It is clear we must act now, so why haven’t we already?

Over the past few months, many people have been captivated by ‘Don’t Look Up’, a popular Netflix film that depicts the destruction of civilization from a comet crashing down from space. Despite persistent warnings from the scientists in the film, the majority of the world remains blissfully ignorant, indifferent to the crisis at hand. A physical comet may not be currently flying towards our Earth, yet we still must face a devastating course of collision. Scientists repeatedly explain the precarious ecological state of our planet, warn us of the consequences, and demand that we take action – yet decision makers continue to move slowly. Just as decisive action is on the verge of occurring, many decision makers turn away, opting for more economically lucrative or competitively advantageous options.

Our chances of keeping air temperature below 1.5°C are diminishing rapidly by the day. In order to even have a shot at this goal, we need to act now. This is not an unknown fact, so why do we continue not to act, or act so slowly??

The varying reasons for failing to enact change are discussed in many books. Will and Ariel Durant (The Lessons of History)?wrote “When ?[…] the civilization declines, it is through no mystic limitation through corporate life, but through the failure of its political or intellectual leaders to meet the challenges of change.” Whether it is political inaction, or inaction from corporate leaders, the failure to take action from mass amounts of people evidently persists.

Jared Diamond (Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed) gave four categories of factors that contribute to failures of group decision making. Firstly, the group may fail to anticipate a problem before it arrives. ?For example, our society ignoring scientists explanations for the last 50 years. Secondly, the group may fail to perceive the problem, when it does indeed arrive. National governments deny the need for change, or put all efforts into pressuring other countries to change first. This is this despite scientific forecasts making it clear that almost every country must act now. Especially developed nations must continue to drastically reduce emissions and also resource consumption in the coming 8 years. Thirdly, the group may fail to try and solve the problem, even if the problem is perceived. Examples of this include assuming that some technology will be developed, that will later remove all excess carbon out of the air. On that basis, some conclude that for now we can continue and go for temperature overshoot. This would mean emitting along a path that is headed towards 2 or more degrees of warming, but we could later change this direction with “the technology“. Lastly, the forth category is the group trying to solve the problem, but not succeeding. For example, regulating products or forms of economic activity, yet not effectively integrating the measures into all economic decision making. ?

If I may, I would add a fifth category contributing to failed group decision making; non-collaboration, the failure to collaborate across jurisdictions, and across economies. An example that springs to mind here, is the failure to generate the 100 billion USD by 2020, needed for emerging countries to develop sustainably.* Another example would be the enhancement and integration of carbon pricing mechanisms, which should lead to a global market based carbon price, put on every gram of CO2e emissions. In the process, social adjustments, including for some countries that simply do not want to collaborate at all, border adjustments would need to be implemented.?If carbon pricing effectively covers all emissions, it can drive alignment amongst governments at a rapid pace. Since the clock is ticking, rapid pace is what we need.?

Aware of possible failures, we may want to listen to the Durants a little further. They explained that whether we meet a challenge or not depends on?“the presence or absence of initiative, and of creative individuals who have clarity of mind, energy and will, capable of effective response to new situations”.?As they allude to, this combination of characteristics seems to be a tall order.?

How should we identify which initiatives are needed, where to get creative, and where to put our energy behind? Diamond emphasizes two types of choices: long-term planning and willingness to consider core values. Long-term planning is defined as the opposite of short-term reactive decision making. All too often, reactive decision making seems to characterize the behavior of our elected politicians, and I daresay, also often corporate leadership.?

Target commitments made by companies and entire parts of the private sector, as well as various private sector initiatives launched and reported about in Glasgow, demonstrate that it is now the time, especially for governments, to drive the detailing of long-term transformation plans for energy networks, transportation networks, and infrastructure at large. An example of such target commitments, is the 30 members of the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, who have published and thus committed, to carbon emission reduction by 2025 for their investment portfolios. It is these plans that will allow?concrete projects to be identified, bringing together the players who can implement these projects, and thus the transformation – step by step. These plans can also assist in communicating necessary future change to civil society, for example where renewable energy based power plants are needed, potentially preventing conflict of interest.

On the topic of core values, the second key choice Diamond considers, we may ask “Which of the values that formerly served a society can continue to be maintained under the new changed circumstance?” This question must reach other key parts of our lives, for example our diets, our chosen transport, sometimes even our beloved pastimes.?This questioning of values as whole may help us to not get stuck in some kind of ‘Prisoners Dilemma’, such as who should reduce emissions first.?

A re-evaluation of our lifestyle choices will come. Individuals may start to see our current lifestyle and consumption habits must change, or regulations will begin to enforce this. Either way, we will re-define what it means to live a good life – putting the health of our planet, and ourselves, first.

If we want to stop destabilizing our climate and destroying critical ecosystems and transform our economy into a sustainable one, we need to take immediate action. Particularly high emitting nations need to be held accountable. Fundamental changes to our economic processes are needed. As consumers, we need to re-think most of our behavior, and in the process, gain a better understanding of how international collaboration amongst governments can be transformed and grow in a way we have not yet seen. Despite the economic opportunities linked with these changes wake-up calls are still needed, to initiate and accelerate this much needed change.?

There is a better economy that awaits us, there is a better way of life, but both will be different to the world as we know it.?

?

References        

• Diamond, Jared M. ( 2005). Collapse : how societies choose to fail or succeed. New York: Viking
• Durant, W., & Durant, A. (1968).?The lessons of history. New York: ?Simon and Schuster.
• OECD (2021),?Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised by Developed Countries: Aggregate Trends Updated with 2019 Data, Climate Finance and the USD 100 Billion Goal, OECD Publishing, Paris.? * Rich countries agreed in 2009 that at least $100bn a year would be provided annually from public and private sector sources to the developing world starting 2020?(to help cut greenhouse gas emissions and cope with the impacts of the climate change). That target was again not met at Glasgow.