Chapter 9
Changing our future
Introduction
The challenge of climate change must be seen within the current, dominant political and economic landscape. Only by understanding the fundamental societal and economic causes of carbon emissions can we hope to build systems that could rapidly reduce them. At the same time as we deal with climate change we need to ensure that we also tackle other global challenges, such as global poverty/inequality, environmental degradation, and global insecurity. Future policies and international agreements need to provide win-win solutions that deal with the biggest challenges facing humanity in the 21st century.
Planetary stewardship
Scientists struggle with the fact that despite the huge weight of evidence indicating climate change, a small, vocal, but significant, minority of influencers continue to deny that climate change is happening. Scientists have responded by collecting even more evidence. This is called a ‘deficit model’ response, with scientists presuming that decisions are not being made to mitigate climate change because of a lack of information.
However, social scientists have found that acceptance of climate change has little to do with science and everything to do with politics. Acceptance of climate change represents a challenge to the Anglo-American neoliberal view held by many mainstream economists and politicians. Climate change shows a fundamental failure of the market, and it requires governments to act collectively to regulate industry and business. It is one of the greatest ironies that the very politicians who are denying climate change because of perceived threats to free market values are nonetheless happiest to endorse over $5 trillion of subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry per year. It is a myth that there is any truly free market—many countries happily support subsidies and the blocking of imports.
Neoliberalism encapsulates a set of beliefs that include: the need for markets to be free; for state intervention to be as small as possible; strong private property rights; low taxation; and individualism. Underlying neoliberalism is the assumption that it provides a market-based solution that enables everyone to become wealthier. This so-called trickle-down effect has been the central construct of neoliberalism for the past 40 years but there is no evidence for it happening. Half the world’s population lives on less than $5.50 per day. In fact, Oxfam have calculated that the twenty-six richest people in the world currently own the same amount of wealth as those 3.8 billion poorest people collectively. The IMF recently declared that the last generation of economic policies may have been a complete failure.
The global Covid-19 pandemic that started in 2020 has also changed many people’s view of neoliberalism. Citizens all around the world have been shown that there can be a different relationship between government, industry, and civil society—a relationship where health and wellbeing are put before economic gain for a country or small minority of individuals. When society faces a real crisis that needs strong coordinated action, it looks to the state and to scientific experts, and for the support of civil society. The private sector can play an important role, such as ensuring food supplies in the face of panic buying or retooling to produce essential medical supplies or to create vaccines. But, equally, many companies look to the state simply for loans and bailouts.
Given the long-term challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, and possible repeat pandemics, the major lesson from Covid-19 is the failure of free markets to protect us. Instead, it is state intervention, guided by experts, incorporating and valuing society and communities, underpinned by supportive and dynamic business, that is required—to deal with the climate change as well as other challenges of the 21st century. What we need is a new era of planetary stewardship led by governments and underpinned by new economic theories.
Taking action
Potential solutions to reduce global carbon emissions were outlined in Chapter 8, but if we are to reach net zero emissions by 2050 we need to implement all of them. Project Downdraw (at https://drawdown.org/) has identified over eighty high-level solutions that can be implemented at a range of scales to achieve the 1,050 GtC emissions removal required by 2050. Figure 41, based on the work of Avit Bhowmik and colleagues, shows how many of these solutions can be implemented at each level—ranging from the individual to the global. Individual and family action can remove 14% of the required 1,050 GtC, while action at the town and community level can remove 31%, and action at city and state level could remove 33%. This is a counter-blast to the climate change deniers who suggest that it is individuals, not companies or governments, who should take responsibility for dealing with climate change. This shift in blame allows climate change deniers to continue to support the fossil-fuel industry because they argue that it simply meets the demands of the market. Individual and family action is important, as it shows governments and corporations that people are serious about acting to counter climate change, but it is not the solution. Climate change solutions are most effective when carried out from the community to the national level. All of these solutions are win-win and taken together the net benefit (savings minus costs) could be over $46 trillion.
41. Potential climate change solutions from the individual to global scale.
Government, corporations, and civil society
To achieve effective carbon emission reduction requires a partnership between government, both local and national, corporations, and civil society that is supported and encouraged by individual behaviour change.
Governments control the aspirations of civil society through the rule of law and the development of policy. It is clear that governments can use incentives, subsidies, taxation, and regulation to make our societies more sustainable and carbon neutral. Governments are also the major driver of innovation, through investment in university research, funding industrial research and development, and driving demand through incentives. Governments can facilitate the rapid switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy, ensure buildings are carbon neutral, encourage reforestation and rewilding of large areas, promote low-emission farming and more plant-based diets, and support the very poorest people in society, to help build resilience to the likely impacts of climate change.
The world’s top hundred companies generate more than $15 trillion in revenue per year. In many ways businesses control our lives as they influence what we eat, what we buy, what we watch, and even who we vote for. Many are already changing, adopting science-based targets so they can achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. The challenge for business and industry if they want to remain relevant and trusted in the 21st century is to change their relationship with the environment and society. The classic, linear economic model, ‘take, make, dispose’, relies on large quantities of cheap, easily accessible materials and energy. We are reaching the physical limits of this model. New inclusive economic theories are emerging showing the fundamental issues with the throwaway corporate culture. The circular economy is essential if companies are to be part of the climate change solution. The circular economy minimizes the amount of resources that are extracted and maximizes the value of products and materials throughout their lifecycle, through reuse and recycling. Applying a circular economy could unlock up to €1.8 trillion in value for Europe’s economy. So companies need to plan and make products that have longevity, upgradability, and recyclability built-in. They need to design out waste and pollution.
Though individual actions will only make a small contribution to carbon reduction, they are extremely important as they send a strong message to both government and corporations that citizens want and support major changes. Individual action has had an impact. The School Climate Strikes and the Extinction Rebellion protests have brought together diverse groups of people across the world, all wanting governments to start taking the protecting of our planet seriously. And change is starting to happen, with over 1,400 local governments and over 35 countries having declared that we are in a climate emergency. But we must also remember that not everyone is equally responsible for the current climate crisis: 50% of carbon emissions directly related to lifestyle are emitted by the richest 10% of the world (Figure 42); the poorest 50% of our global society emit just 10% of the pollution. Individual action undertaken by the very wealthiest in society could have a major impact on global carbon emissions.
42. Global lifestyle carbon emissions by income group.
International institutions
To support, encourage, and when required enforce positive change, we need international organizations fit for the challenges of the 21st century. Many of these institutions, such as the UN, World Bank, IMF, were formed just after the Second World War. Others such as OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) and OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) were formed in the early 1960s. There is a need for these international institutions to represent everyone in the world, and to ensure fair and equitable governance. The World Bank and IMF could be redesigned so that they focus on developing the green sustainable economy, supporting the net zero emission targets, and alleviating poverty, with the Sustainable Development Goals at the heart of all their decision-making. The present aim of the WTO is to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably, and freely as possible, but encouraging trade and consumption makes reductions in global carbon emissions harder. It can prevent meaningful local, national, and international environmental protections and regulations. Perhaps the WTO could transform into the World Sustainability Organization (WSO), the first aim of which could be to support and help restructure economies of countries that rely on fossil-fuel exports.
One quick and simple change that could be made is to upgrade the UN Environment Agency, because it has a secondary status within the UN system, below that of trade, health, labour; and even of maritime affairs, intellectual property, and tourism. The UN Environment Agency’s budget is small, less than a quarter of the UN World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) budget and a tenth of that of the UN World Food Programme, despite being central to both health and food security. If the UN Environment Agency were to be upgraded to the UN World Environment Organization (WEO), and given a budget at least the size of that of the WHO, it could oversee the Sustainability Development Goals, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention on Climate Change, to ensure they are mutually reinforcing and not in opposition—making sure there are always win-win-win solutions.
Conclusion
Climate change is one of the few areas of science that makes us examine the whole basis of modern society. It is a subject that has politicians arguing, sets nations against each other, questions the role of companies in society, queries individual choices of lifestyle, and ultimately asks questions about humanity’s relationship with the rest of the planet. Only by working together can we deal with one of the greatest crises that has ever faced humanity. There is very little doubt that climate change will accelerate in this century; our best estimates suggest a global mean surface temperature rise of between 2.1°C and 5.5°C by the end of the 21st century. Sea level is projected to rise by between 50 cm and 130 cm by 2100, with significant changes in weather patterns, and more extreme climate events. World leaders have pledged to keep climate change to less than 2˚C and if at all possible below 1.5˚C. This book has demonstrated that we have the science to understand the causes, consequences, and potential solutions for climate change. We have the technology, the resources, and the money to deal with climate change. What we currently lack are the political will and policies to enable all the positive win-win solutions needed to make a better, safer, healthier, and hopefully happier world. With a growing awareness of the environmental crisis facing the planet, public pressure for change is growing, and new policies and ways of thinking are starting to emerge. The question is whether these changes will be soon enough to get the world to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 (Figure 43).
43. USA Today cartoon of the Copenhagen climate conference.