What snow on Kilimanjaro?

Let’s not kid ourselves. We are battling global warming here and there, but we are losing the war. We strive for clean environment and sustainability, but we are polluting at a fast rate. We listen to warnings, but we do not heed.

By all accounts, the special global warming report issued at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that was held in in October in Incheon, South Korea produced the most alarming evidence of horrific dangers ahead. Worst yet, we only have 12 years to fix this trend, or no snow on Kilimanjaro will be one of the least of destructions we will face.

The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research study by Anders Levermann illustrates that for every Celsius degree (1.8 Fahrenheit) of global temperature rise over the pre-industrial era, the sea level will rise for about 2.3 meters (7.5 feet). That math is not in our favor.

The Paris Agreement of 2015 does not suffice any longer. That accord aimed to keep the temperature rise under 2 Celsius, else the damage to the environment would likely be irreversible. The new evidence points to the fact that the increase really ought to be less than 1.5 Celsius. A frightening threshold as the current trajectory points to missing it. And, the globe has already been warmed by about 1 Celsius.

We can reverse this dreadful trend with determination. Politics gets in the way, no doubt. But, as the scientific evidence strikingly shows, we have no alternative, and must combat on behalf of our planet.

Reasons are many for how we got to this terrifying juncture, and we can debate that all day long until cows come home. But we are where we are, and we need to chart a path forward to get us out of this mess.

There is also enough blame to go around. Ranging from unapologetic abusers of the environment and their longtime denier accomplices, to those ambivalent to this predicament by shrugging their shoulders in nonchalant dismissal of caring, antagonists try often enough to outweigh protagonists, amongst them those opposing the Paris Agreement.

Approaching global warming as a “celebrity” cause has not produced the needed results. There have been numerous events, conferences, shows by iconic personalities, and more, to promote awareness that we are in a pickle. Sizable investments have also been deployed, particularly over the past decade, to combat climate change, which was all paved with good intentions. Some impact, but not an impactful bang, as the current scary data shows.

Instead, we ought to pursue a three-pronged approach: pathway forward, prioritizations of initiatives and clean-living promotion. We know the destination. But there is no consequential path created yet to get us there. What’s needed is a well-thought through, scientifically-validated roadmap that basically would chart the way out of the conundrum, keeping the rising temperatures in check.

To reduce concretely the harmful emissions over time, economic sectors must lower their polluting activities according not only to the rate that those sectors pollute, but also the feasibility and practicality of ways to do so. Looking for silver-bullet solutions to eliminate contributors to global warming will not be practical, yet do-nothing, even slow response, is also unacceptable. That’s the start of developing a roadmap that will be fair to all, but also holds everyone accountable.

All the initiatives on the path obviously cannot be undertaken simultaneously. Yet, we do have analytical methods (multi-attribute utility analysis) to prioritize initiatives and create a portfolio of undertakings that produces the best result. We can then evaluate the size of the needed investments, and also figure out what to do if the amount available for sustainability investments changes. That’s a difficult problem, but fortunately we have tools to develop the right solution.

Clean living is actually something that can bring together everyone on both sides of the global warming debate. We all want to live cleaner, use less nonrenewable energy and have a healthy environment. Whether it is simple recycling or adopting new technologies, opponents to clean living are rare. To trek along that path, our societal traits need to value simplicity and cleanness over clutter and impurity, and the national psyche must discourage grubby deeds.

Plato said, “The excessive increase of anything causes a reaction in the opposite direction.” Eliminating our excesses of polluting sources can contain global warming, and that’s good for all.

Jahan Alamzad is a management consultant. He lives in San Carlos and can be followed on Twitter @jahan_alamzad.