The 40th anniversary of the moon landings has inevitably prompted comparison with the current effort to preserve Planet Earth from global warming. As Ed Miliband has noted both missions involve combining political will with examples of technological leapfrog.  

One sobering contrast, however, is that although serious resources are now being deployed in green investments, the central co-ordination of the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and overcome climate change is still pitifully resourced compared to what was spent on Houston.   The world lacks an ‘e-mission control’.

Hundreds of billions were spent on the space race and 15,000 people still work at the Johnson Space Center, but the two institutions charged with co-ordinating civilisation’s race against time to prevent dangerous climate change – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – operate on under $50 million a year. That’s roughly what GE spends on research and development alone in a week.

But is money the issue? Would more resources make a difference? Yes. If those resources were efficiently deployed, they could make the difference between tolerable global warming and runaway climate change.

Scientists investigating the earth’s ‘feedback’ mechanisms are now warning that global warming is triggering knock-on effects that accelerate the melting of ice sheets, the rise in sea levels, the release of methane and the pressure on water resources.  

But the current process whereby science is assessed by the IPCC and only gradually translated into policy, often over a decade or more, though valuable in its rigour while sceptics were in full voice, is now too slow to assimilate these emerging findings.

A real-time, rapid-response system, co-ordinating scientists worldwide, is needed to enable new research to be peer reviewed, assessed, rated for risk and presented to politicians.

Alongside this, a high profile unit is needed to collate data on greenhouse gas emissions, monitor countries’ progress in curbing their carbon footprints, spread good practice in energy efficiency and promote green investment opportunities.

And a global communications centre is required to keep climate change in the public eye, with a steady drumbeat of information and news on progress. This would also stimulate countries to compete to reduce emissions – replicating one of the most powerful drivers for the Apollo programme.

It is in the direct interest of business to fund such an ‘e-mission control’. It would provide greater clarity on science and raise public awareness, both of which would help politicians to establish the stable, predictable context for investment that companies have been demanding.  What’s needed is an ‘Armstrong’ company to lead the way. For that company, a small step in terms of investment would truly be a giant leap for the business world and society as a whole.