[Contribution] Three considerations for changing climate action

A quote from the book “The Art of Praise” by Yoshiyuki Suzuki has recently caught my eye: “The act of praise is completed when you convey the words the other person truly wants to hear.” I think this quote can be applied to complimenting others, but also to different types of communication. We can also apply this quote to climate change. Different sectors and levels of society have been calling for immediate action for climate change. But do the messages about climate action truly get across to people?

Having long talked about the need to stop climate change, they support this argument by using predicted dangers or threats from climate change to convince people, by saying “Worsening climate change will result in this or that damage to us.” Endless talk of climate change has led us to easily associate it with polar bears on shrinking ice caps, swaying palm trees during super typhoons and a dystopian future envisioned in disaster movies. Or worse, a lot of people say they are getting fed up with the danger of climate change, even becoming numb to it. Naturally, it is getting harder to encourage people to take action to address climate change.

Applying the quote I mentioned above to climate action, we should first identify what people want to hear, rather than focusing on endless predictions about the threats or risks of climate change. From my wide experience developing and dealing with government policies, people first want to hear and know about the economic benefits of responding to climate change. Recent global trends show that global businesses have started joining the carbon-neutral movement. Even some airlines and cement companies, the industries considered least likely to become carbon neutral, are now participating in the carbon-neutral transition. Some analysts explain that this movement is because businesses who respond better to climate change are likely to see higher earnings than those who respond poorly.

According to a Morgan Stanley Capital International report, the global companies ranked in the top 30 percent in terms of Environmental, Social and Governance Ratings showed stronger growth in earnings and profitability compared with the bottom 30 percent of companies. In addition, the 30 companies that most aggressively slashed carbon emissions saw their market capitalization increase by 15 percent compared to 2017. On the other hand, the 30 companies with the smallest reduction in their carbon emissions saw their market capitalization decrease by 12 percent over the same period. There has been a growing attempt to quantify and objectively look at the damage avoided, the number of jobs created or profits generated by climate change policy. I expect that the more such cases are made, the more people will be convinced that climate change response and economic benefits can go hand in hand, creating various tangible and intangible value in society and the economy.

Additionally, for those who are anxious about the present, we need to tell stories giving them comfort of mind. Every time humankind experiences major upheavals, there have always been industries or sectors that naturally declined or disappeared unnoticed after slowly losing their power. Nowadays with the big wave of carbon-neutrality, carbon intensive industries and the people involved would feel anxious about their future. As the underlying purpose of climate change response is to make our society sustainable, no one should be left behind in the process. To this end, a social security system needs to be put in place to minimize the potential impacts on vulnerable groups and help them find a way to earn their livelihood. Equally important, we need to create a social atmosphere where the disadvantaged are supported and feel cared, which could create greater societal momentum for such policies.

All these methods would be able to ignite climate action. However, our children and future generations would want us to not only start action but continue to make progress on climate change. I think this requires something more than having common understanding: a sense of caring for others. Smoking on buses was common in the past. People back then were not aware that it is wrong. They are very similar to us today, releasing carbon emissions every day without thinking of their impact. We also should remind ourselves that the way we treat smoking in public places has significantly changed.

There must have been several factors that led to such change. I think the main one is the gradual creation of a negative perception around smoking that was broadly shared and has taken root in society. David Archer, a professor of geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago, argues that it was ethics that abolished slavery, not economic benefits. Likewise, he says, we need to ultimately find a solution to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels from an ethical perspective. In other words, we need social ethics to tell us what is good or bad in order to deal with climate change.

Various studies in Korea and overseas have shown that we are getting farther from reaching the goal of limiting climate change. New technology or great policy is not enough to achieve the goal. The key is not certain individuals or groups, but all of us changing our behaviors. Through the three ways I mentioned, society should embrace the need for change and transition itself to take action for climate change. There is an African saying that goes, “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” Our goal is far-off in the distance. We should go together.

By Park Kwang-suk
---
Park Kwang-suk is administrator of the Korea Meteorological Administration. -- Ed.