When Elon Musk was asked why the first commercial car made by Tesla was a luxury sedan with leather seats, a long range and a big engine, he replied that it was because otherwise no one would buy it. His answer illustrates the problem of adapting new sustainable technologies. Everyone wants new zero-emission solutions, but no one wants a reduction in utility value or standard of living.

Namely, there are two main directions in the view of how we are to solve the sustainability challenges we face as a civilization. On the one hand, we find the prophets who point the finger and demand an immediate halt to the burning of hydrocarbons and associated emissions. On the other side you find the technology optimists who believe that man's ability to solve problems through new technology and new inventions will once again come to our rescue.

If we are to use history as a guide, the technology optimism undoubtedly has a point. Throughout history, the downfall of mankind has been predicted by the prophets countless times and each time technological leaps and new solutions have come to our rescue. Many have heard of Thomas Mathu's prophecies about population growth and food production and subsequent poverty and famine in the 18th century. And who doesn't remember the ozone layer that disappeared, but quickly returned again? Every time the doomsday prophets beat the war drums, they are wrong. Why should it be any different now?

Well, say the prophets. We weren't wrong, we just missed the timing. Increased efficiency in agriculture has an upper limit just as you cannot run 100 meters in 0 or minus seconds. In addition, many of the technology solutions also have negative effects where the consequences do not materialize until later. We are only replacing one problem with another if we do not address the fundamental problem of overconsumption.

The answer is we need both perspectives. We need the awakening that the prophets give us, but also faith that we as humans can solve complex problems when we are faced with various challenges.

And since collectively getting the world's people and nations to agree on the prophets' demands for consumption reduction and reduced living standards, we must find technological solutions that can help us along the way.

So where will these solutions come from? Will companies such as Equinor, Norsk Hydro or Kongsberg come up with these solutions? Presumably not. Although these companies try to appear sustainable, there is probably more of a feeling that sustainability has become a popular demand that these companies also have to address, rather than that they want to lead the way in the fight for good solutions. Even if they have a great power of execution, as when they have to, they choose the safe over the unknown. The reason for this is that these companies have no weighty incentives that pull them towards investing in tomorrow's solutions. The companies are profit maximizing and thus also short-term in nature. Performance is measured in kroner and øre, in share prices and in top and bottom lines. This is a competitive environment that constantly puts pressure on ever-improving processes and products. These companies are therefore very good at small incremental innovations, but to a lesser extent take large technology risks.

So if not the incumbents, who? This is where start-up companies come into the picture. Start-up companies have many characteristics that make them more suitable than established companies to provide us with major and important innovations:

1. Start-up companies are freer - Start-up companies have less demanding shareholders who do not demand immediate dividends and returns. The shareholders in such companies are aware that they take a large risk when they invest. They are thus more risk-seeking and want a possible high return rather than a certain low return.
2. Start-up companies have better time - Since start-up companies are often "bootstrapped" and do not have large fixed ongoing costs. They therefore do not have the same need for earnings as established companies. They can thus "muddle around" longer to find the best solution to a problem as long as the shareholders and creditors keep them alive.
3. Mindset - The start-up companies are more concerned with the understanding of the problem itself and the solution and they often have more or less idealistic origins.
4. Proximity to research – Many start-up companies work at the border between research and the market. Today's research is tomorrow's solutions.

In Norway, we have today set up a very good structure that start-up companies can use. Through publicly supported schemes and in the fringes of these, an ecosystem has emerged in a few years to help tomorrow's business heroes. 33 more or less research-related incubators have been established through SIVA's incubation programme. Alongside these are several exciting private initiatives, several of which focus on sustainability. With the help of Innovation Norway, several private investment consortia and instruments have been established that exclusively invest in start-up companies. Schemes have been established that link business and research more closely.

This has given us explosive development and ever-improving results. 6 years ago when I met startups they were generally pretty bad at most things.

Today, start-up companies deliver the best presentations, the best business models, have the hungriest people and the most radical and exciting ideas.

In other words, we have come a long way. Not everyone can or should become an entrepreneur. It is a postponed item. But we must make arrangements for the entrepreneurs we have to be successful and for us to be able to combine the many positive characteristics of the start-up companies with the implementation ability of the established companies. We have to ensure that start-up companies get their needs met - not by artificially keeping them alive, but by adding the ingredients that enable them to reach their goals faster. Here, not only money, a cheering team and "a hand to hold" are important. More important than anything else is that these companies get access to the expertise they need when they need it and that they manage to maintain the expertise throughout the company's development. Here, Abelia as a representative of knowledge-based industry and the politicians play an important role. If we can, through "nudging", establish arrangements that make it even more attractive to join an exciting start-up, then it will be possible to draw more brainpower from "dirty" industry to more sustainable and future-oriented industry.