Optimism is in short supply.

Ahead of the UN’s COP29 climate change conference in Azerbaijan, later this year, an annual set of preparatory discussions —known as the Subsidiary Bodies meetings—in Bonn, Germany have just wrapped up this week. Press conferences are filled with “disappointeds” and “insufficients” and there is palpable concern that the heart of the matters being discussed—in the case of this year, climate finance—are not being advanced sufficiently.

I find myself, yet again, trying to understand why progress appears so slow despite the mounting body of evidence about the scale of the crisis we are facing. The basic premise is simple. Science shows that the impacts of climate change are getting worse, economics shows that the fiscally wise path forward is to invest in prevention rather than recovery, and ethically we have a duty to allow future generations the same opportunities we have enjoyed. Every field of thought seems to point in the same direction. So why are we struggling to meet the moment? 

Let’s look at climate finance. Estimates put the fiscal resources needed for climate change prevention, or at least mitigation, on the order of trillions of dollars in the coming years. It sounds like a lot, but it is far less expensive than the cost of inaction. This should be easy: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. 

But this simplistic analysis misses important nuances. First, it requires collective action: what if my country pays, but others don’t? We still have a climate disaster, and I pay twice. Second, if my country may not feel the brunt of the impacts, then it would be paying for the losses suffered by others. Additionally, if the climate crisis is a result of an aggregation of decisions taken mostly by others, why should I expend political and financial capital for their malfeasance? And since the climate crisis is mostly going to impact younger and future generations, perhaps it should be the next set of leaders who take this on.

The veracity and morality of these arguments are certainly dubious. But they represent a significant measure of the gap in political will that we must overcome. How we narrow this gap may be a more important question today than the technical or even financial needs we face. In other words, we know much of what needs to be done, but we don’t know how to take those first steps to do it. 

This question receives insufficient attention in international spaces. Countries, groups, and organizations negotiate their positions and advocate on their issues; but the “why” behind their positions and concerns are rarely surfaced.

For some, it is clearly about solidarity and moral rectitude: right and wrong. For others, it is about economic opportunity. Or it could be about political stability. Scientific truth. Spiritual calling. Generational justice. Job security. There is worth in each of these drivers. But when we don’t surface these underlying issues, truly listen to the perspectives of the ‘other,’ the challenges fester and mistrust deepens. The status quo remains.

I don’t pretend to have the answers. But maybe by raising different questions, questions of motivations and risks, new possibilities will emerge. 

When the system as it stands has fallen short for nearly 30 years in the face of clear scientific evidence, a truly scientific approach would also tell us that we need to change our strategy. Now is as good a time as ever to take the chance.