11
POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
For many years, climate change sat on the political back burner. Certain politicians in various countries tried to take significant steps, and in a few rare instances succeeded, but polls showed consistently low interest in the issue among voters.14 Between partisan polarization, efforts misspent on convincing denialists that climate change is real, and a lack of strength among the small activist movements that existed, nothing major has been accomplished up to this point. The world is still emitting greenhouse gases—faster than ever.
However, this apathy is on its way out. As climate change impacts have begun to present themselves in everyday life—even if they are only a hint of what’s to come—and as United Nations and other scientific reports have issued more dire warnings and urgent calls for action, climate change has risen suddenly to be a top-tier issue in many countries.15
In both the United States and Europe, youth movements have brought new levels of attention to the issue and the need for action. High schooler Greta Thunberg, who started a “school strike” outside the Swedish parliament, galvanized students around the world to protest and draw political leaders’ attention. The Sunrise Movement put the phrase “Green New Deal” on the map and forced a bolder level of policy proposals from US Congress members and presidential candidates.
As an example of this paradigm shift, in the 2016 US presidential election, almost no debate questions were asked about climate change. In the 2020 election, most candidates put forward reasonably ambitious climate change plans early in the primary. Also, China and India have started taking more significant action on clean energy in order to reduce extreme levels of air pollution in major cities.
All of this has created a moment in which the required scale of political action, which even three years ago might have been next to impossible, now seems within reach. A 100% solution will depend on whether political leaders in the next couple years harness this enthusiasm and make this moment the turning point.
To have any chance of a 100% solution adding up by 2050, the world needs serious, bold leadership.
As we’ve seen, a 100% solution cannot be achieved by adding up incremental efficiency tactics, or by waiting for widespread behavior changes or for the natural pace of technology innovation to catch up. Carrying out all five pillars fully in thirty years requires a scale and pace of action that has only ever been seen during the World Wars.
For this reason, it is not enough for countries to elect politicians who are on the “right side” of the issue. It is not enough for legislators to simply vote the right way or for presidents and prime ministers to simply nudge along the incremental progress that has started. To have any chance of a 100% solution adding up by 2050, the world needs serious, bold leadership.
THE UNITED STATES
The United States is the wealthiest large country and has a strong track record of driving innovation. If it can muster the level of bold leadership needed, it has the most power to create and carry out the moonshot-type efforts we need. In the United States, most of the relevant leadership needs to come from the next president. The president sets the tone for national policy action, has far more convening power than any other individual politician, and is responsible for international partnerships and negotiation. As referenced in Chapter 4, the manufacturing boom leading into World War II and the Apollo Program were both possible only because of ambitious visions of bold presidents.
The next US president is the best-positioned person in the entire world to start the moonshot initiatives we need. The president can create new teams, coordinate the work of various federal agencies, shift massive amounts of money to where funding is most needed, and empower all kinds of staff and partners to carry out each required piece of the effort. The president can ask Congress for the necessary level of funding, and JFK proved that it’s possible to get it. In the last couple decades, Congress and the president have often been at odds, but visionary projects catering to national strengths such as American innovation and industry can create a common goal for Congress and the president.
The president also has to sell the idea to the public. One serious obstacle that prevented President Obama from accomplishing as much as he wanted on climate change regulations was that it was hard, especially given the rise of the Tea Party (which blasted any idea Obama proposed, even conservative ones), to message on climate change action in a way that got the public on board. If an initiative—even one that the president has complete theoretical power to launch—is perceived to be controversial, or wasteful, or partisan, it can be impossible to carry out for fear of the lost political capital that would damage future effectiveness of that president’s administration. Luckily, innovation-focused solutions are already popular, so the public only needs to be sold on the scale, not the concept. The president’s efforts will mostly need to be focused on explaining the full scope of actions needed so people understand why hundreds of billions of dollars have to be invested and what benefits they can expect in return.
The president is also responsible for international negotiation, which could be key to securing the level of funding needed for moonshot initiatives. International coordination is also crucial for preventing deforestation—especially in rainforest countries—and promoting policies that encourage sustainable farming practices. Various international agreements, trade deals, aid packages, and other initiatives could enable or speed the adoption of certain or all clean technologies in various countries. Such efforts could also ensure a more just transition to negative emissions by supporting communities that are hardest hit by early climate change impacts and communities that are least able to afford changes in infrastructure or lifestyle.
Finally, the president has a vast amount of convening power beyond work with Congress and foreign governments. The US president can convene corporate leaders and nonprofits. White House initiatives can bring together industries to establish best practices and push companies toward meaningful commitments related to their energy use, supply chain, or messaging. Some companies and individual investors might prove useful partners in funding pieces of the moonshot initiatives. Others might be able to scale up technologies quickly into the marketplace. Others might have inroads in certain countries, with foreign companies, customers, or governments, to supplement the diplomatic clout the president holds. Ultimately, it falls to companies to sell everyone the clean equipment that gets developed, so the more they can be involved and inspired toward bold actions, the faster the transition will happen.
CHINA
Because of the country’s large economy, technological innovation, and centralized government, the president of China holds the power to single-handedly initiate most of the required work. The Chinese president is not nearly as limited by fear of political messaging failures or loss of power as the US president. China has high-tech research institutions that could carry out a lot of the needed basic engineering. China is of course known for its massive scale industry and people power, which could rapidly scale up standardized designs of new equipment. And China’s economy as a whole is large enough that it could fund moonshot-type efforts on the required scale. China is probably the only country that could carry out the necessary projects single-handedly if the United States fails to lead.
One main difference between China and the United States is that US activism more directly affects the agenda of the president and what kind of proposals thought leaders put forward. In China, there’s less room for activism to influence national policy initiatives.
Luckily, the goals of the Chinese government’s worldwide development projects could align with climate change–solving projects. For example, outreach to farmers, prevention of deforestation, and deployment of new grids, power plants, industrial facilities, and transportation infrastructure could all be part of the vision of China’s Belt and Road Initiative.16
EUROPE, AUSTRALIA, AND OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES
No country beyond the United States and China has a large enough economy to carry out all five pillars fully and single-handedly, but in partnership with other countries, or by pressuring larger countries or international companies, any number of industrialized countries might be able to ensure that all the needed work gets done to add up to a 100% solution.
In most industrialized countries besides the United States, national governance happens in a parliamentary system. This can have significant advantages over the US system for implementing bold and rapid energy, industry, or agriculture shifts. Of course, parliamentary leaders are limited by all the same political communications challenges as the US president—with even more consequence, because a significant failure in messaging could not only limit their political clout during the rest of their term, but end their term far earlier than expected through a vote of no confidence or new national elections.
On the flip side, as long as it can successfully sell the idea, the party in power can sometimes unilaterally institute a program it sees as most urgent. For example, in British Columbia in 2008, the conservative party decided to implement a carbon tax. It was fiercely criticized, but the party played the messaging game well, won all the subsequent elections, and lost only a decade later to a coalition that wanted to increase that carbon tax even further.17 That kind of initiative can work very quickly when it requires only the leadership of one party. In systems where a president or prime minister guides the policy of the coalition in power, they can be the bold leaders that make such action happen.
Many-party systems can create more room for ideas to be embraced across party lines than in the US two-party system, which promotes an assumption that whatever one party proposes the other will be against. Coalition governments mean that a leader must sell an idea not only to their own party, but to other parties in the coalition. This can slow down initiatives, but it can also make parties more open to one another’s ideas, which is crucial to transcending the polarization that has halted US progress.
The problem with most industrialized parliamentary countries is that they have far smaller populations, economies, and national budgets than the United States or China. A moonshot effort that the US president could fund with no one else’s approval might require ten or twenty European countries pooling their money to achieve.
It would take a coalition of these countries to fund all the necessary work in each of the five pillars. This would require significant international cooperation and trust in whatever central entity is being funded from many countries’ budgets. Smaller groups of countries or individual countries can of course push forward certain components on their own that we know will be necessary in a 100% solution, but they should also remain focused on ways they can draw in more partners or pressure larger players to take the necessary action. Smaller steps can make it more likely that the larger steps become politically or economically viable, but the largest steps will still only happen if someone is thinking comprehensively.
Such smaller initial steps could be pursued by various industrialized countries alongside efforts to move larger countries or industries to the full-scale solutions needed. For example, a parliamentary leader could sell the idea to their party and the public that they’re going to convert the country entirely to electric cars—quieter roads, cheaper maintenance, healthier air, and helping to scale up a needed climate change–solving technology all in one. The same could be done with air-source heat pumps, industrial processes such as new cement production processes, or farming rules.
Basic research can also play a role. Australia, for example, has conducted some of the most promising research related to hydrogen and ammonia synthesis and conversion.18 Government investments in such efforts, and partnerships with public and private institutions to scale up technologies that emerge, could make new options available for the rest of the world.
Any industrialized country can also exercise international leadership in the same way the US president can, working with developing countries to prevent deforestation, promote sustainable farm and forest practices, and protect communities who might get left behind amid either the impacts of or solutions to climate change. European countries in particular could also use their international clout to pressure the United States to take bolder action if US leaders don’t step up. Various midsize countries could do the same with China through trade agreements, mutual commitments, and corporate or nonprofit partnerships.
Any number of countries could also convene companies and create initiatives to shift industries toward sustainable practices and adoption of clean equipment. In fact, some of the most significant global brands—including fossil fuel companies—are owned by or closely tied to individual governments in Europe and Asia, and their wealth and global reach could be deployed as a tool in shifting energy systems worldwide.
OTHER DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Much of the work of a 100% solution has to be done by industrialized countries, which have the money to fund innovation projects, scale up new technologies, and pay for the adoption of clean options that are still slightly more expensive than fossil fuels. Among developing countries, only China, which is ahead of most in terms of economic growth, has enough money to guarantee on its own that all five pillars are carried out. Other developing countries can still partner with each other or with certain industrialized countries or companies to scale up specific pieces of technology. Again, that won’t lead directly to a 100% solution, but it can make it more likely that larger economies will take the needed actions to add up to 100%. Many developing countries can also take leadership roles on agriculture practices, which are generally cheap (often even saving money or increasing farmers’ total profits) and simply require convening, outreach, education, and commitment to adopt.
Finally, depending on how cheap various technologies get, some developing countries may simply not be able to eliminate as large a portion of their emissions as industrialized countries can. Industrialized countries, including the United States and smaller ones, could give funding to enable deployment of marginally more expensive technologies in developing countries. Or industrialized countries could subsidize the manufacturing of such technologies, as China has done for years with solar panels.
ACTIVISTS
For those of us not in the top positions of leadership in our countries, our goal is to influence those leaders to take the necessary actions across the full scope of solutions needed. Whether we are think-tank analysts in Brazil, grassroots activists in the United States, or staff of a membership nonprofit that focuses on climate change worldwide, we must keep a comprehensive mindset and marshal our efforts with coordination and communication.
For activists in the United States, the 2020 election presents a huge opportunity to affect national priorities and the scale and tone of climate change discourse. Already, the work of activist movements, especially the Sunrise Movement, in the last two years has heightened the attention given to climate change and the scale of solutions being proposed.19 Most candidates’ specific proposals still aren’t quite at the level of achieving a 100% solution, though—or at least, they don’t specifically lay out enough of what they intend to do for us to know whether they would really meet all the criteria of this framework.
Whether in the US 2020 elections or in upcoming elections for Congress, or parliament or presidency in any country, campaigns are a time when politicians are out talking to and listening to voters, and forming their agenda for the coming term. By showing up at campaign events and asking public or private questions, by writing e-mails and letters about policy, by getting press attention that forces candidates to respond to certain policy proposals, and by working to elect the candidates that seem most committed, we can shape the climate change agenda for the coming years.
In any political effort, communication is key. Activists’ asks must be unified, simple, and focused. Too many conflicting, confusing, or extraneous demands by various organizations can muddle the discourse, distract policymakers from the most crucial proposals, or make activist movements seem less powerful than they could be. Partly, this is what this book is meant to help with: providing a set of criteria for what is the minimum of “enough” on climate change action. That can form the frame of reference for our asks and guide our critiques of proposals that politicians put forward.
Recent climate change movements have learned from what worked and didn’t in previous efforts. For example, up until this decade, climate change was usually discussed as an “environmental” issue, conjuring ideas about saving distant species, highlighting the intangible nature of the problem, and making the issue more polarizing (at least in US politics). Now, more and more people are talking about climate change as a human issue, one that could dramatically disrupt our economy, safety, and public health, not to mention destabilize global politics with shifts in migration patterns and resource availability.
Some people have even moved on to a frame of communications that’s often best: not talking about climate change at all. The phrase “climate change” is still controversial to some people. But the solutions to climate change are generally not. Everyone supports cleaner energy, healthier air, more local choice and control, vibrant natural spaces, and less disease. Everyone wants cheaper energy and agrees that more people in the world deserve access to modern energy infrastructure. People love the idea of innovation, and of new, better technologies creating new jobs across our countries in labs, factories, and construction sites.
Many of us who started our climate change advocacy in the realm of carbon pricing learned this quickly: carbon pricing would never pass as a “solution to climate change.” That sounds like we’re making some kind of collective sacrifice to save the polar bears and perhaps the abstract future generations of humans. But carbon pricing brings significant benefits to the economy—making business more efficient, increasing overall incomes, and reducing pollution. Many carbon pricing advocacy groups, most notably Citizens’ Climate Lobby in the United States, have formed successful bipartisan and nonpartisan coalitions because one doesn’t even have to believe in climate change science to support carbon pricing: it’s good for the economy and public health, and so are all the other components of a 100% solution to climate change.20
Innovation is popular, and often focusing on the innovation aspects of a solution can garner interest and support from folks beyond the usual supporters. Relatedly, presenting solutions with a comprehensive framing can earn more credibility, generate more excitement around the strong vision, and reduce controversy by breaking people out of their default modes of thinking with the creativity of the proposal. Tying various pieces together into a comprehensive proposal can get more support for individual pieces that might on their own be controversial, but which make logical sense in the context of the larger vision that people can buy into. And of course, comprehensive messages and demands make it more likely that comprehensive action will be taken, which is the only way we can expect a 100% solution by 2050.
Solutions-oriented rhetoric is more unifying, exciting, forward-looking, and practical.
It’s important that we talk about solutions rather than problems. Sometimes a reminder of the dire impacts climate change will bring can move already converted activists to new levels of commitment. But often it contributes more to defeatism or denialism. Most of the time, solutions-oriented rhetoric is more unifying, exciting, forward-looking, and practical. That means it’s more focused, and more likely to spur policy action.
COMPANIES
A final set of actors in the leadership picture are companies, which are often either not considered or demonized when it comes to political involvement on climate change. The fact remains, though, that most people interact far more regularly with the corporate sector than with government institutions. People’s views of the world and ideas about many issues, political or personal, can be shaped by advertisements, company brand messaging, announcements of new initiatives businesses are taking, and news about corporate happenings.
Companies, then, have a significant amount of messaging power. They often use this reactively—for example, making a new commitment on an issue they think people care about in the hope that it will draw more customer loyalty to their brand. But those messages also flow in the other direction, affecting people’s perception of not only the company but the issue in question.
Companies that want to make a meaningful difference on climate change can start by not “greenwashing.” This practice of emphasizing how “environmentally friendly” a company is because of some measure that saves a bit of water—or how their bottles use a little less plastic, or how their materials are recyclable, or more and more often how they are moving toward “100% renewable electricity” (without mentioning the “net,” because of course they still buy fossil fuel electricity at night)—reinforces the dangerous idea that efficiency tactics could add up to a full solution to climate change.
Companies that are serious about climate change solutions should instead shift their messaging to reflect the comprehensive picture of action needed. A good example is how Google has bought enough renewable electricity to equal the total amount of power its data centers use, but has also talked openly about its “net” 100% renewable power and discussed how hard it is to get the timing of renewable generation and data center electricity demand to match.21
Companies can also start making some of the specific pieces happen. It’s possible that a broad coalition of companies working on the various pieces and donating to nonprofits that carry out the farm and forest work could in fact add up to a 100% solution. More likely, companies can enable key pieces of the solution to move forward and by setting such an example, and using messaging to make it clear they understand the larger picture as well, make it more likely that national governments will follow.
Some pieces of the solution that companies are well equipped to push forward are emerging technologies that have not yet been scaled up. Companies can use their purchasing—and messaging—power to speed their scale-up. For example, companies that distribute products around a country or the world could pioneer electric (or hydrogen/ammonia) truck technology and build out the charging (or refueling) infrastructure necessary. Not only would they likely save money on transport costs over ten or twenty years, but they would create the first round of infrastructure that would allow smaller companies and the transportation industry as a whole to shift to carbon-free options.
Similarly, many large companies have extensive supply chains. This puts them in a position to monitor and influence practices among the producers or wholesalers they purchase from. Fair trade and organic certifications are the most prominent examples of this, but there are plenty of other labels and criteria that companies can insist their suppliers meet.
Especially for companies that deal in either wood or agricultural products, requiring certain standards from their suppliers can have a serious impact on global sustainability. For example, in 2006 several major food companies jointly created a “soybean moratorium” to protect the Amazon Rainforest in Brazil. These companies agreed not to purchase soybeans grown on land that was deforested after the moratorium began, and alongside other efforts, this led to significant decreases in deforestation in Brazil.22 Such voluntary business commitments can be spurred by grassroots activism—consumer pressure on companies is often as effective as voter pressure on political candidates. We underuse the activist tactic of pressuring businesses, but it should feel natural because businesses are the entities that have to physically implement most of the energy and agriculture shifts needed in the five pillars.
New business coalitions could be created to label and require “deforestation-free” products, which could go a long way to helping developing countries keep in check both legal and illegal clear-cutting, as the market dries up for products produced in that way. At the same time, this could help support farmers across the world who are using sustainable practices.
Many other supply chain issues could be tackled by the world’s larger companies. Electric cars, emissions-free building heating, even ships and airplanes, could be scaled up through the purchasing power of major international corporations. A company could require that all of its office buildings convert to be net-zero energy. A company could ensure that all fuels it uses are synthesized carbon-neutral ones. Consumer movements could pressure and encourage whole industries to make these shifts with more and more ease as innovation lowers the cost of various clean technology options.
It is unlikely that company efforts alone will add up to anywhere close to a 100% solution. But they are useful tools alongside other activism to achieve 100%.
PURSUING ALL OPTIONS
When considering what companies and what small- or medium-sized countries can do, we must remember that the best hope of achieving a 100% solution to climate change by 2050 is for the United States (or maybe China) to take a bold leadership role and devote hundreds of billions of dollars per year to funding moonshot projects and related efforts.
As activists and thought leaders, we have to stay focused on that goal. To prevent the most disastrous effects of climate change, we should aim to set all the needed work in motion in the next couple years. However, we shouldn’t adopt an “all at once or bust” approach. Hopefully we will make the full-scale projects happen, but if we don’t immediately, the smaller efforts we can simultaneously pursue—for example, to directly start scaling up some of the most crucial pieces of technology—can be a way of “hedging our bets.” On the chance that US or Chinese leadership totally fails to materialize in the next couple years, the leadership of other countries and companies, spurred by activists, can still achieve some chunks of emissions reductions that buy us slight bits of time for other solutions to roll out, or that directly pressure US or Chinese leaders to step up soon after.
The transition time is thirty years, and the sooner we take every step the easier, cheaper, and more popular the total transition will be. But as long as we ensure that steps add up to negative emissions by 2050, we will still achieve the minimum 100% solution to climate change.