Last month, 190 countries met in Madrid for the UN Climate Change Conference COP 25 to develop actionable steps for achieving the goals identified in the 2015 Paris Agreement. Despite spilling into two extra days for a total of 14 days — making this the longest conference since its founding 25 years ago — world leaders left without reaching consensus or signing binding agreements to reduce emissions.
The outcome of COP 25 highlights the ambivalence that surrounds climate action. While many countries understand the urgent need to reduce emissions, the world’s largest emitters have remained relatively quiet and others have fallen behind on internal goals. The Climate Action Tracker found that worldwide emissions need to fall 50% by 2030 to limit global temperature increases, but with the U.S. missing from the meeting, reaching this worldwide goal will be difficult.
Analysts and leaders hoped the meeting would mark a significant shift in the way the world treats climate change, leading to broader acceptance and ambition in combating it. The U.N. Secretary General tweeted his disappointment, saying the “international community lost an important opportunity.”
In spite of the negative talk, I still see COP 25 and its leadup as a move in the right direction. Now more than ever, countries aren’t arguing about whether something needs to be done — they’re discussing what to do and how to do it. This important, albeit slow, transition highlights a missing link in implementing change: a method to hold countries accountable for reducing emissions.
Why didn’t COP 25 deliver on its promises?
For climate action to be productive, we need strong alignment between policy makers about the severity of the threat and the intensity with which to respond to it. Policy drives the market, which drives behaviors. We haven’t achieved alignment on a planetary level because climate change doesn’t resemble other humanitarian disasters we’ve faced, disasters that require immediate aid and action to relieve human suffering.
If COP 25 was the watershed that got us talking about actual solutions, how can we overcome stagnation and push leaders to make strides in implementing fixes?
Shifting to net zero living will require a substantial change in the global economy. Humans don’t seem to be willing to leave the cave until it’s on fire; only then are we willing to leap into a future of uncertainty caused by these changes. Oil and gas companies continue to rake in enormous profits each year (Saudi Aramco is the most valuable company in the world), resisting policies that could impact their bottom lines; wealthy countries who rely on oil exports as their main source of income do the same instead of proactively seeking alternative revenue streams and energy sources.
In a nutshell, transitioning to new energy sources must be so economically compelling that shifting away from fossil fuels and hydrocarbons is a good business decision. In other words, we need to make the cost of change much cheaper than the cost of the status quo.
How technology can unite private and public sector climate accountability
More than 60 countries have set goals to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, but there’s currently no mechanism that measures whether or not these countries actually decarbonize. Nor do we have the mechanisms to “trade” mitigation offsets that would enable the marketplace to determine the market value of a ton of carbon. Until we have a tool for carbon accounting that includes an economic imperative to act, it’s going to be very difficult to create accountability and new markets that drive us to accelerate the energy transition. With carbon accounting, countries and corporations would measure their greenhouse gas emissions and governments could implement a carbon tax. Corporations would receive credits or penalties in proportion to their ability to meet carbon targets.
Technology is rapidly advancing as researchers and policymakers develop financial mechanisms and language around carbon accounting. Shell Solutions, for example, is actively working to determine how to hold companies accountable through tech development and lobbying for a carbon tax.
Once carbon accounting tools are in place, it will be easier for governments and corporations to take action. Governments can implement taxes and require company commitments. And when individuals have a better understanding of which companies are committed to fighting climate change, they can make more informed buying decisions.
Thanks to technology, we’re on the cusp of major changes to the way we respond to the impending climate catastrophe.
A new decade of climate activism
While many activists left 2019 feeling pessimistic, I’m entering the new decade with fresh optimism. Many countries set 2020 as their deadline to submit revised and more ambitious national climate plans. The U.K. Parliament declared climate change a national emergency. And I feel fresh hope in the collaborative work being done by LF Energy. Our utility, OEM, vendors and academic communities are working to decentralize the currently proprietary, siloed grid industry our whole world depends on. The transition to electric mobility and creating the grid of the future is building momentum through the leadership of LFEnergy Premier members like France’s RTE and Netherlands’ Alliander.
As technology improves and citizen activism increases, I’m confident we’ll find a way to meet our goals. Looking at the history of innovation, I think about the seemingly impossible feats humankind has accomplished, from putting a man on the moon, curing diseases, and enabling a global communications network such as the internet. Saving the earth is a similarly bold challenge, but we must find a way to do it — we don’t have a choice.
