A Climate Action Innovation Zone will take place at the COP28 in November-December 2023. It will be a “multifaceted” hub for “cross-sector collaboration.” Innovation is all around, and it is one of the key words of the debate on climate warming. Decision-makers, journalists, and businesspeople laud innovation to leverage the advent of sustainable development. 

Innovation and Technology

Between the publication of the Brundtland report in 1987, laying the foundations of sustainability (not compromising the needs of the future generations), and the public debate triggered by Al Gore (An Inconvenient Truth) at the turn of the century, industrial ecology emerged. Engineers wanted to bring a pragmatic response to identified environmental issues, from pollution to the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). In the perception of public opinion, the solutions were within reach. This belief that inventions, namely technological revolutions, will compensate for the damage done remains still. Innovation could be the daughter of progress, a Western concept implying that tomorrow will be better than today. Over time, technological progress – and innovations – could, for instance, reduce energy consumption. The radical transformation of cars into viable and feasible fuel-efficient vehicles in the last four decades is the best illustration.

In the National Determined Contribution (NDC),[1] most of the countries identify technological innovation as a key enabler of the green transition. The UAE has gone further with innovation as a driver of its development – an ambitious vision that combines technology with innovation. The authorities have emphasized that they are keen to partner with other stakeholders to share best practices, technologies, and innovations. The two best examples are cloud seeding and agriculture. In 2018, at the COP26 in Glasgow, USD 4 billion of investments were announced in innovative techniques such as cloud seeding. Innovation in agritech drove the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM for Climate),[2] a multi-country commitment to increasing innovation in the agricultural sector. In a nutshell, the UAE has accumulated a portfolio of “clean tech innovations.”

Despite the goodwill of governments and stakeholders, relying solely on technologies, including new ones in the form of innovation, cannot fix the main environmental issues. As far as the scientific domain is concerned, innovation consists mostly of the elaboration of an existing product. Nevertheless, in economy, it extends to new processes, organizations, and markets.  

Innovation, a Business Cluster

The private sector faces a dilemma. It needs permanent expansion to generate profits. However, this process has globally been based on exploiting fossil fuels since the second industrialization in the 20th century, and on the perceived unlimited or boundless availability of raw materials generating a culture of overconsumption. Unlimited growth associated with overconsumption has led to global warming and the sixth mass extinction (or Holocene extinction). To overcome the contradiction between exploitation and conservation, companies have used innovation in their discourse and practices. Yet, what does it mean in reality? 

In the banking sector, for instance, banks need to innovate by launching new products to remain competitive in the market. A pioneer bank, like any company, always wants to be ahead of its competitors. Now, with sustainability, it means that it should not compromise the wellbeing of future generations. Edward Freedman, in 1984, was the first to formulate the concept of stakeholders, a third-party which would be affected or would affect the banks because of their decisions. All stakeholders working against climate warming should, therefore, be heard. Contrary to this contemporary understanding and global commercial movement, in July 2022, Stuart Kirk, global head of responsible investment at HSBC gave a presentation at a conference on why investors should not worry about the climate risk. While the employee consequently resigned from HSBC, the affair generated an international outcry. Stuart Kirk ultimately paid for honestly expressing what his peers in his sector think. His argument was that despite the first tangible evidence of global warming with floods and wildfires, the most dramatic effects will be recorded in 20-30 years. From a risk-analysis point of view, the finance person might be right, there is no need to worry or to change now. We’ll see in 20 years. 

The current fear that coastal cities like Miami – or Dubai – are under serious threat of rising sea levels has generated innovative approaches to brace for this kind of imminent impact. Recent research on climate change, as well as the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have been summarily dismissed by political and commercial bodies whose investments collide with global sustainability efforts. This trend somewhat echoes the post-1973 oil-shock discourse. In the West, politicians are reassuring: scientists will find a substitute for oil, and everything will be fine. Embracing back then the same notion of “we’ll see in 20 years.” Yet, half a century after 1973, there is still no efficient substitute for oil and gas. The Rio Earth Summit highlighted it in 1992, and the scientific community since then confirmed the degradation of the environment without short-term solutions. No new technologies, no invention will turn the tide; they will at best mitigate the effects of Global warming. 

Sometimes, we may also wonder if rhetorical stances on innovation and sustainability are not a way to downplay the business community’s responsibility in environmental degradation. Innovation is first and foremost understood as a tool to improve performance. The objective is not sustainable development along the SDG guidelines per se, but to keep on generating profits and/or to maintain market shares, rather thanmitigation of global warming; in one word, competitiveness, for instance, with the photovoltaic systems. 

Is Innovation Desirable for the Environment?

For the business sector, in the (post-)industrialized world, innovation is conceived as the basis for a competitive economy. New products, organizations, and new companies (startups) maintain the spirit of innovation. It even becomes a driver in a sustainable economy, a new economic field with immense financial potential. The green transition is estimated at 2 to 4% of the global GDP, in the same range as military expenditures and, therefore, an attractive field for investors. Here too, the UAE have been seen as a proactive innovation supporter but in cleantech innovation and nature-based solutions. Indeed, innovation, an avatar of the progress ideology, should prevail as long as it’s morally acceptable, for instance, if extraction of rare earth elements causes no pollution in developing countries or in the maritime domain. 

That said, long-term consequences of innovations could be detrimental to the environment and public health. Commercial agriculture with the spread of mechanization, the use of pesticides, and agricultural inputs sometimes affect public health either directly through ingestion or indirectly by polluting water sources. Glyphosate (Roundup) has been put under the spotlight because of its potential damage to public health. Other mainstays of modern conveniences are endocrine disruptors, perfluoro alkylated substances (PFAS)…etc. Yet, these chemical innovations have not only become essential for modern lifestyles, but also generate economic growth, maintain market shares and profits. Harmful as they may be, these innovations are representative of the essential building blocks of the economic viability of modern states and economies. Without them, businesses cannot compete either locally or globally. 

Since the 1950s, the moral and ethical responsibilities of business towards society have been discussed. After corporate social responsibility, corporate sustainability shows that there is a responsibility towards society. In the European Union, for instance – a very pro-business regional organization – companies are held responsible for their impact on society, meaning on people’s lives and the environment. 

From a consumer’s point of view, innovation has magic virtues. It sustains the belief that the rich, be they the wealthy populations of the industrialized countries or the upper classes of the developing countries, will maintain their lifestyle without moving out of their comfort zone. Billions of dollars are at stake. For instance, should car makers stop the production of combustion engines? Instilling the idea that electric cars could replace them would possibly be a business opportunity, but also an illusion. It might maintain economic activity but with no environmental gains. As the green motor industry relies more on lithium for car batteries, the fact that there are not enough resources in the world to expect such a universal change, and not without harming environments and communities, has been downplayed considerably to support the surge in production. Depletion of rare earths, as well as pollution in the extraction sites, are significant side effects of the green movement in the car industry. Therefore, reducing the use of individual cars should be the key objective -- all cars. The same could be said regarding tourism. With a high impact on carbon emissions (7 % of the total), aviation should reduce its activity. Downgrading mobility – giving preference to public transport (train/metro/buses) over individual cars, except for carpooling – is the fastest way to reduce carbon emissions. 

There is no need for innovation to implement such policies; indeed, the only change, or innovation, required is a lifestyle change, far less costly to the individual yet far less profitable for many markets. Reducing meat consumption is another matter of lifestyle and profits: reduction would also have an impact on carbon emissions, yet no innovation could reduce the carbon footprint of commercial agriculture. However, policies which crack down on overconsumption are not likely to be popular in corporate sectors and, arguably, in political circles. In fact, such requirements in lifestyle change may equally not be popular amongst the various levels of all society and may antagonize the public against the policymakers. Changing our habits implies changing the system. While innovation is a worthwhile means of combating climate change and global warming, it has serious limits and consequences. Lifestyle change may not be a popular direction in pursuing the same end, but it is worth the attention.