Closing my last post “Adaptation in a Capitalist Society, Should it be Incremental or Transformative?” I proposed the need to consider situational adaptation when assessing a situation and choosing the best adaptation instead of focusing on identifying an adaptation methodology that best fits all situations. This proposal stemmed from my developing understanding that climate change is creating multifaceted effects on socio-economic systems that impact everyone regardless of their social status, financial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, degree of ableness, or ethnicity. With that in mind, the extent of the effects will vary due to vulnerabilities created by systemic issues within modernity such as elitism, sexism, racism, and ableism towards those that stray from the majority (United Nations, 2023). With as many systemic issues as there are methodologies to combat them, how could one expect to best lead climate action in all situations while being guided by a single adaptation methodology?
I would argue that you can not effectively lead climate action while being guided by a single adaptation method. Capitalism has led to complex subjective socioeconomic statuses for each majority or minority group. As a result, systemic issues reinforced by capitalism and varying levels of psychological well-being that accompany it are creating barriers that resist climate action. Supporting this, Navarro-Carrillo et al. (2020) found that “individuals’ subjective perceptions of their position in the socioeconomic hierarchy capture specific differences in well-being/health”. With varying levels of well-being come varying perceptions that require unique framing to enact change as intended, and to avoid unintentionally leading to inaction. This concern is also voiced by Moser (2016) who states that each group will hear and perceive differently due to values created by cultural filters, will have varying levels of acceptance of proposed behavioral and technological changes, and will either accept or resist change due to values depending on how they are framed. Therefore, I do not believe a single adaptation method will satisfy the needs of each socioeconomic group due to varying levels of well-being caused by the perceived socioeconomic standings within modern society created by systemic discrimination.
I believe that assessing each situation and generating an adaptation method, with consistent underlying goals and principles, is a necessity in leading climate action. In addition, future climate projections are generated from climate models, shared socioeconomic pathways, and representative concentration pathways and should be used to generate these goals and the principles required to achieve them. It is important to acknowledge that these are projections, not predictions, implying a level of uncertainty and required flexibility in adaptation methodology to account for this (BCMTI, 2014). Furthermore, projected scenarios can aid decision-makers in assessing the risk levels required to develop business cases for adaptation pathways. In addition, projected scenarios help lead climate action within our current capitalistic system where decisions tend to be based on business cases focused on their return on investment or levels of risk (APM, 2023). However, not all companies are basing their decisions solely on return on investments or basic bottom lines anymore. The triple-bottom-line methodology is being used to help quantify qualitative variables such as equity, diversity, and environmental impacts into decision-making criteria to promote benefits to people and the planet over profit (Miller, 2020). The strive to incorporate more qualitative variables demonstrates that even in a capitalist society driven by returns on their investments a single methodology is no longer suitable due to the complexity of modernity. Furthermore, this inclusion of qualitative variables is indicating that capitalism is beginning to shift toward practices of situational adaptation instead of traditional methods.
Whether it is socially or financially, I believe that climate action should be approached with situational awareness. Moreover, this is to ensure the correct adaptation methods are used and framed to lead change despite varying perceptions (Moser, 2016) created by differing states of well-being/health as a result of the socioeconomic hierarchy (Navarro-Carrillo et al., 2020) systemic to capitalism. Additionally, situational adaptation is being demonstrated within corporations due to their use of multiple decision-making criteria for business cases incorporating qualitative variables such as equity, social justice, and governance (Miller, 2020). Thus, acknowledging that a single approach is not adequate to incorporate the complexity of modernity into social or financial decision-making. In conclusion, I believe situational adaptation, not a single adaptation method designed for all scenarios, is required to effectively lead climate action today due to the complexity required to ensure equitable decisions are being made for everyone both socially and financially.
References
Association for Project Management (APM). (2023). What is a business case? https://www.apm.org.uk/resources/what-is-project-management/what-is-a-business-case/#:~:text=Definition,rationale%20for%20the%20preferred%20solution.
B.C Ministry of Transpiration and Infrastructure (BCMTI). ( 2014, June 4). A Primer for Understanding Concepts, Principles and Language Use Across Disciplines. Developing Effective Dialogue between Practitioners of Climate Change Vulnerability-Risk Assessments. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/driving-and-transportation/environment/climate-action/climate_data_discussion_primer.pdf.
Miller, K. (2020, Dec 08). The Triple Bottom Line: What it is & why it’s Important. Harvard Business School. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/what-is-the-triple-bottom-line
Moser, S. (2016). Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say?. WIREs Climate Change, 7, 345 – 369. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.403.
Navarro-Carrillo, G., Alonso-Ferres, M., Moya, M., & Valor-Segura, I. (2020, June 10). Socioeconomic Status and Psychological Well-Being: Revisiting the Role of Subjective Socioeconomic Status. Frontiers, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01303.
United Nations. (2023). Vulnerable Groups who are they?. https://www.un.org/en/fight-racism/vulnerable-groups.