Global efforts to combat climate change are largely focused on decarbonization. Although this approach is essential in the long term, it often obscures equally urgent problems: diffuse chemical pollution, the degradation of biodiversity and their disastrous effects on human health. These threats are short-term dangers that, if left unaddressed, will jeopardize human and ecological survival in many regions of the globe.
This excessive approach to decarbonization is not trivial. It is closely linked to the financial interests that arise from carbon monetization, technological investments, and the expansion of banking and financial markets. Meanwhile, actions to limit chemical pollution, which affects large chemical and agri-food companies, and to regenerate ecosystems, are marginalized because they offer a limited financial return on investment (ROI) in the short term. However, the real benefits for society and nature would be much more significant in the long term if these actions were financed.
I. Carbon monetization: a financial profit for the banking and financial systems
- A juicy market for large technology and banking companies
The establishment of carbon pricing systems, such as carbon credit markets, has opened up massive opportunities for financial institutions. These markets allow companies to buy and sell carbon credits, creating a global market estimated at $50 billion by 2022, with strong growth predicted.
. This directly benefits large banks and asset managers, who see these mechanisms as a new area of investment.
- Technological flight as a preferred response
Decarbonization technologies, such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), renewable energy and electric vehicles, are benefiting from a considerable influx of capital. Between 2011 and 2021, average annual financing for decarbonization technologies reached USD 480 billion
. However, these technologies are complex, expensive and require long-term investments, often financed by debt, which further fuels the banking and financial circuits.
II. The urgency of chemical pollution and ecological degradation
- Chemical pollution: an immediate danger for health and biodiversity
As the world focuses on decarbonization, diffuse chemical pollution continues to harm biodiversity and human health. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that exposure to pesticides causes more than 200,000 deaths each year
. These chemicals contaminate soil, water and air, and the impacts on biodiversity are devastating: the disappearance of pollinators, the impoverishment of soils, and the disruption of food chains.
- The cost of inaction: an economic and health time bomb
Chemical pollution and the destruction of ecosystems will have disastrous economic consequences if they are not contained. The United Nations’ Global Assessment Report estimates that biodiversity loss could lead to a loss of 10% of global GDP by 2050 if ecosystems are not restored
. Additionally, agricultural land degradation could reduce global food production by 30%, exacerbating hunger and social instability in many regions.
III. Overinvestment in decarbonization: a profound error
- A limited return on investment for future generations
Although decarbonization technologies are crucial to limiting global warming in the long term, their short-term impact remains limited. According to the IPCC, even if carbon emissions were stopped today, the effects on the climate would only be visible after several decades
. As a result, investments in these technologies, which will only produce long-term results, do not address the immediate ecological and health crises.
- Why is chemical pollution not a priority?
Chemical and agri-food companies, which derive massive profits from the use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers and plastics, have a direct interest in slowing down any legislation aimed at reducing this pollution. Investing in the transition to regenerative agriculture and ecosystem regeneration has a lower financial ROI and high upfront costs. This goes against the short-term financial logic that governs the markets.
IV. Solution: Redirect profits towards ecological regeneration
- Measurable benefits for health and ecosystems
Investing in the reduction of chemical pollution and the regeneration of ecosystems would offer significant social and economic benefits. For example, transitioning to chemical-free agriculture would reduce public health costs associated with pesticide exposure and improve food security, particularly in developing countries. The savings on healthcare costs could amount to several billion dollars per year.
- Benefits for biodiversity and adaptation to climate change
Restoring ecosystems would strengthen the resilience of societies in the face of climate disasters. Studies show that every dollar invested in forest regeneration can generate up to USD 30 in benefits in terms of ecosystem services (carbon capture, flood prevention, etc.)
. Additionally, restoring degraded agricultural land could sustainably increase global food production, while reducing the impacts of droughts and floods.
- Redirect financial capital towards ecology
It is possible to create innovative financial mechanisms that would encourage investors to favor ecological regeneration projects. For example, business models based on natural capitalization could be developed, with tax incentives for companies that restore land or reduce their chemical emissions. It is also crucial to redirect subsidies from fossil fuels and harmful agricultural practices to restoration and sustainable agriculture projects.
Conclusion Overinvestment in decarbonization to the detriment of immediate ecological and health actions is a strategic error motivated by financial interests. To guarantee a sustainable future, it is imperative to redirect funding towards the regeneration of ecosystems, the reduction of chemical pollution and the adaptation of human societies to short-term environmental crises. The long-term benefits of
