In Opposition to Climate Timelines and Mandates

What seems like a more attainable goal – committing to run or walk 1,000 miles in two years or committing to ten miles next week?

I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of you said that covering a total of ten miles next week feels more achievable.

Why? Well, a lot can happen in two years, and 1,000 miles is, after all, a loooong way to walk or run. Ten miles next week is only 1.4 miles per day or 2.5 miles every other day.

There’s a reason why terms and phrases like “baby steps” and “one day at a time” and “progress, not perfection” are in our lexicon. Envisaging steps along a path are much easier to embrace than staring down a lofty end goal.

It’s like the old joke about how to eat an elephant – one bite at a time.

The goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change are no different. Current projections are that the entire world must cut emissions by 28% by 2030 to stay on track for limiting the average temperature increase to 2.0 degrees Celsius or 42% for the more aggressive 1.5-degree goal.

Global greenhouse gas emissions increased by 1.2% from 2021 to 2022. They grew by another 1.1% in 2023. Why aren’t we looking at smaller, incremental changes rather than a mandate that looks completely unachievable from where we currently sit?

There is no justification for the timelines associated with climate mandates. Companies and individuals simply aren’t capable of making the kind of decisions necessary to eat an entire elephant at once.

There’s a better way. At Tilt Global, we empower change by helping clients make better, more achievable decisions in the face of a fast-evolving world. Talk to us to find out how we can put your company on the path to change.