubs. This kind of collaboration aligns with an ecomodernist principle that “technological choices will be determined by national and local institutions and cultures” (The Breakthrough Institute | An Ecomodernist Manifesto - English) – meaning one should work within the context of each country. With China, that means engaging state-owned enterprises and government research institutes, providing input that fits their massive scale deployment mindset.

Environmental Progress might engage with China differently, given China’s political system doesn’t allow NGO activism in the way democracies do. However, Shellenberger’s influence can still be relevant via media and diplomatic channels. He has frequently praised China’s nuclear build-out in global media, which can counter narratives that China is only building coal. Also, EP’s mission of “nature, peace, and prosperity” resonates with China’s stated goals of an “Ecological Civilization”. One practical strategy: ERI, Breakthrough, and EP could jointly invite Chinese energy experts to international conferences on nuclear and hydrogen. This fosters cooperation and could lead to partnerships, for example, to test advanced reactors co-designed by Western and Chinese engineers or to develop a standard for clean hydrogen trade (ensuring hydrogen imported from or exported to China meets a low-carbon threshold). By collaborating, they help integrate China positively into global climate efforts, rather than isolating it.

It’s worth noting that collaboration with China must account for geopolitical sensitivities (competition, IP concerns, etc.). Ecomodernists often emphasize accelerating innovation everywhere. In that spirit, ERI partnering with organizations like Breakthrough can frame the narrative as “Climate change is a common challenge that transcends rivalries – sharing and improving technology like safer nuclear reactors or efficient DAC benefits all sides.” If successful, such partnerships could accelerate China’s decarbonization, which is essential for the planet.

Norway: Pioneering Decarbonization of Hard-to-Abate Sectors

Norway is a unique case: a country made wealthy by oil and gas, yet deeply committed to climate action and technological solutions. ERI’s involvement in Norway likely leverages the country’s forward-thinking initiatives in carbon capture and storage (CCS), hydrogen, and potentially even exploring nuclear options for the future. Norway is home to projects of high relevance to ERI’s focus – notably the Northern Lights CO2 storage project (the world’s first open-access CO2 storage infrastructure, intended to take captured CO2 from various European sources and inject it under the North Sea) and the newly opened Yara green hydrogen/ammonia plant at Porsgrunn (Yara opens renewable hydrogen plant: “A major milestone” | Yara International).

ERI’s work in Norway may include partnering with industry and government on these projects, demonstrating how DAC CO2 could be fed into Northern Lights, or how nuclear power ships or reactors could one day produce hydrogen offshore. While Norway currently has no nuclear power plants (and a historical aversion to nuclear energy for domestic use), the global nuclear discussion is not lost on Norway – they are concerned with energy security and climate in Europe broadly. ERI could be subtly laying groundwork for a conversation about advanced nuclear in Norway’s energy mix (for instance, small reactors for remote areas or to provide heat for industrial processes), tying it into Norway’s quest to decarbonize oil & gas operations and heavy industry.

Collaboration with Breakthrough Institute in Norway can take advantage of Breakthrough’s thought leadership on “clean firm power” and net-zero pathways. Breakthrough could analyze scenarios for Norway (and Scandinavia) where fossil fuels (even for export) are phased out by mid-century with the help of firm low-carbon power (maybe imported nuclear-generated electricity or hydrogen). Breakthrough’s journal issue on “The New Nuclear Explosion” (About Landing | The Breakthrough Institute) might contain case studies of countries revisiting nuclear – something that could be shared with Norwegian stakeholders. Additionally, Breakthrough’s focus on climate geopolitics (About Landing | The Breakthrough Institute) is very pertinent: Norway’s role in Europe’s climate plan (e.g., providing storage for Europe’s CO2, exporting green ammonia to Germany, etc.) makes it a geopolitical linchpin. A joint ERI–Breakthrough policy brief could evaluate how Norway can maximize its positive influence by investing oil revenues into new clean tech (like DAC plants or even financing nuclear builds in developing nations as climate aid).

Environmental Progress could assist in Norway by contributing to public discourse. While EP is U.S.-based, Shellenberger’s books and interviews reach international audiences. Norwegian public opinion has been very climate-conscious, but also protective of certain landscapes (there’s resistance to onshore wind farms, for example). EP’s messaging about saving nature by using high-density energy could resonate: Norwegians cherish their environment, and EP’s narrative that nuclear energy spares nature (by avoiding sprawling fuel extraction and reducing pollution) (The Breakthrough Institute | An Ecomodernist Manifesto - English) might intrigue Norwegian environmentalists. Furthermore, Norway has a strong peace and humanitarian tradition; EP’s values of “peace and prosperity for all” (About Us — Environmental Progress) and its campaigns against energy poverty can align with Norway’s international aid outlook. Imagine a collaboration where EP and ERI present to Norway’s climate ministry on how helping other countries deploy nuclear or DAC (with Norwegian support) could significantly amplify global emissions reductions – a kind of climate solidarity pitch.

Practically, ERI, Breakthrough, and EP might partner to advise Norway’s government on a comprehensive decarbonization roadmap that includes their three pillars: (1) Scale up hydrogen and ammonia production for export (as Norway is doing – Yara’s plant is a start, with more to come, possibly using offshore wind and natural gas with CCS), (2) Invest in DAC and CCS to remove not just Norway’s residual emissions but to offer carbon removal services to Europe (Northern Lights could be expanded for DAC CO2 from anywhere), and (3) Explore advanced nuclear for the long term (perhaps join EU research consortia or host a test SMR at an industrial site). With Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s influence, they could bring global attention to Norway’s efforts, framing Norway as a testbed for ecomodernist solutions. For example, a high-profile op-ed by Nordhaus/Shellenberger in a Norwegian outlet, co-authored with ERI representatives, could build public support for these ideas.

Opportunities for Partnership and Collaboration

Given the strong alignment outlined above, there are several practical strategies by which ERI, the Breakthrough Institute, and Environmental Progress could collaborate to advance their shared objectives:

  • Joint Research and Publications: ERI and Breakthrough Institute could co-produce reports or manifestos targeted at specific regions or technologies. For instance, a report on “Nuclear-Hydrogen Synergies for Net-Zero” could compile data and case studies from Canada, China, and Norway, providing a blueprint for policymakers. By combining ERI’s manifesto vision with Breakthrough’s analytical rigor, such publications would carry weight and credibility. All research would maintain clear, cited evidence – a practice Breakthrough is known for, as seen in its many thoroughly-referenced journal articles.

  • Policy Advocacy and Advisory Coalitions: In each focus country, a coalition can be formed that includes local partners (government agencies, industry players, NGOs) along with ERI, EP, and Breakthrough experts. These coalitions would work to inform and influence policy. For example, in Canada, the coalition might push for streamlined licensing of SMRs, enhanced 45Q-style credits for DAC, and subsidies for green hydrogen. Nordhaus and Shellenberger, with their experience briefing lawmakers (Shellenberger testified in U.S. Congress multiple times (About Us — Environmental Progress)), could assist in crafting persuasive testimonies or consultations for Canadian Parliament committees or Norwegian ministries.

  • Public Communication Campaigns: Environmental Progress excels in advocacy campaigns – rallying supporters, creating accessible messaging, and engaging the media. A partnership could launch a “Clean Energy for Earth Rise” campaign that tells success stories of nuclear, DAC, and hydrogen. This might involve writing op-eds in international newspapers, producing short documentary videos, and leveraging social media to spread ecomodernist ideas. The messaging would highlight facts like “Nuclear power has saved lives by reducing air pollution” and “Direct Air Capture can help undo our carbon legacy – if we invest now”, supported by Breakthrough’s data (e.g., the safety record of nuclear, cost trajectories for DAC) (About Us — Environmental Progress) (Building Bridges to Negative Emissions | The Breakthrough Institute).

  • Conferences and Dialogues: Hosting international conferences under a banner such as Earth Rise Ecomodernism Summit could bring together stakeholders from Canada, China, Norway and beyond. Breakthrough Institute’s annual Dialogue and its network of fellows and scholars could provide content and speakers, while ERI ensures the agenda is geared toward actionable partnership opportunities. Environmental Progress can bring grassroots voices – for instance, a young environmentalist from Taiwan who fought to keep nuclear plants open (with EP’s help) could speak to the audience in Norway or Canada, inspiring a values-based case for nuclear. These events foster cross-pollination of ideas and create media buzz around the joint efforts.

  • Demonstration Projects: Collaboration could also take the form of concrete projects. For example, ERI might spearhead a pilot where a small modular reactor’s waste heat is used for DAC in Alberta’s oil sands region – demonstrating nuclear-enabled carbon removal. Breakthrough’s engineers and economic analysts could help design the project, while EP garners public backing and helps secure political buy-in by emphasizing community benefits (jobs, local environmental improvement). Similarly, in Norway, a demonstration of blending hydrogen into gas pipelines or running an ammonia-fueled ship could be supported by the trio’s combined expertise and outreach, showing skeptics that these technologies are viable.

  • Mutual Amplification: Lastly, the organizations can simply amplify each other’s work. ERI can promote Breakthrough’s latest findings on its platforms; Breakthrough can feature ERI’s initiatives in its Breakthrough Journal or blog; Shellenberger and EP can broadcast ERI’s successes to their large following. This mutual amplification ensures a consistent narrative: that ecomodernist, pro-technology environmentalism is delivering results worldwide. It helps scale up the influence of each individual organization into a broader movement.

Conclusion

The convergence of Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger’s ecomodernist advocacy with the Earth Rise Institute’s mission signals a powerful opportunity to accelerate climate action. Both camps reject fatalism and instead champion evidence-based optimism – investing in technologies like nuclear energy, direct air capture, and hydrogen not only as abstract concepts, but as real solutions being deployed in nations from Canada’s nuclear provinces to China’s industrial heartlands to Norway’s North Sea projects. The Earth Rise Manifesto’s vision of a high-tech, globally cooperative pathway to a stable climate finds robust support in Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s writings and the work of the Breakthrough Institute and Environmental Progress.

By working together, these thinkers and institutions can turn alignment into action. In practical terms, that means uniting the strengths of a research think-tank (Breakthrough), an activist coalition (EP), and ERI’s on-the-ground initiatives to influence policy and projects in key regions. It means telling a new story about environmentalism – one where climate heroes are engineers and entrepreneurs as much as they are activists, and where building things replaces blocking things. It also means navigating geopolitical currents shrewdly: helping Western and Chinese experts collaborate on safer nuclear reactors, encouraging countries like Canada and Norway to become exporters of clean fuels and carbon storage expertise, and ensuring that developing nations can leapfrog to these solutions with support.

Ultimately, the alignment between Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s ecomodernism and ERI’s goals illustrates a broader shift in the climate movement. It is a shift from protesting to prototyping, from fears of scarcity to plans for abundance, and from divisive politics to coalitions for innovation. ERI, the Breakthrough Institute, and Environmental Progress – guided by a common belief in human ingenuity – together exemplify the motto: “technology and cooperation can save the planet.” By partnering in Canada, China, Norway and beyond, they can help ensure that the Earth truly rises to the climate challenge, with a brighter and more sustainable future for all.

Sources

 
 
 

Comments

Contact us

© 2025 Earthrise Accord

bottom of page