Realistic… really?

“The dragonfly” is a blog on nature and business, coordinated by Sylvie Goulard 

When it comes to climate and environmental transition, more and more often, political leaders and business executives alike are calling for us to be “realistic.” This is how they justify loosening the constraints imposed by environmental commitments. 

According to them, it is not realistic to ask companies to collect massive amounts of ESG data to steer their action—hence the Omnibus text that backtracks. It is not realistic to aim for a transition to electric vehicles by 2035—hence the abandonment of the ban on combustion engines by that date. It is not realistic to set the goal of “no net land take” by 2050—hence the retreat of French lawmakers. It is not realistic to act against plastic pollution in a world where multilateral decisions require unanimity—hence the failure of global negotiations. It is not realistic to move to regenerative agriculture, though intensive farming produces massive negative externalities. And the list could go on. 

Naturally, the pace of decarbonization and the transition toward a nature-positive world, as well as the technical feasibility of both, are crucial parameters. Everyone can understand that goals must be achievable. Moreover, the transformation must be supported over time by incentives or social measures to provide affordable alternatives. It is sometimes better to postpone for a while and reshape a plan instead of insisting on its immediate implementation. 

As justified as this understanding approach may be, it raises three problems. 

First, an anthropological and moral problem. Are we humans truly the masters of nature, to the point of demanding that it obey us? Have we found the OFF switch to stop or slow climate change? Donald Trump’s response at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2025 was revealing in this respect: Rather than seeking to provide solutions (different ones, if necessary, which democracy allows), he resorted to outright denial of the problem. Since climate change is a “con job,” there is no need to reduce fossil fuel production. Far from being a sign of leadership, this is evasion: a form of realism paradoxically based on the denial of… reality. This is the trap of postponing a little, reshaping a little: It often undermines the very case for change, as solid as it is. It opens the door to deniers or cynics who want to continue doing their dirty business as long as possible. 

For scientists, there is no doubt that the planet’s evolution (climate and nature alike) calls for urgent and determined action. At the very moment when the European Commission and national governments are dismantling the Green Deal, the 2025 Report of the European Environment Agency, published at the end of September, paints a stark picture: 

“Significant progress has been made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants, but the overall state of the environment in Europe is deteriorating, particularly that of ecosystems, which continue to suffer from degradation, overexploitation, and biodiversity loss. The effects of accelerating climate change are also an urgent problem.... The outlook for most environmental trends is worrying and poses major risks to Europe’s economic prosperity, security, and quality of life.” The Agency also warns that “climate change and environmental degradation represent a direct threat to Europe’s competitiveness.” 

The leading economists specializing in sustainability share this view. In his remarkable book On Natural Capital, British economist Sir Partha Dasgupta (author of the Dasgupta Review on the Economics of Biodiversity for the UK Treasury in 2021) demonstrates how humanity is depleting the global resources that underpin agriculture, access to water, and health. He formulates the equation: 

Ny/α > G 

This means that global demand, linked to population (N) and GDP per capita (y), adjusted for technology (α), cannot indefinitely exceed nature’s rate of regeneration (G), because the biosphere is not an unlimited stock. 

 
At SDA Bocconi, research by professors Francesco Perrini on ESG in SMEs, and Stefano Pogutz on the concept of “business in nature” follows the same logic. 

Everyone can also see that heat waves are stronger and longer, the Mediterranean Sea warmer, and storms more violent. 

Second, procrastination raises a growing economic problem. The costs of transformation increase over time. In September, the Stockholm Resilience Centre announced that Earth had crossed another “planetary boundary,” the seventh out of nine: Ocean acidification has exceeded the safe zone for human development. In simpler terms, we are living increasingly beyond nature’s means, which will have severe economic consequences, since the oceans feed hundreds of millions of people and regulate the climate, while coral and algae protect coastlines from erosion. The longer we delay, the harder it will be to trigger the transition and avoid extreme consequences such as so-called “natural” disasters—caused by humans. Insurance companies, the ECB and EIOPA (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) are already worrying about insurability. 

This is not what environmentalists are saying, but the result of cost-benefit analyses. The Chinese approach, for instance, is to become leaders in solar panel production. Their method partly involves dumping and monopolizing rare earths, but the reality is that they now dominate this key decarbonization technology. In the field of onshore and offshore wind turbines, Europeans still have successful companies, but uncertainties around national strategies (in France, for example) are hampering their growth. 

Finally, this praise of realism poses a political problem. Can we continue making decisions in political systems that are so short-sighted, so quick to deny, so reluctant to base public policy on scientific evidence? Where elected officials are prisoners of their term limits and of the demagoguery that encourages an “after me, the flood” attitude?