Sustainability

Sustainability in the transatlantic relationship must have a twin focus: consumption and equity. The level and means by which people in the U.S. and Europe consume products is untenable.  States on both sides of the Atlantic must change their consumption habits. Even those who are aware of global environmental challenges still tend to be heavy consumers. At the same time, any transition to a more sustainable economy must be a just transition, leaving no one behind. If some social groups or regions feel that the response to climate change runs against their economic interests and may further increase social inequality, they will be more likely to resist even much-needed reforms, one participant argued. As we introduce dramatic changes to people’s everyday life, they need to be convinced that a more sustainable lifestyle may be equally satisfying. 

Communication may be key to convincing the transatlantic public of the importance of promoting sustainability. Both sides of the Atlantic need to explain the need to focus on climate change mitigations and what benefits they may bring. One must never forget that sustainability is not a self-evident issue. European and American societies are still very divided on the issue of climate change. In the U.S., over 20% of Republicans think that climate change has already begun, compared to around 80% of Democrats. Such a politicized problem needs to be communicated in a simplified, accessible manner. 

While modifying consumption habits and narratives around climate change is important, decisions made at high levels in corporations are much more consequential, others added. The benefits of top-down versus bottom-up approaches were debated; one participant argued that only changes in supply chains and well-working economies can drive sustainability forward, while others noted that consumers’ demand has tremendous influence on supply chains. Top-down approaches like state regulations may inadvertently or intentionally slow down the transition to a more sustainable economy. 

The discussion also considered business versus people-led approaches to environmental sustainability and sustainable economy. In the U.S., pressure on companies to come up with new, more sustainable solutions is allegedly weaker than in Europe. One participant observed that “in the EU, the force of the people on the companies is much larger than in the United States.” Big business should not necessarily be seen as opposed to any measures promoting greater sustainability, however. “There are big insurance companies,” one person pointed out, “which foot the bill every time there’s a big flood or natural disaster” and are therefore interested in creating a more sustainable economy. In the struggle for sustainability, the private sector should be viewed as a partner, not a demonized opponent. Here, as in other aspects of the whole problem, messaging is extremely important. 

Divisions within Europe and the U.S.  make transatlantic cooperation challenging. Some states in the U.S., like California and Massachusetts, are at the forefront of the fight for a more sustainable economy, while others continue to promote unsustainable practices and policies. An opportunity to improve transatlantic cooperation on sustainability is to adopt common standards on how sustainability is measured. Currently, there are many ways of assessing these issues, each of which may imply different solutions. “These metrics need to be standardized and thus allow greater collaboration across the transatlantic alliance,” said a participant. 

To achieve any progress on climate change, however, we need to acknowledge that each country must be willing to make real sacrifices in their own individual fields and specialties.  “We’re talking about lifestyle changes, and we need to be honest with ourselves,” argued a NextGen member. “It’s irresponsible to hope for some technological solutions to save us somewhere in the future. We have to accept responsibility.”

Climate change solutions are traditionally framed in technological terms—technology will undoubtedly be an essential part of the solution, as renewable energy sources like hydropower, solar and wind, and carbon capture projects promise critical advancements for carbon neutrality. However, although technological advancement is a fundamental component of climate change mitigation, a key lesson from the past year’s response to COVID-19 is that implementing adaptation and mitigation measures to climate change is more about politics and social engagement than science and technology. 

The COVID-19 crisis management has shown how quickly governments and citizens can respond to an emergency. The pandemic has forced citizens worldwide to abruptly change their lifestyles and pause carbon-intensive activities like flying or driving, something unimaginable in February 2020. The severity of both dangers—COVID-19 and climate change—is unambiguous, yet the political and social reactions to each differ significantly. As devastating as this pandemic is, data seems to indicate that the effects of climate change will be worse. For example, according to the WHO, as of mid-July 2021 there have been 4 million deaths due to COVID-19[1]. But a 20-year study estimates that more than 5 million people die each year globally because of excessively hot or cold conditions, and heat-related deaths are rising[2]. Despite these risks, however, necessary actions have not been taken to uphold the Paris Agreement's goal of a 1.5-degree Celsius temperature increase limit. The world faces an existential challenge. The stakes could not be higher, but most political leaders still talk in aspirations and fail to take the necessary action. The climate crisis is a crisis in leadership.

The impact of climate change has already achieved fearful proportions. In June 2021, hundreds of North Americans died of heat-related illness during the extreme heatwave and wildfires that hit United States and Canada[3]. Also, that summer, heavy rains and floods wreaked havoc in central Europe, with more than 100 dead in Germany and scores left unaccounted. Southern Madagascar experienced the worst drought in decades, with the World Food Program warning that 1.14 million people are food-insecure and 400,000 people are headed toward starvation[4]. These examples are not unique. Local apocalypses will not stop and will continue disrupting communities and ruining livelihoods around the world. We need new public narratives around sustainability and progress capable of convincing and rapidly mobilising citizens toward net-zero emissions by mid-century. Public opinion must understand that we live in a permanent climate emergency. And, even if most future carbon emissions will come from emerging economies, Europe and the United States should drive this climate leadership transformation.

We cannot forget that the United States, Germany, United Kingdom, and France are among the countries that have the highest cumulative CO2 emissions since 1750[5]. As such, there is a moral imperative to lead on climate solutions.

The United States and Europe are geopolitically positioned to assume climate leadership.  Climate change is a global problem that requires a large, coordinated, fast and solidary action. This crisis is going to cost everyone, everywhere, though experts and world leaders have long warned that the costs are likely to be greater for developing countries than rich ones[6]. In an increasingly divided world, multilateralism is essential.  The transatlantic example can inspire and mobilize global action against climate change within the framework of our shared history and values like human dignity, individual rights, and democratic principles. Finally, a majority of American[7] and European citizens[8] express concern about climate change, support a wide range of actions to tackle it, and consider climate action should be among their government priorities.