By Professor Dato Dr Ahmad Ibrahim
As the threat of climate change grows, the world is in top gear tackling the root cause of the malaise, greenhouse gas emission, GHG. The most common GHG is carbon dioxide. There are others which can be more menacing. Methane gas emission has created much furore as well. Though the oil and gas industry emit most, world attention is somehow directed more towards cattle farming. Nitrous oxide gas coming from nitrogen fertilisers used in agriculture is also a major GHG. Both methane and nitrous oxide have higher global warming potential. But carbon dioxide wins head down in quantities. Experts are unanimous on the fact that our common practice of burning fossil fuels for energy is the largest contributor to carbon emission. However, phasing out fossil fuel completely is not a workable option. Much of the world’s electricity is generated using fossil fuels, especially coal. Even the most advanced of countries are hesitant to phase out coal.
So, every country is turning to NetZero to bring down the global GHG levels. At the current emission rate, climate scientists warn of global warming breaching the 2-degree C limit. The popular belief is that by taming climate change, the world can achieve sustainable peace and prosperity. We forget that there is a bigger menace threatening global peace. I am talking about the culture of toxic hate. Many agree the recent emphasis on addressing hate politics and advocating for zero hate is both timely and profound. While environmental and social goals like zero carbon or zero hunger are critical, systemic hate and division often act as invisible barriers to achieving these objectives. We see such consequences of hate politics being played out in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, and many more countries around the world. Even here at home in Malaysia, we see evidence of hate politics being displayed openly. A majority is uncomfortable with such development. Many are calling for zero hate if the country is to truly prosper.
The toxicity of hate politics is evident everywhere. Hate politics thrives on polarization, fear, and dehumanization, eroding trust in institutions, fuelling violence, and destabilizing societies. It distracts from collective action on urgent issues like climate change, and poverty by fostering “us vs. them” mentalities. For example, misinformation campaigns or scapegoating marginalized groups can derail progress on shared goals. We recognise the interconnectedness of challenges. The reality is that hate exacerbates other crises. Conflict and displacement is one. Hate-driven wars worsen hunger and resource scarcity. Social division undermines mental health and community resilience. There are economic costs too. Discrimination limits workforce potential and perpetuates inequality. A society fractured by hate cannot effectively collaborate on solutions.
The world must embrace zero hate as an aspirational goal. Like zero carbon, zero hate is a vision rather than a literal end point. It calls for the investment in education. Teaching critical thinking, empathy, and media literacy to combat prejudice. As a matter of policy, there must be laws against hate speech. Instead we must promote inclusive governance, and equitable resource distribution. There must be the narrative shifts. We must amplify stories of solidarity over division to promote grassroots peacebuilding. There must be leadership accountability, holding leaders responsible for divisive inflammatory rhetoric. We must regularly measure progress. While hate is intangible, metrics like hate crime rates, social cohesion surveys, can track improvements. Qualitative shifts, such as marginalized voices being heard, matter too.
Hate often stems from unmet needs such as economic despair, or existential fears. Addressing inequality and fostering belonging can pre-empt radicalization. Combating hate however shouldn’t suppress free speech but rather promote dialogue and understanding. There should be a call for holistic action. Prioritizing zero hate doesn’t detract from other goals. It enables them. Imagine a world where collaboration replaces conflict.
Climate agreements can gain momentum, humanitarian aid flows freely, and innovation thrives in inclusive spaces. At the end we should see justice, compassion, and equity as foundational to all sustainability efforts. By nurturing societies where pain and hate are actively diminished, we create fertile ground for solving every other challenge. It’s a bold, necessary reframing, one that deserves far more attention in public discourse.
The author is affiliated with the Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies at UCSI University and is an Adjunct Professor at the Ungku Aziz Centre for Development Studies, Universiti Malaya. He can be reached at ahmadibrahim@ucsiuniversity.edu.my.