· 6 min read
Belém and Venice. It is hard to think of two places that could better symbolise the fight against climate change.
Amazonia is probably the part of the world where nature best shows its sheer scale and fragility: the delta of the river near Belém discharges up to 200,000 cubic metres of water per second into the ocean — enough to fill 83 swimming pools per second, and greater than the next seven largest rivers of the world combined. Its forest accounts for 20% of the world’s forests and is, by far, the largest carbon sink on the planet. Yet Amazonia is so fragile that, due to deforestation, it is rapidly transforming into a savannah. Venice is one of the most famous sensors of sea-level rise: near the magnificent Basilica della Salute, there is a post that measures how much the waters of the lagoon have risen — it is 32 centimetres since 1950 — and yet Venice managed to construct a maritime empire out of the technologies it was forced to invent in order to survive.
One month ago, a group of 100 managers, entrepreneurs, academics, students, policymakers, and journalists gathered in Venice for an annual meeting whose objective is to reinvigorate, with new ideas, the battle against climate change. One month later, a delegation from that meeting was in Belém, at the 30th conference that the United Nations convened to agree on the actions needed to mitigate and adapt to global warming. The message that travelled across the Atlantic Ocean is, in a nutshell, we will survive climate change only if we find a way to transform the existential threat it poses into an opportunity for innovation.
The paradox about climate change is that Western policymakers, public opinions, media (and multinationals) appear to have grown sceptical (if not hostile) towards the climate agenda, while such change is accelerating and its consequences are becoming more severe.
Only nine years ago, world leaders agreed that it was imperative to keep the increase in global temperature above the levels recorded in 1850 to “well below 2 degrees and possibly within 1.5 degrees.” The consensus of the near totality of the scientific community is that if we cross these red lines, the weather could spiral out of control and we may even trigger some events (like the melting of Antarctica or the collapse of the natural irrigation system of rainforests such as Amazonia) that could make the change far more devastating and irreversible. After nine years, the thermometers say that we have already crossed the 1.5 Maginot line and that, in Europe, temperatures are currently a staggering 2.8 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Whereas in 2016 we promised to cut man-made, planet-warming emissions of CO₂ by 43% by 2030, such emissions have in fact increased by 10% over the past nine years.
What went wrong? The Venice Manifesto — the output of the Venice conference discussed in a few meetings in Belém — argues that the approach the UN has followed may be part of the problem.
The mistake was, and still is, in the decision-making methods we use. Global agreements are taken by seeking the unanimity of 198 countries (the Paris Agreement was signed by all of them, although Libya, Iran, Yemen, and the United States withdrew at a later stage), and this unavoidably delays and dilutes decisions. They come slowly and do not even reflect real power (the USA, China and India represent half of the world’s population and two-thirds of emissions, and yet they are technically just three of the 198 parties) and are not inclusive (San Marino is a member of the parties; cities like New York or Mexico City are not). Not less importantly, they are led by (rather highly paid, and most of the time tax-exempt) diplomats who are not remunerated or recruited for getting results; for reflecting the needs of the people impacted by climate change; or for being aware of how technologies are providing possible solutions to the problem.
It is this flawed approach that tends to produce “empty words” that are not followed by results, and we need to acknowledge it. This is what Donald Trump recently blamed the UN for — and yet it would be wrong not to acknowledge that inefficient multilateralism generates a push towards the idea that the world can be governed through bilateral deals. The mistake has been a top-down, diplomat-led method that makes COPs and, more generally, the UN unable to conceive strategies. Strategies like the ones that an interdisciplinary, informal platform for problem-solving, like Venice, is generating. Concrete plans are needed to engage the majority of citizens with an agenda that is about making lives better for most people, including families paying energy bills, farmers exposed to droughts, and homeowners of energy-wasting buildings.
COP30 is, indeed, doing a little better than most of the previous 29 COPs, and this may be due to the absence of a difficult (and yet indispensable) partner such as the United States. Some of the political objectives that the UN has long sought appear to have been achieved, and, for instance, the fund meant to “repair” or avoid “loss and damages” from climate change in less developed countries is about to start its operations. A new facility funded by all countries will operate to protect the Amazon, and the forest has been acknowledged as a “public good” of global relevance. And yet COP30 also shows that the most stunning progress on climate change is being made by countries (like China or Norway) or companies (like those that have made solar energy much cheaper than oil).
In the final hours of COP30, the conference seemed to be struggling to agree on a roadmap for the “transition out” of fossil fuels to be ratified in the final agreement. And yet the world is moving without waiting for COP. The transition is being driven by companies and entrepreneurs who understand that sustainability is not just a moral imperative or a political objective. It is also an unprecedented opportunity to kick off a new revolution — a transformation based on a radically different way of producing and consuming the energy that makes the (industrial) world go round.
For more than a decade, climate change has been a huge political success because it is the best story to remind us that there is a strong, unavoidable link between different generations and between people living in different parts of the world. It is now suffering from its own success and expectations that were not followed by results. And yet it is not just an existential threat but the best possibility we have to test a new method to govern globalisation and make sense of complexity. We, however, need new languages to engage everybody. New metrics to measure progress. New leaders, because we cannot leave everything to a diplomatic machinery that manages to be both too slow and not inclusive enough. We need more managers and entrepreneurs willing to consider sustainability as a lever of competitive advantage and not just as something to do when they retire.
Climate change is still the most powerful incentive for putting the future at the centre of our lives. This is what makes such a political battle still the one that will define this century.
illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
Interested in the companies shaping our sustainable future? See on illuminem’s Data Hub™ the transparent sustainability performance, emissions, and climate targets of thousands of businesses worldwide.
