To tackle the heat, we need fewer (but more effective) rules and more research

In his article on Monday, Enrico Bucci describes the potential and limitations of climate adaptation with great clarity. Particular emphasis is placed on the speed of change: will our ingenuity be able to keep pace with the impacts? In this regard, it is worth noting that, so far, it is humankind that holds the upper hand. Our emissions have caused the planet’s temperature to rise and have made certain extreme events more frequent. But, at the same time, we have built societies that are far more resilient than those of the past. Most people are probably unaware of this, but mortality from weather-related disasters is now far lower than it was fifty or a hundred years ago. This is strongly correlated with income: rich countries are – as with earthquakes – on average much safer than poor ones, but the gap between the two groups has narrowed over time. And, if we consider the strictly economic aspect, we know that from the 1990s to the present day, the amount of direct damage caused by disasters relative to GDP (the equivalent of the debt-to-GDP ratio) has remained unchanged, at around 0.2 per cent. Of this figure, a portion – likely a minority – can be attributed to climate change. A recent scientific article shows that, thanks to adaptation policies, both mortality rates (amounting to 1 in 10 million people in the decade 2011–2020) and the economic impact of floods in the EU have been significantly reduced between 1950 and 2020.

Climate change is significant for our well-being, but economic growth and the advancement of scientific knowledge have been incomparably more so. Of course, past performance is not indicative of future results and, as the experts tell us, change is a non-linear phenomenon. On the other hand, the same scientists tell us that the worst-case scenarios which, until recently (and still today for some), were presented as the outcome of ‘business as usual’ are now highly unlikely. As time goes on, reality is drifting further and further away from both the ‘deniers’ and the ‘doomsayers’.

However confident we may be in our ability to adapt, putting all our eggs in this basket is not the best option. We also need to reduce emissions. And, as Bucci writes, the best course of action in the medium to long term is to make decarbonised energy more cost-effective than that produced from fossil fuels and to lower the costs of CO₂ capture. Investing more in basic research is wise, whilst recognising that the greatest benefits will be for those who come after us and who, in any case, will inherit a far better world than the one we received.

Many of the policies adopted by the EU, however, are ill-advised because, amidst a tangle of increasingly detailed rules, they ignore the cost implications and, as a result, make the necessary process of building consensus far more problematic.

Putting a price on carbon, whilst channelling the revenue to the poorest people and/or using it to reduce emissions at much lower cost outside the EU, would be the most efficient and fairest policy. We can understand this clearly by looking at petrol. Bucci writes that: “One litre of petrol not burnt avoids the emissions associated with that litre.” This, however, is only one side of the coin. The other, which almost always goes unnoticed, is that for every litre of petrol not burnt, the state loses around one euro, which equates to €400 for every tonne of CO₂ not emitted. It is a terrible deal because, for a fraction of that amount (without even taking into account other forms of car taxation), one could eliminate an identical tonne of carbon dioxide, thereby making the transport sector carbon-neutral with immediate effect. Equally, the substantial resources that the EU intends to allocate to rail investments – which will have no appreciable effect on decarbonisation – are a poor investment. Fewer railway sleepers, fewer (and better) regulations, and more research is the formula to follow.