What are the most effective ways to reverse global warming? We can all come up with a list but is it the best list? In 2014 two Americans, Paul Hawken, author of The Ecology of Commerce, and climate activist Amanda Ravenhall, started Project Drawdown, an attempt to answer one of the most important questions in the world. They asked experts from around the world for a list of the most effective ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They got some obvious ones, such as more wind and solar power. Others that get less coverage, such as plant-rich diets [eat less meat], cutting food waste and better management of land, including croplands, pastures and forests, also ranked very high. Their website has a Table of Solutions showing how many tonnes of greenhouse gases would be cut or stored for each option. It should be a must-read for everyone, especially for government and business leaders looking for the most effective solutions for the greatest crisis we face.

In its report, Our Common Future, the World Commission on Environment and Development, known as the Brundtland Commission, said in 1987 that the world had to move to sustainable forms of development to avoid ecological collapse. In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, which included the Earth Summit, produced Agenda 21, a 40-chapter guide for business and government policies, and for personal choices to put the world on a sustainable pathway. In 2015, the United Nations agreed on The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with 17 sustainable development goals and 169 specific targets. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has given clear targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent the worst effects of climate change. So, we have widespread agreement on goals and targets. What we need is a detailed set of plans to build a sustainable world. We have known for years that we need to reduce our use of energy and materials and to try to recycle our old products. We can build more efficient, cars, buildings, have cleaner energy and less polluting food production. But to make these mainstream, more people must demand them. We need more innovation and leadership from business. Governments must set rules that make clean and green the norm not the exception. As we try to restart the economy after the COVID-19 pandemic, we have a chance to change direction and not return to business as usual.

The pandemic has forced us to face some unpleasant realities about the unsustainability of our world. For many years, I’ve written about widespread environmental degradation. Now we are seeing the harsh side of economic and social unsustainability. A story this spring said the richest Americans increased by $434 billion since the pandemic lockdown began in March. At the same time, millions of people were out of work, struggling to feed their families and pay their mortgages. Food banks were swamped with demand. Businesses were struggling and many were failing. In a number of countries, such as Canada, the majority of COVID-19 deaths have been in long-term care homes. Other groups that suffer more illness and death from the pandemic include the poor, the homeless and migrant farm workers, some of whom are crowded into dormitories where it is impossible to keep a safe space. The Brundtland report said we need environmental, economic and social sustainability together. As governments seek a post-pandemic development pathway they have an opportunity to create a cleaner, healthier and secure future. But, they will have to retire some old ideas about the marketplace solving society’s problems.

In a post COVID-19 world we will have a once in a lifetime opportunity to make a serious shift to sustainability. It’s clear that in the current world there is not enough appetite to save ourselves from ecological decline with all its knock-on effects of climate disasters, economic failures and great hardship for billions.

As we start to emerge from lockdowns we have an opportunity to reshape societies. There are two examples from the past century. The Great Depression of the 1930s closed companies and sent huge numbers of people lining up for soup kitchens and even killing themselves in desperation. In the United States, President Franklin D. Roosevelt launched The New Deal, which offered relief payments and public works jobs that helped reshape the country with new roads, buildings and power dams. It has long been cited as an example of how governments can save their citizens from economic collapses. At the end of the Second World War allied forces launched massive plans to rebuild shattered economies, to foster independent and democratic governments and to create a network of international institutions, including the United Nations. Now, we have another chance to rebuild society. The challenge is to make it a sustainable recovery. We need to avoid a repeat of the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis which saw governments investing in traditional projects such as coal-fired power plants, poorly insulated buildings and more roads.

Saying the COVID-19 pandemic has created “The biggest global economic shock in peacetime since the 1930s” the the International Energy Agency has produced a Sustainable Recovery Plan for a post-pandemic world. The 1 trillion USD a year program would increase wind and solar power, expand and improve electricity grids, increase cleaner transport, improve energy efficiency, make fuel production and use more sustainable, and boost innovation in clean energy. The report will be discussed next week at an online summit for countries producing the bulk of global greenhouse gas emissions. The aim is to stop the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and bring them down to the levels set in the Paris Accord of 2016.

For an academic look at possible futures, the Great Transition Initiative has just published a series of articles under the heading, After the pandemic: Which Future? Thirteen world experts examine the risks of slipping into a fortress world, inequality, collective action, a chance to change mindsets and the problems of trying to create future scenarios. For many years this online forum of ideas and international network on a transition to sustainable development has been holding discussions on the risks, barriers and opportunities of sustainability.

The COVID-19 pandemic has given the world’s economy a giant shock. It grounded most of the world’s nearly 30,000 passenger and transport aircraft and putting some airlines out of business. Some 300 cruise ships, are either tied up or floating at sea waiting for permission to dock. Hundreds of millions of cars sit in driveways, parking lots or unsold on dealers’ lots. Factories have shut down and shopping centres closed. The result has been a giant cut in air pollution. The air in cities is cleaner than at any time in living memory.

But it is not a sustainable change. Billions of us have had our lives disrupted, and millions are in desperate straits. Unemployment is spiking to levels not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The World Food Programme says the lives and livelihoods of 265 million people in low and middle-income countries will be under severe threat unless swift action is taken to tackle the pandemic, up from a current 135 million.

The big question is what next? If we get a vaccine, which will probably not happen for many months, we will be able to go back to our former work and lifestyles. If the vaccine is delayed, then we will continue a gradual deconfinement with risks of more infections and possible closings. But, do we want to go back to old, unsustainable “normal?”

In May, some 350 organizations representing more than 40 million health care workers issued an open letter to G20 world leaders calling for a healthy recovery from COVID-19. They asked for “investments in pandemic preparedness, public health and environmental stewardship,” including renewable energy. They said air pollution already causes 7 million premature deaths a year in the world, and weakens people’s ability to fight off illness. “A truly healthy recovery will not allow pollution to continue to cloud the air we breathe and the water we drink. It will not permit unabated climate change and deforestation, potentially unleashing new health threats upon vulnerable populations.” For a number of years health experts have pointed out that racial minorities and the poor suffer most from air pollution, climate change and diseases, including COVID-19. There have been calls for what amounts to a more sustainable recovery that includes cuts in pollution and an approach to help people escape discrimination, poverty and the resulting ill health.

Many governments had already committed to a green shift, especially given their promises to fight climate change. The pandemic is seen as a possible turning point for a green rebuilding of economies around the world. In late May, the European Commission proposed a European Green Deal that would include billions of Euros a year to create a more circular economy that reduces waste, saying it has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs for Europeans and reduce foreign dependency. The green deal includes a Farm to Fork strategy to help the region’s farmers provide people with good and affordable food, and a Just Transition Strategy to help workers acquire new skills. The proposal calls for greater energy efficiency and green heating, renewable energy, clean cars, zero-emissions trains and the production of clean hydrogen fuel.

The COVID-19 pandemic has given the world’s economy a giant shock. It grounded most of the world’s nearly 30,000 passenger and transport aircraft and putting some airlines out of business. Some 300 cruise ships, are either tied up or floating at sea waiting for permission to dock. Hundreds of millions of cars sit in driveways, parking lots or unsold on dealers’ lots. Factories have shut down and shopping centres closed. The result has been a giant cut in air pollution. The air in cities is cleaner than at any time in living memory.

But it is not a sustainable change. Billions of us have had our lives disrupted, and millions are in desperate straits. Unemployment is spiking to levels not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The World Food Programme says the lives and livelihoods of 265 million people in low and middle-income countries will be under severe threat unless swift action is taken to tackle the pandemic, up from a current 135 million.

The big question is what next? If we get a vaccine, which will probably not happen for many months, we will be able to go back to our former work and lifestyles. If the vaccine is delayed, then we will continue a gradual deconfinement with risks of more infections and possible closings. But, do we want to go back to old, unsustainable “normal?”

In May, some 350 organizations representing more than 40 million health care workers issued an open letter to G20 world leaders calling for a healthy recovery from COVID-19. They asked for “investments in pandemic preparedness, public health and environmental stewardship,” including renewable energy. They said air pollution already causes 7 million premature deaths a year in the world, and weakens people’s ability to fight off illness. “A truly healthy recovery will not allow pollution to continue to cloud the air we breathe and the water we drink. It will not permit unabated climate change and deforestation, potentially unleashing new health threats upon vulnerable populations.” For a number of years health experts have pointed out that racial minorities and the poor suffer most from air pollution, climate change and diseases, including COVID-19. There have been calls for what amounts to a more sustainable recovery that includes cuts in pollution and an approach to help people escape discrimination, poverty and the resulting ill health.

Many governments had already committed to a green shift, especially given their promises to fight climate change. The pandemic is seen as a possible turning point for a green rebuilding of economies around the world. In late May, the European Commission proposed a European Green Deal that would include billions of Euros a year to create a more circular economy that reduces waste, saying it has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs for Europeans and reduce foreign dependency. The green deal includes a Farm to Fork strategy to help the region’s farmers provide people with good and affordable food, and a Just Transition Strategy to help workers acquire new skills. The proposal calls for greater energy efficiency and green heating, renewable energy, clean cars, zero-emissions trains and the production of clean hydrogen fuel.

Business is playing an ever more important role in a green shift. It is companies that produce wind turbines, solar panels, electric cars, organic food, green buildings and a huge array of products and services that can make the world better than it was. Last month, 155 companies with a combined market capitalization of over US$ 2.4 trillion and representing over five million employees signed a statement urging governments around the world to align their COVID-19 economic aid and recovery efforts with the latest climate science. The corporate chiefs called  on governments “to reimagine a better future grounded in bold climate action.” They said, “As we are setting ambitious corporate emission reduction targets through the Science Based Targets initiative and its Business Ambition for 1.5°C campaign, we remain committed to do our part to achieve a resilient, zero carbon economy. We are now urging governments to prioritize a faster and fairer transition from a grey to a green economy.”

Half a century ago environmental problems were visible, smelly and mostly local. Some rivers were so polluted with oil they caught fire or killed birds that landed on them. Smokestacks belched clouds of dust, chemicals and fine metal particles into the air. Toxic chemicals were openly dumped into lakes and rivers. Gaylord Nelson, an American senator from Wisconsin, pushed for a rally to focus attention on environmental problems. He recruited Dennis Hayes, a 25-year-old Harvard University student to organize what became a nation-wide rally on April 22, 1970. So many people turned out that it put pressure on politicians to pass a series of powerful environmental laws in the United States and later in countries around the world. Today, Earth Day has been somewhat pushed to the side by the COVID-19 crisis. But, it’s a good time to take stock and look ahead. Since 1970, most nations have created environment departments and laws. They have brought in controls on acid rain, ozone-depleting chemicals and a wide range of pollutants. Motor vehicles are much cleaner and more efficient. However, we are still sliding into a series of crises. More parks have been created and some species saved. Now, we face new problems. Climate change, which was unknown to the public in 1970, is the greatest single threat to our future. Despite some successes in reforestation, the world’s wildlands are still shrinking and driving more species toward extinction. The oceans are being polluted and overfished. New chemicals are threatening our health. Plastic pollution is in our food and water. It’s hard to look ahead another 50 years, but we can see building pressures. In 1970, there were about 3.7 billion people on Earth. Since then we have more than doubled the population to about 7.8 billion, and it is projected to be more than 10 billion by 2070. It will take a huge amount of resources and energy to feed, house, clothe, move and employ so many. As the population grows, we must also cut our use of fossil fuels which provide about 80 per cent of current energy, reduce pressures on fish and wilderness, and cut back on many forms of pollution. It will take a massive shift in attitudes and behaviour. The question facing humanity is whether the changes come because the environmental crises have become so severe that we are forced to react, or will we develop the foresight and will to move before the environmental hammer falls on us?

The greatest long-term challenge countries face is moving to a sustainable lifestyle. An article on the BBC website takes a look at countries that are doing well. Drawing from the Good Country Index, the BBC highlighted five countries that are tackling climate change. The highest ranking goes to Norway which runs almost entirely on hydro-electric power and has very high sales of electric cars, although it is also a major producer of oil. Portugal ranks high because of a large number of electric car charging stations and support for citizens to install renewable energy systems. Uruguay has become a leader for renewable energy and has been praised for its social and environmental policies. Kenya is already struggling with the effects of climate change, including more extreme weather and droughts. It has one of the world’s strongest bans on plastic bags. New Zealand also has controls on plastic bags, and is working for carbon neutrality although its large cattle and sheep farms produce methane, a greenhouse gas. While the list is not exhaustive, it gives an interesting perspective on how countries from around the world are trying to improve their environmental performance.

I’ve long believed the greatest threat to the environment comes from the way we live: what we buy and what we do. Consumption of things and services – cars, food, houses, travel, etc. – and the use of energy from fossil fuels are the primary driving forces of change. They shape the industries that clear cut, over fish and pollute to provide what we demand. Our behaviour is the  root cause of the issues we see, such as climate change, deforestation, urban air pollution the decline of other species and the other environmental ills that plague our world. An article by Joel Makower in GreenBiz before the annual Earth Day, next Wednesday, looks at polls and consumer attitudes towards purchases and recycling. It’s an American perspective, but as the article shows the attitudes are shared in a number of industrialized countries. It’s not very optimistic. Makower says that for decades consumers say they are concerned about the environment and want to make environmentally and socially responsible choices but they keep buying the same things. They claim to recycle but the recycling figures do not bear this out. He does end on a hopeful note, saying that younger consumers appear to be readier to shop green than older people, and COVID-19 may bring about more concern about global stresses and the need to protect the environment.

One is coming at us like a runaway train and other like a steamroller. The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered an unprecedented global crisis response that has shut down economies and virtually stopped travel as countries struggle to slow the deadly respiratory infection. The world reacted with great speed, as one would in a wartime situation. Meanwhile, climate change keeps up its inexorable pace, threatening us with a series of ecological, economic and social breakdowns, but over years.

The COVID-19 crisis shows that societies can respond very quickly to a crisis when death is imminent. People will grumble but put up with being confined to their homes for weeks at a time rather than face a serious, sometimes fatal illness. But will this willingness to take dramatic action carry over to the climate crisis? It appears unlikely. In Canada, some critics say the federal government did not react fast enough to stop the approaching coronavirus. They say it should have acted sooner to close borders, urge people to wear masks in public, stockpile medical supplies and expand testing for the virus. However, Canada’s Health Minister Patty Hajdu said in an interview aired today that the public was not ready for drastic measures when the early warnings of the pandemic appeared. “It would have seemed ludicrous in January had we said, ‘Well, what we should do is shut the borders and stop all non-essential work, including government work,’” Ms. Hajdu said. Sadly, this comment applies to our willingness to take drastic steps to stop climate change. We know we need to stop burning fossil fuels, switch to renewable energy, take much bigger steps in energy conservation and change our diets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But, until the threat of disaster is at our doorsteps, too few people are willing to make the changes to give governments permission to bring in the controls we need.

The COVID-19 outbreak killing thousands of people around the world is just the latest example of how our destruction of nature is coming back to bite us. This coronavirus is a zoonotic disease, one that jumps from animals to humans. COVID-19 has been traced to a live animal market in the city of Wuhan in central China. According to an article in Science Daily it may have come from bats or pangolins, a scaly anteater that is often captured and sold for food. The highly infectious COVID-19 virus jumped to humans in late 2019, and rapidly spread around the world, creating a global pandemic and unprecedented health measures to slow its spread, including confinement of millions and a virtual shutdown of many businesses. In the recent past the world has had to deal with similar illnesses, such as Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), both diseases caused by coronaviruses that originated in animals and spread to people. So are the highly-lethal Ebola as well as West Nile virus and bird flu. AIDS is believed to have jumped from moneys or apes to humans in in central and west Africa, possibly contracted by people killing the animals for food.

Many experts are warning that as humans push deeper into remote areas of the world and kill more exotic wild animals for food we will continue to unleash more diseases on ourselves. In an article in Slate zoologist Peter Daszak says that as we cut into rainforests and mine in remote areas, we expose humans to an untold number of diseases we have never seen and for which we have no natural resistance. China is the source of COVID-19, and of SARS, which is believed to have come from civet cats sold in a live animal market. The world’s most populous nation has recently banned the consumption and farming of wild animals. The use of wild animals for food, medicines, clothing, decoration and pets goes back thousands of years, so it will take time to change. The question is how will other countries try to control their contact with nature to protect us humans. The COVID-19 outbreak will kill thousands more people, and cause economic devastation. Many companies will struggle to survive and many will likely fail. Dangerous as it is, COVID-19 is not as lethal as the plague of the middle ages or the 1918-19 influenza. But if we get another infectious outbreak that combines high contagion with more fatalities it could wreck modern society.

Harnessing the power of fire made humans the most powerful species on the planet. We started using wildfires far in the distant past and making our own fires as long as 1 million years ago. At first, fire gave us heat, light, protection from wild animals, the ability to make better tools and especially to cook food, making it much easier to eat. Since then fire has given us guns, rockets, steel, concrete and chemicals. Burning fossil fuels produces most of the world’s energy, powering our modern civilization. But, fire has a darker side. Burning produces air pollution, which has long sickened people and now kills an estimated 7 million a year around the world. It is causing an even graver crisis as millions of tonnes a year of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and gas, are changing the climate we depend on for life as we know it. A linked problem is the deliberate burning of vast tropical forests to clear land for farming and cattle. This adds to climate change and is reducing biodiversity, another of the environmental crises we face. After hundreds of thousands of years of inventing ways to use fire, we have to make a historic shift and put the genie back in the bottle. We have to move beyond fire before it consumes us.

There are more and more stories about kids becoming afraid of the future. I was born in the midst of a war, but there was a sense that it was going to end in victory. A couple of decades later people were marching to ban nuclear weapons, stop the Vietnam war, end racism and for women’s rights. In all those cases there has been at least partial success and a sense of progress. With the decline in our environment and especially with climate change there a strong sense we are losing the battle, and have no credible plan to save our environment and civilization from great damage, even catastrophe. It is the young who feel the threat most keenly. Hundreds of thousands have been going on one-day school strikes – Fridays for Future – inspired by Greta Thunberg, the Swedish high school student who pioneered the movement. Some have closed roads and bridges to force adults to pay attention. A number of young people question what kind of future they will have and wonder openly if they should even have children of their own. An article in the Philadelphia Inquirer captures many of the concerns and frustrations of the young as they try to get their parents to pay attention. It is clear that we need unprecedented changes in how we live, travel and eat and especially how we generate and use energy. The young need not only to protest but to lead because today’s adults have failed to do enough. They have the chance to rewrite history and save the world.

The future success of nations depends on their children’s health and well-being, but no country is ensuring their future according to a group of world experts. Many wealthy nations are doing a good job of taking care of the current needs of the young, but are undermining their future through their greenhouse gas emissions. Some poor nations have few but are unable to adequately take care of children’s needs now. The World Health Organization, UNICEF and The Lancet medical journal published a A future for the world’s children? It said that recent decades “have seen dramatic improvements in survival, education, and nutrition for children worldwide. Economic development, concerted international action, and political commitment have brought about rapid change. In many ways, now is the best time for children to be alive.” But the future is less rosy, it continued saying “…today’s children face an uncertain future. Climate change, ecological degradation, migrating populations, conflict, pervasive inequalities, and predatory commercial practices threaten the health and future of children in every country.”

The report split the world into two categories based on how they care for children today and how they are dealing with the threat of climate change. “The poorest countries have a long way to go towards supporting their children’s ability to live healthy lives, but wealthier countries threaten the future of all children through carbon pollution, on course to cause runaway climate change and environmental disaster. Not a single country performed well on all three measures of child flourishing, sustainability, and equity.” For example, Norway, South Korea and the Netherlands ranked first, second and third in having flourishing children today, but ranked low on long-term sustainability because of their high greenhouse gas emissions, which undermine the future for children. It quoted student climate activist such as Greta Thunberg from Sweden in her famous speech to last year’s World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland when she told delegates, “I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.” The report went on to say the world needs to listen to children and make them central to global sustainable development goals.

Deborah Morayo Adegbile (left), from Nigeria, and Greta Thunberg (second from left), from Sweden, take part in a press conference at UNICEF House announcing the collective action being taken on behalf of young people over climate change.
Credit: UNICEF

A group of scientists from around the world has warned the environmental challenges facing us are so great that it is too late for incremental change. In a far-reaching and detailed report, they say only a historic and transformational change unprecedented in modern history will save us. The 222 scientists from 52 countries provide a snapshot of our world as it heads into a crucial decade in which environmental crises are becoming more severe and some risk becoming irreversible. Their report, Our Future on Earth 2020 warns a number of overlapping environmental breakdowns could tip us into a global systemic crisis. It would bring include extreme weather, such as droughts and floods, major biodiversity loss, water shortages and lower food production. There would be an increased likelihood of wildfire, heat death, water shortages, and power outages

On a more optimistic note the report says: “we are a vast global population facing unprecedented environmental challenges, yet we still have the time and the capability to prevent extreme outcomes, such as runaway climate change and wildlife extinctions.” However, making the changes needed will require much more than tinkering with the existing system. It warns that “transformative change goes well beyond incrementalism or reform, both of which allow existing practices, goals, and structures to stay in place. We need to rethink how we design economies and do business; how we produce and distribute the food we eat – even what we eat; how we design and construct our homes, workplaces, and communities; and how we get from place to place.” The needed changes to how we live and do business will be disruptive. We have to deal with the complexity of the problems and solutions while many people want simple answers.

When we talk about cutting greenhouse gas emissions we often think of coal-burning power plants, motor vehicles and aircraft. But homes and buildings are a major source. A statement from the Canadian senate says they are the source of about 17 per cent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning oil and gas to heat them. It’s been possible for years to build structures that need virtually no fossil fuels to heat them. However, many buildings leak large amounts of heat because they were built in an era when energy was cheap and builders did not want to raise the purchase price by adding more insulation and energy efficient windows and heating systems. An article on green buildings says North America still often settles for mediocrity when it comes to green buildings. Homeowners and owners of businesses appear to be heading towards a change that may become a crisis. If we are to meet our goals of greenhouse gas reductions, we have to phase out of fossil fuels, and that means most buildings will have to change their heating systems.

The first decade of this century was shaken by terror attacks, including the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York, and the ensuing wars. The second decade started with the struggle to prevent a global economic meltdown after the 2008 market crash. The third decade will be defined by how we deal with climate change and how that struggle reshapes our societies. Climate change is already bringing increasing floods, droughts, forest fires, rising sea levels and a melting Arctic, and we will have to live with a disturbed climate for centuries. The question is how much can we limit the increase in global temperatures. Coming out of the hottest decade on record the United Nations has warned we have to take drastic action over the next few years or we will be locked into the kind of changes that will destroy economies, force people to flee their homes and render increasing areas of the planet inhospitable. The UN has said we need we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 7 per cent a year in this decade to avoid disastrous consequences, and be carbon neutral by 2050. Given that 80 per cent of global energy production comes from burning fossil fuels, this will require  an unprecedented transformation of society, with seismic shifts in energy use, food systems, transportation, land use, employment and personal behaviour.

The most frightening evidence of climate change has been the dramatic increase in massive, uncontrollable wildfires in Australia, California and parts of southern Europe. Whole towns have been destroyed and people burned to death as they tried to escape. People are scared and want action.  Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, known for promoting more coal mining, was booed when he visited fire-ravaged areas of the country. Many observers say one reason that Canada conservative party lost last fall’s federal election is because it was too weak on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

There are encouraging signs of change. The European Union said it will dedicate a quarter of its budget to tackling climate change, and will shift 1 trillion euros to environmentally friendly investment over the next decade. The German government has a plan to phase out coal-fired power stations by 2038, involving compensation of more than 40 billion euros. Microsoft has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2030 and by 2050 to have removed all of the carbon from the environment that it has emitted since the company was founded in 1975. Car makers are making large investments in electric vehicles. A significant number of investors are moving away from fossil fuels. BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, is getting out of investments in coal used to generate power. Founder and CEO Laurence Fink, who oversees the management of about US$7 trillion in funds, said a warming planet puts “on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.” This week the World Economic Forum will hold its annual meeting of thousands of business and political leaders, economists, celebrities and journalists in Davos, Switzerland. Last year, the leaders were scolded by Swedish teen and climate activist Greta Thunberg. “At Davos, people like to talk about success, but financial success has come with a price tag, and on the climate we have failed.” Her message and similar words from millions more are finally being heard. Citing a survey of more than 750 key decision-makers, the World Economic Forum said catastrophic trends like global warming and the extinction of animal species would be front and center at this year’s meeting.

We are heading into a period of disruptions greater than the world has ever seen. The surging climate crisis is bringing increasing droughts, fires, storms and floods. They will get worse. A series of other environmental problems, including overfishing, deforestation, land degradation, water shortages, the decline and loss of other species and a host of pollutants, will add to our misery. The world is trying to respond, but too slowly. Climate change is the biggest issue. People are coming to accept that we need to rapidly move from fossil fuels to cleaner forms of energy. This will mean huge changes to energy, transportation and a host of other sectors that have run on coal, oil and gas for generations. It means billions of people will have to find other types of work and other sources of energy. Globalization of trade gave us a foretaste of the kind shocks and repercussions. Industrialized countries, particularly in North America and Europe, saw tens of thousands of jobs vanish as companies moved production to lower wage nations, particularly in Asia. This had huge social and political impacts in the job losing nations, as people lost good paying work and went on unemployment or took lower paid jobs. It led to a reaction against the politicians who embraced freer trade but failed to compensate the people who were thrown out of work. The discontent is helping to fuel the rise of populist leaders. But, this is small potatoes compared to the changes we need to make to prevent catastrophic climate change. The UN Environment Programme warns the world needs to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 7.6 per cent per year from 2020 to 2030 to meet the internationally agreed goal of no more than a 1.5°C increase in temperatures over pre-industrial levels. We need to virtually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This is a call for a stunningly rapid transformation of the world economy. It would mean a rapid decline in the production and use of fossil fuels. It would mean the replacement of virtually all the world’s vehicles, including, cars, trucks, buses, planes, ships and other motorized equipment with non-polluting motors. It would require replacing a vast number of heating and industrial systems, such as boilers and furnaces in homes, office buildings, institutions and factories. Then there is the human impact. While millions of new jobs will be created and vast wealth generated by the work needed, millions of jobs will disappear or be radically changed. We cannot ignore the people who will be affected. We need all governments to start working on a global just transition strategy that treats displaced people fairly and sees that they get training for new jobs or get fair retirement packages. What is being done in the world? The European Union’s new Green Deal for Europe proposes €100 billion [about CAD146 billion] of the EU budget and investment loans from the European Investment Bank to fund a “just transition” in poorer, eastern member states whose economies currently rely on fossil fuels. This is the kind of investment the former West Germany has made in the former East Germany since reunification. The International Institute for Sustainable Development has published a paper, In Search of Just Transition: Examples From Around the World, that provides some examples of how countries are starting to grapple with change.

Canada has a trillion-dollar opportunity if it moves quickly to a build a low carbon, high performance economy. In a letter to the country’s first ministers, the Smart Prosperity Institute said: “Becoming a leader in clean performance and innovation will strengthen our competitiveness, attract capital, generate good jobs, and improve Canadians’ quality of life…” It said, “Building a low carbon, high performance economy is a vital environmental responsibility.” It added, “The shift toward a low-pollution, innovative, resource-efficient economy is the opportunity of the century.” The letter was signed by 26 people including executives from an oil company, a bank, an insurance organization, a consumer products giant, labour, indigenous and environmental leaders. The institute, a national research network and policy think tank, produced a report called 8 Reasons for Canada to Transition to a Clean Economy Now. It calls for green infrastructure and procurement, better environmental regulations, clean investment, smart tax incentives for clean technology and purchases, investments in natural capita and in education and skills for people to work in clean economy jobs, a “clean competitiveness roadmap” for a path to a low emission economy and exporting Canadian clean technologies. The 26 leaders say Canada needs to do more to take advantage of the growing shift towards emissions-free vehicles, greener energy, cleaner industrial production, and smarter, more efficient buildings. Their letter is also a call for national unity at a time when some provinces, particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan are fighting with the federal government for the right to expand fossil fuel production even though the country, along with most of the world is pledged to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Annette Verschuren, a business executive and signatory of the letter to first ministers, said the energy sector will have to move to lower-carbon production and extraction methods that will open new markets.

How badly do we want sustainability? If we go by a number of surveys, not enough to voluntarily pay for the changes needed. In an online article by Sally Ho of the Green Queen website in Hong Kong, “sustainability all comes down to unit economics. When we make one eco-friendly decision over a less planet-friendly option, our individual motivation seems to stem from price, rather than moral persuasions.” These findings align with studies  in Canada. An Ipsos poll in September, on how much more Canadian are willing to pay to fight climate change found 46 per cent did not want to spend any additional money in the form of taxes or higher prices. Just 22 per cent said they would be willing to pay up to $100 extra per year. Ms. Ho writes that the flip side is that if prices do go up – for example for energy – we will use less. She references a 2018 University of Chicago study, of 691 households in Kyoto, Japan, which showed higher prices encouraged people to conserve energy much more than moral reasons. In Canada and a number of other jurisdictions carbon pricing is being used to discourage people from burning as much fossil fuel. In its final report, Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission, a group of economic, business and political experts, calls for the price on carbon to keep rising. In terms of strategies to meet greenhouse gases reduction goals, “carbon pricing (with rebates or tax cuts) tops the list. It delivers the lowest cost emissions reductions. The second option is well-designed, flexible regulations, which can perform almost as well as carbon pricing.”

It’s one thing to set goals for sustainability. It’s quite another to figure out how to reach them. The re-elected federal government has set a green economy and especially greenhouse gas cuts as major goals. But, it depends on the whole country cooperating in an unprecedented national project. The government can convene, lead collaboration, provide financial incentives, change regulations and improve its own performance. The bulk of the transformation will take place in private businesses, offices and homes. If tens of millions of people are going to pitch in for a greener and cleaner future they have to be part of the process. There is a good precedent. In 1986, Canada’s environment ministers created the National Task Force on Environment and Economy. It included environment ministers, business, academic and non-government organizations. The task force recommended round tables on environment and economy to seek consensus among different parts of society on how to move to sustainable development. Governments created but mostly abandoned round tables for a number of reasons, including a reluctance to share power and lack of willingness to take the multistakeholder approach seriously. Now, the demands for sustainability are far more urgent, and governments need to reinvent that wheel. They need top-level players from the major sectors, including energy, transportation, food production, resource extraction, labour, academe, non-government groups and all levels of governance, including indigenous peoples. These experts need to agree on goals and provide expertise on how to achieve them. Each sector leader needs to commit to achieving the goals. Many will require cooperation across sectors, so these leaders need to commit to collaboration on a national approach using ideas that are proven, while continuing to innovate to bring on even better technologies and approaches.