In conversation with the Institute Katharine Hayhoe: I want climate conversations to focus on win-win-win solutions

The climate change conversation has broadened beyond science and politics. Now we need to ensure that everyone engages, not only in the conversation but with action for the good of all people and the one planet we have.

23 Oct 2023 7 min read

Richard Morrow

Katharine Hayhoe did not set out to be a climate scientist; indeed, she originally studied physics and astronomy at the University of Toronto. However, she took an extra class in climate change as part of her degree and, in doing so, learned that climate change encompasses all life on earth, and that it has already started. She also realized that the rules of atmospheric science were the same as those that cover the stars.

In the years since, Hayhoe has become a passionate advocate for identifying climate change solutions. She is now a professor at Texas Tech University, and the chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy, a non-profit organization. She talks to us about what gives her hope, and why efficiency is an under-discussed part of the sustainability agenda.

What does sustainability mean to you?

For me, sustainability means something quite broad. For millennia we humans have lived as if the planet was infinite and flat, and if we needed more, we could go further and get it, and equally we could send all our garbage far away. However, we are already exceeding the boundaries of this planet in many ways. Climate change is one example, but another is pollution; one in six deaths occur due to pollution of the air, water, or soil.

Fundamentally, I see sustainability as altering our human systems to recognize our round and finite planet.

That requires us to rethink the economic system that was first constructed in the 1800s. We have spent tens of trillions of dollars on infrastructure built for conditions that no longer exist. Today, we need to introduce the concept of a circular economy, which means including the concept of externalities in our economic models and decision making.

Is the conversation about climate change headed in the right direction?

The discussion is broadening, as it should. But while there is a lot of focus on clean energy, there is no single solution to fix all our issues. We need everything.

I use the analogy of a swimming pool, in which the level of the water is the level of heat being trapped in the atmosphere. We used to be able to touch the bottom with our toes, but the industrial revolution has opened the hose and the water has been rising ever since.

First, we need to try and turn off the hose, which requires being efficient, using clean energy, reducing food waste. But the pool also has a drain, which is nature. Our scientists have calculated that we can make the drain bigger by a third, not just by tree planting but also through steps such as encouraging the issuance of nature bonds and restructuring the debt of nations with large nature resources so they can afford to better protect and restore their ecosystems. I’ve recently heard nature entering the conversation like never before, which is very encouraging.

Despite all this, the pool’s rising level of water means our toes can no longer touch the bottom, so we need to consider adaptation and resilience. Our average lifespans have more than doubled over the past 200 years, largely because of changes made possible by fossil fuels. But now the side effects are approaching the level of the benefits. We need to adapt to that, while trying to offset those changes.

What gives you the most optimism that we can manage climate change?

I’m excited that the conversation now doesn’t just include politicians, scientists, the UN, and activists, it’s now involving everybody.

And the conversation is happening everywhere it needs to. People ask me what they should study to help, and I say: we need everyone across every area of expertise. We need marketing and communications, civil and materials engineering, business and finance.

We are seeing medical schools, healthcare professionals, and doctors are all taking part, because climate change can cause worse health outcomes. Then you have the likes of Amazon and Google talking about sustainability, while car manufacturers are talking about how to transition into a truly circular economy. You also have faith organizations, rotary clubs, geopolitical organizations, artists and entertainment companies joining the conversation.

Of course, banks or large financial institutions like UBS can be huge catalysts for change. By choosing to invest in or not to invest in certain areas, banks and their clients have the power to have a huge impact on climate change. And as the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.

One thing that I’m not at all excited about is the fossil fuel industry continuing to be massively subsidized. Indeed, global fossil fuel subsidies increased to USD 7 trillion last year¹. Plus, we have recently seen some fossil fuel companies reduce their carbon reduction commitments.

That is something we need to change, and it’s something that investors can do to make a difference. For example, last year a coalition of investors backed a measure to make ExxonMobil publish an audited report on how a global shift to net zero will affect its business. It’s an example of how investments can be used to catalyze the right steps and penalize those doing the wrong things.

What under-discussed aspects of climate change need more focus?

To go back to my swimming pool analogy, we don’t talk enough about efficiency. The cheapest energy is the energy you don’t use, and the cheapest food is the food you don’t collect.

There are new ways of becoming more efficient; for example, Germany has begun retrofitting homes by snapping a device onto the outside of its buildings. These sorts of relatively easy efficient steps are important, but they are often not talked about enough.

AI also has a massive role to play. It’s being talked about a lot more in conferences, but it can be used to help identify efficiencies in buildings, supply chains and emissions.
We also need to talk about how our economies invest in, subsidize, and expand fossil fuels. We need to head in the other direction. We also need to bring nature into the conversation more, not just in terms of greening cities, but nature bonds and investing into countries and locations with high biodiversity and high amounts of carbon in the soil. We need to protect them, for all our good.
Smart agriculture is also very important. Food production is currently wasteful and contributes to air, soil and water pollution and biodiversity loss. But there is the potential with agriculture to turn off hose and make the drain bigger. Smart agriculture can become an emissions sink, making us more climate resilient.

In other words, I want to see more conversations focus on win-win-win solutions. Instead of picking individual solutions, we should start at the other end and say people don’t have enough food and water and they are impacted by climate change, but also want to industrialize; so how can we help them do so in a way that is carbon neutral. By doing so, we can have low-income countries leapfrog over dirty tech and industrialize in cleaner, more efficient ways.

There is a new mechanism called Just Energy Transition Partnerships², these are designed to help finance clean energy transitions in emerging economies. South Africa was the recipient of the first one, which was a solar and storage facility. There are also plans to help provide clean energy production in Indonesia and Vietnam, but we need to speed these efforts up massively, and we in developed countries should consider doing so for our own good, as well as that of the beneficiary countries. We are all affected by climate change.

¹https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2023/08/24/fossil-fuel-subsidies-surged-to-record-7-trillion
² https://www.iisd.org/articles/insight/just-energy-transition-partnerships

For further information, please visit www.ubs.com/institute-disclaimer