Climate and the environment: it could have been so different

Several years ago Michelle Nijhuis reviewed Losing earth: the decade we almost stopped climate change, by Nathaniel Rich. She wrote about missed opportunities to address climate change in the 1980s. In 1980 the US National Commission on Air Quality convened a meeting of climate and energy: 

[W]hen it came time to commit to specific solutions, the experts began to hesitate. China, the Soviet Union, and the United States were all accelerating coal production; [President] Carter was planning to invest $80 billion in synthetic fuels. Proposed laws or regulations would focus attention on the costs of emissions reduction, instantly politicizing the issue. “We are talking about some major fights in this country,” said the economist Thomas Waltz. “We had better be thinking this thing through.” By the third day, Rich recounts, the experts had abandoned solutions and were even reconsidering their statement of the problem, loading it with caveats. (Were climatic changes “highly likely” or “almost surely” to occur? Were said changes of an “undetermined” or “little-understood” nature?) In the end, the meeting’s final statement was weaker than the language the commission had used to announce the workshop .... Early warnings, Michelle Nijhuis, New York Review of Books, 27 June 2019

Then, as now, politicians' priority is to avoid difficult 'fights'. Much easier to move on to other, less contentious, issues. 

One of the advantages of Social Policy Bonds is that they put in place positive incentives. They channel self-interest into the public good. Sure, bondholders could lobby in favour of public funds being diverted to their target goal, but there is nevertheless a presentational advantage. With Climate Stability Bonds, people would be rewarded for avoiding climate change and its negative impacts. The climate goal could be expressed as a range of physical, ecological, financial and social indicators, all of which would have to fall into an approved range for a sustained period before the bonds would be redeemed. Importantly, the bonds could work well regardless of whether people believe or disbelieve (or say they disbelieve) that the climate is in fact changing. As with other goals that Social Policy Bonds could target, what matters is that the goal is achieved, not the effort required to achieve it, which means that, if the climate were somehow to revert to that deemed to be acceptable, bondholders would be paid out, even if they merely held the bonds and hoped for that outcome. Of course, if a bond regime were to target a goal seen as likely to be achieved, the float price of the bonds would be close to their redemption value. 

I say all this knowing that it's unlikely Climate Stability Bonds are ever going to be issued. They would require a huge redemption fund, backed by governments the world over, and there's no will now for such an initiative. The missed opportunities abound also for other environmental issues. Thus, the current Economist tells us that:

One study found the average size of wildlife populations had shrunk by 95% since 1970 in Latin America and the Caribbean - more than in any other region of the world. The drug lords' side-hustle: smuggling macaws, jaguars and frogs, the Economist, 10 October 2024

It's to be expected that vested interests will oppose policies that threaten their short-term financial goals. It's more of a tragedy that those who should be showing leadership back down in the face of such opposition. The Social Policy Bond principle, with their focus on rewarding meaningful social and environmental outcomes, could help, but inspired leadership would still be required. I'm not holding my breath.