‘It’s only when you see 49-ton trucks in China running on batteries that you realize how serious electrification is’: Octopus Energy CEO Greg Jackson on Europe’s incumbency problem | Fortune
fortune.com
In 2015, Greg Jackson founded Octopus Energy, now one of the biggest energy suppliers in Europe. He talks to Fortune about the continent’s electrification challenge—and reveals the one decision he took at the beginning of his career that changed the way he does business.

“If we want more growth, we need to allow creative destruction so new companies can deliver the productivity we need.”

Octopus energy ceo greg jackson

    • ryper@lemmy.caEnglish
      101·
      3 days ago

      More context:

      “Incumbents crowd out the innovators in many sectors and markets,” Jackson said. “It wasn’t the Post Office [the U.K.’s public mail service] that invented email. The music industry held back streaming and digital music for 10 to 20 years. What you need is routes to market for new technologies, and I think that can be a challenge in Europe because so many of the big industries essentially have a stranglehold on policy.

      “Economists have said that nearly all productivity growth comes from new companies. If we want more growth, we need to allow creative destruction so new companies can deliver the productivity we need.”

      I think the target of the “creative destruction” here is the companies holding back growth in electrification.

      • njm1314@lemmy.worldEnglish
        21·
        3 days ago

        Does this guy think the post office should be innovating in different technologies? It’s public service. What’s wrong with him?

    • oakward@feddit.orgEnglish
      75·
      3 days ago

      The population tends to grow. Even if it stays stable, how do you envision the improvement of people’s quality of life without growth?

      • DupaCycki@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        3 days ago

        Redistribution.

        Growth is only at all needed, because of a certain group hoarding and wasting everything.

        At the current rate, growth will end all life on our planet. Just a few more years of growth, and we’ll be past the ‘no way back’ line.

        • oakward@feddit.orgEnglish
          5·
          3 days ago

          Can’t ideal communist economies also have growth? Can growth come from efficiency improvements rather than resource consumption increase?

          • marxismtomorrow@lemmy.todayEnglish
            3·
            3 days ago

            Sure, theoretically, after everything else has been solved and it’s what’s desired. The goal of communism is a sustainable (as much as there can be in a universe with entropy) way of life where no one goes without what they need to live. Let’s figure that part out before exploring exponential growth, instead of the other way around.

      • gewindestift@feddit.orgEnglish
        8·
        3 days ago

        The population does not grow in most of the world anymore. Why do we need to improve people’s quality of life all the time? Why don’t we improve the sustainability of the quality we have right now? Because its abysmal and this will (or is it already ?) fuck up everybody’s quality of life for the next 100k years. Resources are limited and unlimited growth is not possible.

      • PuddleOfKittens@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        3 days ago

        how do you envision the improvement of people’s quality of life without growth?

        1. Tax rent-seekers more, to stop them bidding up the cost of finite resources
        2. Remove waste (like being required to drive everywhere due to shitty/lack of public transport)
    • boonhet@lemmy.zipEnglish
      15·
      3 days ago

      Start killing old people people or change the retirement age to 80 and put very severe wealth caps in place then. The entire retirement system is based on growth, doesn’t even matter if capitalism or not, because it involves a large group of people living off the backs of others. It was fine when the economy and population was still growing, now it’s getting oppressive.