#29 Coping with reality

It is hard to stay positive. The Trump election, a Dutch extreme right party in the government, Europe changing its course on sustainability, biodiversity COP16 not a big success, and climate COP29 almost a non-event—and this is only in recent weeks.

It is the time of alarming climate reports. Yesterday, the?global carbon budget concluded that Global fossil CO2 emissions are expected to increase further in 2024 by 0.8%. The remaining carbon budget to limit global warming to 1.5°C, 1.7°C and 2°C above the 1850-1900 level has respectively been reduced to 65 GtC (235 GtCO2), 160 GtC (585 GtCO2) and 305 GtC (1110 GtCO2) from the beginning of 2025, equivalent to around 6, 14 and 27 years, assuming 2024 emissions levels. Today, the?Carbon action tracker?shows that, despite an escalating climate crisis marked by unprecedented wildfires, storms, floods, and droughts, their annual global temperature update shows global warming projections for 2100 are flatlining, with no improvement since 2021. The aggregate effect of current policies set the world toward 2.7°C of warming.

It is hard to stay positive. The Trump election, a Dutch extreme right party in the government, Europe changing its course on sustainability, biodiversity COP16 not a big success, and climate COP29 almost a non-event—and this is only in recent weeks.

It is the time of alarming climate reports. Yesterday, the?global carbon budget concluded that Global fossil CO2 emissions are expected to increase further in 2024 by 0.8%. The remaining carbon budget to limit global warming to 1.5°C, 1.7°C and 2°C above the 1850-1900 level has respectively been reduced to 65 GtC (235 GtCO2), 160 GtC (585 GtCO2) and 305 GtC (1110 GtCO2) from the beginning of 2025, equivalent to around 6, 14 and 27 years, assuming 2024 emissions levels. Today, the?Carbon action tracker?shows that, despite an escalating climate crisis marked by unprecedented wildfires, storms, floods, and droughts, their annual global temperature update shows global warming projections for 2100 are flatlining, with no improvement since 2021. The aggregate effect of current policies set the world toward 2.7°C of warming.

Another recent report on the state of our ecological systems could be more cheerful reading. Six of the nine identified ecosystems are in trouble, such as climate, nitrogen cycles, and land use. Tipping points—nonlinear changes that are irreversible and can permanently alter ecosystems—have already been reached or are dangerously close. The causes and solutions are known, yet the situation becomes more disastrous each time.

I thought I’d read something different. Perhaps this is an ecological Armageddon tunnel vision, and technology will be the solution. So, I dove into a study on the potential impacts of AI on our society. Or more accurately, as I learned, on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). These are not the ChatGPT-like tools of today, but an overarching technological revolution is advancing faster than anticipated. Alarmingly fast. According to the author, the implications are that we might see substantial economic growth and development, but these developments could be highly disruptive to our current society. I’m left with the impression that those who understand AGI well are both excited by its potential and deeply worried about the consequences if it’s not carefully managed.

Still, those studies end with an attempt by the authors to insert a bit of optimism, a “we can do this” note. I often do the same—a perfunctory final paragraph highlighting what is going well, trying to encourage human ingenuity, pointing to the narrow, winding path forward. After all, we want to give people a sense of agency. Yes, we can!

But I’m not sure if that’s the right approach. I agree that despair gets us nowhere, but misplaced optimism without a realistic perspective might be even more pointless, if not dangerous. This hope, without evidence, that we can solve everything—what the tech optimists promote—is worse than the apathetic grumbling of disengaged cynics.

Of course, this optimism is a coping mechanism to avoid looking the beast in the eye. Green growth is one of those ideas: techno-fixes that promise to solve all problems without requiring us to change our behaviours. Emphasizing this type of optimism—sometimes well-founded, often not—only keeps societies on a collision course with reality and prevents necessary adjustments. We have an entire government that follows this method.

So, what then? I refuse to stand with the cynics. I would rather face the uncomfortable truth and do everything I can to encourage meaningful change. I don’t claim to know it all, but I do know that we need more fundamental changes in our economy than those we’re currently trying to implement.

Perhaps that’s the most hopeful strategy: acknowledging that it’s not easy to avert ecological disaster or to steer technological developments responsibly. It will involve sacrifices, and we must implement radical changes, including in our behaviour, by embracing restraint instead of maximization. In a way, I find it hopeful that no one has all the answers. It’s precisely through experimenting, trying things out, tinkering, and imagining that we might find a way forward—without guarantees.

This is also what we (my colleagues from Triodos Bank and I) do in our new weekly podcast, Money for Change (available on?Spotify?and?Apple): we?try to understand what is happening in the outside world, looking for positive perspectives (and the role of money). It is never black and white, but we try to make it green.

For the rest of the blog see my substack