A Better Approach to Climate Policy
The Hartwell Paper still makes sense 15 years later
This is a guest post by Axel Bojanowski, a science journalist, originally published in German at his Substack — Klimawandel-Hintergründe. Translation by Google translate, and lightly edited by me. The title and subtitle are mine. —RP
Exactly 15 years ago, in May 2010, researchers presented the Hartwell Paper , which pointed the way to slowing global warming. Unfortunately, climate policy took a different path.
After the disastrously failed UN climate summit in Copenhagen in December 2009, 14 scientists met for three days the following February at Hartwell House, a country house with a Georgian facade and Rococo interior in the parish of Hartwell in Buckinghamshire in southern England, which dates to the 17th century.
Their analysis, the Hartwell Paper, pointed the way for how climate protection measures could be implemented.
The authors are:
Isabel Galiana
Christopher Green
Reiner Grundmann
Mike Hulme
Atte Korhola
Frank Laird
Ted Nordhaus
Roger Pielke Jr.
Gwyn Prins
Steve Rayner
Daniel Sarewitz
Michael Shellenberger
Nico Stehr
Hiroyuki Tezuka
Their proposal: Innovations in energy technologies should be accelerated through incentives rather than by imposing costs and supported by low but rising carbon taxes.
“The only way for humanity to combat both climate change and poverty is to find a path to clean energy that is plentiful and cheap, and then spend enough money to deploy it quickly.”
But international climate policy took the opposite path: it has remained characterized by efforts to dictate energy supply and lifestyles in detail.
There was no success, global carbon dioxide emissions remain unchecked, and the curve shows no indication of the effects of climate policy:
The Hartwell Paper could have been the successful alternative: It pointed the way to a pragmatic, politically feasible and long-term successful climate policy.
Instead of continuing to rely on rather unrealistic global agreements, climate policy should reinvent itself — decentralized, problem-oriented, innovation-driven.
But the response failed to materialize. Today, 15 years later, it's clear that the Hartwell Paper was a more intelligent alternative to prevailing climate policy.
Why the Hartwell Paper was revolutionary
The core idea of the Hartwell Paper is simple yet radical: Instead of considering carbon dioxide emissions reduction as the primary goal, climate policy should solve concrete, tangible problems for people, such as air pollution, energy security or poverty.
Emissions reduction would then be “a desired side effect,” not the central lever on which everything depends.
Central principles of the Hartwell paper:
1. Human development first: Access to energy, education, and health are prerequisites for any sustainable transformation. Climate policy must not become a burden on the most vulnerable.
2. Innovation instead of abstinence: The key to reducing emissions lies not in moralizing or banning consumption, but in the race for clean, affordable and reliable energy.
3. Resilience and adaptation are equal to mitigation: Climate policy must not only focus on emissions targets. Societies must also be prepared for unavoidable climate impacts — through infrastructure, early warning systems, and disaster protection.
Core theses
1. Kyoto failed: The United Nations Climate Agreement, with its top-down emissions-reduction targets, was politically, economically, and practically unfeasible. It focused too heavily on emissions as a "political problem" rather than on broader goals such as energy innovation or sustainability. The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement follows the same principle.
2. Climate protection ≠ emissions reduction alone: Climate change is not just an environmental problem, but also an energy, development, and innovation challenge. Progress should be measured not only by emissions targets, but also by real improvements such as clean energy, air quality, and resilience.
3. Focus on energy innovation: Policymakers should invest primarily in clean energy research and development, focusing on technologies that can become cheaper than fossil fuels and thus attractive.
4. Build robust, resilient systems: Policy should improve societal resilience to climate risks (e.g., extreme weather) – regardless of whether carbon dioxide is reduced.
5. Climate policy must offer tangible benefits. People should benefit directly from climate protection – for example, through better air quality, secure energy supplies, or new jobs.
6. Three overarching objectives: ensuring access to energy for all; ensuring that we develop in a way that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; and ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and hazards posed by all environmental conditions.
Recommended strategy
Decentralized, modular solutions at the regional, local, or sectoral levels would increase the acceptance and effectiveness of climate protection measures. Learning by doing instead of waiting for perfect global agreements. Bottom-up instead of top-down.
“Climate policy must be re-founded on actions that have benefits beyond climate, that are politically attractive, and that build a base for future, more ambitious actions.”
Why was the Hartwell Paper ignored?
Despite its insightful analyses and pragmatic proposals, the Hartwell Paper barely entered the wider climate policy debate. There are several reasons for this:
Dogmatic focus on emissions reduction: International climate policy stubbornly clings to the idea of centralized emissions targets—they offer top-down power potential. Alternative paths are self-servingly dismissed as "distractions" or "trivializations."
Lack of institutional anchoring: While the Kyoto model (like the Paris Agreement later) was supported by powerful multilateral structures (UNFCCC), the Hartwell Paper remained an academic impulse – without political lobby, media sympathy or enforcement mechanisms.
Uncomfortable truths: The Hartwell paper indirectly accused existing climate policy of dysfunctionality and called for a systemic change. This was difficult for many decision-makers and media advocates to accept.
Why is the Hartwell Paper more relevant than ever?
The climate policy reality of 2025 confirms many of the warnings of that time:
Emissions targets are missed not because of a lack of will, but because the means are unrealistic and ineffective.
Innovation-driven countries like China and India show that climate-friendly energy grows fastest when it is economically attractive – not when it is politically mandated.
Climate adaptation is inevitably becoming more important, as prevention alone no longer solves the problem.
What the Hartwell Paper predicted has come true: climate policy must become more comprehensive, honest and pragmatic.
Conclusion: A forgotten manual for the 21st century
The Hartwell Paper is not a dogmatic reckoning, but a pragmatic plea for a different kind of climate policy – one that is more likely to work because it is based on reality rather than wishful thinking.
Perhaps now would be the moment to take the Hartwell Paper out of the drawer again.
Not as a recipe book, but as a compass that reminds us: Successful climate policy begins where it meets basic needs – not where it imposes obligations that hardly anyone wants to fulfill. —Axel Bojanowski
The easiest thing you can do to support THB is to click that “♡ Like”. More likes mean that THB gets in front of more readers!
Reminder: THB paid subscribers have exclusive access to goodies here.
I'll be more blunt than you chose to be, Roger: The Hartwell approach failed because the goal of the Al Gores and Michael Manns (and their ilk) isn't a better earth but for riches and power for themselves.
The Hartwell approach may well make the world better but that is a bug, not a feature, to them.
Thank you Roger for this post and the link to The Hartwell Paper. I was not aware of THP, but wholeheartedly agree with its well considered integrative framework for meeting future energy, emissions and human needs.
I am still a skeptic re anthropogenic CO2 emissions impacting climate. Admittedly I am negatively biased by the decades of high profile alarmist bullying to no good end. As of now I cannot abide with a stand-alone CO2 tax in the U.S.. We are already wasting copious amounts of valuable American taxpayer funds on various ill conceived (and badly thermodynamically limited) abatement and capture efforts (many pure political grifts). Now at age 73, N2N will be the best approach in my lifetime. Hopefully U.S. policy makers can get out of their own way, and allow for a nuclear power renaissance.