Avoiding the Cobra Effect in Climate Change Initiatives

COP29 is already generating buzz for the potentially world-shaping agreements and measures on the agenda such as The Loss and Damage Fund or The New Collective Quantified Goal. But while these policies may be written at the highest levels of government, their success hinges on implementation at the grassroots level – among streets, homes and workplaces. Often overlooked is the vast gap between the grand long-term plans made at climate summits and the harsh daily realities faced by ordinary people. As world leaders finalize strategies to address climate change, an old cautionary tale from colonial India has taken on renewed relevance.

As the story goes, the colonial government had grown concerned by the high numbers of venomous cobras in Delhi. To eradicate the animals, they offered a bounty for every dead cobra brought in. Initially, the program worked. Seeking reward, people hunted and killed wild cobras in numbers – until entrepreneurial thinking turned the tables. Realizing that farming would be more efficient than hunting, residents began to raise cobras on farms and kill the animals when they were fully grown, taking the bodies of farmed snakes in for the bounty. 

Upon discovering the cobra farms, the government ceased the reward program. Lacking use for them, residents released the remaining cobras they’d raised into the city, marking the end of the scheme, with the government poorer for the effort and more cobras slithering through Delhi’s streets than ever before.
 
The lesson? Seemingly straightforward solutions can quickly fall apart when they crash headfirst into the complexities of human interest and behavior. 

It’s a pattern seen in climate action again and again with even the best-intentioned policies. But these initiatives aren’t mistakes to sweep under the rug. By examining their trajectory, we can pinpoint their Achilles’ heels and prepare better for the future. Just two cases – a car restriction program in Mexico and an international carbon credit program – offer invaluable insights into building initiatives that work, on paper and off.

Mexico’s Hoy No Circula
 
In the 1980s and early 1990s, Mexico had the highest levels of air pollution in the world. 

Rapid industrialization had proven to be a blessing and a curse. While it built the city’s economy and attracted new residents in numbers, the air filled with fumes from inefficient engines on the roads and smoke billowing from plants. The mountains surrounding Mexico City effectively trapped residents in a cloud of air pollution. The UN declared it the most polluted city on the planet in 1992. Reports wrote of birds falling dead from the sky, and children colored the sky grey in pictures, having never seen a clear day.

In response, Mexico’s government introduced the Hoy No Circula (HNC), or “no driving today” policy in 1989. The seemingly straightforward solution for pollution was to reduce the number of cars on the road. 



Under HNC, most vehicles could only be driven on specific weekdays. For example, cars with plates ending in 5 or 6 would be off the road on Mondays.  Policymakers estimated that this would cut air pollution by as much as 20%. 

In theory, a silver bullet. In practice, a misfire.

While air pollution in Mexico has decreased thanks to a number of policies and initiatives, multiple studies suggest that HNC made little – if any – difference. Some have argued the programs made air pollution worse in the long term.

Experts theorize that in response to the policy, driving behavior did change, but not necessarily as anticipated. For example, higher income families bought second cars with different license plate numbers to enable them to drive on multiple days. Others only used their vehicles a few days a week before the policy and simply adjusted their driving days, rather than taking public transportation. Taking lightly policed routes was also a common response. 

While some driving restriction programs have seen success, notably a successful Beijing-led driving policy that restricts driving based on numbers considered lucky or not, it is often culture, public infrastructure, available alternatives and enforcement that determine how a policy will play out in the field.


A UN policy to destroy a super-greenhouse gas backfires 

Triuoromethane, or HFC-23, a dangerous byproduct of the refrigerant HCFC-22, is 12,400 times more potent than carbon dioxide in heating the planet and damaging the ozone layer. 

In an uncanny repeat of the British government’s misstep in India, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change implemented policies to encourage the destruction of HFC-23 by rewarding businesses with carbon credits. 

Capitalizing on the flaw in the policy’s design, businesses produced more HFC-23 to destroy more, and in turn, reap more carbon credits. After the scam became apparent, HFC-23 was removed from incentive programs, but not before billions in carbon credits had been paid out and millions of tonnes of HFC-23 had been pumped into the atmosphere. One climate leader called it “a climate crime of epic proportions.”
    
This dynamic is arguably playing out today, more subtly but no less dangerously, in carbon leakage, where industrialized countries claim to cut their emissions on paper, but simply move unsustainable practices abroad, to another country’s ledger. 



Lessons for climate solutions architects

These examples are compelling reminders of the complexity of combating climate change. As the world's leaders prepare for COP29, there are three lessons to remember.

Consulting with local experts is crucial for gaining knowledge and cultural insight necessary to design climate initiatives that align with people’s daily experiences, rather than imposing ineffective one-size-fits-all solutions.

Equally important are collaborations that foster innovative thinking and share the responsibility of ensuring any loopholes are addressed. A strong network of stakeholders can better monitor the landscape, adapt swiftly to market and behavior shifts, and better defend programs and policies against exploitation. 

Finally, getting grassroots level buy-in ensures that communities are active contributors in the vision for a cleaner future. While policies are written at the highest levels of government, they are enacted by the public every day. When individuals feel involved in the process, they become active agents, driving forward the collective ambition to safeguard our climate and our future.

As we strive for a healthier planet, we should remember that real change happens when every level of society feels empowered and involved in the process. If we can work across sectors, borders and communities, learn from past experiences and jointly commit to new goals and programs, we may be able to truly make a difference for our climate.