I’ve been watching the climate conversation with a growing sense of frustration. We seem to be stuck in a stalemate, paralyzed by an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object. The result is climate policy that wobbles: asymmetrical application, costs borne differentially, and inevitable pushback in democratic systems, leading to reversals. That’s precisely what has happened in Canada in the last year.
This stalemate is born from two camps of idealists who, despite their differences, share a common flaw: a fundamental misunderstanding of market logic.
In the first camp, let’s call them the policy idealists, we see the view that coercive pressure alone will overcome clearcut market incentives. There’s an almost willful bafflement when market forces prove too embedded and interested. This just leads to greater frustration and the paranoia that it is business itself that is the enemy, an obstacle that must be defeated by forcing it to bear all the costs of decarbonization. It’s an approach that simply ignores the foundational logic of our economic system.
And in the latter camp, the corporate sustainability idealists, the idealism takes another form: believing that institutional capture will overcome market logic. The theory is that if you create a sustainability department, hire a CSO, and publish a glossy report, you can fundamentally alter a company’s trajectory. This is doomed to fail for the same reason, and on an even more aggressive timeline, as businesses are indeed equipped to slash things that aren’t critical to the bottom line the moment economic headwinds pick up.
To be clear, this critique is not aimed at the many talented practitioners trying to drive change from within corporations. Their struggle is that they are often tasked with retrofitting sustainability onto a business model fundamentally at odds with it. The most exciting work is therefore happening where the conversation is shifting from institutional sustainability to regenerative business models. This is not about simply doing less harm; it’s about building a compelling case for a different way of operating, one that redefines value itself. These emerging models frame regeneration not as a cost, but as a strategy for de-risking assets, securing a durable social license to operate, and building long-term operational resilience. This turns the very act of restoration into a competitive advantage.
However despite the promise of developing and testing these models in economies that can afford it, it is also clear to me that until the underlying conditions of the system change to enable, rather than coerce change, we will remain in this loop.
After reviewing emerging academic work and reflecting on my own experiences, I’ve had an “Aha moment” about what it would take to break this cycle. I’ve come to believe that real sustainability in a full systems sense will not be possible unless economic development succeeds in bridging both a) the cost of doing business, and b) the standard of living around the world.
Let me break that down.
First, sustainable or “regenerative” models must become the most economically rational choice. Right now, they’re not. They are a premium option. And until everyone faces roughly comparable compliance pressures globally, that won’t change. Without a level playing field, we’re just asking businesses to take on a competitive disadvantage.
Second, the great disconnect we see today is a battle of priorities. We are told the theoretical reason we should fight climate change is existential. But because other priorities like food and energy security outweigh it existentially for billions of people, efforts to center climate action keep hiccuping. A truly global commitment to sustainability will only be possible when the next advancement in quality of life becomes sustainability and environmental protection itself. This is a stage of development often foregone until more immediate pressures are resolved.
To some extent, I think that’s why I’m so skeptical of efforts to push sustainability conditions on developing nations. By insisting on a model that could maintain their relative economic underdevelopment, we are actively preserving the very conditions that challenge the global adoption of sustainability as a focus area.
This is precisely the issue with the Paris Agreement’s architecture in practice. On paper, the system is built around Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which are climate action plans submitted by each country that outline their self-defined targets for emissions cuts based on their own capabilities and priorities. Theoretically, this framework acknowledges that different nations have different paths. But in the real world of international diplomacy and finance, this nominal flexibility often gives way to a coercive push for conformity. Wealthier countries, driven by a well-intentioned desire for universal compliance, effectively pressure developing nations toward inferior energy alternatives. What gets championed isn’t always the most efficient or reliable path to a higher standard of living, but rather the green-labeled solution that fits a predetermined global checklist, thereby hamstringing the very economic advancement required for sustainability to become a genuine local priority.
The path forward isn’t more coercion or more CSR. It’s the far more difficult work of changing the system’s underlying conditions to align market incentives with public good, and to ensure that a sustainable future offers a more prosperous path for everyone, not just for those who can already afford it.
So what do the success conditions look like on the ground, mechanistically? How will we know when climate and sustainability are finally able to get a permanent foothold? Maybe the answer is self-evident. It won’t be announced at a COP summit, and it won’t be measured in the number of corporate pledges. It will be visible in the uncoerced, self-interested logic of the global market.
We’ll know we’ve succeeded when private capital flows to things like alternative energy solutions and regenerative projects not because of ESG mandates, but because they offer superior, risk-adjusted returns. We’ll know it when sustainably produced commodities are no longer niche products sold at a premium, but have become the global baseline, with their extractive counterparts trading at a discount. And crucially, we’ll know it when developing nations are rapidly deploying clean energy and circular technologies not because of foreign aid or diplomatic pressure, but because it is unequivocally the cheapest, most effective, and most resilient path to a higher standard of living. The political debate will no longer be a battle between the economy and the environment; it will be a competition over who can accelerate this more profitable, sustainable model the fastest.
What do you think? I can immediately anticipate a quick rebuttal that we can walk and chew gum at the same time: focus on economic development and climate action simultaneously. In practice, that’s already been happening, but the key is that is has been moving asymmetrically. Pushing harder and harder, when the conditions on the ground are not aligned with market logic or human priorities, actually hurts the cause. It doesn’t accelerate change; it generates a predictable backlash that makes durable policy impossible. It creates brittle, reversible victories that ultimately harden opposition and waste precious political capital. This is not a repudiation of climate action, but a reminder that its success relies on first pursuing global economic development with strident energy and enthusiasm. Until we leverage market forces to that end, progress on climate change will only ever stutter.
Margareta Dovgal is Managing Director of Resource Works. Based in Vancouver, she holds a Master of Public Administration in Energy, Technology and Climate Policy from University College London. Beyond her regular advocacy on natural resources, environment, and economic policy, Margareta also leads our annual Indigenous Partnerships Success Showcase. She can be found on Twitter and LinkedIn.
IMAGE DISTRIBUTED FOR COOL EFFECT – Nonprofit Cool Effect gathers business leaders and climate activists to celebrate a decade of Carbon Done Correctly, highlighting the people, projects, and progress that have defined the organization’s journey, during Climate Week in New York, Monday, Sept. 22, 2025. (Diane Bondareff/AP Content Services for Cool Effect)
