The bill has come due. But no one wants to pay for climate mitigation
We are, in the most Grecian sense of the word, in a tragedy. Mitigation means sailing between Charybdis and Scylla.
Business leaders, investors, and climate advocates convened in New York for Climate Week, amid a grim outlook. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) reported that surpassing 1.5°C of warming is almost inevitable. Heatwaves and wildfires have become a common occurrence, causing thousands of heat-related deaths. Adaptation and resilience were hot topics, but this highlights the focus on surviving, rather than preventing, the impending climate crisis.
UNEP reiterated that mitigation is crucial, but the harsh reality is that nobody - whether it's an industry or a country - wants to reduce their emissions due to the high cost of mitigation. The focus is on minimizing damage by phasing down fossil fuels and livestock, but these industries are politically toxic. Phasing down these industries will result in stranded assets and reduced revenue, with an estimated $1.4 trillion for oil and gas alone.
Food systems also face losses, with the global agricultural production value potentially dropping by $1.6 trillion in 2050. Despite strong economic arguments for mitigation, finance is not aligned with economics, making it difficult to afford the upfront costs. The debate lies between Charybdis (no mitigation) and Scylla (aggressive mitigation), with the one certainty being the need to make a choice.
Written by urgent.news from Fortune's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
