Given the constant flow of bad news around climate change – smashed heat records, shrinking polar ice, rampant wildfires, apocalyptic floods – you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s no cause for hope. But a new book by the head of the World Resources Institute (WRI) argues passionately for a more positive view.
Dasgupta, president and CEO of the US-based WRI, is far from evangelical about the global mission of green transition. His assessment of the state of play is rooted in realism – and, like many advocates for a sustainable world, he is disappointed with the pace of change so far.
But, he insists, that is no reason to give up. The book explains elegantly – drawing on some 60 real-world stories of success and more than 100 interviews with experts, leaders and change-makers – not just what’s holding things back but, most importantly, how to overcome those obstacles.
In an interview with Climate Home News before the book’s publication this week, the softly-spoken former head of infrastructure at the World Bank pointed to leaps forward in technology – from solar and wind power to greener cement and satellites that can monitor rainforest loss remotely – as the underlying enabler of climate progress. But he emphasised that technology alone will not be enough.
“We need to use technology as a starting point to orchestrate the change,” he explained. “We need to get the outcome we want that is not only good for climate, but good for people and nature at the same time.”
The top crude exporter is using its oil riches to position itself as a major player in clean energy supply chains. Investors are interested, but hurdles remain
Ethiopia’s logistics, infrastructure and climate diplomacy make it seem better placed to host the 2027 UN climate talks than its West African rival – for now
The Asian nation’s energy transition is entering a new phase, with soaring renewables reducing demand for fossil fuels, analysis shows
Focus on people – not carbon
A major failure of the climate movement so far, in Dasgupta’s view, is that it has focused too heavily on carbon – the damage it’s doing and how to reduce CO2 emissions – and not enough on people.
Unless voters understand that measures to tackle climate change will bring them benefits now rather than in a far distant future, they are unlikely to make green choices a priority, he argues – especially when those decisions come with an upfront cost such as replacing a gas boiler with a heat pump.
That’s why some governments, including in Europe, have run into trouble when trying to force low-carbon behaviour shifts. Dasgupta believes politicians have done a pretty bad job at telling citizens why it makes personal sense for them to switch to greener ways of living, working and doing business.
He noted that in 2024 – a historic year for elections, with about 70 countries holding polls – only one, the UK, saw strong campaigning on climate policies, with the centre-left Labour Party winning partly on a green ticket.
India-born Dasgupta, a trained architect who has many years’ experience of working on ways to make cities more sustainable, argues that climate policy experts need to offer politicians more help to demonstrate why it’s in the public interest to get behind climate action.
“I think for too long, the transition has been painted as about the sacrifices we need to do; don’t drive cars, take buses and [buy] heat pumps – but not the outcome that is there. That is clean air for our kids, abundant, affordable energy, food that doesn’t destroy nature, clean water,” he said.
Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute and author of “The New Global Possible – Rebuilding Optimism in the Age of Climate Crisis” (Photo: Beverlié Lord)
Ani Dasgupta, president and CEO of the World Resources Institute and author of “The New Global Possible – Rebuilding Optimism in the Age of Climate Crisis” (Photo: Beverlié Lord)
Hydrocarbons “everywhere”
Yet the question still begs itself: why – if the advantages seem obvious – has it been so hard to make these changes at the scale and pace required? The answer, according to Dasgupta, is that their proponents are running up against a model rooted in 200 years of prosperity fuelled by coal, oil and gas.
As a result, hydrocarbons “are everywhere in the economy”, even in many daily essentials like shampoo – and the incumbents who got rich from extracting and selling fossil fuels are fighting to preserve the status quo.
“We have to find a path for them to change. They’re not just going to go away. They’re very economically powerful, politically connected,” Dasgupta said.
Renewed business and political support for the prevailing high-carbon economic model has led to a pushback against climate action in some parts of the West, not least in the United States where the administration of climate change-sceptic Donald Trump wants to “drill, baby drill” and is pulling the country out of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Dasgupta doesn’t find this too surprising.
“I think this backlash was inevitable because when we signed the Paris Agreement, we thought we were signing a climate agreement. We didn’t realise we were signing onto a vast economic transition that we’re in the beginning of,” he said.
COP: “Imperfect but necessary”
The book does an efficient job at defending the UN climate process that yielded the Paris pact and its emblematic annual COP summits, which have come under attack in recent years for falling short of promises, getting bogged down in arcane arguments and turning into a travelling climate circus.
Dasgupta points to how – patchy as its implementation may be – action spurred by the Paris Agreement has brought down global warming predictions from around 4 degrees Celsius this century to 2.6C – and if all pledges made so far were to become a reality, even to 1.7C, within the promised range.
At the same time, he argues for making COPs more effective by changing decision-making from the current consensus-based model to one that that “gives every country a voice but not a veto”.
Cop21 president Laurent Fabius holds up the text of the Paris Agreement. (Photo: IISD/ENB/ Kiara Worth)
Cop21 president Laurent Fabius holds up the text of the Paris Agreement. (Photo: IISD/ENB/ Kiara Worth)
In addition, to give the Paris process more teeth, he recommends greater transparency on individual countries’ progress, which would help civil society and citizens hold governments to account, along with the ability for the five-year stocktake to offer “remedies and rigorous regimes for improvement”.
In the end, making the Paris Agreement – and the national climate plans (NDCs) that underpin it – work as intended will require “a systemwide economic transition” that can only be achieved by uniting all government ministries, businesses and financial institutions behind that mission, the book notes.
“COP is an imperfect but necessary instrument for mobilising global climate action, but the harsh reality is that our success currently depends on voluntary contributions to be implemented beyond it,” Dasgupta writes.
Win-win-win?
Making this happen means convincing the world outside of COPs it’s an endeavour worth signing up for. The sixth chapter of the book is dedicated to how a loose consortium of researchers, top-level officials and organisation such as WRI and the World Economic Forum embarked on a monumental mission to do that by shaping a positive narrative around the economics of a low-carbon transition.
One piece of number-crunching in particular captured imaginations in the climate community and beyond: if done right, investing in climate action could result in $26 trillion of economic benefits by 2030 compared with business as usual, the New Climate Economy (NCE) research programme calculated.
Has hard data like this worked to win hearts and minds? It depends on who you ask. According to the book, in a statement released ahead of COP27 in 2022, NCE commissioners Sharan Burrow, Nicolas Stern and Paul Polman described this figure and the work supporting it as “a breakthrough”, showing “once and for all that ambitious climate action is a win-win-win for the climate, people, and the economy”.
Sadly, that victory may not have been as decisive as they had hoped, as evidenced in today’s culture wars over the costs of net zero in the UK, the conspicuous absence of climate and nature from election campaigns, and the dash by many fossil-fuel and financial behemoths to row back on their emissions-cutting pledges.
Despite recent setbacks, Dasgupta puts his hope in two ways forward: a push to translate global climate goals into national-level transitions in sectors like energy and food; and a combination of government regulation and voluntary business action to keep the private sector moving in the right direction.
“I don’t think we have the luxury to be disappointed,” he said. “I think we know what [has] to be done, what needs to happen. We just have to get to work.”
Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has asked his government to draft by February guidelines for a national roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, an idea he championed during COP30.
In a directive issued on Monday, the Brazilian leader requested the ministries of finance, energy and environment, together with the chief of staff’s office, to come up with a proposal for a roadmap to a “just and planned energy transition” that would lead to the “gradual reduction of the country’s dependence on fossil fuels”.
The order also calls for the creation of financial mechanisms to support a roadmap, including an “Energy Transition Fund” that would be financed with government revenues from oil and gas exploration.
The guidelines, due in 60 days, will be delivered “as a priority” to Brazil’s National Energy Policy Council, which will use them to craft an official fossil fuel transition roadmap.
Government heads urged political unity on efforts to tackle climate change while criticising President Trump and others who are undermining that push
At the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, President Lula and Environment Minister Marina Silva called on countries to agree a process leading to an international roadmap for the transition away from fossil fuels, after Silva argued earlier in June that “the worst possible thing would be for us to not plan for this transition”.
Yet, to the disappointment of more than 80 countries, the proposal for a global roadmap did not make it into the final Belém agreement as other nations that are heavily reliant on fossil fuel production resisted the idea. Draft compromise language that would have offered countries support to produce national roadmaps was axed.
Brazil seeks to set an example
Instead, Brazil’s COP30 president said he would work with governments and industry on a voluntary initiative to produce such a roadmap by next year’s UN climate summit, while a group of some 25 countries backed a conference to discuss a just transition away from coal, oil and gas that will be hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands in April 2026.
Experts at Observatório do Clima, a network of 130 Brazilian climate NGOs, welcomed Lula’s subsequent order for a national roadmap and said in a statement it sends signals abroad that Brazil is “doing its homework”.
“President Lula seems to be taking the roadmap proposal seriously,” said Cláudio Angelo, international policy coordinator at Observatório do Clima. “If Brazil – a developing country and the world’s eighth-largest oil producer – demonstrates that it is willing to practice what it preaches, it becomes harder for other countries to allege difficulties.”
Brazil is one of a number of countries planning a major expansion of oil and gas extraction in the coming decade, according to the Production Gap report put together by think-tanks and NGOs. Much of the exploration is set to take place offshore near the Amazon basin, which is poised to become a new frontier for fossil fuel development.
Significant funding needed
Natalie Unterstell, president of the Brazilian climate nonprofit Talanoa Institute and a member of Lula’s Council for Sustainable Social Economic Development, welcomed the national roadmap proposal in a post on LinkedIn, but emphasised it must tackle Brazil’s goal of becoming the world’s fourth largest oil producer by 2030.
Another key question is whether the Energy Transition Fund it envisages will be large enough to catalyse a real shift over to clean energy, she added. “Small and fragmented tools won’t move the dial,” she wrote.
Some Brazilian states have tested a model similar to the proposal for a national Energy Transition Fund. In the oil-producing state of Espirito Santo, for example, a percentage of the state government’s oil revenues go to a sovereign fund that invests in renewable energy, energy efficiency projects and substitution of fossil fuels with less polluting alternatives.
Andreas Sieber, associate director for policy at campaign group 350.org, said a meaningful roadmap for Brazil would need to secure “adequate, fair and transparent financing to make the transition real on the ground”.
He also called for “a truly participatory process – involving scientists, civil society, workers whose livelihoods are at stake, and frontline and traditional communities whose rights must be upheld – while ensuring that those with vested fossil fuel interests do not shape the outcome”.
In a letter to Congress, the groups said data center development raises concerns about rising energy costs, water use and climate impacts. Many communities are fighting back.
By Lauren Dalban
More than 200 environmental organizations signed a letter to Congress supporting a national moratorium on the approval and construction of new data centers. The letter, sent Monday, highlights these centers’ impacts on water resources, electricity rates and greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate change is often discussed in global terms, such as the melting of ice caps, rising oceans, and the spread of wildfires. However, the truth is that it begins at home. Every single-family household, whether in the bustle of Toronto, the suburbs of Vancouver, a farming community on the Prairies, or a small northern town, is an active participant in shaping the climate future. The actions we take or fail to take are not isolated. They accumulate, reverberate, and shape the quality of life our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will inherit.
The Myth of Insignificance
Many households believe their contribution is too small to matter. “What difference does it make if I leave the lights on, drive everywhere, or throw food scraps in the garbage? I’m just one family.” But this myth of insignificance is one of the greatest dangers of our time. Each discarded plastic bottle, each unnecessary car trip, each bag of wasted food does not disappear. It piles up, becoming part of the global crisis of climate change. What feels like a private choice is, in reality, a public consequence.
Inaction as a Legacy
Imagine a Canadian family that chooses not to recycle, not to conserve, not to shift their habits. For a year, the consequences may feel invisible. But roll the clock forward. By 2050, their grandchildren in Toronto will wake up to summers filled with weeks-long heat advisories. Schoolyards and parks sit empty in July because it is too dangerous for children to play outdoors. Ontario’s hydro grid is stretched thin due to millions of air conditioners running simultaneously, leading to rolling blackouts. Food prices have doubled as droughts in the Prairies devastate crops, and supply chains falter. Sound familiar? Its already happening across Canada!
Meanwhile, their cousins in Prince Edward Island are coping with rising seas. Entire communities along the coast are gone, washed away by storm surges that happen with increasing frequency. Families that lived by the water for generations have been forced inland, their ancestral homes now threatened by sea rise. This is not exaggeration, climate science paints a stark and very real picture of future coastal realities.
By 2075, their great-grandchildren in northern communities will live with constant water restrictions, as the thawing of permafrost has altered rivers and lakes. Traditional hunting grounds are unsafe because the ice forms too late and melts too soon. Invasive pests and fire scar forests that once provided medicine and food. The Earth around them bears the weight of countless small inactions compounded across time. And when they look back, they see a generation that knew better but refused to change.
Action as a Legacy
Now imagine another Canadian family. They compost, recycle, conserve, and teach their children that every small act of stewardship makes a difference. For a year, the impact may seem modest. But roll the clock forward.
By 2050, their grandchildren in Winnipeg will be growing vegetables in backyard and community gardens, nourished by decades of composting. Energy bills are lower because their homes are equipped with rooftop solar panels and properly insulated to conserve heat in winter and cool in summer. Children still play outside freely because air quality warnings are rare.
Out east, their relatives in Halifax have adapted coastal homes to utilize renewable energy micro-grids and employ storm-resilient design. They continue to live by the ocean, harvesting from healthier waters thanks to decades of careful stewardship and waste reduction. By 2075, their great-grandchildren in northern Ontario communities thrive in local economies powered by clean energy.
Rivers run clearer because they are not treated as dumping grounds. Indigenous and non-Indigenous households work together in climate-adaptive food systems, including greenhouses, hydroponics, and land-based harvesting, to ensure food security without overburdening ecosystems. This family’s small actions, multiplied over decades, became part of a collective movement toward renewal.
The Full Cycle of Consequence
Every household action has a cycle. Throwing out food waste creates methane gas, which accelerates global warming, intensifying storms that flood homes, including those in Montreal, Calgary, and Fredericton. Driving when public transit is available contributes to emissions, which in turn lead to hotter summers in Ottawa, resulting in higher cooling costs, increased strain on the grid, and potentially blackouts during heatwaves. Buying fast fashion creates textile waste that ends up in Canadian landfills, similar to those outside Vancouver or Edmonton, polluting soils and waterways long after today’s wearers are gone.
The cycle is relentless, and it all begins with decisions made in the privacy of the household. What we must recognize is that there is no neutral choice. Every action either adds to the problem or contributes to the solution.
Looking Generations Ahead
The question is not whether a single-family household can “solve” climate change. It cannot. The question is: will this household’s actions add to the burden or lighten it? Will future children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren wake each morning in a Canada that is habitable and thriving, or one that is hostile and diminished?
To answer this question, every family must reflect on what kind of ancestors they want to be remembered as. Because, in truth, the climate crisis is not just about us; it is about them.
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago
Climate Change2 years ago
Carbon Footprint2 years ago