The other night, I headed across town to the London School of Economics where I listened to one of the world’s most experienced climate diplomats say something unexpected about how business and political leaders are tackling global warming.
Todd Stern was former US president Barack Obama’s climate envoy and chief US negotiator at the 2015 Cop climate conference that delivered the Paris Agreement.
He was giving the first annual memorial lecture in honour of another architect of the Paris accord, his friend Pete Betts, a former lead negotiator for the European Union and United Kingdom who died in October.
Then he named another, less obvious culprit: ‘We are also slowed down by those who think of themselves as grown-ups’
Stern had no qualms about naming the biggest obstacles to climate progress. “The main one is the fossil fuel industry,” he said, explaining that the “huge clout” of state-owned and private companies could influence political leaders.
But then he named another, less obvious culprit: “We are also slowed down by those who think of themselves as grown-ups.”
By this, he meant the politicians and business leaders who say that yes, global warming is real and yes, it must be addressed, but no, it is unrealistic to cut carbon emissions at the pace climate experts say is needed.
His words struck home because it was the latest complaint I have heard this year about the “adults in the room” or “very serious people” who bog down climate action.
The prospect of a second Donald Trump term at a time of deepening geopolitical turbulence makes the orthodox views of respected centrists look more valuable than ever
In some ways this criticism is curious. Not that long ago, western capitals were banking on seasoned military and civilian officials in the Trump administration to temper the unpredictable president’s term in office. The prospect of a second Donald Trump term at a time of deepening geopolitical turbulence makes the orthodox views of respected centrists look more valuable than ever.
[ Maureen Dowd: The trials of Melania TrumpOpens in new window ]
But an unwavering faith in orthodoxy, no matter the evidence, is what makes such experts a menace, says US economist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman who has popularised the concept of the very serious person.
A third terminal at Dublin Airport - urgent necessity or pie in the sky?
He has railed against the economic variant of the species, the policy elites on both sides of the Atlantic who pushed for austerity measures after the 2008 financial crisis despite warnings of the risks these posed to long-term growth.
The grown-ups holding back efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions are not necessarily the same people but share the same aversion to radically unorthodox ideas.
“They’re the avatars of the establishment,” a US climate policy veteran told me the other week. He was describing the voices of centrist reason he heard from Wall Street to Whitehall who said calls for net zero emissions by 2050 were financially impractical, politically impossible and naive.
Decarbonising the global economy at speed is hard to imagine, let alone accomplish
This is a seductive argument. It is true that the bulk of emissions come from fossil fuels — the oil, gas and coal that still comprise about 80 per cent of the global energy mix. It is also true that these fuels support tens of thousands of jobs and account for as much as 60 per cent of export revenues in dozens of countries.
So decarbonising the global economy at speed is hard to imagine, let alone accomplish.
Yet so is the prospect of business as usual prevailing — not least in a week when record rains caused chaos at the world’s busiest international airport in Dubai, while an unusually granular study showed climate damages could reach $38 trillion (€35.6 trillion) a year by 2050.
We live in a world that is already at least 1.1 degrees warmer than it was in the late 1800s, where unnerving levels of heat, drought, flooding and ice loss are ever more evident.
Is it fair to lay all the blame on serious grown-ups in successive governments and boardrooms who have spent years failing to do enough to fix the problem? Probably not
Scientists have shown for years that it would be wise to hold global warming to 1.5 degrees, as outlined in the Paris Agreement. But this would require a breathtaking rate of decarbonisation: emissions would have to nearly halve by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. So far, global emissions are not falling, let alone halving, and 2030 is just six years away.
Is it fair to lay all the blame on serious grown-ups in successive governments and boardrooms who have spent years failing to do enough to fix the problem? Probably not. But it is fair to ask them a question that Stern posed the other night about how dangerous it would be to take more radical, unorthodox climate action: “compared to what?”
We know that unthinkable action, like sudden mass lockdowns, can be launched in the face of a problem with the frightening immediacy of a global pandemic. Climate change is a different, slower-moving type of disaster. But it is a disaster nonetheless, and one that no truly serious person can continue to ignore. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2024
- Sign up for Business push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Our Inside Business podcast is published weekly – Find the latest episode here
