When historians look back at the end of the 21st century’s second decade they will notice something remarkable. After 30 years of feeble efforts to stem greenhouse gases, people around the world have been gripped by the idea that more must be urgently done. A once-unthinkable idea is fast becoming mainstream: emissions should be cut to net zero as soon as possible. The question is, how? What should politicians do first? Who should pay for it? Can today’s voters be cajoled into paying to protect strangers yet to be born? And what is the best way to overcome the inevitable resistance to the sweeping reforms that will be required?
Until now, the publishing world has often seemed better at serving up dire warnings than hard-edged solutions. Last year’s big climate change books included The Uninhabitable Earth, David Wallace Wells’ remorseless account oflooming climate mayhem, and Losing Earth, Nathaniel Rich’s melancholy reminder of the missed opportunities to avert calamity. However, this year has been notable for a new crop of works on how we should deal with the problem, brimming with emissions-cutting advice that ranges from the geopolitical to the practical and mystical.
By far the most provocative is Climate Change and the Nation State by international relations scholar, Anatol Lieven, a former foreign correspondent for the FT and other news organisations. He begins by arguing the fundamental obstacle to effective climate action is not a lack of technology or moneybut the dearth of motivation and mobilisation of elites around
the world. Too many countries, he argues, are lumbered with “residual elites”, ruling groups shaped by past conflicts who are unable to adapt to the great challenge of climate change. This explains why western security elites have embraced the idea of a new cold war with China and Russia when in fact, writes Lieven, “the long-term interests of the world’s great powers are far more threatened by climate change than they are by each other”.