Action against climate change cannot wait for perfect solutions

The climate crisis is no longer a future concern; It’s an emergency today. Numerous reports from major global bodies such as the IPCC, the World Meteorological Organization, the Copernicus Observatory, NOAA and others consistently warn that we must use every tool at our disposal to fight it.

The IEA and IRENA are among those suggesting solutions using the technologies we have and need to develop by providing roadmaps to zero emissions by 2050, in general there are numerous such roadmaps and perspectives.

This isn’t bad, of course, but the path forward is much more complicated than identifying solutions. It’s about ensuring that these solutions are truly effective and implemented to reduce or eliminate emissions.

The complication is that available technologies are often immature and dependent on emerging markets. This creates a significant gap between the solutions we need and their real-world application. However, even if perfect solutions have not yet been achieved, inaction is not the answer.

Financing climate solutions

A serious problem is the hidden cost of carbon, which impacts health, agricultural productivity, property damage and ecosystems.

The European quota system, for example, has seen prices of around $100, while recent studies, such as the 2024 paper by Adrien Bilal and Diego R. Känzig in the NBER Working Paper Series, suggest that the actual social cost of carbon is surprisingly equal to 1,065 dollars per ton. for a one degree increase in global temperature. So, who pays the $900 gap? We are far from paying the real cost.

For the average diesel or gasoline car, this equates to a social cost of about $9 per US gallon. Although European fuel prices already include significant taxes, implementing the true social cost would double current prices. This would be deeply unpopular, but it is a sobering reality: fuel taxation is the only area where we are close to covering the full social cost of carbon emissions.

Even with a wide confidence interval of $690 to $1,799 per ton, the key point is that the social cost is much higher than the cost currently imposed on emissions. Everyone pays for this gap, especially those who are most vulnerable and have fewer resources and no government can afford to cover the difference.

The results also show that the effects of climate change have been around for a long time, hidden in our underlying growth numbers. The authors say that world GDP would have been 18% larger than it is today if we had not experienced one degree of global warming since 1960.

The reality is that paying the full social cost of carbon seems unachievable, but mounting evidence shows that the costs of inaction are even higher. For example, the former European Commissioner for Science and Research and then for the Environment, Janez Potočnik, recently highlighted in a conference that the devastating floods that hit Slovenia last year cost the country an amount equivalent to 16.9% of its annual domestic revenue in 2023. a prime example.

As we look ahead to COP29 in Baku, the question of how to finance this climate burden will take center stage. But as nations scramble to find financing mechanisms, the climate crisis races ahead of us.

The situation mirrors the Great Depression in its sheer scale of wealth and productivity loss, a shock that only climate finance can begin to address.

Getting stuck in the details

Meanwhile, we find ourselves embroiled in debates about the finer details – focusing on the imperfections of strategies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) or hydrogen production – as the climate crisis continues its destructive path.

In Europe, for example, the debate on the costs, maturity and necessity of CCS has dragged on for more than two decades. Only now are real projects being realized.

The European Commission’s latest strategy aims for 50 million tonnes of CO₂ to be caught annually by 2030, rising to 450 million tonnes by 2050. While this is highly commendable, it is difficult to see it materialize at the current rate. If it takes another 20 years to scale up CCS, we will miss climate neutrality goals altogether.

A similar story is unfolding with hydrogen. Production and usage fell short of expectations, as highlighted by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its COP28 assessment.

While hydrogen is considered critical to the energy transition, we are not reaching the necessary benchmarks. Disagreement in Europe over using natural gas to produce hydrogen is symptomatic of a larger problem: available solutions are too expensive or mired in technical and safety issues.

For example, using natural gas to produce hydrogen through reforming or pyrolysis, methods that create concentrated CO₂ for storage or solid carbon – is under investigation. It should be, but why not use footprint assessment to guide solutions rather than compromising them even if some of them are transitory?

Recent articles, like the one published in The Guardianhave raised concerns about the maturity and safety of these methods. But as the debate continues, the climate crisis advances unchecked and with an extremely high price to pay.

When will we hit the panic button?

In its COP28 progress report, the IEA starkly reminds us of our commitments. Despite pledges to triple investment in renewable energy by 2030 and double energy efficiency, the world is far from on track.

Although emissions growth has slowed compared to 2022, we are still increasing emissions when we should be seeing reductions similar to those seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Take, for example, advances in electric vehicles (EVs). Although one in five cars sold is now electric – a notable improvement from just a few years ago – this success alone is not enough.

China, responding quickly, has taken a leading role in the global electric vehicle market, while in the United States, electric vehicles remain more of a lifestyle or political choice than a mobility necessity. The other extreme is in Norway, where the latest data on new car sales shows an electric vehicle share of 96.4%.

Battery technology is improving and photovoltaic (PV) systems are becoming more widespread and at prices that no one would have believed just ten years ago. But even these advantages are insufficient when compared to other critical sectors such as CCS and hydrogen technology.

Energy efficiency also remains elusive. Although there is an acceleration in the solar and wind energy sector, this barely covers the growth in annual energy consumption.

Short-term action for a long-term crisis

We cannot allow short-term issues to obscure the bigger picture. We are already seeing the impacts of climate change, from rising sea levels to food shortages and uninhabitable land.

The time to act is now, before we reach the tipping point where recovery is no longer possible.

COP29 will kick off in November. All eyes will be on this global meeting to see if bold decisions are finally made. You don’t need perfect solutions to take immediate, meaningful action that incorporates the real cost of climate change and nature loss.