To stop climate change, we need context and strategy alongside the science

Yet both global emissions and temperatures reached record highs last year. Clearly, “what we know” is not enough. To unlock and accelerate climate action, we need to merge our science with a strategic plan for action and put solutions into a greater socioeconomic context.  

First, we must operationalize the science into actionable, evidence-based solutions. Then, we need to optimize the application of those solutions by positioning and implementing them in the context of current conditions and societal systems.  

Operationalize the Science  

There are many ways to operationalize science to make our knowledge actionable. The most fundamental approach is to use scientific understanding of the causes of a problem to devise interventions that will resolve it. 

Fortunately, much of this work has already been done on climate change. Because we know where greenhouse gas emissions are coming from, we already understand what we need to do to slow and stop climate change. Project Drawdown has developed a comprehensive list of ready-to-go, evidence-based climate solutions, ranging from individual or household actions to changes in business practices and large-scale societal transformations. 

But it’s a long list. So, for each of us, in all sectors of society, to make the best decisions about which climate actions to take, we must consider other factors.

For example, we know that the sources, types, and amounts of greenhouse gas emissions differ across the globe. Therefore, for any kind of climate action, whether replacing coal power with clean energy or protecting a forest from being cut down, its impact depends on where you do it. More than 50% of agricultural emissions of nitrous oxide, which warms the atmosphere nearly 300 times more than carbon dioxide, come from just 13% of cultivated lands, primarily in China, India, and the United States. We operationalize this knowledge by targeting improved fertilizer management in the places where that action will have the greatest impact.

We also know that different solutions take a different amount of time after implementation before reducing emissions. Some climate solutions, like plugging methane leaks from fossil fuel infrastructure or biking to work instead of driving a gas-powered car, immediately eliminate or reduce emissions. Others, like planting trees or constructing a utility-scale clean energy power plant, take years to have an impact. Ultimately, we need to do all of these things. But to quickly bend the emissions curve and maximize the time value of carbon, we should prioritize “emergency brake” climate solutions that either immediately cut emissions, target disproportionately potent climate pollutants (like methane, nitrous oxide, fluorinated gases, or black carbon), or prevent a pulse of new emissions, such as would occur when a forest is logged or burned.

In terms of cost, some climate solutions are cheap to implement and may even provide a positive return on investment, while others are very expensive. For example, using feed additives to reduce methane emissions from cows costs about US$88 per ton, nearly 100 times more expensive than reducing the same amount of fugitive methane emissions from the oil and gas industry by detecting and repairing leaks in wells, pipelines, and compressors. 

Finally, we know that in addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, many climate solutions benefit nature and human well-being. For example, cutting fossil fuel use for energy, transportation, and heating will reduce air pollution, which kills millions of people each year. Preserving a forest not only safeguards a vital carbon sink but also supports biodiversity and local communities, reduces erosion and flooding, and even protects the regional water cycle. In impoverished areas, climate-friendly improvements to agriculture and agroforestry can boost crop yields, incomes, education, and health. Considering these other benefits of a climate solution is another factor for operationalizing science for climate action.  

Optimize the Application

Successful operationalization of the science can provide a comprehensive inventory of actionable climate solutions and reveal where and when to deploy them. However, our ongoing failure to implement these solutions at the scope and scale needed to meet our climate goals indicates that we require a better approach to apply this knowledge on the ground. 

To boost and optimize the application of our actionable, science-based solutions, we need to look at the problem from a different perspective. We should start by asking, “Why have we made so little progress?”

In answering this question, we will identify the underlying socioeconomic systems and conditions impeding our climate efforts. We can then use this situational awareness to develop strategies to overcome existing obstacles, capitalize on newly revealed opportunities, and identify key intervention points where a modest action can have a disproportionately large impact. 

Certainly, there are two huge, systemic obstacles to climate action: (1) the perverse and ongoing market failure in which the harmful and costly impacts of greenhouse gas emissions – a side effect of economically valuable activities – fall on future generations and less developed countries; and (2) resistance to change, including both intentional political and corporate obstruction and general human behavior. While it’s important to support long-term strategies that address these problems, such as carbon pricing or strategic climate litigation, there are many other strategies to advance individual climate solutions that are more tractable and actionable today.

For example, replacing gas-powered passenger vehicles, which are responsible for 16% of total U.S. emissions, with electric vehicles is a high-priority climate solution. However, consumer uptake of EVs has been inhibited by high purchase costs, range anxiety, and the scarcity and uneven distribution of charging stations. Understanding these obstacles suggests various strategies to help unlock and accelerate EV adoption, such as making EVs cheaper, improving battery performance, and expanding the charging network. Alternatively, another strategy to encourage EVs would be to create conditions that make the manufacture, purchase, or use of gas-powered cars less appealing or more expensive. 

For any strategy to advance a particular climate solution, there are usually multiple levers that we can push. Think of levers as tactical interventions in the broader socioeconomic system designed to influence behavior or compel action by key actors, like governments, businesses, markets, or individuals. Levers can include, among other things, public policy or government regulation, new technology, a shift in markets or finance, new business norms and standards, or changes in social culture or behavior. 

To continue the EV example, in the U.S., the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act encourages EV purchases by lowering the cost barrier for new and used EVs with tax rebates. Public funding and venture capital are supporting university labs and companies developing battery technologies that increase capacity, reduce costs, and speed up charging. To disincentivize the production and use of gas-powered cars and trucks, California and several other states have established policies for stricter emissions standards and to ban future sales of new internal combustion engine-powered vehicles.  

Different climate solutions will be most responsive to different levers. For EVs, public policy and technological advances will likely accelerate adoption. To stop tropical deforestation – which is largely driven by agricultural expansion – regulatory, finance, and consumer demand levers can be pushed that shift corporate supply chains toward more sustainable soy, beef, and palm oil production. Alternatively, providing financial, legal, and technical support to empower Indigenous and local communities to secure and enforce land tenure rights is also an effective lever. Regardless of the climate solution, selecting and pushing the right levers is essential for optimizing its application.

Perhaps as important as identifying which lever to push is determining who does the pushing. The simple answer is everyone, but this ignores that different actors – individuals, journalists, philanthropists, investors, non-governmental organizations, businesses, or government decision-makers – are best positioned to push or influence different levers. Therefore, the best way to unlock and accelerate action for any particular climate solution is to match the right actors with the right levers. 

For example, because current funding for climate action is inadequate and, for some sectors, misaligned with the magnitude of the emissions problem, targeted deployment of public- and private-sector capital can be an effective lever. Here, philanthropists and investors can be critical players, providing early funding to derisk development and support testing of new innovations or to scale up projects that show promise. For other climate solutions like reducing food waste, where the lever is to change social behavior, NGOs, journalists, educators, and other public influencers can be the most impactful actors. 

Despite how much we scientists might like it to be, turning science into action is neither simple nor solitary. The path to action exists in – and, in fact, requires – a more complex ecosystem of actionable knowledge, levers for action, a diverse cast of actors, and an informed and thoughtful strategy to bring them all together.  

Whether you are trying to improve river management, as I was 25 years ago, or to stop climate change, there are always multiple levers we can choose to push that will work in different ways. And there are always other people and other systems involved that will affect and be affected by our choices. So let’s make the right ones.

Christina (Tina) Swanson, Ph.D., is an environmental scientist with a background in cross-disciplinary research, multi-faceted engagement at the interface of science and policy, and an enduring passion to turn science into action to solve environmental problems and benefit society.

This work was published under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. You are welcome to republish it following the license terms.