Episode Overview

Podcast: New Books Network
Host: Eleonora Matiacci
Guest: Professor Jessica F. Green, Department of Political Science & School of the Environment, University of Toronto
Episode: “Existential Politics: Why Global Climate Institutions Are Failing and How to Fix Them”
Date: December 2, 2025

In this episode, Professor Jessica Green discusses her 2025 book Existential Politics, which analyzes why three decades of global climate agreements have delivered disappointing results. Green offers a new framing: instead of “managing tons” of carbon, successful climate policy must address the distributional conflict over assets. She explains how entrenched interests block progress, critiques the dominant paradigms of climate governance, and suggests ways forward for policy and scholarship.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Core Argument: “Assets, Not Tons” [01:43, 08:02]

• Managing tons (measuring, reporting, trading emissions) has been the focus of climate policy for thirty years, but this narrow lens misses the fundamental political conflict.
• The real issue is who wins and who loses from climate transition: decarbonization revalues assets, creating powerful opposition.
• Quote:

  “The tagline, I think, for the book is assets, not tons… If the tons isn’t working, then you have to look at assets. How do you constrain the assets of fossil asset owners? How do you counter that power? You have to build up the material and political power of green asset owners.” (Jessica Green, 08:02)

2. Challenging Conventional Wisdom [02:20]

• Prevailing View: Climate change is treated as a collective action problem requiring international cooperation.
• Green’s Challenge: In practice, resistance and foot-dragging by those with vested interests (not free rider problems) explain slow progress.
• Quote:

  "This isn't about collective action. This is about winners and losers. And...losers know they're going to lose. And so they've been fighting to slow walk progress on climate change..." (Jessica Green, 02:20)

3. Historical Example of Winners vs. Losers: Global Climate Coalition [04:25]

• In the early 1990s, fossil fuel companies created the “Global Climate Coalition”—not to support action, but to undermine climate science and protect threatened assets.
• This is a textbook case of powerful sectors resisting change to preserve their interests.
• Quote:

  "If we are going to regulate emissions, fossil fuel companies are in big, big trouble... If you don't acknowledge that as the elephant in the room, then you're not going to make progress on decarbonization." (Jessica Green, 04:25)

4. Why Does This Distinction Matter? [06:09]

• Attempting friendly, technocratic cooperation fails if major interests are opposed.
• Diplomacy that ignores these structural conflicts is inadequate.
• Quote:

  “Diplomacy has done a disservice to our collective progress on decarbonization because it has failed to recognize these deeply entrenched interests.” (Jessica Green, 07:29)

• Memorable moment:

  "It's sort of like the analogy of bringing a knife to a gunfight..." (Jessica Green, 06:09)

5. Persistent Policy Failures: Offsets, Carbon Pricing, Net Zero [09:37, 11:25]

• Carbon offsets and pricing mechanisms often fail or are gamed, yet persist due to political interests.
• There’s a “definition of insanity” at play—knowing these tools are limited, yet repeating them.
• Carbon offset projects often wildly overstate emissions reductions and are cheap, undermining their effectiveness.
• Quote:

  “Offsets are equal parts art and science... Actors with a vested interest in preserving the value of their assets would massage the numbers in ways that favor them.” (Jessica Green, 11:25)

6. Research Approach & Intellectual Journey [15:58, 17:22]

• The book synthesizes years of work in political economy, international relations, and environmental governance.
• Writing "Existential Politics” meant bridging disciplines, making for a creative and challenging research process.
• Quote:

  “In general, I'm a lumper, not a splitter... That was helpful for me.” (Jessica Green, 17:22)

7. Obstacles and Pushback [17:46, 19:41]

• A main challenge was balancing the rhetorical clarity of “assets, not tons” with the real need to measure emissions.
• Received pushback from negotiators and economists who defend conventional mechanisms or emphasize the need for data/tracking tons.

8. Implications for Policymakers [21:48]

• If the book’s argument is taken seriously, climate policy shifts toward asset reform: target taxation, regulation, and green industrial policy rather than just emissions management.
• Tax policy—already advancing via OECD agreements—emerges as a crucial lever against fossil asset owners.
• Quote (on tax):

  “Extreme wealth is correlated to high carbon emissions... Taxing rich people, which includes corporations who indirectly make rich people, is important because it correlates to carbon inequality.” (Jessica Green, 22:56)

9. On International Tax Law and Green Policy [25:21]

• Learning international tax law was unexpectedly rewarding.
• Tax reform not only curbs carbon inequalities but also impacts environmental crime and state sovereignty.

10. Current & Future Work [26:38]

• Green is working on deep-sea mining, examining how the demand for minerals needed for decarbonization may drive risky new extractive industries. She notes “a lot of US exceptionalism” in this field and describes the work as both fascinating and a little depressing.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Assets, not tons.” (Jessica Green, 08:02)
  The pithy tagline capturing her core argument.
• “Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight… but if you’re going to go, go properly equipped.” (Jessica Green, 07:50)
• On the persistence of failed policies:

  "It’s like, you know, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a new result." (Jessica Green, 09:37)

• On tax and climate:

  “It's just a good idea.” (Jessica Green, 25:09)

Timestamps for Important Segments

| Timestamp | Segment | |-----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:43 | Book’s core idea: “managing tons” vs. assets, origins of Green’s reframing | | 04:25 | Notable example: Global Climate Coalition’s campaign against climate science | | 06:09 | Why the distinction between winners and losers matters | | 08:02 | “Assets, not tons,” and the consequences for policy | | 09:37 | Surprises and persistent policy failures; resistance to changing course | | 11:25 | Why offsets are persistently flawed and easily gamed | | 15:58 | Research process: Interdisciplinary synthesis, approach to evidence | | 17:46 | Challenge: Overstating the binary of “assets vs tons,” pushback from policy practitioners | | 21:48 | Practical policy prescriptions: focus tax and regulation on asset owners | | 22:56 | Taxation’s relationship to climate justice and inequality | | 25:21 | Most rewarding aspect: Deep dive into international tax law | | 26:38 | New research on deep-sea mining and its implications |

Episode Flow Summary

• Intro and book setup by host Eleonora Matiacci.
• Professor Green reframes the problem: climate change is a battle over who wins and loses, not simply a technical collective action puzzle.
• Historical example of fossil fuel industry resistance illustrates her argument.
• Persistent focus on failing methods like offsets and carbon trading traced to vested interests.
• Green’s research and arguments faced pushback but also prompted new directions in policy thinking.
• Policy implications focus on asset revaluation—such as taxation and green industrial policy—rather than emissions metrics alone.
• Deep dive into international tax law revealed its climate significance.
• Looking ahead: Green’s research explores the environmental politics of deep-sea mining.

For Listeners

This episode offers a provocative and well-evidenced rethink of climate politics. Instead of fixating on carbon accounting, Green urges academics and policymakers to confront the underlying power dynamics that structure climate inertia. Her “assets, not tons” framing, paired with her call to leverage tax and regulatory policy, marks a significant departure from thirty years of climate orthodoxy.