The judgment of science is dry, inappellable: the Belém Cop closed with a totally inadequate agreement. To reduce the magnitude of climate disasters already underway, the pollution spigot must be turned off-that is, stop burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests. And instead greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise,while the final document of the UN conference does not even mention the root cause of the problem, namely the aforementioned fossil fuels. This is a contradiction that from the point of view of those who, by profession, use knowledge and rationality to measure our collective actions has no logical explanation: by postponing the cure we have only to lose, the disease gets worse and the cost goes up.
The judgment of politics is more nuanced. There are those who have said that keeping the door of multilateralism open, at a time when only the voices of autarchies and demagogues outweigh the background noise, has already been a half success. And that the agreement signed in Brazil points to a pathway that can lead to improved energy performance of states: the correctives adopted so far have already lowered temperature increase forecasts by one degree by the end of the century; it is a matter of doing the part that remains.
Each of these two arguments has its own internal coherence. But if you cannot cross them, that is, if you cannot get consensus on the policies needed to avoid scorching the planet, the game is lost. So it pays to try to find a middle path that crosses the two points of view.
The fear that paralyzes and the hope that can unlock us
And the starting point can only be the illogical aspect of our collective reaction. It is exactly like in Adam McKay’s film,
Today is not much different. Are the odds of being caught up in a disastrous climate event increasing by the day? Will advancing desertification force tens of millions to leave their homes and become refugees? Are mosquitoes carrying dengue and malaria beginning to find the Mediterranean more welcoming? As in Don’t Look Upisthe president of the most important state saying that the scientists’ claims are nonsense.
But all of this can happen because the climate crisis is frightening not only because of the trouble we are already in, but because of the earthquake it is causing that is creaking a productive and cultural system built up over more than two centuries. And fear, when it crosses a certain threshold, can create ghosts, can send logical processes into a tailspin.
Hope as the engine of transition
So the remedy is hope. A system of production and social organization in line with radically cutting greenhouse emissions is not only possible, it is also cheaper in many ways. It protects our health from insidious pollutants (air pollution kills 50,000 people a year in Italy). It can increase jobs. It can become the driver of policies of greater social equity. It can improve the pleasantness of our daily lives.
After all, this is not a process that is declining into the future. It is already happening in some cities and places. And, macroscopically, in the country that is gaining global leadership in the 21st century because of it. Beijing has won the first stages of this race, and the only way to not be cut off is to become more efficient and offer a more compelling product because it is seasoned with personal freedom.
From this point of view, the most interesting thing that happened at the Belem Cop was the decision of a group of countries to pursue the ecological transition and phase out of fossil fuels outside the official UN conference table. If this understanding leads to the development of economic and financial dynamics that are faster and more effective than those of the fossil scheme, the process will accelerate spontaneously, taking root in the cities and regions where the transformation is already taking place.
So it is true that as the climate crisis accelerates the cure slows down. But it is not a biblical curse; we can change. Just show that the alternative is cheaper now. And that it is cheaper for a large majority.
