Toxic Novelty in the Startup Space

Toxic startups? But PolyGone… aren’t you a startup too?

Necessity is the mother of invention, which is why some chase novelty in the face of humanity-threatening issues like climate change and malnutrition. Some issues have worsened since they were first identified: animal welfare suffers, the number of undernourished grows, and natural disasters are more-likely today than they were four decades ago. These are signs that everything we’ve tried until now isn’t cutting it. That’s where novelty comes in, right?

Sort of. Some degree of ‘new’ is necessary: new tests must be “more than trivial variations of previous experiments” for knowledge to progress. However, knowledge is also successive, relying on incremental advancements firmly grounded in the knowledge preceding them. Where “novelty” fits into the progression of research is well-discussed yet poorly defined.

Definitions of “novelty” can range from a new methodology for a well-established hypotheses, to a hypothesis with no real precedent. The race for funding, publication, patents, market monopoly, and fame creates a hierarchy of novelty (a “novelty fetish”) where research groups are encouraged to pursue hypotheses that are as unprecedented as possible while remaining feasible and epistemically-grounded. 

Sometimes the prize is so great that the hunt for ‘novelty’ pushes “feasibility” off the wayside. This is especially a risk in the startup world, where startups (by definition) face pressure to scale quickly and innovate. The pressure for startups to be toxically novel is worsened by unicorn lore and technosolutionist messaging.

This isn’t to say that every startup is Theranos, or that knowledge can progress without occasional breakthroughs. But, over-emphasizing the most sensational forms of “novelty” can be counterproductive to advancing knowledge or addressing a problem.

We acknowledge that startups don’t necessarily need to advance knowledge or address a societal problem (although, we think the world would be better off if they did.) In reality, startups exist for a variety of reasons: to generate revenue, to develop a unique product, or simply to tickle a founder’s entrepreneurial fancy. That’s why, here, we target cleantech and social impact startups that claim to be mission-driven when asking: what is the role of startups in planetary progress? Is toxic novelty bad for the planet?

To investigate, let’s pick on a problem and its solutions, focusing on feasibility versus novelty.

Problem:

Climate change threatens, and already impacts, people and ecosystems. Pursuing currently-feasible solutions is crucial because the world has only nine years to avoid the internationally-recognized, plantarily-ruinous warming target of 1.5oC. The United States is the 2nd-largest emitter of greenhouse gasses. Transportation is the top-emitting sector in the United States. Almost all of these emissions come from cars and trucks.

A feasible solution: 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that cities (where most of the population lives and the bulk of emissions comes from) can cut their fuel consumption 25% by expanding public transit and being more pedestrian-friendly. 

Building out public transit systems requires no new technology, meaning it has no net-first-cost to implement (the cost of systematizing a new technology in place of existing infrastructure), can be planned for as soon as today, and is financially-accessible to more American commuters in the near-term than alternative private vehicles. Expanding public transit is mostly the charge of local, state, and federal governments.

A talked-about solution:

Electric vehicles (EVs). Unlike public transit, EVs have a “net first cost to implement” of around $600 billion dollars. This captures the price of implementing a nationwide network of charging stations and investing in battery and electric grid technology. It will take a few years to stabilize the supply chain in order to bring costs down. Until then, many Americans are priced out of buying electric. 

In 2021, EV startups alone raised $21 billion. That’s enough money to fund 2000 miles of light rail track in some U.S. cities. So… does the race to innovate electric vehicles — which still need time and money for the technology, market, and policy to mature — distract from immediately feasible but less-shiny solutions like public transit? Is it mostly toxic novelty?

The missing key: 

90% of the country has access to a personal vehicle. Some don’t have time to take a bus. Some remote locations are sparse and poorly connected by a public transit system, meaning a personal vehicle is a must. Electric vehicles (EV) offer a lower-carbon way for these car owners to commute in a climate-changed world.

It’s clear that a cleaner option for private vehicles is essential to decarbonizing the transportation sector. Startups and growing companies are integral to the solutions landscape because they nudge innovation, influence media priorities, and can realize the concrete technologies needed for policymakers to draft specific, actionable pathways into law. For EVs specifically, startups contribute to supply and battery innovation which helps lower costs and meet growing demand.

And for better or worse, when startups do something, media takes note. One potential risk is that it draws attention away from less sensational, yet potentially more feasible, solutions (such as boosting public transit). The upside is it can change perceptions. Gas is tradition, and the most culturally-significant cars are gas-powered. In its early years, the electric vehicle was seen as fringe and uncool… until Tesla came along. By associating EVs with novel features and a luxury price tag, once-startup Tesla put electric cars in vogue, widening our perception of the typical EV owner. 

The bottom line: pursuing climate solutions isn’t really a zero-sum game. It’s important to contextualize technologies within a landscape of solutions in order to reduce carbon emissions across the board.

Why PolyGone is building something new

The feeding frenzy over funding and desire to be the “next big thing” can alienate startups from the problem they seek to address. At PolyGone, we don’t deny that we frame ourselves around our tech or depend on investments.

However, we hope to create a new filter device because 1) microplastic removal policy is bottlenecked by insufficient quantification of microplastic levels, and 2) an affordable device to remove and measure microplastics doesn’t exist yet. Providing riverkeepers and water managers with a way to assess their local waters is one of our core organs, because we think toxic novelty is more likely to occur when impact startups are product-focused, not problem-focused. We believe technology can drive microplastic policy by offering a tool for lawmakers to speak specifically about removal, and by showing that the microplastic problem has a growing presence in the innovation world.