Change climate change solutions
To be effective, we need to adopt system-led thinking.
There is no shortage of climate enthusiasts in our time. The “Greta Thunberg effect” is pushing bystanders to take action, forcing businesses to change the way they operate and building a critical mass of supporters. However, as much as we are clear on where to go — listen to science and act urgently to give ourselves 66% chance of staying below the 1.5°C target, for which we have around 7 years of ‘business as usual’ emissions left — the “how” to get there part is still foggy. If we interpret the climate crisis as symptomatic to a deeper systemic breakdown then the solutions to it cannot be piecemeal or cosmetic — they too need to be seismic and pivotal.
Many popular current solutions to our ecological crisis are nothing but interim fixes that fail to debase the foundations upon which our current economic model lingers.
The current economic model relies on private ownership, is fixated on profit-making, is fueled by perpetual growth, thrives on all forms of financial, human, and ecological extraction, and whose logical outcome is elevated inequality.
Ergo, we need to exercise caution while touting solutions (listed below), as handy as they are in the short-run, that do not tackle the heart of the problem.
Emission Trading Schemes
The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is one such example which, in the words of the Climate Justice Alliance, “makes the false and dangerous assumption that the laws of nature are subordinate to the laws of capitalism.” In this scheme, companies essentially ‘buy’ and ‘sell’ emission allowances, albeit with a reducing emissions cap to limit net emissions. It is fascinating how the discipline of Economics has seeped through the natural systems and in a brilliantly shameless manner, created a market out of it too. If we lay bare the hidden premise behind such schemes, they not only grant a license to emit to the ones who can pay for it but also brazenly trade on the quality of life and health of those suffering from downstream impacts of these operations. How can one exchange the health of humans in one part of the world with another?
Carbon Sequestration
Although Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) might help us circumvent an overshoot in the short-run, as posited by IPCC, it is no panacea. Besides potential carbon leakages and its own climate cost in the process — its results are less than impressive. The world’s largest carbon capture facility at the coal-powered Petra Nova plant is estimated to capture only 6.2% of the power station’s emissions.
Above all, the dogma lurking behind these technological fixes is that we can wreck the environment around us and still form a bubble to safeguard us from its impacts — this line of thinking has brought us here in the first place.
The ‘black’ green solutions
When we hear the news that sales of EVs are surging and that cities are shifting to solar and wind energy mix, it gives us hope of a future that is green. But if we were to zoom out and examine the greenness of the underlying technologies that are enabling this shift, we would realize that they are not that green after all. The model at work, for mining the three leading metals in our green transition — lithium, cobalt, and nickel — is eerily similar to the current extractive economy’s fib. From the pervasive use of child labour in Congo’s cobalt mines to the scores of aquatic animals dying due to toxic chemical leaks from lithium mines in Ganzizhou, this appears like the same old wine in a new bottle.
The Tesla Model
Aside from the environmental impact of Tesla’s fancy roadsters (and EVs in general), it has formed a mini-monopoly in the US EV market. If the green transition, too, revolves around big green corporations (replacing the oil companies) and EV manufacturers (mostly the current combustion engine vehicle manufacturers) without dissemination of technology, redistribution of wealth and income, and a just transition — then let’s not a call it a new deal.
What are the solutions then?
The proposition is to ask for an economy that is in sync with our ecosystem, not at odds with it. The nature, and life on it, is a product of the interplay of complex systems. Instead of redeeming an economic model that sits without any context, we need models that appreciate their place in the wider context of our natural system.
The idea behind critiquing the existing trends around the green transition is not to sway the opinion towards grinding them to a halt but to ask for better.
As much as the aforementioned options nudge us towards a ‘greener’ pathway, they still operate in the same debilitated system punctuated with egoistic motives. A systemic breakdown requires holistic solutions, using systems thinking. A shift in mindset, that understands our inseparable interconnectedness with all life on earth, that can synthesize the resultant emerging relationships, that knows the dynamics of feedback loops, and that can recognize the causality of events.
Some ways in which important actors (government, corporates, and global citizens) can use systemic thinking to underpin a shift towards sustainability could be:
System-led Businesses:
In a systems-led business strategy, a corporate is just another node in a complex array of social connections. The business is no longer hiding behind the corporate veil, the environment around it, matters; the context in which it operates, matters. Corporations need to ask of themselves the following questions (among others):
- How can we make circular product designs?
- How can we leverage blockchain to connect partners up and across the value chain to improve transparency and resiliency of our products (e.g. IBM Food Trust)?
- How can we package our products sustainably?
- Are our company roles representative of the circular future?
The cyclical flow of materials could save European business around €600 billion while making global supply chains more sustainable and resilient. It creates new exciting roles and reimagines current value chains and industries.
System-led Governments:
The politics of peddling short-term growth for pacifying current voters at the cost of compromising lives of future generations need to be overturned. Kate Raworth’s (termed as the John Maynard Keynes of the 21st century) Doughnut Economics, brilliantly exposes the flimsy grounds on which the current extractive economic model stands. It underscores the delicate balance policymakers need to ensure between providing essentials (food, water, healthcare etc.) to the ones lagging while avoiding an overshoot of ecological limits (air pollution, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification etc.). To fundamentally alter our skewed distribution of resources and to face off extortionate levels of inequality; governments should:
- Close global financial loopholes through which the ultra-rich siphon billions to tax havens.
- Encourage employee-owned businesses and cooperatives — to put communities before profit.
- Redistribute corporate profits earned on the back of publicly funded research (like iPhone).
- Enable small businesses and individuals access to commons licensing to fuel innovation.
By taking these steps, in the words of Raworth, instead of merely redistributing income, we would redistribute the sources of wealth.
System-led Individuals:
An individual engaging in systems thinking can extrapolate the impacts of his/her daily decisions on the wider environment and is more likely to change their attitude from consumer to user.
The bottomless pit of consumerism needs an earnest review. It is no easy task, given our exposure to an average of 5,000 adverts a day — but that’s what our planet demands.
Some of the questions we could ask ourselves before purchasing a product could be:
- Where is this product sourced from? What is the climate cost of this product?
- Were the community involved treated fairly (e.g. wage, child labour, community trade)?
- Do I (really) need it? How will it add value to my life?
- Can I buy second-hand or rent this product instead?
- How long will I use this product? How will this be disposed of?
According to one estimate, the worldwide annual expenditure on cosmetics totals to $18 billion, which almost matches the amount needed to stamp out hunger and malnutrition.
It is time that apart from demanding real change in climate policies, we as well shift towards minimalism and be more intentional around what we buy and use.
The right shift
Rather than shifting emissions from one industry/geography to another — we should be thinking of solutions that tackle the issue at source.
All purported levers of our sustainability shift need to pass the litmus test of undermining, not aggravating, the negative feedback loop of the current extractive economy.
Another shift perhaps trumps all others — an alteration in the mindsets of policymakers, businesses, and global citizens. We can get there by adopting a thinking tool that is primed for the complexity of our times.
