The unimportance of outcomes: climate change

Trevor Jackson writes:

Despite all the disasters, all the models, and all the conferences, in 2022 there were at least 119 oil pipelines in development around the world, plus 447 gas pipelines, 300 gas terminals, 432 new coal mines, and 485 new coal power plants. As the historian of science Jean-Baptiste Fressoz showed ..., despite the vast quantities of talk and money invested in producing a technological “energy transition,” last year the world burned more coal and more wood than ever before. Trevor Jackson, How to Blow Up a Planet, 'the New York Review', dated 25 September 2025

If we were serious about wanting to stop climate change, we'd have meaningful indicators of the climate and reward people for reaching target levels. In my work on Climate Stability Bonds, I envisage a range of ecological, physical and financial indicators, all of which would have to fall into an approved range for a sustained period, before our climate goal had been achieved. As it is, we focus almost exclusively on one single target: greenhouse gas emissions, and it's clear that we're failing even to reduce those. It's much the same with other social and environmental pathologies: by targeting the supposed means of reducing, for example, crime, or water pollution, or war, our policymakers can spend their time discussing institutional structures and funding arrangements or on internal infighting, rather than put in place incentives for others to get on with actually achieving society's desired outcomes. Politicians retain their power and avoid making difficult choices. One result?

Global atmospheric carbon dioxide compared to annual emissions, 1751-2022, Source

Targeting outcomes, as I advocate, would mean politicians' and officials' relinquishing some of their powers. Under a Social Policy Bond regime, they'd still articulate society's wishes, in conjunction with experts and the public, and raise the revenue for their achievement, but they'd contract out the actual achievement to a protean coalition of people and organisations who would have incentives to be efficient. "Society's wishes": these would be broad goals that are meaningful to ordinary people: goals such as a (relatively) stable climate, or sustained world peace. It's unlikely that governments will take the lead in this. I now believe that it's up to philanthropic individuals and foundations to fund something like a bond regime, and to be prepared to let the market for the bonds allocate those funds in ways that optimise efficiency.