Why leadership, not finance or technology will define the future of climate action.
At SOIF2025, the Live Challenge invites us to confront a central paradox: the technologies and finance needed to achieve a climate-safe future largely exist, but the systems to deploy them at speed and scale do not. As political trust erodes, institutions falter, and global volatility increases, new models of leadership are urgently needed.
This year’s Live Challenge is set by Nick Mabey and Ellie Belton from E3G, a climate think tank working at the frontiers of politics, policy, and diplomacy. With a focus on rebuilding trust and institutional capability, it will explore how climate action can connect to wider societal transitions — including security, geopolitics, technology, and democratic resilience.
In this interview, we speak with Nick Mabey, Founding Director and CEO of E3G, and Ronan Palmer, the organisation’s Chief Economist to unpack why political and institutional dynamics now shape the success of climate strategies, and how foresight can help decision-makers plan for turbulence and not just certainty.
SOIF: Why do you see political and institutional barriers as more significant than technical or financial when it comes to climate action?
Nick Mabey: It’s empirical. Thirty years ago, 90% of climate problems lacked viable economic solutions. Now, 80-85% can be addressed with affordable technologies. Technological advancement is ongoing. Financially, the transition costs around 1-2% of GDP when spread out—a manageable macroeconomic challenge. The real challenge lies in organising change: coordinating action across sectors, nations, and actors on a global, ecological timeline. That’s political and institutional. We have the tools and the money, but not the systems.
“We have the tools and the money — but not the systems.”
The technology itself came from a previous wave of political action—e.g., EU countries subsidising innovation, China scaling deployment. Now we’re in the second phase: accelerating global diffusion, which demands institutional capacity and political will.
SOIF: How can new leadership models help rebuild trust in governments?
Nick Mabey: Trust hinges on three dimensions:
- Economic fairness – who pays and who benefits? Policies that tax the poor to subsidise the rich (e.g., solar panel subsidies for wealthy homeowners) undermine trust.
- Procedural fairness – who gets to decide? Citizens assemblies, devolved authority, and participatory planning help.
- Delivery capability – can institutions follow through? People must believe changes will be implemented effectively and fairly.
Nationally, we see innovation through climate laws, change committees, devolved powers, and regulatory reforms. Internationally, it’s harder—but necessary. Food security, for instance, requires global cooperation. Public skepticism about international trust and reciprocity (“why should we act if others don’t?”) also erodes national-level buy-in.
COP summits remain key to public visibility and trust. They are imperfect, but the only recurring moment when the world visibly comes together on climate.
SOIF: What do you hope to learn from this year’s Live Challenge?
Nick Mabey: Climate remains one of the few predictable global projects. We know what needs to be done and by when. But the world around it—AI, geopolitics, demographics—is volatile. The Live Challenge is a chance to:
- Step outside the climate “bubble”
- Connect the transition to broader societal challenges
- Explore new coalitions, governance models, and resilience strategies
We want to ask: What must climate policy interface with in a world of uncertainty? How can the climate agenda support trust-building, direction-setting, and stability in other domains too?
SOIF: How can strategic foresight help make sense of these fast-moving transitions?
Nick Mabey: Climate is intrinsically forward-looking: infrastructure, long lead times, irreversible paths. Strategic foresight has been essential to avoid dead-ends (e.g., UK not building new gas fleets). But past foresight was largely technical. Now we need it to manage:
- Uncertainty (e.g., AI, geopolitics, power shifts)
- Intersections with other trends (resilience, democracy, economic justice)
Foresight must evolve: it’s not just about sequencing investment but anticipating social, political, and planetary shocks. Climate has become a “top-table” issue. It can no longer operate in a silo.
Foresight also helps explore worst-case scenarios. Unlike nuclear risk, the climate community often avoids contingency planning. That must change. Societies can handle existential risk conversations. Strategic foresight should support that by:
- Enabling risk management
- Clarifying leadership choices
- Deepening public understanding
Ronan Palmer: It’s also about improving the quality of decisions. Without strategic foresight, leaders may revert to knee-jerk or comfort-zone reactions. Foresight helps integrate climate into broader statecraft and avoids shallow top-table conversations. We need deeper, more resilient discussions across institutions.
“If we took climate as seriously as nuclear security,
we would use foresight differently — look over the abyss and make a plan.”
Nick Mabey: If we took climate as seriously as nuclear security, we would use foresight differently—”look over the abyss and make a plan.” The public can understand and engage in this. It’s infantilising to assume otherwise.