Part 3 — Possibility: Making the #GreatTransition happen
When we will change
Prologue
This story is part of a climate policy discussion paper titled “The next 30 years: The #GreatTransition to #NetZero<2050”. Overall, the paper consists of three parts (this story is Part 1 — Necessity):
Part 2 — Opportunity: A stroke of fate in the middle of a perfect storm. This part describes how we can change and shows how a #GreatTransition would be technically and economically feasible.
Three levels of political support building to transform ideas into practice
In part 2, I describe three policy instruments, which I believe are necessary to facilitate and accelerate a #GreatTransition to fight the climate crisis: An effective price on carbon emissions (#EPOCE), an ambitious Green New Deal (#AGND), and a huge Catalytic Transition Funding (HCFT). In order to translate these concepts into practice, however, a key challenge is building sufficient social change momentum and political support. To this end, we all can contribute to establish effective climate policy instruments towards #NetZero<2050 as an international norm within the next few years in our roles as citizens[1], activists, scientists, investors, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, board members, leaders, employees, corporations, and NGOs. But how can we do this most effectively? In an article in the Philanthropy Magazine from 1996 titled “From Ideas to Action: The Role of Universities, Think Tanks, and Activist Groups”[2], Richard Fink from the Charles Koch Foundation describes a theory of social change which formed the basis for his grant making strategy and ultimately succeeded in discrediting climate science and slowing down climate action in the past[3]. Fink distinguishes between three levels of political support building, with each level being considered critical for the effectiveness of the others[4]:
1. Science and thought leadership
2. Policy design and advocacy
3. Public awareness and political pressure
By applying a similar framework to the outcome target “#NetZero<2050”, we can analyze where current individual and collective change-making activities may need to be intensified, strengthened and improved.
1. Science and thought leadership: Underestimated risks and an absurd damage function
In general, a thorough understanding of the magnitude and urgency of the anthropogenic climate emergency is an essential prerequisite for understanding the necessity of a #GreatTransition and its policy instruments. At the level of science and thought leadership, a robust consensus within the field of climate science[5] has been firmly established thanks to the support of the IPCC. However, Naomi Oreskes and Michael Oppenheimer recently found that the pace of climate change may have been consistently underestimated in the past, due to the desire to converge on the least controversial and most conservative positions[6]. This makes it possible to overlook the fat-tail risks of climate change: low-probability high-impact possibilities within a probability distribution that are more significant than they would be in a normal distribution[7]. In this context, the economist Martin Weitzman defines the climate crisis by its “structural uncertainty about [its] potentially open-ended catastrophic reach”[8]. Xu and Ramanathan rightly point out that while a 1:20 probability estimate, for example, may seem relatively small, most people wouldn’t want to board a plane with a 5% risk of coming down, nor would they want to send their children and grandchildren on that plane[9]. An example for a worst-case scenario based on fat-tail risks has been analyzed by David Spratt and Ian Dunlop. Assuming a mean global temperature increase of 3 degrees C already by 2050, it is anticipated that 35 percent of the global land area, and 55 percent of the global population could be subject to more than 20 days a year of heat conditions lethal to the human body[10]. In conclusion, Oreskes and Oppenheimer recommend that climate scientists experiment with alternative models for making and expressing group judgments, and learn more about how policy makers actually interpret the findings that result.
With regard to the field of economics, a joint study by climate scientists from LSE, PIK and Columbia University has found out that past economic risks assessments “have been omitting or grossly underestimating many of the most serious consequences for lives and livelihoods”, including the potential for mass migration, displacement and conflict[11]. And it is not only that that the practice of exponential discounting has contributed to a grave delay of climate action in favor of short-term economic growth in the past[12]. In his Nobel Memorial Prize presentation in 2018, the economist William Nordhaus, a major and certainly well-meaning contributor to the IPCC’s Working Group III, is reported to have described a stabilization at a mean global temperature increase of 4 degrees C by 2140 as “optimal” from on an economic cost-benefit perspective. However, considering the dramatic ecological and social consequences of such a temperature increase[13], it should be apparent that the assumption of continuous economic progress until the end of this century is incompatible with the current business-as-usual carbon emissions trajectory. But according to an analysis by the economist Steve Keen[14], it appears that the damage function applied by Working Group III failed to consider the possibility of tipping points and ecological and societal discontinuities. The resulting economic damage estimate of a 3.6% global GDP fall for a 4 degree C global warming scenario severely underrepresents the actual social and economic costs to be anticipated. In consequence, the past conclusions of WG III of the IPCC must be revised. Political leaders and policy makers need to be informed. Going forward, a more interdisciplinary, ecologically and ethically informed economic practice, where the risk of societal and economic discontinuities are taken into consideration, is urgently needed.
2. Policy design and advocacy: The solutions are on the table
At the level of policy design and advocacy, a well-crafted example of a bi-partisan policy proposal for an effective price on carbon emissions is represented by the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act[15]. Other countries could easily adapt this proposal to fit into their context. In addition, Bernie Sander’s exemplary proposal for a Green New Deal[16] can serve as a blueprint for similarly ambitious public spending initiatives that would not only drive “#NetZero<2050”, but would also strengthen social, financial and economic stability in the face of a deep economic crisis. With regard to the Huge Catalytic Transition Fund (#HCTF), the Worldbank’s climate investment funds have already gained valuable experience in de-risking transition investments[17]: With a volume of USD 8.1 billion, the Worldbank has managed to mobilize an additional USD 55 billion in finance for low carbon development, adaptation, and forestry. Applying the principles and tools of the learning organization[18], an even higher multiple than 7.0X could potentially be achieved at greater scale. To conclude, sound policy proposals and solution designs do exist — but their necessity and historic significance may not be well understood yet within inner circles of political decision making. More think tank activity is needed aiming at better informed and more impact-oriented policy deliberation, effective coalition building for systemic and collective impact, and a global transfer and scaling of good practices toward #NetZero<2050.
3. Public awareness and political pressure: A fossil fuel industry-funded consensus gap
For years, climate action groups such as The Climate Reality Project[19], 350.org[20], Citizen’s Climate Lobby[21], DESMOG[22] and many others have steadily contributed to the built up of the public pressure needed to translate climate policy proposals into political reality. The past two years have seen a remarkable increase in social change momentum and public awareness, driven by a dynamic youth movement represented by newer activist groups such as Fridays for future[23], Extinction Rebellion[24], or Sunrise Movement[25]. The explanation is simple: We have entered a period in human history in which the generations born in the late 20th and early 21st century are in the process of “awakening” and impartially taking stock of the state of the world and its current trajectory — and they are letting the generation of their parents and grandparents clearly know what they are thinking about their legacy. As a result, the reality of a climate emergency threatening the continuity of modern human civilization is becoming increasingly apparent to a growing share of the world’s population. A recent online survey among 30,000 people in 28 countries and regions[26] indicates that a majority of participants believes that climate change is happening, that humanity is at least partly responsible and that it is likely to cause serious economic damages, mass displacements and wars. The fact that the mean global temperatures of the last four years have been the hottest on record[27] has certainly contributed to this development. But inspite of this growing awareness, public pressure and visionary political leadership are areas where we are still lacking the most. In terms of public pressure we are making progress, but have not yet reached the threshold for a critical mass of climate activists demanding effective climate policy intervention. Research by the sociologist Damon Centola has confirmed an activist share of about 25–30% as a tipping point at which a minority view starts to become widely adopted by the rest of the population[28]. Once the tipping point has been reached, systems tend to change and rapidly stabilize at a new equilibrium. However, until the collective impact of social change activism becomes manifest in form of new policies and regulations, progress is hardly observable below the tipping point threshold.
Why were we not already there 20 years ago? Unfortunately, the long-established scientific consensus didn’t manage to find its way into the public sphere. In the early 21st century a consensus gap[29] emerged, with significant parts of the population (even until today) believing that the climate science remains unsettled. The main responsibility for the consensus gap can be attributed to the fossil fuel industry’s “climate change countermovement[30].” It has been estimated, for example, that between 2003 and 2010, about 558 million USD of “philanthropic” funds were channeled to about 100 climate change denying organizations[31]. Charles and David Koch, who accumulated a fortune of about 120 bn USD mostly through their fossil fuel businesses, have reportedly begun their climate science denial campaign in the early 1990s[32]. It is only recently that some mainstream media outlets have become more considerate of the scientific reality, after having contributed to the consensus gap for years by presenting climate scientists and climate science denialists as equally weighted “experts”[33]. Furthermore, a massive amount of misinformation continues to be spread via social media channels, including an alarming volume of Youtube video content, a preferred medium for self-education[34]. It is therefore of critical importance for journalists, bloggers, influencers, parents, teachers, fact checkers and social media platforms to counter this outgrowth. Moreover, climate lobbyism and awareness building is severely underfunded compared to the financial resources available to fossil fuel lobbyism and climate science denialism. Between 2010 and 2016 fossil fuel companies have spent over 2 bn USD on lobbying activities[35]. Thereby, they are delaying climate action much in the same way as the Tobacco industry did by utilizing public relations in the 2nd half of the 20th century: By manufacturing and promoting scientific controversy about the causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer, regulatory action was delayed for decades[36]. In contrast to the “fake philanthropy” that continues to fund the climate change countermovement today, actual philanthropy has traditionally focused on improving the living conditions for disadvantaged target groups. Because there hasn’t been anything comparable to the climate emergency in the past that may have required a similar rethinking of the purpose of philanthropy in the 21st century, the critical systemic and collective impact of climate activist organizations (which is generally difficult to measure) has yet to be fully appreciated. This can be seen in the UK, for instance, where less than 3% of philanthropic funding is going towards climate-related issues[37]. To address this unmet need, a group of US philanthropists has recently started a “transition philanthropy” initiative deploying small grants to activist organizations at the grassroots level with the goal to drive systemic change[38]. More funding dedicated to the mobilization of a critical mass is urgently needed, especially within the largest polluting countries.
In addition to the need to activate a critical mass, its call to action needs to be answered by responsible and visionary political leaders and policy makers, who comprehend the historic significance of their role and the weight of responsibility resting on their shoulders. They need to be fearless and strong personalities, determined to establish and enforce effective climate policies against the collective resistance of an (even broader) countermovement comprising of the fossil fuel industry, radical nationalist and authoritarian political parties, and right-libertarian think tanks[39]. These groups’ political preferences typically converge around increased military and border control spending, the dismantling of environmental regulations, the promotion of short-lived national gains over international cooperation and prioritizing adaptation over mitigation. Their common denominator is a ruthless fight against the de-facto abolition of ~80% of known fossil fuel reserves with a hypothetical economic value of about USD 10 trillion[40]. By denying or trivializing the scientifically supported reality of a man-made climate emergency and by categorically rejecting regulation and public spending, this countermovement is certain to lead modern human civilization into an unthinkable global disaster: a decline into a primitive shadow of its former self; a grim future defined by xenophobia, nihilism, regret, depression and violence, taking place on an overheating planet, which will have become the countermovement’s unforgivable legacy. To prevent this from happening, in functional democracies, a critical mass of climate activists has the possibility to lift visionary and well advised political leaders and policy makers into positions of sufficient power. In dysfunctional democracies and dictatorships, it takes a share of about 3.5% of the population engaging in non-violent civil resistance to effect a regime change[41].
Conclusion: The strength of an idea whose time has come
It may be difficult to accept, especially for those of us who happen to carry a significant weight of our collective responsibility as influencers, advisors, political and business leaders, policy makers, philanthropists or asset owners, that it is our generation (meaning the one born in the second half of the 20th century) which is right now confronted with the seemingly impossible task of solving an unprecedented global emergency. Settling for half-measures or hesitating for another decade also means that we will be the last generation to have wasted mankind’s opportunity to realistically stay below 2 degrees by 2100. It means that we will hand over to the 21st century-born generations — among them our very own children, nephews, nieces or grandchildren — the burden of an even more difficult struggle to stay at least below 3–4 degrees C throughout this century, against irreversible feedback loop dynamics[42]. Whatever the outcome of our collective changemaking efforts over the next 30 years, I hope to be able to tell the children born after 2050 that we finally stood up and took a firm stand when it mattered, that we managed to reach a critical mass, and that we did our best. And even if this may not have been enough to bequeath them with a more deserving world than the one they are growing up in, we should at least be able to tell them that we refused to give up. After all, quoting Jeet Heer in response to fatalist resignations that might inadvertently weaken the case for effective climate policies[43]: “it makes a huge difference if the earth warms by three degrees or five degrees or 10 degrees. The fate of billions of lives — the very prospect of human survival — hinges on how high humanity allows the global thermometer to go”[44].
In order to get as close as possible to #NetZero<2050, it is imperative to recognize that we are currently in the middle of a historic ideological struggle over what Antonio Gramsci called “cultural hegemony”[45]. As the ideological fault lines of the 21st century emerge, it becomes apparent that the fate of mankind hangs in the future balance of powers between an enlightened[46] ecological-humanist climate movement on the one hand, and a fossil fuel industry-funded, radical nationalist and right-libertarian[47] countermovement on the other hand. The stronger the climate movement becomes, the stronger the systemic change resistance[48] that needs to be expected from the countermovement. As of now, many traditionally conservative and liberal voters and politicians are finding themselves stuck in middle, trying to preserve a declining liberal economic world order, while partially embracing aspects of the two emerging movements. But by slowing down or delaying the #GreatTransition, they are unwittingly supporting the cause of the countermovement. Yet I’m confident that many of them can be convinced about the urgency and necessity of #NetZero<2050, the #GreatTransition, and the proposed climate policy instruments. In some cases, this may require a profound re-examination of one’s economic worldview and/or self-identity. Indeed, replacing a long-established paradigm of unconstrained economic growth with a new paradigm of ecological-civilizational stewardship, or (re-) discovering a sense of oneself as a human being among human beings (in addition to common self-identities based on nationality, family and individuality), are no trivial tasks. However, beyond this mindset change, no further fundamental ideological paradigm shift are usually needed to politically or financially support the #GreatTransition and its systemic policy instruments. All that is needed is a thorough understanding of the magnitude and urgency of the anthropogenic climate emergency and the impossibility of perpetual economic progress at the current carbon emissions pathway. All that we demand is that the largest economies in the world start living up to their responsibility to protect the planetary condition for human existence (which is in their own genuine interest anyway), and that they honor and expand the promises they have already made in the past. We have a fairly good idea of what needs to be done to achieve #NetZero<2050. We have science, ethics, everyday reality, economic rationality, the beauty of life and nature, and our love and passion for the well-being of our children and grandchildren on our side. A unique window of opportunity is currently wide open in front of us. It is time to get engaged.
[1] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
[2] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6303746/The-Structure-of-Social-Change-Liberty-Guide.pdf
[3] In this context, a 2013 study at Drexel University found that during the period from 2003 to 2010 about 558 mUSD non-repayable funding had been funneled through “dark” channels to about 100 climate denial organisations, which is about 10 times the estimated IPCC budget for the same time period.
[4] Quote: “At the higher stages we have the investment in the intellectual raw materials, that is, the exploration and production of abstract concepts and theories. These still come primarily (though not exclusively) from the research done by scholars at our universities …In the middle stages, ideas are applied to a relevant context and molded into needed solutions for real-world problems. This is the work of the think tanks and policy institutions …But while the think tanks excel at developing new policy and articulating its benefits, they are less able to implement change. Citizen activist or implementation groups are needed in the final stage to take the policy ideas from the think tanks and translate them into proposals that citizens can understand and act upon.”
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99
[6] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/
[7] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/the-fat-tail-of-climate-change-risk_b_8116264.html?ncid=engmodushpmg00000006
[8] https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A28f99344-d662-4ef2-badb-d0ea56cbd59f
[9] https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/new-climate-risk-classification-created-account-potential-existential-threats
[10] https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf
[11] http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/The-missing-economic-risks-in-assessments-of-climate-change-impacts-1.pdf
[12] The insight into the impossibility of economic growth under the current emissions pathway should have profound implications for economists. For example, the discount rate used to calculate the net present value of future economic damages may need to be considered a variable with a value that varies with the global emissions trajectory, rather than a constant. Especially when considering the possibility of economic decline in the second half of this century, as well as the current zero to negative interest rate environment, one might even argue for the application of negative discount rates.
[13] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/18/climate-crisis-heat-is-on-global-heating-four-degrees-2100-change-way-we-live
[14] https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/07/the-cost-of-climate-change.html & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwwvZ8g5eHE
[15] https://energyinnovationact.org/how-it-works/
[16] https://berniesanders.com/en/issues/green-new-deal/
[17] http://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/de-risking-climate-smart-investments
[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_organization
[19] https://www.climaterealityproject.org/
[21] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
[22] https://www.desmogblog.com
[23] https://fridaysforfuture.de/
[25] https://www.sunrisemovement.org/
[26] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/science/articles-reports/2019/09/15/international-poll-most-expect-feel-impact-climate
[27] https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2841/2018-fourth-warmest-year-in-continued-warming-trend-according-to-nasa-noaa/
[28] https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/the-tipping-point-when-minority-views-take-over/562307/
[29] http://theconsensusproject.com/
[30] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/10/vested-interests-public-against-climate-science-fossil-fuel-lobby
[31] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263114280_Institutionalizing_Delay_Foundation_Funding_and_the_Creation_of_US_Climate_Change_Counter-Movement_Organizations
[32] https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/kochland-examines-how-the-koch-brothers-made-their-fortune-and-the-influence-it-bought
[33] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/10/how-fossil-fuel-industry-got-media-think-climate-change-was-debatable/
[34] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pseudoscience-fake-news-social-media-facebook-twitter-misinformation-science-a9034321.html
[35] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-018-2241-z
[36] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/
[37] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48357351
[38] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/12/us-philanthropists-vow-to-raise-millions-for-climate-activists
[39] https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/11/29/how-mont-pelerin-society-neoliberal-thought-collective-influencing-donald-trump-s-presidency
[40] Considering the existence of this “carbon bubble” it is incomprehensible how billions of USD continue to be spent on the capital-intensive exploration of additional fossil fuel reserves, in an effort that can be described with Chris Hayes only as an “extremely expensive suicide mission”. If this practice continued inspite of an #EPOCE, it would only be prudent to integrated a complete ban on new fossil fuel exploration efforts into an #AGND.
[41] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/01/worried-american-democracy-study-activist-techniques
[42] https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252#sec-9
[43] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending
[44] https://www.thenation.com/article/climate-change-jonathan-franzen/
[45] https://www.thoughtco.com/cultural-hegemony-3026121
[46] in the spirit of a 21st Century Enlightenment
[47] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Right-libertarianism
[48] http://www.thwink.org/sustain/articles/009/ChangeResistanceAsCrux.htm
