Action on climate change cannot wait for perfect solutions

The climate crisis is no longer a problem of the future; this is an emergency situation these days. Numerous reports from leading global bodies such as the IPCC, the World Meteorological Organization, the Copernicus Observatory, NOAA and others have consistently warned that we must use all the tools at our disposal to fight it.

The IEA and IRENA are among those proposing solutions that leverage the technologies we have and must develop, presenting action plans to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Broadly speaking, there are plenty of such action plans and prospects.

This is not a bad thing, of course, but the way forward is much more complicated than finding solutions. The idea is that these solutions are actually effective and used to reduce or remove 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 actual application. However, even if there are no perfect solutions yet, passivity is not the answer.

Financing climate solutions

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

For example, Europe’s quota system has seen prices hover around $100, while recent research, such as Adrien Bilal and Diego R. Känzig’s 2024 paper in the NBER Working Paper Series, suggests that the true social cost of carbon emissions is an astonishing $1,065 dollars per tonne to increase global temperature by one degree. So who covers the $900 difference? We are far from covering the real costs.

For an 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 real social costs would result in more than doubling current prices. This would be deeply unpopular, but it is a sobering reality: fuel taxation is the only area where we come even close to covering the full social costs of greenhouse gas emissions.

Even with a wide confidence interval of $690 to $1,799 per ton, the bottom line is that the social costs are much higher than the costs currently imposed on emissions. This gap is paid by everyone, especially those who are most vulnerable and have the fewest 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 underlying economic growth numbers. The authors say that global GDP would be 18% greater than today if we had not experienced a single degree of global warming since 1960.

The reality is that covering the full social costs of carbon emissions seems unfeasible, but growing evidence shows that the costs of inaction are even higher. For example, former EU Commissioner for Science and Research, and later Environment, Janez Potočnik recently highlighted at a conference that the devastating floods in Slovenia last year cost the country an amount equivalent to 16.9% of its annual national revenue in 2023. This is just one glaring example .

As we look ahead to COP29 in Baku, the issue of financing this climate burden will take center stage. But while nations struggle to find financing mechanisms, the climate crisis is rushing before us.

The situation mirrors the Great Depression in the sheer scale of the loss of wealth and productivity – a shock that can only be addressed by financing climate change.

Getting stuck in the details

Meanwhile, we are caught up in debates over the minutiae – focusing on the shortcomings of strategies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen production – while the climate crisis continues on its destructive path.

In Europe, for example, the debate about the costs, maturity and demand for CCS has been going on for over two decades. Only now are real projects being implemented.

The latest strategy of the European Commission assumes reaching 50 million tonnes of CO2₂ will be captured annually until 2030, and by 2050 this amount will reach 450 million tonnes. While this is commendable, it is difficult to expect it to become a reality at the current rate. If it takes another 20 years to scale up CCS, we will fall completely short of climate neutrality goals.

A similar story happens with hydrogen. Production and use fell short of expectations, as highlighted by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in its COP28 summary.

Although hydrogen is seen as key to the energy transition, we are not achieving the necessary benchmarks. The lack of agreement in Europe on the use of natural gas to produce hydrogen is symptomatic of a broader problem: available solutions are either too expensive or burdened with technical and safety considerations.

For example, using natural gas to produce hydrogen through reforming or pyrolysis – methods that create either concentrated CO₂ for storage or solid coal – is the subject of analysis. This should be the case, but why not use the footprint assessment to guide solutions rather than undermine them, even though some of them are transitional?

Latest articles like this one published in Guardianhave raised concerns about the maturity and safety of these methods. But while the debate rages on, the climate crisis continues unabated and the price to be paid is extremely high.

When will we hit the panic button?

In its progress report on the COP28 goals, the IEA sternly reminds us of our commitments. Despite promises to triple investment in renewable energy by 2030 and double energy efficiency, the world is far from achieving the goal.

Although emissions growth has slowed compared to 2022, we are still increasing emissions when we should see reductions similar to those that occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic.

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

China, reacting quickly, has taken the lead in the global electric vehicle market, while in the US, electric vehicles remain more of a lifestyle or political choice than a mobility necessity. The other extreme is Norway, where the latest new car sales data show a 96.4% share of electric vehicles.

Battery technology is improving, and photovoltaic (PV) systems are becoming more common and available at prices no one would have believed even a decade ago. However, even these achievements are insufficient compared to other critical areas such as CCS and hydrogen technology.

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

Short-term actions for a long-term crisis

We cannot allow short-term problems to obscure the bigger picture. We are already seeing the effects 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 starts in November. All eyes will be on this global gathering to see if bold decisions are finally made. Perfect solutions are not necessary to take immediate, significant action that takes into account the real costs of climate change and nature loss.