Opinions
Programmes
Author
Joe Zammit-Lucia
Joe Zammit-Lucia is a RADIX Co-Founder and board member. He is an entrepreneur and commentator on business and political issues writing in outlets in the UK, US, Germany and the Netherlands. His particular interest is the relationship between business and politics.
“One story is good until another is told” (16th century proverb)
As delegates gather in Belem for more discussions, negotiations and infighting, the mood music around environmental initiatives is changing worldwide. Enthusiasm is fading. There is widespread concern of back pedalling – a concern not limited to Trump’s America.
The environmental movement has achieved much that was probably inconceivable 50 years ago. Climate and environment are now embedded as important parts of public policy considerations in almost every nation on Earth (I have no idea what goes on in North Korea for instance). Large swathes of businesses worldwide focus on sustainability initiatives and pollution reduction. Consumers are becoming a little bit more conscious of their environmental footprints.
Yet it is also true that momentum seems to be stalling. Though much of what has evolved will not be reversed, the pace and nature of further progress are under strain.
Why? What can be done about it?
In this piece I argue for a re-think of how environmentally focused initiatives will need to be re-framed if public support and, consequently, political momentum are to be maintained.
For decades, we have promised a ‘green industrial revolution’ that was supposed to bring clean prosperity to all and sundry. Was this ever likely?
The first thing is to look at what impact the 19th century industrial revolution had on people’s lives:
“From the year 1 to 1820, global income per person rose barely 0.017 percent annually, or just under two percent per century…The Industrial Revolution broke scarcity’s grip and made productivity the foundation of power, vaulting societies from medieval to modern in under a century. A Briton born in 1830 entered a world of candles, horse carts, and wooden ships; by old age, that same person could ride a railroad, send a telegraph, and walk streets lined with electric lights, factory goods, and indoor plumbing. In one lifetime, per capita energy use multiplied five- to tenfold.”
Michael Beckley. The Stagnant Order; And the End of Rising Powers. Foreign Affairs, October 21, 2025.
The green transition, essential though it is, was never going to lead to the kind of economic and social transformation brought about by the industrial revolution. Greening the economy does not involve the introduction of technologies that transform our way of life. Rather than providing new goods and services it represents the replacement of what already exists with cleaner alternatives. It is hard to see how, in the short or medium term, that results in increased productivity (we’ll talk about the longer term later) or has any kind of economic multiplier effect.
We also promised cheap energy and energy security consequent on less dependence on petrostates.
It is hard to deny that, in many quarters, there has been disappointment.
Those pushing for a faster and more comprehensive transition are disappointed at the pace and scale. Global emissions have continued to rise. The 1.5-degree target is gone. Two degrees is wobbly. And, realistically, we haven’t even started to find viable approaches to mitigating biodiversity loss.
For others, the green transition has not lived up to its promise. Rather than cheap energy and booming economies, we have soaring energy costs, deindustrialisation and stagnating economies that some have been keen to blame on excessive environmental regulation stifling development. In pursuit of less local emissions, we have swapped making things with importing carbon emissions embedded in China-made goods.
Rather than energy security, we are now risking swapping dependence on petrostates for dependence on China. The Norwegians have discovered kill switches in Made in China Yutong electric buses. The potential consequences of millions of Chinese electric cars driving through our streets are unknown. As are the potential consequences of Chinese technologies forming the core of our energy systems. Some have pointed to devices in Chinese-made solar panels and batteries that would allow them to be switched off remotely. In the UK, the Ministry of Defence has warned about sensors in Chinese-made wind turbines that could spy on British waters, defence submarine programmes and the energy infrastructure.
These new narratives are gaining traction. They do so because they have elements of truth behind them.
Stop the hyperbole. Recognise conflicting priorities. Focus on short term benefits.
Those three elements would be a start.
Stop the Hyperbole
It is perilous to over-promise and underdeliver. It is tempting to start casting around for who to blame for soaring energy prices and all the rest. It’s not the transition, it’s the way it has been implemented, some claim. Maybe so. But your average voter struggling with paying their bills or being laid off as industry moves to more attractive locations, has no time for such chatter. And many voices telling a different story will also be heard.
We need to be realistic and only promise that which can likely be delivered.
Recognise conflicting priorities
All activists believe their particular cause to be the most important there is and should be at the top of everyone’s list of priorities. Yet we all know that both governing and running a business represent a constant tussle between competing and often contradictory demands.
The main preoccupations for many governments today include stimulating economic growth (bringing down energy costs being one of the perceived necessary pillars), building credible defence and security capabilities, tackling poverty rates, and containing public debt. The green transition remains on the agenda but will suffer if it is seen to conflict with these main priorities.
How can the green transition credibly contribute to these current policy priorities? At the very least, how can we ensure that green initiatives do not conflict, and are not perceived to conflict, with their delivery?
Focus on short term benefits
I mentioned earlier that investment in green infrastructure will not have the multiplier effect that comes with infrastructure that delivers new services. The benefits of the transition will only become clear in terms of the significant harms avoided over the long term.
Such harms avoided are challenging to calculate and even more challenging to make relevant to today’s voting public, preoccupied as people are with the day-to-day.
For this reason, we need to get better at broadening the focus beyond long-term harms avoided to any short-term benefits that the green transition can provide. Benefits that people care about and can perceive in their everyday life.
Let us remember that China’s rise to dominance in renewables manufacturing was stimulated primarily by two things: the Chinese people complaining about dense, harmful, and unliveable levels of pollution (we are now seeing the same protests in India); and the economic opportunity (and the geopolitical power) provided by becoming the low cost global supplier of renewables infrastructure, electric vehicles and raw materials essential for the transition.
Achieving all the above will not be easy. It requires a change in mindset (difficult), the development of new narratives (also difficult), and creativity in communicating it all honestly and without the hyperbole that inevitably disappoints or the apocalyptic predictions that make people turn away (no less difficult).
The alternative is to hope that the pain today for jam decades down the road approach will continue to work in a changed and turbulent world.
You decide.
This blog was originally posted on Joe's Random Thoughts newsletter on LinkedIn.