https://arab.news/c8vt2
More than a year into US President Donald Trump’s second term, one of the most noticeable shifts in political discourse is the virtual vanishing of the words “climate change” from the news cycle. Just a few months ago, headlines were dominated by dire climate predictions and calls to immediate action.
Today’s changed media environment does not mean that the Earth’s atmosphere is suddenly healthier or that greenhouse gases have mysteriously diminished. The physical reality of our planet — its biochemical composition and position in the solar system — has not changed with the international political calendar. Scientists still agree that greenhouse gas concentrations, such as carbon dioxide, have risen substantially since pre-industrial times.
Global levels of CO2, measured in parts per million, have crossed the 422-424 ppm mark, up from about 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution. Studies indicate that these concentrations are rising by roughly 2-3 ppm per year and are at levels not seen for hundreds of thousands of years. In other words, climate change has not suddenly ceased to be a challenge.
What has changed is the belated realization that progress must be achieved with a sense of proportion, one that neither sets back broader human development nor exaggerates the chances of climate catastrophe.
Until recently, the “endangered planet” narrative had drowned out constructive conversation on the subject of climate challenge. In the US and Europe, much of the public discourse became so tightly linked to ideology, anxiety, and even identity that it seemed at times that hard evidence and rational policy discussion no longer mattered.
This combination of discourse politicization and media alarmism, in turn, generated pressure on developing nations to devote precious financial resources toward imported “green technologies,” often at prohibitive costs. For countries weighed down by poverty, food insecurity, inadequate infrastructure, and lack of fiscal transparency, such diversion was both economically harmful and politically destabilizing.
A more pragmatic strategy to tackle climate change would have recognized that development and clean energy goals need not be in conflict. In fact, greater wealth enables societies to invest more in cleaner technologies, better environmental regulation, and innovation that ultimately benefits both people and the planet.
The good news is that real progress is being made, quietly. For example, electric vehicle adoption is expanding rapidly worldwide, driven by a combination of cost reductions, improved range and consumer demand. Transportation accounts for about 16 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions and roughly one-quarter of energy-related CO2 emissions, so electrification makes a difference, both economically and environmentally.
Policy ought to be founded on pragmatic solutions.
Arnab Neil Sengupta
Adoption of renewable energy sources — namely, wind, solar, and hydroelectric — continues to grow faster than conventional fuels in many regions, especially when supported by market forces as opposed to top-down mandates.
In many industrial countries, UN demographic projections show population growth slowing or stabilizing, which is likely to lower future energy demand and carbon emissions.
These trends show that reductions in emissions are perhaps better achieved through innovation, incentives, and evolving consumer preferences.
Among those advocating for this type of “climate realism” is Danish statistician and policy analyst Bjorn Lomborg, who has long argued that while global warming is real, man made, and an important problem, it is not the “end of the world.” He insists that “we need to evaluate climate policy in the same way that we evaluate every other policy: in terms of costs and benefits.”
Lomborg’s emphasis on cost-benefit analysis and prioritizing policies with the highest humanitarian and environmental returns, strikes a chord with policymakers who believe that fear-based messaging from left-liberal Western politicians, think tanks, and media commentators has proved counterproductive.
Again, this is not a call to ignore climate science. The evidence that human emissions contribute to warming is far too well established to dispute at this stage. The scientific consensus, including reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, confirms that human activity, particularly fossil fuel burning, has raised global temperatures and influenced extreme weather patterns. But recognizing the significance of the threat does not mean abandoning common sense.
Looking back, climate policy was thrust on an unprepared world almost as a moral and existential imperative. That approach took precedence over more cost-effective options advocated by saner voices such as technological innovation, investments in carbon-removal methods, and adaptation efforts that protect vulnerable populations from heat stress, flooding, and drought.
What the story of the lost decades teaches us is that climate policy ought to be founded on pragmatic solutions, not dramatic speeches at UN-led conferences and NGO-organized summits. People respond positively to clarity, markets respond best to incentives, and innovation responds quickly to opportunity.
Humanity’s common focus ought to be on making real progress instead of checking boxes. Policies must strike a balance between environmental commitment and economic resilience, particularly in developing countries where affordable energy remains essential to achieving a better quality of life. In practical terms, this means governments must encourage innovation in energy technology, including grid storage, nuclear power, hydrogen and next-generation renewables.
National climate strategies have to support market-friendly policies that reduce emissions while preserving economic growth and political stability.
The focus should be on adaptation and resilience in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia, where climate impacts are already being felt in the form of heat waves and water scarcity.
Finally, industrial economies like China, the US, Germany, Japan, and South Korea must help developing nations invest in energy security, technological advancement and climate responsibility, instead of pressuring them to make economically damaging trade-offs.
The world never needed alarmism to motivate climate action. Depoliticization of public discourse coupled with realism might be the most effective way to tackle climate change and support global development.
• Arnab Neil Sengupta is a senior editor at Arab News.
X: @arnabnsg