Why Focusing on Practical Solutions Matters for Climate Action

🌍 We Can’t Afford to Get Climate Policy Wrong—A Look at the Data Behind What Really Works 🌍 In the race against time to combat climate change, bold promises are everywhere. But here’s the critical question: Are the policies being implemented actually reducing emissions at the scale we need? A groundbreaking study published in Science, cuts through the noise and delivers the insights we desperately need. Evaluating 1,500 climate policies from around the world, the research identifies the 63 most effective ones—policies that have delivered tangible, significant reductions in emissions. What’s striking is that the most successful strategies often involve combinations of policies, rather than single initiatives. Think of it as the ultimate teamwork: when policies like carbon pricing, renewable energy mandates, and efficiency standards are combined thoughtfully, the impact is far greater than any one policy could achieve on its own. It’s a powerful reminder that for climate solutions the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts. Moreover, the study’s use of counterfactual emissions pathways is a game changer. By showing what would have happened without these policies, it provides a clear, quantifiable measure of their effectiveness. This is exactly the kind of rigorous evaluation we need to ensure that every policy counts, especially when we’re working against the clock. If we’re serious about meeting the Paris Agreement’s targets, we need to focus on what works—and this research offers a clear roadmap. Let’s champion policies that have proven to make a difference, because we don’t have time to waste on anything less. 🔗 Full study in the comments #ClimateAction #Sustainability #PolicyEffectiveness #ParisAgreement #NetZero #ClimateScience

When I first started meeting bureaucrats, policymakers, and politicians while working on air pollution and climate change, I assumed scientific research would naturally lead to better policies. But over time, I kept getting the same response—expressed in different ways. Here, I’m sharing some early experiences that shaped my understanding of this disconnect. 🔹 One of my first experiences was when a very senior officer invited us to discuss solutions. As scientists, we proposed a research-driven approach that would take two to three years. His response? "We have funding that must be spent within a year. We expected practical solutions from you. We can’t wait three years—I might even be transferred before then." 🔹 Another realization came when we proposed analyzing pollution sources. A senior officer responded, "We already know the sources—traffic, industry, construction, waste burning, road dust, cooking fuel, etc. Will your study show anything drastically different?" When we explained that our study would refine insights and reduce uncertainties, his response was: "We don’t care about these nuances right now. That detail matters later, once mitigation efforts are underway. Right now, we need feasible solutions that fit economic, demographic, and practical constraints." Another officer later remarked: "Scientists aren’t here to provide solutions. Their focus is securing funding, publishing papers, and showcasing work to funders." He even cited global reports that had never been downloaded. At that moment, I felt disappointed. But I also realized they weren’t entirely wrong—perhaps even more right than I was. Policymakers work within short funding cycles, shifting priorities, and limited tenures—typically three years for an officer, five for a politician. Their constraints are real, and their approach reflects these realities. 💡 This disconnect between science and policy is a major barrier in sustainability. Scientists seek accuracy, while policymakers need actionable, timely solutions. So, how do we bridge this gap? ✔ Policy-Research Intermediaries – Teams that translate scientific findings into actionable policies. ✔ Adaptive Research Timelines – Delivering short-term, high-impact solutions alongside long-term studies. ✔ Collaborative Working Groups – Scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders aligning research with real-world needs. ✔ Flexible Funding Models – Ensuring funding supports both immediate action and long-term research. 🚀 If we don’t bridge this gap, science remains detached from policy, and policy stays reactive instead of proactive. #AirPollution #ClimateAction #SciencePolicy #Sustainability #Collaboration #ResearchToAction

🌍 We cannot solve the climate crisis without demand-side solutions. The IPCC is crystal clear: changing what we demand and how we live could reduce global emissions by 40–70% by 2050. This is not a marginal add-on. It must be at the heart of climate policy. Demand-side solutions include: ✅ Shifting to more plant-based diets ✅ Reducing energy use in buildings through efficiency and behavior change ✅ Avoiding high-carbon mobility, such as frequent flying, while expanding public and active transport ✅ Designing infrastructures and cities that make low-carbon choices easy, attractive, and fair Demand-side change is not only about asking people to consume less. It is about creating the social, political, and institutional conditions that make low-carbon living possible and attractive. Here, social science is crucial. Lasting change depends on reshaping the cultural norms, social dynamics, and infrastructures that currently lock people into high-carbon behaviors. And when done well, these shifts can substantially reduce emissions while enhancing health, wellbeing, and fairness. That means: - Developing policies that account for feasibility, equity, and social norms - Recognizing the disproportionate responsibility and opportunity of high-income groups - Linking personal choices to the systemic changes needed in politics, markets, and infrastructure 📄 IPCC WGIII Chapter 5 remains the most comprehensive resource on the social science of climate change mitigation. I cannot recommend it enough! Felix Creutzig Joyashree Roy Leila Niamir Patrick Devine-Wright Elke Weber Julia Steinberger #ClimateAction #climate #socialscience #sustainability #climatejustice https://lnkd.in/dd93kjZg

🌍 The way we are approaching, encouraging, and assessing #NetZero—through NDCs, corporate targets, and carbon accounting—is not just inherently insufficient, it is actively counterproductive. Net zero is an atmospheric imperative. Achieving it requires: • Decarbonizing the world’s energy, industrial, and food systems • Enhancing the absorptive capacity of the world’s carbon sinks Transforming these systems requires: • Clear roadmaps • Technological innovation • Adequate public and private finance • And coordinated action among public and private actors across sectors, borders, and value chains Our dominant frameworks—focused on individual country and corporate target-setting, measurement, and accounting—falsely assume that systemic, regional, and sectoral transitions can be delivered by the sum of individual targets and plans. This flawed logic disincentivizes the coordination needed. Rather than identifying an entity’s leverage to address systemic barriers to decarbonization, both countries and companies, which cannot decarbonize on their own, purchase offsets so they can methodologically “claim” to be net zero while continuing to emit, increasing rather than decreasing atmospheric GHGs. This has also led to a reliance on credits to fund nature-based and technological solutions that need substantially more and reliable financing. We’ve built an entire architecture around the wrong unit of ambition and analysis, and we are now fixing symptoms (to make the accounting more credible), not confronting the underlying structural misalignment. Accelerating climate action requires decisively shifting from individual targets to coordinated, transformative planning and implementation. This means: 🔁 Prioritizing and supporting Long-Term Low-Emission Development Strategies (LT-LEDS), which are inherently more ambitious and pragmatic than NDCs. 🛤 Supporting scenario planning and sectoral roadmaps, not just insisting on more ambitious NDCs and FF phase-outs. In many EMDEs, there aren’t clear technical roadmaps for how FF-based energy can be replaced reliably and financed affordably. 🤝 Facilitating coordination across regions, value chains, and stakeholders, not emphasizing individual action. 💸 ensuring adequate and affordable financing for the necessary transitions. (Note: private capital doesn’t move because of better carbon accounting, risk metrics, or pressure. It moves when transitions become financeable: - Enabled by clear roadmaps and aligned policy and regulations - Structured through investable market design by coordinating demand and supply - Supported by public finance and tailored risk mitigation) As we head into New York Climate Week, I hope we focus less on statements of ambition (NDCs and corporate targets) and more on rigorous, technically grounded transition pathways—and the collaborative, cross-sector engagement required to deliver them. The stakes are too high to keep solving the wrong problem.

In this Science study ( 👉 https://lnkd.in/er4CDurn, see also here article in Financial Times about it👉https://lnkd.in/enxcG69K) , researchers analyzed 1,500 climate policies implemented across 41 countries between 1998 and 2022. The goal? To identify which policies truly work in reducing emissions. Here’s what they found: 🔘 Successful Policy Interventions: 63 policies led to significant emission reductions, cutting between 0.6 and 1.8 billion metric tonnes of CO2. ✅ 🔘 Price-Based Instruments: Carbon pricing and emission trading schemes were particularly effective. 💰 🔘 In developed economies, pricing stands out individually, with 20% out of all successful detected interventions being associated with pricing individually. Yet subsidies are the most complementary instrument, especially in combination with pricing (33%). By contrast, in developing economies regulation is the most powerful policy.  🔘 Policy Mixes: Combining policies, especially market-based ones, with regulatory measures led to greater success. 🔄 🔘 Sector-Specific Findings: Different sectors (e.g., buildings, transport) responded better to specific policy types. 🏢🚗 In the FT article, there’s some caution about the findings: it might take longer than the study suggests for policy interventions to show success ⏳. For me, the key takeaways are: 🔹 Policy Mix is Essential: To be truly effective, a combination of policies is necessary 🎯. 🔹 Context Matters: Effective policy mixes vary by sector and economic context 🌍. 🔹 Practical Over Perfect: Instead of seeking the "perfect" policy mix, focus on taking action. It's too complex to aim for perfection—just strive to make a difference 💪.