The problem is that everything we are doing today in order to deal with that is misdirected. We are trying to cut emissions because it makes us feel good, but it will have very little impact in the long term. Even if all of the goals set out under the Kyoto Protocol were achieved and the US, Australia and China had ratified the treaty, we would still only postpone global warming by seven days at the end of the century and at an estimated cost of $180bn per year.

Right now there’s a huge push to cut emissions and to buy carbon offsets and replace cheap fossil fuels with more expensive technologies, but this is a rich world solution. There are a lot of uncertainties about the effectiveness of carbon offsetting. Let’s assume all the schemes worked – the problem remains that the benefit of not emitting a tonne of CO2 is minimal compared with the cost, with every $20 spent producing $2 worth of good.

By comparison, every $1 spent on combating malnutrition and malaria and supporting HIV/AIDS prevention and free trade agreements produces between $10-$40 worth of social good. So, when companies go out and say “we’re carbon neutral,” they’re effectively saying “we spent a lot of money doing fairly little good”. It’s better to say “we care about the world and we made sure 150,000 people won’t die of malaria”.

If you actually care about the world, then the focus should not be on cutting or offsetting CO2, but on making the world a better place. I don’t think it’s too late for climate change and I don’t think we should give up trying to stave off global warming, but we need to be smarter about what we do.

Fairytale stories that we can change the outcome of climate change are hijacking the focus from where it needs to be. The only way to really avert climate change is to invest in the development of alternative energy resources which are much cheaper.

I propose a ten-fold increase in research and development into renewable sources, from $2.5bn to $25bn. This would returnanequal increase in benefit to Kyoto at about a tenthof the cost.

We have to realise that this is a long-term problem and it won’t get solved in 10, 20 or even 30 years’ time. This is a 50-year problem that needs a longterm solution.

Right now we all talk about cutting emissions, but it should not be a predominant focus for companies. Though you could imagine a lot of corporate investments in renewable research and development, these are long-term investments.

If you are a company that cares about the world, you should ask yourself whether the practices you are implementing now are actually doing a lot of good, or do they only look good on your annual report?

Carbon neutral looks good, but it doesn’t do much good. Companies need to ask the question: “Can’t we do better?”