The international community stands at a critical juncture as the mechanisms designed to mitigate global warming face unprecedented scrutiny from scholars and policy experts who argue that three decades of diplomacy have failed to yield the necessary results. Jessica Green, a prominent researcher at the University of Toronto and author of the influential book Existential Politics: Why Global Climate Institutions Are Failing and How to Fix Them, has emerged as a leading voice calling for a fundamental "reckoning" in how the world approaches environmental preservation. Her thesis challenges the foundational pillars of the 2015 Paris Agreement and the annual United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties (COP), suggesting that the current focus on "managing tons"—a framework built on carbon pricing, cap-and-trade systems, and carbon offsets—is fundamentally ill-equipped to dismantle the political and economic structures that sustain the fossil fuel industry.
The Breakdown of the ‘Managing Tons’ Framework
For decades, the dominant economic logic in climate policy has centered on the internalisation of externalities through carbon pricing. The theory suggests that by placing a financial burden on carbon emissions, market forces will naturally gravitate toward cleaner energy alternatives. However, Green argues that this approach has become a "referendum on carbon pricing" rather than a genuine effort to reduce emissions. This narrow focus often alienates the general public, for whom the complexities of industrial carbon markets are both opaque and disconnected from daily economic realities.
Supporting data suggests that carbon pricing alone has struggled to achieve the scale of transformation required. According to the World Bank’s 2023 "State and Trends of Carbon Pricing" report, while approximately 23% of global greenhouse gas emissions are now covered by carbon taxes or emissions trading systems (ETS), the majority of these prices remain far below the levels recommended by the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices to meet the Paris Agreement goals. Furthermore, the volatility of these markets and the proliferation of carbon offsets—often criticized for lack of "additionality" and "permanence"—have allowed major emitters to maintain business-as-usual operations under the guise of carbon neutrality. Green notes that the complexity of these calculations provides constant incentives for stakeholders to "fudge the numbers," turning climate governance into an exercise in accounting rather than atmospheric science.
A Historical Chronology of Institutional Stagnation
To understand the current impasse, one must examine the trajectory of global climate governance since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The establishment of the UNFCCC was intended to provide a framework for stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations, yet the subsequent decades have been marked by a cycle of ambitious rhetoric followed by implementation failure.
- 1992: The UNFCCC is adopted, establishing the annual COP meetings.
- 1997: The Kyoto Protocol introduces legally binding emission reduction targets for developed nations. However, the United States never ratified the treaty, and its impact was limited by the exclusion of developing economies.
- 2005: The G7 first formally addresses the need to reduce fossil fuel subsidies, a goal that remains largely unfulfilled nearly 20 years later.
- 2011: Canada becomes the first nation to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, signaling a breakdown in international consensus.
- 2015: The Paris Agreement is hailed as a breakthrough, shifting toward "Nationally Determined Contributions" (NDCs).
- 2023-2024: Reports indicate that many nations are failing to meet their NDCs, and the world is on the verge of consistently overshooting the 1.5°C warming threshold.
Green posits that the Paris Agreement, while diplomatically sophisticated, fails to address the underlying domestic political issues regarding the distribution of wealth and the power of asset owners. The "legally binding" aspects of the agreement often pertain to the submission of reports rather than the achievement of the targets themselves, creating a system that Green describes as "collapsing under its own weight."
The Shift from ‘Low Politics’ to Economic Statecraft
One of the most significant shifts in the current climate landscape is the migration of environmental policy from the realm of "low politics"—historically managed by environment ministers with limited influence—to the center of national security and trade. Green observes that climate change is now inextricably linked to "high politics," involving the securing of critical minerals, the resilience of supply chains, and the execution of economic statecraft.
This transition is evidenced by major legislative shifts such as the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the European Green Deal, which utilize industrial policy and subsidies to foster domestic green technology sectors. Rather than relying on a global carbon price, these nations are increasingly using trade barriers and domestic incentives to navigate the energy transition. Green suggests that while this shift may not be the most "efficient" in a classical economic sense, it reflects a realistic acknowledgment that climate policy is a battle over the future of the global economy and the reorganization of world powers.
Defining Radical Pragmatism
In response to the failure of traditional institutions, Green advocates for a strategy she terms "radical pragmatism." This approach seeks to find a middle ground between the slow-moving incrementalism of current international law and the revolutionary calls for the immediate end of global capitalism. The "pragmatic" element acknowledges that existing institutions must be utilized and that there is no time to reinvent the global economic order from scratch. The "radical" element, however, demands getting to the root of the problem: the political entrenchment of fossil fuel capital.
Radical pragmatism involves three primary levers:
- Increasing the risk and cost of fossil fuel production: Moving beyond demand-side measures to directly limit the supply of oil, gas, and coal.
- Reducing the political power of asset owners: Addressing the lobbying and influence of the fossil fuel industry that prevents the implementation of more aggressive policies.
- Reconfiguring existing institutions: Rejiggering trade and financial regulations to favor decarbonization over capital preservation for high-carbon industries.
Green emphasizes that "it is not pragmatic to think of the end of capitalism as the solution to climate change… we don’t have time for that." Instead, the focus must be on reining in capital and removing the privileges and protections that the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed since the post-World War II era.
The Challenge of Residual Emissions and Carbon Removal
As the world approaches the 1.5°C limit, the conversation has increasingly turned toward carbon dioxide removal (CDR). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that some level of carbon removal will be "unavoidable" to counteract residual emissions from hard-to-abate sectors like heavy industry and aviation. In Canada alone, approximately 20% of current emissions are considered residual.
However, Green raises significant concerns regarding the governance of CDR technologies. There is a risk that the fossil fuel industry will co-opt carbon removal as a "false solution" to justify continued extraction. Green questions whether private capital, particularly from companies like Suncor or other major oil producers, should be the primary drivers of these technologies. She likens the situation to healthcare, where the profit motive can sometimes conflict with the provision of a public good. The fear is that geoengineering or carbon sequestration projects could be deployed in ways that benefit corporate interests at the expense of global ecological stability.
Public Disillusionment and the Path Forward
The failure of global climate governance has contributed to a growing sense of "existential dread" among the middle class in developed nations. As economic structures shift, concerns regarding pensions, real estate markets, and the viability of future generations have become intertwined with the climate crisis. Green argues that the current technical and alienating language of climate policy fails to "connect the dots" for regular people, leading to a sense of hopelessness.
Despite the systemic failures she identifies, Green finds some consolation in the non-linear nature of technological adoption and social change. While progress in international diplomacy may appear linear and slow, sociotechnical theories suggest that the energy transition will eventually reach "tipping points"—moments where technology adoption and social norms shift rapidly and irreversibly.
The "reckoning" Green calls for is ultimately a demand for honesty in policy. It is an admission that the "liberal fantasy" of market-led decarbonization has reached its limit and that the path forward requires a direct confrontation with the political and economic forces that benefit from the status quo. By focusing on the supply of fossil fuels and the power of those who own them, radical pragmatism offers a roadmap that is as much about political power as it is about atmospheric carbon. As the global community prepares for future COP meetings, the effectiveness of these gatherings will likely depend on their ability to move beyond "managing tons" and toward a genuine restructuring of the global energy economy.
