Tulitha King

Tag: economy

  • The social side of Climate Change

    “I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”
    — James Gustave Speth

    I have been wanting to write about this quote for a good while.

    I first encountered Speth’s words during my undergraduate in Sustainable Development – many years ago. It was striking at that time, as it was where I saw my own interests honing in.

    I am not a scientist. A type I see as someone who is detail oriented, questioning, analytical, highly logical with a good degree of skepticism. The scientific process can be somewhat constrained and lengthy, going through a process of peer review to test assumptions.

    These are all good things. However working with people, on a human-made problem (on which there is consensus that climate change is one) does not always fit into a scientific formula or process, as Speth alludes to above.

    It requires iteration, openness, letting go of processes, a focus on outcomes with a flexible mindset as to what those outcomes might look like. Like a scientist curiosity is all important, but not a curiosity as to how something works but a curiosity as to how people feel, think, are motivated – behaviour follows last. Scientific skepticism is antithetical to working with people. If anything the approach needs to be one of trust and belief in a person’s intrinsic intelligence, creativity and altruism. Trust breeds trust. That is a formula that needs blind faith to test in the real world.

    Cut to me several years later, having fallen into the field of Community Development – but with a total orientation toward Sustainable Development, for the sake of our planet home, and the people in it. What I have found is that scientists and engineers populate the field of sustainability. Sustainability has become almost only about tech substitution:

    • Power from fossil fuels or solar panels
    • Asphalt made from bitumen and gravel or recycled aggregate such as plastic or recycled glass
    • Clothes made from virgin polyester or recycled polyester
    • Clothes made from cotton or organic cotton
    • A car converted from petrol to electric
    • A double glazing rather than single glazing
    • Storing water on a property rather than relying on municipal dams
    • Packaging made from plastic or recyclable material
    • Orienting a house north (or south, if in the northern hemisphere) to capture sunlight, then using thermal mass principles to capture that heat
    • Waste directed into recycling streams rather than rubbish streams

    The building industry has advocates and industry bodies and assessments such as the Green Building Council of Australia’s Green Star certification, BREEAM or LEED from the US Green Building Council.

    Planners also have growing principles around walkability and cyclability, improving transport emissions through behaviour change through design.

    Can you see what’s missing here?

    There is nothing about human motivations, human desires, human needs, human relationships. The field of planning is the only one which comes close. Still the focus is on manipulation of behaviour through design.

    Climate Change has relied on scientists spruiking information. Over a (too) long period of time this has become common knowledge, but it has become politicised. It’s now acceptable to state that you don’t believe in Climate Change and excuse it as being a result of the urban heat island effect (instruments of measurement are located in human habitation hot spots, thereby giving inaccurate readings). But if facts are facts then stating you don’t believe in Climate Change is surely like saying you don’t believe in tornados or droughts or birds or the changing tide or any other natural phenomenon.

    So, yes, Speth is right. Still we haven’t yet connected humanity with caring for Climate Change in a way that is both meaningful and impactful. In a way that adjusts our behaviour.

    Sometimes the greatest impact individuals see they can have on Climate Change is through consumption, and I have seen this become a trendy topic with brand names jumping on board. Some friends, seeing their only role as one of consumer, dutifully purchase the things they are told to purchase from mean-well brands selling those tech subsitutes: plastic free toilet paper, eco friendly windows, recycled timber, recycled asphalt, socially conscious body wash, shampoo bars, vegan food, eco friendly sneakers – the trendier these are the more traction they gain. This puts environmental action into a precarious position – it requires advocates and brands to be at the centre of popularity in order to make any dent on behaviour change. This requires an enormous amount of energy to achieve. It also begins to exclude those who need it most, and become the domain of the wealthy and trendy.

    So it does not strike at the heart of the matter.

    There are glimmers of hope.

    The Transition Town movement is one of them, strongly connecting individuals with care of each other and the earth through community action. It’s community action that can touch every aspect of the human life experience: economy, transport, power generation, development, planning, food production, clothing, waste – nearly everything you can think of can be brought back to that local level in the face of globalisation and consumerism. In fact, it’s potentially the only way it can be done.

    Jon Alexander writes in CITIZENS about the power and potential of shifting the human story from that of consumer to that of citizen. It’s changed once before, shifting from subject to consumer, so it can change again.

    BCorps look to bring environmental and social aspirations into the centre of businesses. However, again, for these to succeed they still need to win at capitalism and win over the consumer.

    Wellbeing economy principles are gaining traction with governments and local council around the world, but not quite enough traction just yet.

    And there are philosophers, somewhat outliers, decrying the need for a change of heart. Charles Eisenstein is one, provoking his readers to think deeply about their meaning and purpose in life. Helen Norberg-Hodge advocates for localisation. Even Jane Goodall issues a cri de couer to care for our one planet. And Richard Louv challenges how we are raising our children.

    And it’s here that we see a clue. Children who are raised with exposure to nature – free, unfettered, abosorptive exposure – grow up with a deeper concern for the environment than those who do not.

    We return then to the earth and its environment as Mother Nature. A term which calls forth a kind of relationship with nature which we are losing and we are lacking.

    [end of part 1]

  • To Venn or to Nest?

    Ah, the ubiquitous Venn Diagram! The zenith of all complex systems thinking.

    If it can be encapsulated in a Venn then you’ve really been doing some thinking and managed to capture your feedback loops and relationships within a few brief words and some overlapping shapes and can call it a day.

    But, do I have a curve ball for you.

    How about the nested diagram? Here, we can encapsulate the vastness of the economic problem and shrink it, effortlessly, to fit within the constrains of the environment. Voila! An economy that is right sized.

    It looks a little like this:

    Look at that! No longer do we need to struggle to balance a hungry economy with a finite planet or an exhausted and disconnected peoples. Instead we see that the economy’s rightful place is seated neatly within the context of good governance, which in turn sits within the context of good relationship, which in turn is comfortably homed within the confines of a limited, balanced and healthy ecosystem.

    No longer are we, misguidedly, giving the economy an equal weighting of importance. No, without the economy governance, relationships and environment can continue.

    Without people the environment will happily carry on, but the need for governance or an economy merrily vanishes. Snap!

    Without the environment, there is nothing.

    Now there may be some debate over whether governance is needed. In fact, I have read one champion of cryptocurrency declaring that part of the allure of cryptocurrency was its existence outside of the existing governance structures. That is all an experiment that I don’t feel qualified to comment on, however, my personal sense is that an economy requires some form of governance, as the economy in itself has just one value: more, which is not enough to maintain civility let alone propriety.

    I would like to see the nested model overtake the venn model (does anyone remember the three pillars model? That was early sustainability talk. The venn took over and now the nest needs to succeed them both).

    The test that nest is best is simply this: take away one element and what remains? If environment everything else distintegrates, if people well the environment happily continues on its way, and if economy why those ingenious people manage to find another way to exchange value. Weighting economy equally with both environment and society is old-school thinking. It’s time to put things in their rightful places.