IT WAS POSSIBLY the toughest moment in my professional life. In late July 2009 a meeting on the environment was about to begin in Åre, a beautiful ski resort 650 km (400 mi) north of Stockholm. It was a gathering not only of environment ministers but also of industry ministers and commissioners. José Barroso, president of the European Commission, was coming as well.
At the time, I headed the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Sweden’s most influential climate and environmental policy research institute. Although the institute is an independent research organization, I was eager to support the Swedish government in its leadership on climate issues. So, together with Jacqueline McGlade, head of the European Environment Agency (EEA) in Copenhagen, I wrote an opinion piece for Sweden’s largest daily newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, for publication before the Åre meeting.
In the piece, McGlade and I argued that political leadership on climate issues must be based on science. Politicians have a tendency to compromise with science, and climate change has been no exception. As many studies have shown, including our planetary boundaries analysis, the world needs to keep atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) from rising above 350 ppm to avoid severe impacts from global warming. Some politicians have argued that a CO2 concentration as high as 450 ppm would be safe, under the assumption that it would lead to an increase of only 2°C (3.6°F) in the average global temperature, and that the consequences might not be so bad. There is, in fact, very little scientific evidence to link 450 ppm with a 2°C increase or to say that such an increase would be safe. On the contrary, there’s plenty of evidence that a 2°C increase would be costly and dangerous, and might even trigger catastrophic tipping points. We pointed this out in our piece.
Our big mistake was to quote José Barroso. A few months earlier, he’d defended the 450 ppm figure by saying that’s “what science tells us.” We simply pointed out that, in fact, there was a large degree of scientific uncertainty about that number and that, if we want to be reasonably safe, we should aim lower. Well, our piece appeared just before the Åre meeting was to begin. But it was interrupted by a very angry Barroso, who asked what on Earth was being said in this Swedish newspaper article signed by “his” director of the EEA. He demanded that the meeting wait until the article was translated into English.
When Barroso understood the article’s full content, he became furious. Meanwhile, McGlade called me to ask why we hadn’t gone over the Barroso quote in detail. The article had been approved by her media folks, but I had to admit that I hadn’t asked her specifically about the quote. The Åre meeting was held up until McGlade publicly announced that she’d been manipulated into signing the article. (Later, she wrote a letter to Barroso, explaining that, although she denounced the quote, the article was scientifically correct.)
The incident shook me up at the time. But now I realize what an important reminder it was that scientists must stay true to the science and not compromise with it or make it politically palatable. Although I’m still sorry about the fuss it created, I have no regrets about what we wrote in the newspaper. Our role is to communicate the facts, not to favor what is perceived to be politically possible. Using science as an excuse for inadequate action is never acceptable.
I think the reason why we see a growing discrepancy between what science states is necessary and what politics claims is possible is that politicians are afraid that ambitious sustainability goals will threaten economic growth. There’s very little to support this fear. On the contrary, environmental policies such as taxes actually stimulate innovation and new growth. The Swedish carbon tax, for example—the highest in the world, with a price of approximately 100 euros per ton of CO2—hasn’t destroyed the Swedish economy. On the contrary, it has stimulated both economic growth and green technology innovation.
As we’ll see in the following chapters, a grand challenge for humanity is to find ways of unleashing the power of nature-based solutions and innovation within the safe operating space of science-based goals. We may need new forms of governance at the planetary level to achieve such goals. We’ll most certainly need new instruments to measure our progress in strengthening Earth’s resilience. But we’re confident that the key to meeting such goals will be to turn them into incentives for new, exponential technologies—brilliant, cool, and profitable ideas to open the pathway to a sustainable common future.
What does the future hold for a boy in Rwanda? Sustainable solutions offer him and the rest of his generation the best chance to alleviate poverty.