Politics and global leadership can of course make a huge difference. On a positive note the Pope’s acknowledgement that “human-induced climate change is a scientific reality and its decisive mitigation is a moral and religious imperative for humanity” will change lives as does the work of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. This however is countered by lack of political action, which, some suggest, is often too driven by expediency to be able to drive change. Think of “the steady backtracking of the United Kingdom’s present government on climate policies and the continued intransigence of the Republican Party in the United States, which stands alone in the world in failing to acknowledge even that human-caused climate change is a problem.”

Collectively, it seems we lack understanding of the complex nature of the issues, we disagree on how to address them and even if we do achieve consensus, we struggle with capacity building to do anything impactful. In addition, we have little or no global coordination, few frameworks and our regulation is often behind the curve. Our institutions such as the World Economic Forum, the United Nations and World Health Organisation work hard to make a difference and are successful at maintaining awareness but they are unwieldy, consensus-driven and usually have to follow the path of least resistance to achieve anything. Often their actions are in response to a crisis, not because they weren’t aware of impending problems but simply because they can’t get political traction for things that might not happen for a while, or indeed might not happen at all. The recent Ebola crisis and indeed the current migration crisis in Europe are both good example of how, despite previous warnings, the global community failed to act in time to avert disaster.

When it comes to individual action, many of the issues are largely too distant from every day life to inspire much change. Sometimes this is because the language is often wrong or patronising – conversations around air quality for example gets on-the-ground response; climate change less so. Sometimes because the subject is quite simply too distasteful – talking effectively about sanitation is a challenge. Sometimes consumer/citizen awareness is robust, but there’s an acceptance that nothing can be done – many believe that disease, hunger and poverty will always be with us for example. It can also be a financial issue, of course it’s better to buy local and organic but if you operate on a strict budget those sorts of priorities are secondary to the need to feed your children. Sometimes we are just too used to our lifestyle to be prepared to change.

Avoiding catastrophe is said to require swift, collective action. It needs ‘whole party’ participation with new corporate forms and multi-capital success measures that genuinely value people, society and nature alongside traditional assets. Also needed is a shift in perceptions where humans become more connected to nature, social development and legacy thinking as well as focused social movements, such as the emerging fossil fuel divestment activity today. While there is a vast array of all of the above in place already, at the time of writing this does not seem to be enough.