Earlier this month I found myself reflecting on three key sustainability pieces from recent years which seemed to flow together nicely for addressing today’s troubling sustainability landscape, in which momentum seems to be accelerating in the wrong direction. 

The first is National Geographic’s Earth Day edition from April of 2020.  If you haven’t seen it, it is a brilliant, highly creative production marking the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day.

And It holds a perfect message for the pivotal juncture on sustainability challenges at which the world stands today. 

Hold it from one side, and it is entitled “How We Saved The World: An Optimist’s Guide to Life on Earth in 2070.” 

Flip it over, and it is entitled “How We Lost The Planet: A Pessimist’s Guide to Life on Earth in 2070.” 

Set at the start of the Decade of Action for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a time when the world was grappling with a global pandemic, the timing for the approach of that edition could not have been more appropriate.

And at this disturbing time, halfway through the Decade of Action, with the world moving in the wrong direction on global sustainability challenges at what feels like an increasing pace, it seemed highly appropriate to revisit it.

In sum, the optimistic side noted that “ingenuity, compassion, and persistence will help us come up with solutions to some of the planet’s biggest problems” – showing examples of biodiversity preservation, new energy sources, innovative alternative agriculture, and improved water quality. 

It outlined key protection priorities, including sequestering carbon, protecting biodiversity, and replenishing fisheries, while also pointing to the substantial opportunity in wind and solar energy.

Last, it noted that wealthy countries enjoy cleaner water, air, and land today compared to fifty years ago as a result of high-level attention on the environment, and it framed the go-forward focus as expanding on that critical success, further developing clean energy sources, and conserving resources like never before.

Conversely, the pessimistic side noted that “our reckless consumption and abuse of resources have made the world a deadlier place” for humans and other life on Earth, highlighting ocean plastic pollution, emissions-driven warming, extreme heat, fires and floods, melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, declining species, and the risk of rising disease with the expansion of mosquito ranges. 

It pointed to the threat that climate change poses to the global food system, with potential lower yields in key staples (such as corn and wheat) leading to shortages and higher prices, along with changing availability and nutritional value of food items. 

Importantly, it also effectively covered the emotional toll of changing (and lost) landscapes with stories from impacted individuals.   

This special edition reinforced in many ways the clear choice that the world faces today:  pursuing a course of positive change (taking urgent collaborative action at scale to address climate change, food security, biodiversity loss, and the other key environmental and social challenges underpinning the SDGs) or maintaining a course of business as usual (with incremental or no meaningful efforts to tackle global sustainability challenges). 

And while the path to follow seems obvious, the needed global collaborative action remains insufficient. 

A Difficult, Deteriorating Horizon

There is no question that the world has entered a particularly difficult time from a climate and sustainability standpoint, as several recent events make clear:

In October, the World Wildlife Fund released its 2024 Living Planet Report, noting that there has been a 73% decline in the average size of monitored wildlife populations in the fifty year period from 1970 to 2020 – and calling for an “urgent transformation” of our food, energy, and finance systems. 

In early November, the UN Biodiversity Summit (COP16) closed without a treaty addressing core objectives, including financing conservation efforts at scale. 

At COP29, delegates settled on a climate finance agreement of at least $300 billion per year, which while an increase from the prior agreement was well short of the $1.3 trillion goal.  The agreement was viewed as a “staggering betrayal” by the Least Developed Countries Group on Climate Change, who noted in a searing press release that “We leave Baku without an ambitious climate finance goal, without concrete plans to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C, and without the comprehensive support desperately needed for adaptation and loss and damage.”

In December, delegates from 170 nations failed to agree on a global treaty to curb plastic pollution, largely due to opposition from major petroleum producing countries. 

Also in December, the IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) report noted that in the last fifty years, global trends in several areas have intensified drivers of biodiversity loss, created negative outcomes for water availability, food security, nutrition and health, and have contributed to climate change. 

And quite appropriately for today, the authors added that “Societal, economic and policy decisions that prioritize short-term benefits and financial returns for a small number of people while ignoring negative impacts on biodiversity and other nexus elements lead to unequal human well-being outcomes.” 

Those negative impacts are of course often disproportionately felt by the world’s most vulnerable citizens. 

In January, the Copernicus Climate Change Service noted that 2024 was the warmest year on record, as well as the first year to exceed the 1.5ºC threshold set by the Paris Agreement, and that global atmospheric concentrations of both carbon dioxide and methane reached record levels. 

Also in January, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) stated that the past ten years (2015-2024) were the warmest ten years on record, while adding that “the ocean is the warmest it has ever been as recorded by humans” (referencing a recent study by Cheng, et al.).

The Opportunity Disconnect

And yet despite all of these highly concerning signals, at a time when massive collaboration and innovation for sustainability efforts are needed, we are now seeing a growing anti-DEI and anti-ESG movement led by ill-informed, uncaring policymakers and entrenched business interests intent on clinging to high-externality business models with little regard for planetary boundaries and the welfare of future generations,

Astonishingly, despite the clear business case for sustainability investments and the deep connection to essential innovation, major companies are backing away from sustainability commitments, while major financial institutions are pulling out of commitments like the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative and the Net-Zero Banking Alliance.

And as Donald Trump fulfilled his misguided promise to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement for the second time, I found myself looking back to 2015, to the joy of that moment among the participants, and the hope!

Further, I found myself reflecting on a second critical sustainability theme mentioned in a speech by then-Bank of England governor Mark Carney that same year – the tragedy of the horizon. 

The Tragedy of the Horizon

In a speech to the insurance sector, Carney warned that “Climate change is the tragedy of the horizon. We don’t need an army of actuaries to tell us that the catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors – imposing a cost on future generations that the current generation has no direct incentive to fix.”

In so doing, he got to the heart of the matter – the need for today’s citizens to move beyond the immediacy of short term concerns to a longer term, humanity-focused perspective.  Our current systems and actions, while benefiting many today, are having profoundly negative effects which jeopardize the health of the planet and the quality of life of future generations. 

And Carney was spot on with the following statement: “The challenges currently posed by climate change pale in significance compared with what might come…The far-sighted amongst you are anticipating broader global impacts on property, migration and political stability, as well as food and water security.”

And building on these points, he asked the key question regarding climate change: “So why isn’t more being done to address it?”

In the ten years since Carney’s speech and the establishment of the Paris Agreement, we have clearly seen the impacts of climate change in the form rising temperatures, severe droughts, fires, and floods, melting sea ice, rising ocean temperatures, and more, with related negative impacts on multiple SDGs.

And yet the key question remains:  Why isn’t more being done?

Moving from No to Yes

Last, as I thought about the necessary action steps to address this troubling and chaotic time, I found myself reflecting on discussions and learnings from COP27 in 2022.

At that event, Al Gore unveiled Climate TRACE, an organization focused on providing accurate, transparent, and free emissions data in multiple layers (ex. single point sources, industries, countries) to enable government and business leaders to prioritize actions to reduce the emissions that are driving global warming. 

Gore gave a compelling overview of the climate crisis, noting that humans are treating the atmosphere like an open sewer, spewing 162 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every 24 hours.  He quantified that impact, stating that these emissions trap the amount of extra heat equivalent to 600,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding on Earth every day, 365 days a year. 

Beyond these staggering statistics, Gore cited many of the environmental impacts that we are all seeing as a result of those emissions with increasing clarity:  heat waves and multiple heat records, droughts and drying rivers, melting sea ice and rising sea levels, saltwater intrusion, increased frequency and intensity of storms, loss of biodiversity, and the rise of infectious diseases.

He also noted the impact of recent severe storms on vulnerable populations in Africa and Asia, adding that extreme weather events resulted in a cost of $2.5 trillion to the global economy in the past decade, up about $1 trillion over the prior decade.

Significantly, Gore cited good news in that the world had reached a turning point with cost-effective renewable energy solutions (solar, wind) in hand, stating that electricity from these sources would be less expensive than fossil fuels in nearly 100% of the world by 2024. 

He pointed to the great potential for solar energy in Africa, along with significant barriers in the form of the finance gap and continued subsidies for fossil fuel production. 

And he provided compelling data from the Climate TRACE platform, including the fact that the top fourteen individual emissions sources in the world are oil and gas fields (with the Permian Basin in Texas being the top source).  Second, he noted that Climate TRACE discovered that emissions from oil and gas were about two times the level that countries had reported to the United Nations, and with new data (including flaring and methane leaks) it could be as much as three times.

Such transparency is essential for driving progress on global emissions reduction.

Gore also stated that over 100 countries (representing 70% of the global economy) signed the Global Methane Pledge at COP26 in Glasgow, with the goal of reducing methane (a super pollutant) emissions by 30% by 2030 – and platforms such as Climate TRACE are essential to verifying progress.

In sum, Gore stated that we have all of the technologies that are necessary to achieve the required sharp cuts in emissions by 2030 (and beyond), and the policies that can drive deployment are proven.  Encouragingly, he pointed out just how quickly temperatures will start to fall once the world reaches net zero.

Last, and perhaps most important on the point of action, Gore quoted poet Wallace Stevens, noting “After the final no, there comes a yes, and on that yes the future world depends.”

And on an optimistic note, he stated that we are now getting to the final no’s and moving to the final “yes” that will save our future. 

Connecting Reflections, Moving Forward

In the midst of considerable turmoil in recent weeks and months in the sustainability space, these three themes flowed together quite clearly for me.

First, as the National Geographic edition showed, it is essential that we truly grasp the stark choice that lies before us regarding climate and sustainability challenges – the path of action for saving the planet or the path of inaction and losing the planet – and the positive and negative outcomes for humanity associated with each path.

Second, as Mark Carney noted, it is essential that we not only grasp the tragedy of the commons aspect of climate change and sustainability challenges – where externalities of production processes (including emissions-driven warming and multiple forms of pollution), excessive consumption, and excessive waste have negative impacts on many citizens, but also the tragedy of the horizon – in which we continue to act irresponsibly to maximize our short term interests without regard for the longer term consequences of those actions on future generations.

Third, Al Gore’s unveiling of Climate TRACE shows that we have many available tools to transparently measure and address emissions and other sustainability challenges if we care enough to do so, and if we find the will. 

We have the ability to move faster on issues of climate change, food security, biodiversity loss, and more – but we are facing a new wave of barriers to progress, a new wave of “No’s.” 

As Gore noted, we are coming to the final No’s – and we must get to “Yes” – because the future of humanity depends on that Yes. 

That is the Optimist’s path to saving the planet as National Geographic depicted.  

We have much work to do drive this change.  Fortunately, we have the tools, and the economic, environmental, and moral arguments support actions for sharply reducing emissions through renewables and accelerating the transition to sustainable, circular systems.

We need to find the collective will, and we need collaborative leadership with a focus on humanity first, not country first.