What will come of the array of ambitious (and not-so-ambitious) targets announced by world leaders at President Joe Biden’s climate summit?

It’s tempting to think, “Not enough.” Talk is cheap; actions are expensive. About a third of all the greenhouse emissions from human activities in history have happened since 1997, when world leaders adopted the Kyoto Protocol with an ambition of limiting such pollution. In the words of activist Greta Thunberg to a U.S. congressional committee Thursday, “We’re not so naive that we believe that things will be solved by countries and companies making vague, distant, insufficient targets.”

Vague, distant and insufficient aren’t the only way of setting targets, though. Indeed, there’s ample evidence that the opposite type of goal-setting — specific, time-constrained and challenging — is remarkably effective.

The bigger risk isn’t that world leaders fall short of the objectives they’ve set. Instead, it’s that they limit the scope of their ambitions out of a misplaced sense of self-doubt.

One way of expressing that idea is the slogan that leftist students scrawled on a Parisian wall during protests in May 1968: “Soyez realistes, demandez l’impossible,” or “Be realistic, demand the impossible.” The more influential version was laid out at almost exactly the same time in a psychological paper by an American devotee of Ayn Rand, Edwin A. Locke, under the dry title, “Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives.”

Locke’s key insight was that difficult targets don’t make achievement less likely. Indeed, in contrast to earlier theorists who had concluded that achievement drops off when people are over-ambitious, Locke argued that “the harder the goal, the higher the performance.” Except in rare cases where an aim is physically impossible or motivation is weak, people are more likely to hit their goals when they push them to the limits than when they rein in for fear of failure.

That theory has spawned an entire literature in the field of management — but it has less-discussed relevance to public policy, too. After all, setting goals that are specific, time-constrained and challenging is precisely what world leaders have been doing in relation to climate.

It’s not always easy for politicians to make these sorts of credible commitments. Despite Biden’s promise to cut emissions in 2030 to half of 2005’s levels, the U.S. executive branch is notoriously constrained in its ability to bring about change.

Under the Obama administration, a bill to set up an emissions trading system similar to the one currently generating record carbon prices in Europe was passed by the House of Representatives but never brought to the Senate. The Clean Power Plan — an attempt to regulate carbon pollution from electricity generation without going through Congress — was blocked in a 5-4 Supreme Court vote.

There are similar institutional blocks in China, which overtook the U.S. as the world’s biggest emitter in 2005. For all the clarity of President Xi Jinping’s promise to peak emissions this decade and reduce them to net zero by 2060, it’s not hard to discern the muffled sound of a struggle with lower-level provincial officials who remain addicted to a carbon-intensive development model.

In January, an audit body took the country’s National Energy Administration to task for failing to restrain planet-breaking coal power development plans. The crabwise progress of Xi’s own commitments — finally agreeing to a formal reduction in coal consumption last week after months of soft-pedaling the renewables build-out needed to make it happen — is another clue to the surprising limits on his personal power in this arena.

Still, the history of climate agreements suggests the world is ultimately more amenable to human goal-setting than we like to think. If the Kyoto Protocol was a failure, it wasn’t because the 37 nations involved ignored their promises en masse. Indeed, they far outstripped their commitment to a modest 5 percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, reaching a 22.6 percent drop by 2012.

The bigger problem was that numerous countries — including many of the world’s biggest emitters — didn’t sign up in the first place.

The broader range of targets now being set suggests a more promising future. They have intrinsic value, too, because a declared ambition by its nature increases the scope of what’s possible.

Were it not for the first wave of feed-in tariffs and renewable portfolio standards in the early 2000s encouraging more wind and solar generation — policies that seemed unlikely to achieve much at the time — it’s probable we’d never have seen the headlong drops in prices that are now causing renewables to drive fossil fuels from the power sector. If a kooky tech investor in 2006 hadn’t cast his small-volume electric sportscar as the first step in destroying the “mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy,” would Volkswagen AG now be planning to stop developing petrol and diesel cars 20 years later?

The boldest ambitions aren’t always achieved, and the future of decarbonization may be as littered with broken promises and missed commitments as the past has been. Still, the only goal you’re certain to miss is the one you never shoot for.

David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering commodities, as well as industrial and consumer companies. He has been a reporter for Bloomberg News, Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and the Guardian.

(4) comments


Why rely on world leaders? Human population growth is the major cause at least for human induced climate change (and other environmental issues that adversely impact human health, other species health and the environment). More people need to take steps to reduce their adverse environmental footprint, specially before they increase it by having children. Why do we always have to wait for governments to take action?

"Talk is cheap; actions are expensive." This is not always the case. Investing in solar and geothermal, while they may have somewhat high initial costs, are good investments. If done when a house is built, the costs can be rolled into the mortgage and at current mortgage rates, the homeowner would actually experience a net positive cash flow from day one. People claim they don't want to add solar or geothermal because they may not live in the house long enough to realize the complete return on investment. Well if everyone were to install solar and/or geothermal, that wouldn't be an issue because you'd be moving from one residence that has solar and geothermal to another one that has solar and geothermal, so it's a poor argument to not install those technologies.


Just remember, limit yourselves to one hamburger a month and 4 pounds of red meat a year. That will save the Planet from Climate Change!! And in addition, don’t give the unaccompanied minors at the Border a copy of VP Harris’s book at the taxpayers expense. Right QAnon??😂🤣


It is too hard to save humanity.


Anyone who deeply considers this topic is terrified to contemplate what dealing with it realistically requires. There aren’t many issues people literally hope to die and leave behind them as their solution.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Already a member?

Login Now
Click Here!

Currently a News-Post subscriber?

Activate your membership at no additional charge.
Click Here!

Need more information?

Learn about the benefits of membership.
Click Here!

Ready to join?

Choose the membership plan that fits your needs.
Click Here!