Can the world remain united on climate progress? Yes, here’s how
Climate action is under attack. Sophie Punte, CEO of Life-Links on how we can create a new momentum by an added focus on resilience and adaptation of supply chains that connect us all.
Last year, 2024, was the hottest recorded year ever (breaching the 1.5oC global warming limit), with the fastest rise of CO2 in our atmosphere (50% higher than before we started burning fossil fuels), and US$ 298 billion in economic losses from weather catastrophes. If we don’t accelerate our journey to net zero, our societies, our economies and our ability to simply live a good life will suffer immeasurably.
But instead of unifying around this common goal, our societies seem increasingly divided over climate change and how to tackle it. Many in the climate community – from scientists and activists to sustainability managers and entrepreneurs – are worried that progress we’ve made over the past years is being rolled back. There is so much pushback that it can feel like we’re the Jedis in Star Wars stuck in ‘The Empire Strikes Back’ episode.
As UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said at the WEF in Davos: "Global heating is racing forward, we cannot afford to move backward.” So let’s unravel this a bit and see if we can find new ways for collaboration on climate action as a global community.
THE NEW REALITY
First, it helps to take a look at what’s already happening. Across the world, governments and companies are backtracking on climate commitments for different reasons.
Let’s start with governments. In the U.S., MAGA strikes back with Trump as President for the next four years, waging a “Make Climate Small Again” campaign. Within his first few hours of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order taking the United States out of the Paris climate agreement - again. At the same time, he’s also signed orders promoting increased oil and gas extraction and weakening EV adoption and wind energy. We should also expect his administration to slash climate finance at home and abroad, roll back regulations, undermine climate science, move the EPA away from Washington, attack the media, and restrict non-profit organizations.
Worried that its climate and environmental policies were fueling a populist backlash — and following determined industry lobbying — the EU has already begun watering down environmental standards. Last year, it withdrew a law designed to reduce the use of pesticides, removed greenhouse-gas-reduction targets linked to farming from its roadmap, and watered down vehicle emission standards.
In Germany, a shrinking economy and a looming election prompted the leader of the CDU, the country’s conservative part, to vow to put the economy before climate action. Saudi Arabia, supported by other petrostates, successfully obstructed progress in international climate negotiations, and blocked the mention of ‘fossil fuels’ in the COP29 agreement. In China, economic growth and energy security still outweigh climate concerns: despite the renewables surge, coal-fired power generation will continue to dominate for at least another decade.
Developing countries (understandably) seek to ensure that climate commitments do not impede their economic and industrial development, and ask that developed nations financially support them in the transition. It’s hard not to think that the signal coming from richer nations — that the commitment to unified action is waning, in favor of self interest — will influence their policies and decisions.
We see a similar development with companies, but for different reasons. Oil and gas companies, backed by their trade associations, continue to actively delay the energy transition. They do this in several ways. Some have simply dropped their climate goals. Others are suing climate activist groups, activist investors and even the U.S. State of Vermont. Still others are quietly shelving plans to develop renewable power, such as off-shore wind farms. Others are cutting their green budgets, running anti-climate-action social media campaigns, supporting climate denial groups, and lobbying against climate policy and for fossil fuels. And that lobbying includes a 70 policy wish-list for Trump, which is already clearly paying dividends.
Big tech bosses Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Cook, Pichai and Chew showered Trump with lavish donations and threw parties to celebrate his inauguration. Meta in the name of ‘free expression’, has said it will do nothing to halt the spread of false climate narratives, nor of insults and intimidation aimed at climate activists. What do these tech titans want in return? Fewer regulations (including environmental), greater political influence, and lower taxes.
In the finance sector, Blackrock, JP Morgan and several of their U.S. peers quit the Global Finance Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). This left the initiative in limbo, just like the disbanded insurance initiative a year earlier. They did this because they decided that Republican talk of legal inquiries and anti-trust lawsuits, intended to halve fossil fuel divestments, had made further involvement too risky.
Other companies are simply falling behind on their net zero goals. In the case of Unilever, Walmart, and Procter & Gamble along with two hundred others, failure to submit validated climate targets prompted the Science Based Targets initiative to delist these companies. This is not always due to a lack of commitment. Many of these firms point to the complexity of indirect ‘scope 3’ greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which are 75% of an average company’s footprint. Others cite issues that are beyond their control, such as geopolitics and trade, fears of investigations into environmental claims, availability of technologies, and access to cleaner energy. For them, framing climate risks as a business risk, an opportunity and responsible business will become increasingly important.
WHAT "WE" HAVE IN COMMON
Anger and despair are bad advisors. They lead us to either demonize and fight, which, though sometimes necessary, will never secure victory on its own. Or they cause us to give up. Clearly, that is not an option.
In a world that seems increasingly fragmented and fragile, the best chance we have is to rediscover what we have in common, and use that to keep the momentum for climate action going – together. By “we” I mean the political left and right, Global South and North, rich and poor, young and old, rural and urban, and everything in between and other characteristics that define all our identities.
So, let’s give that a go. First of all, “we” recognize the risk: 75% of citizens across 19 countries see climate change as a major threat. Over 900 experts across academia, business, government, and the international community rank climate risk and failure to adapt very high on their threat list. Extreme weather events rank second today. But within just a decade, this will have been joined by the risk of critical change to Earth systems and biodiversity loss.
Second, “we” are already feeling the impacts, especially from extreme weather events. The list is long. Just looking at 2024, there have been the hurricanes Helene and Milton in the U.S. and Caribbean; Typhoon Yagi hitting Philippines, China, Vietnam and Myanmar; a severe hailstorm, flooding, wildfire, and heatwave in Canada; floods, droughts and heatwaves in China; floods in Pakistan, East Africa, Dubai, Germany, Brazil; droughts in Southern Africa and the Amazon, and wildfires in Australia, Chile, and Turkey. The list goes on. Let’s also not forget the accelerated rise in sea levels, resulting in coastal flooding and ultimately the inundation of islands such as the Pacific islands.
These climate-related catastrophes are forcing people from their homes, cost lives and crops, close factories, threaten water and energy supply, and damage infrastructure critical to supply chains and local communities. This is costing us: more than US$3.6 trillion in economic damage since 2000 according to the World Economic Forum. Munich Re found that economic losses from weather catastrophes reached US$ 298 billion in 2024, of which just US$136 billion (about 45%) was covered by insurers. We’ve only just started the new year, and already Los Angeles has experienced apocalyptic wild fires. Nor do such catastrophes have any respect for rank or wealth. Several of LA’s rich and famous lost their homes too.
Third, “we” support climate action: 9 out of 10 citizens across 125 countries want more climate action. Eighty percent of consumers are willing to pay more for sustainably produced or sourced goods. And a majority also say they’re more likely to work for and speak well of companies that take climate action.
Eighty percent of U.S. investors are more likely to invest in financial services companies that finance climate action and prepare for climate-related risks. More than 10,000 companies remain committed to their climate targets and goals set through the Science Based Targets initiative. Over 260 companies representing > $1.6 trillion in global annual revenue have committed to phasing out unabated fossil fuels. Many others continue taking climate action, despite challenges.
Importantly, “we” are united in why we want climate action: to protect the planet for the next generation. And “we” agree that governments and companies are most responsible, not individuals. Finally, “we” are willing to cooperate. Because despite growing opposition and even confrontation around the world, global cooperation on climate and natural capital as well as trade and capital, continues to rise.
RESILIENCE AND ADAPTATION AS A SHARED INTEREST
Let me state upfront, that efforts to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and reduce emissions to zero must continue. But can we try to find new ways to talk about climate change, risk and its relevance to people’s lives today? True as it is, simply repeating claims of imminent catastrophe is now showing diminishing returns.
What if we make the case for building resilience and adapting to climate change right now, especially to extreme weather events, which feel ‘real’ to people and where the impact is felt today. By creating this new entry point into climate action, we can connect with a lot more people, companies and countries, who can then also help with faster decarbonization, especially where it makes economic sense. Importantly: these actions make sense to everyone, irrespective of whether all of us believe climate change exists or not. It’s a much easier sell to any type of government or company navigating the new geopolitical landscape.
This has already started to play out in the national plans: 81% of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to meeting the Paris climate goals include an adaptation component. Botswana, as a low-emitting vulnerable country with limited financial means, is the first country to prioritize climate adaptation – with measures like rooftop water storage tanks and drought-tolerant crops and cows - over reducing GHGs. Development agencies, humanitarian aid organizations, NGOs and international fora are stepping up to help countries with guidelines, climate risk assessments and resilience measures, supported by investors, insurers, and foundations.
However, a missing piece is finance. The new climate finance goal agreed at COP29 of USD300 billion per year by 2035 is considered an insult to countries in the Global South by many. To reach the USD1.3 trillion investment needed, mobilizing additional finance from the real economy is of essence. For this to happen, companies or governments will want to see that their investments also benefit their own economy or bottom line.
This is where supply chains come in. Let me explain. Supply chains are the veins of the global economy that connect suppliers and consumers in countries around the world. As we saw during COVID and again when the Ever Given blocked the Suez Canal, it doesn’t take much to break global supply chains in many different places at once. Everyone suffers, especially the most vulnerable. More extreme weather events are only going to make this worse.
Today, 9 out of 10 companies consider climate change a threat to their supply chains, although only 21% of companies reporting to disclosure platform CDP have adaptation plans. Just look at how droughts slow traffic and increase costs of cargo going through the Panama Canal. Already in 2020 I wrote an article pointing out why companies should rethink their supply chains with three interlinked objectives: resilience, visibility and sustainability. Governments also recognize the risk of transport infrastructure to global shocks, including climate change, which is the fitting theme of the next International Transport Forum’s Summit. But many haven’t yet taken action to harden critical supply chains against climate risk.
Our job is to build on the international willingness to cooperate on climate and trade – trade represents 59% of the global GDP – to make climate-resilient supply chains the next priority. What if we could leverage the shared interest of companies, countries and their communities to work together to and make supply chains a force for good? By cooperation to invest and implement concrete measures that increase the climate-resilience of farms, factories, mines, as well as logistics elements such as roads, railways and ports along the supply chain, everyone who depends on these will benefit.
The icing on the cake is that we can combine improving resilience with opportunities to reduce GHGs and to work with nature. For example, by combining drought-tolerant crops with better land management, stronger roads with electric trucks, or port flood protection with on-shore power for ships. What we’ve now done is what Rupert Read also argues: make adaptation a pathway to decarbonisation, rather than and either or.
There are so many of us wanting to cooperate on climate action, including inside the governments and companies referred to previously, which ultimately makes the transition to a sustainable, just and climate-resilient world unstoppable. By fully embracing resilience and adaptation in combination with supply chain thinking, we can make sure that we won’t be slowed down.
(Thanks to Karl Wright for edits and suggestions)