Taking Action: Treating the Climate Crisis with Urgency

Sign up now to receive free updates on Climate change.

We will send you a daily email digest, called myFT Daily Digest, that summarizes the latest Climate change news each morning.

“I wish,” expressed a prominent US Democrat and environmentalist, “that we had never politicized global warming.” As the effects of climate change become increasingly apparent through extreme heat, navigating the political landscape has become even more challenging.

Various factions on the right are now mobilizing to slow down progress towards achieving net zero emissions. In the US, Ron DeSantis, despite having experienced the impact of extreme weather in Florida, dismisses “the politicization of the weather.” House Republicans are also actively lobbying to overturn a methane pollution tax within the Inflation Reduction Act. In the UK, conservative politicians, fearing electoral defeat, are leveraging green policies against their opponents in the Labour party. Even Justin Trudeau, Canada’s premier, is facing difficulties in implementing a radical decarbonization plan.

It is eerily reminiscent of the debates from the 1990s. While outright climate denial is now widely debunked, right-wing politicians often claim that the West has already done enough or that technological advancements will save us. There have even been bizarre attempts to divert attention from the main issue. For example, when the skies in New York State turned orange due to pollution in June, Rudy Giuliani tweeted about potential sinister causes. In another example, Lord David Frost, a former Tory minister in the UK, downplayed concerns about heat-related deaths by comparing them to deaths caused by cold. Meanwhile, the oil industry continues to lobby for projects that would become stranded assets under net zero goals.

The challenge lies in finding the right balance between climate action and preserving livelihoods. It can be frustrating for those who fear that we are rapidly approaching tipping points that will lead to economic devastation. Extreme weather events have already made some US homes uninsurable, and Canada has experienced record-breaking wildfires, resulting in the loss of significant land and half a million jobs at risk from extreme heat by 2050. Mediterranean countries like Greece, Italy, and Spain, currently experiencing scorching temperatures, also face potential threats to their vital tourism industries.

It is legitimate to question which solutions will be most cost-effective and who should bear the costs. Achieving net zero emissions requires governments to accomplish something on the scale of a new Industrial Revolution in just three decades. Politicians are often hesitant to move faster than public opinion allows, and the general public is not keen on unlimited spending.

The solution may lie in invoking a wartime spirit and treating the fight against climate change as a collective effort against a common enemy. If there is sufficient public and political will, human ingenuity can prevail and drive rapid change. During World War II, the US transformed its manufacturing base to produce essential war materials. The Covid pandemic led to the rapid development and distribution of vaccines, saving countless lives. Russia’s gas dependency became a concern for Germany following the invasion of Ukraine, prompting efforts to diversify energy sources.

What do these examples have in common? A laser focus on a singular objective, a sense of national unity, and leadership from the private sector. To replicate this with climate change, the political discourse must mature. The left is correct in recognizing that achieving net zero will require increased government involvement and resource mobilization. However, the right is also correct in acknowledging that only market forces can effectively deliver innovative solutions. In the UK, some Tories are trying to conflate an unpopular vehicle pollution tax in London with broader climate policies, while certain Green parties have made similar mistakes by mixing “green” policies with unrelated agenda items like wealth taxes or military reduction. In Germany’s case, opposing nuclear power has negatively impacted their carbon footprint.

The story that political leaders need to tell must transcend ideology. Even before Al Gore’s influential documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” Margaret Thatcher, a conservative leader, warned of the dangers of carbon emissions in her 1989 speech to the UN General Assembly and called for international cooperation. Some modern conservatives who consider themselves followers of Thatcher may feel uncomfortable with her message that “we shall only succeed in dealing with the problems through a vast international, co-operative effort.” However, her words ring true.

Having written about climate change for two decades, I have witnessed the deeply emotional reactions it provokes. People are quick to resist any suggestion that they should change their lifestyles or acknowledge the potential changes in the world around them. Concerns about the costs of decarbonization and the fairness of burden-sharing are understandable. Many prefer not to dwell on the issue too deeply. Political leaders find themselves navigating a complex global challenge where no population wants to feel like they are losing out to others.

My Democratic friend was right: climate change is too important to be held hostage by any single group. If we are to effectively address the warming climate, we must remove the politics from the equation.

Contact: [email protected]