Yes we can! Solve the climate crisis. But it requires a different kind of leadership.

Mankind commands enormous resources, surplus and technological ingenuity. So yes of course, we can solve the climate crisis. But it requires political leadership of a different kind than we have seen until now and that we dare slaughter some sacred cows. Not that we turn the climate into an individual moral problem.

I wise man once said about the weather that everyone talks about it, but no one does anything about it. Is the same the case for the climate crisis?

Climate change is on the agenda and has been so for a number of years. When it comes to concrete action, the situation is worse. Admittedly, things are moving and more and more concrete proposals for action are on the table. But the pace of progress is clearly a problem. Blame and responsibility is shifted where it can be shifted. Decisions that hurt and create discontent are postponed or completely avoided.

As an individual, this mismatch can be difficult to bear. No wonder, therefore, that many of us seek to take matters into our own hands. To ease our conscience and yet do something, we postpone flights, buy a hybrid car and cut back on meat consumption. It probably does not help much, but at least we have done something!

But the transformation of political responsibility into an individual moral issue is a declaration of bankruptcy. By placing the solution of the greatest challenge of our time on the shoulders of the individual, we weigh our individual conscience to the ground and create divisions (between those of us who are "climate-correct" and those who are not). Therefore, there is no way around the global climate challenge being addressed where it belongs: by political leaders and in national and international political institutions.

It is certainly not a task that politicians are queuing up to tackle. Because, as Barack Obama also points out in his most recent autobiography, global warming is one of those problems that politicians hate: in the short term - ie. in the period until the next election - there are only costs associated with action. And the benefits only show up in the long run. Politically it is therefore also much easier to stand behind beautiful declarations of intent and ambitious long-term objectives, as they are free of charge, than it is to take concrete action that can be felt and that can hurt.

The debate is therefore still marked by a fear of real engagement. This fact among other things shows up in a number taboos, which are allowed to stand quite undisturbed in the way of concrete action. Let me highlight the most important and at the same time give an idea of how they should be dismantled:

Taboo # 1: The standard of living is sacred

There is a broad consensus among most politicians: climate efforts must not cost growth, wealth or jobs. We see the same pattern everywhere in the world. But why is the standard of living a sacred cow? The climate crisis is about much more than the annual development in disposable income - and what is an increase in the standard of living worth if our joy in using it, for example, is eroded by the fact that holiday destinations in the south are scorching, the smoke from forest fires lies heavy and floods ravage?

Effective climate action will cost in the short run, so that we avoid a much greater decline in living standards and quality of life later. We must, of course, use the money wisely and make the efforts in the best possible order. But it is not very brave to pretend that it will be free. We have made an overdraft in the environmental bank, and now we have to repay. There are no free lunches.

Taboo # 2: All environmental challenges are equally important

We talk much about the climate crisis. But we are not so willing to face the fact that the climate crisis is the most important of our challenges. It is easier to have the “right” opinions - that we must protect the environment across the board - than it is to choose what must give way for a period of time. If we do not dare to realize that the climate crisis is the overriding challenge of our time, the best will stand in the way of the good: out of respect for the challenge of biodiversity and based on precautionary principles for instances in relation to endangered insect and bird species, billion-dollar wind farm or solar power projects are put on hold for many years or completely scrapped.

There is a need for political leaders who dare to insist that climate action has priority, and that for a period of time we must therefore be prepared to reduce other forms of environmental protection.

Taboo # 3: Some technologies are out of the question

That the best becomes the worst enemy of the good, this also applies in relation to various technological solutions. Nuclear power can produce large amounts of much-needed CO2-free electricity, but it is still an issue that is handily avoided by most political leaders. We also have concerns about other ways of creating usable CO2-neutral energy - is it ok to cut down trees to burn them? Bio-oil and bio-gas also emit CO2, right?

But our political leaders need to make it clear that we cannot make a rapid transition to a CO2-neutral energy supply if we stay too fine to make use of all relevant means that we have at our disposal.

Taboo # 4: We must first and foremost respect local democracy

It is hard to disagree with this statement. But at the same time, we just have to acknowledge that the standpoint is being used as an excuse to allow others than oneself to take the difficult decisions and thus to shift the blame in politically convenient ways.

In Denmark, for instance, government and parliament require the municipalities to plan for the development of renewable energy - but it is up to the individual municipality to determine where the facilities may be located. Not surprisingly, the result is local uproar, nimbyism and attempts to relocate solar parks and wind turbines to somewhere else. Local politicians find it difficult to resist and decisions are postponed. I am certain that the same picture can be found in many other countries.

Political leaders, governments and parliaments need to take responsibility for a much speedier rollout of renewable energy production - to designate the areas and areas where renewable energy can and must be developed. When it comes to health crises or large-scale infrastructure plans worth many billions of dollars or euros, national politicians are more than willing to make national and even international plans - but when it comes to less popular decisions, it is suddenly a local matter.

*****

It is said that we have the leaders we deserve. And it is true that it can be difficult for politicians to maintain support if they wander into the field of controversial decisions and unpopular prioritizations.

But leadership is not to follow what the polls right now suggest is popular. Leadership is taking responsibility for doing the right thing - and thus also for explaining and convincing that costly decisions may be necessary. If leaders have explanations, arguments and facts in order, they will be able to bring the population with them in most cases.

We have a very current example of this: all over the world, political leaders have during the corona crisis taken both drastic and unpopular steps to contain the virus and save lives. It has been very intrusive and very expensive.

But most agree that the alternative was worse. And a clear majority of the world's people have backed the decisions.

It creates a sense of security if we experience that political leaders and authorities are competent and take responsibility. And vice versa, where leaders are fleeing responsibility, as in Trump’s United States, Bolsonaros Brazil and Boris Johnson's UK.

So dear politicians: take courage. We voters will not punish you if you take the lead and take responsibility. We will reward you. We will not succumb to petty grumbling and neighborly disputes if we are given an explanation - objectively and competently - of why action and prioritization are necessary and why it will cost something for a period of time. That, and only that, will make us feel safe.

Or so I hope. For what is the alternative to calling on our leaders to step into character? I see none.

Can we solve the climate crisis? Yes we can! We have the technologies and the solutions. But we need the leadership.

***

This article is an adapted, English-language version of a commentary in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, published on 4. august 2021.