One evening, I made my way to the London School of Economics where I had the opportunity to hear from a highly seasoned climate diplomat regarding the unexpected ways in which political and business leaders are addressing global warming.
The diplomat in question was Todd Stern, who was appointed by former US president Barack Obama as a climate representative and played a major role during the 2015 Cop climate conference which saw the formulation of the Paris Agreement.
His lecture was a tribute to his colleague Pete Betts, one of the key figures behind the Paris Agreement, who had previously worked as a primary negotiator for both the European Union and the United Kingdom and passed away in October.
Stern didn’t hold back when identifying the primary hindrances to climate change progress. “The numero uno is the fossil fuel sector,” he declared, highlighting the significant influence that public and private companies can wield over politicians.
Furthermore, he drew attention to another culprit, one which was not as apparent: “Our progress is also hindered by those who perceive themselves as mature individuals.” He was targeting politicians and business people who profess to believe in and want to combat global warming, but who also posit that it is impractical to reduce carbon emissions at the rate advocated by climate scientists.
His statement resonated deeply, echoing recent sentiments I have encountered concerning those who are dubbed ‘adults in the room’ or ‘serious figures’ and are accused of stalling climate action.
Not so long ago, western nations were depending on experienced military and civilian officials within the Trump administration to counterbalance the erratic nature of the president’s term. With the threat of Trump’s second term amid escalating geopolitical instability, the conventional perspectives of trusted moderates are seeming more essential than ever.
However, US economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman suggests this unshakable belief in conventional wisdom, despite evidence to the contrary, is what makes these experts a potential threat. Krugman is well-known for promoting the notion of the ‘serious person’.
He has persistently criticised the economic faction of the species, eschewing austerity measures promoted by policy elites from both sides of the pond, post the financial crisis of 2008. These policies were disputed due to the hazard they posed to sustained growth.
The mature individuals hampering efforts to retrench greenhouse gas emissions may not be the identical demographics, however, their detestation for radically innovative ideas is a common thread.
“They represent the conventional establishment,” voiced a senior US climate policy professional during our recent discussion. This remark was directed at the moderate voices echoing across Wall Street to Whitehall, dismissing ambitions for net-zero emissions by 2050 as economically unviable, politically unachievable and naive.
The Herculean task of rapidly decarbonising the global economy is near impossible to visualise, let alone realise.
The argument’s appeal is undeniable. The fact remains that a major proportion of emissions are from fossil fuels – the oil, gas, and coal that makes up roughly 80 percent of the world’s energy consumption. It’s also accurate that these fuels sustain numerous jobs and contribute to nearly 60 percent of the export revenue in multiple countries.
However, the thought of maintaining the status quo is as daunting, especially in light of recent events. This includes record rainfall disrupting operations at Dubai’s bustling international airport, and a detailed study highlighting potential climate damages amounting to $38 trillion (approx €35.6 trillion) p.a by 2050.
Currently, we reside in a world that is already over 1.1 degrees hotter than it was in the late 19th century, with escalating manifestations of discomforting heat, ruthlessly dry conditions, flooding and melting ice.
It’s potentially unjust to ascribe all the responsibility to influential adults in successive governments and corporate offices who have inadequately addressed the issue over years.
Scientific evidence has persistently suggested maintaining global warming within 1.5 degrees, as stated in the Paris Agreement; a feat that demands an extraordinary rapid decarbonisation. This implies emissions would need to reduce drastically by 2030 and reach a state of net-zero by 2050. Currently, global emissions are steadily increasing instead of reducing, and 2030 looms just six years ahead.
Is it reasonable to lay the entire blame on mature individuals in various governments and corporate circles who, despite their years in the field, have failed to adequately address the issue at hand? Unlikely. Nevertheless, it’s justified to pose a question to them which Stern asked the other evening regarding the riskiness of adopting more outspoken and unconventional actions to combat climate change: “In comparison to what?”
We understand that drastic measures, such as sudden comprehensive lockdowns, could be initiated when faced with an immediate global crisis. While climate change is a different kind of calamity that moves at a slower pace, it remains a catastrophe that cannot be disregarded by anyone who considers themselves truly serious about the matter. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2024