Why not lose a little? – Random laments of a random observer of climate change

It was around a couple of years ago that I remember myself thinking ‘Hey wait, climate change seems to be a scientifically established fact, isn’t it? I mean the science is very clear. Then why do I not see adequate action happen anywhere across the globe? ”. This curiosity got me to start thinking about climate change as an implementation problem rather than a scientific problem (which later became the driving factor for me to choose the SICCS program at UHH). But isn’t the world we live in today knowledgeable enough to fight climate change? Then what really is the problem? It was with such bewilderment did I start reading articles and papers that dealt with climate change policy rather than the natural sciences aspect of it. Papers after papers, articles after articles, the one thing that always struck me as being the key consideration when setting up climate relevant goals and measures was the idea that adequate climate action must be a ‘win-win for all’. While this idea was not explicit everywhere, it was most certainly implicit in many pieces.

But what does this ideal of a ‘win-win for all’ mean in the context of action in the direction of saving the climate from substantially changing? The most relevant example I could think of is from a 2019 article published by The Guardian about asset management companies such as BlackRock and Vanguard (1). These two companies own major chunks of shares in top fossil fuel companies, and a survey revealed that they have opposed over 80% of climate-related shareholder motions at fossil fuel companies between 2015 and 2019. The companies have openly not denied these claims, stating that their goal is to look after the long-term interests of their investors. This is not just an isolated incident. The protection of investor interests is often cited as a reason by governments for continuing running fossil fuel powered power plants, both in the developing and developed world. While I agree that these investors form an invisible backbone to economies by literally funding the powerhouses of nations, I cannot help but think ‘But the climate waits for no one now does it? So why not lose a little?’

Another case where this idea can be implicitly understood is from the framing of climate change as a developmental problem. While it is again an established fact that climate change affects everyone regardless of the source of carbon emissions, the developed and the developing world both look out only for their own interests. Developing countries such as India and China cite reasons their developmental status as a justification for their continued reliance on fossil fuels for running their countries. Developed countries such the USA and the EU on the other hand argue that taking action on climate change would be too expensive and would harm their economies. These differences in discourses have resulted in delaying climate action, which then promotes discourses about climate justice, just transitions, and once again further results in discourses that only further delays climate action. While such discourses are important particularly in solving major social problems like inequality, poverty, health, and so on, I cannot help but wonder ‘But the climate waits for no one now does it? So why not lose a little?’

A third more subtle idea for a lament came across me while reading one of my colleagues’ blog on patent laws and climate action (2). In the post, my colleague had argued that expensive patent rights in the developed countries was a major hurdle for the developing world to take climate action by being hindrance to apt technological transfer. A couple of my other colleagues had accepted with the author’s views, but had also cited that these patent rights are crucial for promoting research and innovation. While I do not disagree with all these views, only one thing struck my mind – ‘But the climate waits for no one now does it? So why not lose a little?’

While this blog was neither meant to be an informative piece like my previous one (if you had gone through it), nor was it meant to be in the direction of any action that can be taken henceforth, it is only a reflection of the thoughts that probably every observer of climate change like myself has. Climate change is probably the most complex issue of the 21^st century as it affects almost every aspect of our lives. Setting up policies that can eventually drive nations towards net-zero emissions and thus result in a truly sustainable world that exists even for future generations is, I believe, the only way forward. But most policies relay only those actions that are wins for all actors involved, which may not be the optimal way in saving the world. This approach I believe is why even with all current climate pledges made by nations across the world would still result in a global warming of 2.5ᵒ C by the end of the century (3). Thus since the climate waits for no one, why not consider to lose a little?

References:

1. Greenfield, P. (2019). World’s top three asset managers oversee $300 bn fossil fuel investments’, 12 October 2019. The Guardian, https://www. theguardian. com/environment/2019/oct/12/top-three-asset-managers-fossil-fuel-investments.
2. Fuseini, Y. (2023), Harnessing the Power of Patent Law Reform to Enhance Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in the Global South, Uncertain2Degrees Blogs
3. Climate Plans Remain Insufficient: More Ambitious Action Needed Now, United Nations Climate Press Release (2022). https://unfccc.int/news/climate-plans-remain-insufficient-more-ambitious-action-needed-now