Business Case for Climate Action

Can a Municipality Use a Transformative Adaptation Strategy for Sea Level Rise?

Leave a Comment / Academic Writing, Business Case for Climate Action, CALS 504, Climate Risk Management, Leading Climate Action, Leading Climate Action in Society / Deanna

As climate change impacts are now affecting most communities, there is an urgency to find adaptation strategies that are appropriate for the long term (Fedele et al., 2019). Solutions that only address immediate problems or are incremental solutions may quickly become redundant or ineffective as climate changes. Also, the fundamental causes of vulnerability might be overlooked with incremental strategies. Transformative adaptation is a way to “navigate shifts driven by climate change [and] increase the efficiency and sustainability of climate solutions” (Fedele et al., 2019, p. 116). However, incremental adaptation has been the status quo as it is easier to incorporate within existing decision-making structures (Pelling, 2015). As the urgency to adapt increases, is there a role for transformative adaptation for a municipality facing sea level rise?

Having just completed a climate adaptation business case for a community grappling with sea level rise, I believe the preferred recommendation based on a multi-criteria analysis could be a transformational adaptation strategy. Of note, improving ecology and supporting culture was the highest-ranked criterion by city staff. The city is trying to protect a paved road along a several-kilometre stretch of picturesque barrier beach. The road provides access to the beach and is used as a commuter route. It is scenic and convenient for people to skirt the town’s congestion via the ocean-side road.

Unfortunately, the road is already being damaged by rising sea levels and extreme wave events. The road will fail and face increasing levels of degradation and destruction as the sea pushes up against the shoreline. City planners are trying to figure out how to protect the road and other infrastructure such as bike paths, viewing platforms and parking. Yet, due to climate change, the sea has other ideas and will be pounding the barrier beach landward as sea level rises, making it challenging to keep the built infrastructure intact.

Recommending removing the road and leaving only a gravel path, an acquiesce from the shoreline, rated highly for ecological reasons, as it provides space for biological diversity. Also, for cultural reasons, as it enhances access for First Nations to engage in cultural practises and space for non-indigenous to experience the awe of nature. However, accepting such a change is hard to imagine, given that thousands drive the road daily and the beach is a destination for many residents in the summer.

Does the city capitulate to immediate concerns and use incremental protections to stave off sea level rise and protect amenities for beachgoers, or is a different approach possible? Can perspective be changed about what is valued? By rewilding the shoreline, dunes can form, and reform and nature can adapt. Such action could also decolonize the shoreline, which is part of the recognized territorial lands of the local First Nations. Can the community accept a transformative adaptation strategy that reduces risk from rising sea levels, gives land back to nature, increases biodiversity, and supports reconciliation by providing a shoreline that supports cultural traditions? The challenging part about this strategy is the shift or change in the social mindset required to make it acceptable and getting timely alignment from the provincial and federal governments.

The community is likely not ready to move beyond “incremental adaption strategies” (Fedele et al., 2019, p.121) when they have not yet experienced severe climate impacts or had current adaptation strategies catastrophically fail. “There is a tendency for communities to prioritize immediate risks…and discount the importance of future risks (such as sea level rise in 2100) or irregular risks (a one in 200-year flood)” (Pelling, 2015, p 124). So, it could be difficult for the average citizen to visualize the impact of the rising sea and the prudence of a retreat. However, those paying attention to climate change know that coastlines will be severely affected by sea level rise (IPCC, 2022) and that incremental adaptation has “the high likelihood of not being effective in the long-term with the risk of just postponing unavoidable change” (Colloff et al., 2017 as cited in Fedele et al., 2019, p. 122). This foresight needs to be conveyed to the council and community to gain wisdom without having the road first destroyed by sea level rise. That means engagement and learning about the looming devastation of sea level rise, the biodiversity crisis, and the need for reconciliation with First Nations.

An example of a community-wide engagement and conversation about sea level rise is the Sea2City Design Challenge, which engaged with citizens in artful and creative ways (City of Vancouver, n.d.). Engagement needs to help people to develop the capacity to “make sense of complex systems in order to be able to transform” (Lonsdale, 2015, p.28). These types of processes require investment and staff capacity to orchestrate. However, if done well, they can create space for sharing, learning, and planning for initiatives or strategies (Lonsdale, 2015, p. 28). Taking this approach that strives for rich and deep understanding can seem risky as the outcome is not assured and requires honesty and courage on the part of the organization. Resource-tapped municipalities struggle to provide staff and funding for this level of engagement.

Additionally, is it possible for a municipality that is part of a colonial socio-economic structure to be able to lead a transformational adaptation strategy (Pelling et al., 2015)? The city may think it is in the process of a systems change in how it relates to Indigenous peoples, plans for climate change adaptation, and protects biodiversity, but has it reached the maturity to lead the citizens along the same trajectory? Also, are the process changes incremental and are the actions still the status quo – for example, approving shoreline developments, levelling trees for infrastructure projects, and engaging with First Nations well into the planning process rather than at the start? “Transformational adaptation requires leaders and others who are prepared to innovate and take calculated risks” (Lonsdale, 2015, p. 30), which may not be conducive to being re-elected or keeping one’s job.

Who will be the change agent or policy entrepreneur? “Who has autonomy, influence, power over decisions, and the motivation and sustained energy to make necessary changes” (Lonsdale, 2015, p. 30)? The city planner or sustainability manager will often lead the initiative and have the capacity to work across departments and engage with outside agencies and citizens. Seeking a land use partnership with the local First Nations could be a first step and part of accommodating sea level rise. Such an agreement may help to address a pressing issue for First Nations in gaining autonomy over their traditional lands and recognizing the exceptional impacts their communities face because of climate change (seen as a continuation of colonialism) (Teegee, 2020).

However, negotiating agreement with First Nations is not typically the city planner or sustainability manager’s job. Such a transitional adaptation strategy requires many actors working at various levels of government supporting the effort. As Lonsdale et al. (2015) point out, transformation must be acted across various government levels and not simply downloaded to the “local actor” or sustainability manager. Even this relatively straightforward example of moving a road before the sea destroys it requires considerable energy, engagement, partnerships, and agreements to develop a transitional adaptation strategy. Therefore, there will likely be some incremental measures taken to protect the road while a longer-term approach is developed.

Resources

City of Vancouver. (n.d.). Sea2City Design Challenge (Website). https://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/sea2city-design-challenge.aspx

Fedele, G., Donatti, C. I., Harvey, C. A., Hannah, L., & Hole, D. G. (2019). Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.001

IPCC. (2022). Summary for Policymakers. [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3–33, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.001.

Lonsdale, K., Pringle, P., & Turner, B. (2015). Transformative adaptation: What it is, why it matters and what is needed (Publisher’s version). https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:40000abd-74a0-4a3e-8e73-34374852474c

Pelling, M., O’Brien, K., & Matyas, D. (2015). Adaptation and transformation. Climatic Change, 133(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1303-0

Teegee, T. (2020). Cultural Rights of First Nations and Climate Change. British Columbia Assembly of First Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/CulturalRights/Call_ClimateChange/BCAFN.pdf

Can a Municipality Use a Transformative Adaptation Strategy for Sea Level Rise? Read More »

Can Saving the Climate for the Common Good Come From Self-Interest?

Self-interest is why most people go to work in the morning, and corporations exist. Capitalist economies are based on the principle that economic benefits are best derived when individuals or corporations act in self-interest. However, climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions primarily from burning fossil fuels and land changes in pursuing economic self-interest (IPCC, 2021). Conversely, a worldview that strives for the common good might avoid the problem of environmental destruction. For example, Indigenous Peoples’ cultural practices are based on respecting the environment and the planet’s inhabitants’ future well-being. Given that the climate crisis affects all of us and will require everyone to act to avert the worst outcomes (i.e., everybody working for the common good), I am doubtful that self-interest is the mechanism to achieve this.

Unfortunately, capitalistic economies based on self-interest lead to the market’s short changing social systems and the environment whenever it is expedient to do so. The problem is that the “fundamental nature of business is to maximize profits” (Nelson, 2018, p. 114) with little or minimal feedback on the damage that profit driven self-interest causes the planet. In fact, greed driven capitalists figured out early on that by accessing common resources for free and discharging waste into the environment for free, their corporations reap the benefits. Common resources are depleted in favour of self-interest as the environmental costs are shared by everyone, including later generations (Meadows, 2008). This tragedy of the commons is now costing all of us because pollution and resource extraction has caused climate change and biodiversity loss to such an extent that the stability of planetary systems are jeopardized (IPCC, 2022).

On the other hand, given the dire situation of the climate and environment, one would think that it would be in all our self-interest to act. As Julie Nelson (2018) points out, United Nations Climate Chief Christiana Figueres thought so too. Figueres reasoned that it was in countries’ national economic self-interest to support the Paris 2015 COP21 agreement. However, Nelson increased my doubts about self-interest as a driver of climate action by pointing out that self-interest leads to competition and perpetuates selfish behaviour. Selfish behaviour will not solve the global commons problem if the depletion of the commons is convenient, profitable, and socially acceptable (Meadows, 2008). Although governments are trying to change rules, set targets, and provide incentives to manage the commons, if self-interest underpins motivation, then the temptation to cheat remains (Nelson, 2018). What is needed to solve problems of the global commons are other human motivators or values such as commitment, honour, fairness, and respect (Nelson, 2018). These values can inspire people to act and do the right thing. Unfortunately, as Nelson points out, these values can be seen as feminist and, in the patriarchal capitalist system, also be marginalized. However, tremendous human efforts have been made based on higher values. Some societies are developed around higher values.

Rather than self-interest, Indigenous worldviews are based on reciprocity with nature and aim “to secure physical social and spiritual well-being of the individual, community, and the entire social order” (Kuokkanen, 2007, p. 265). I see the wisdom in such a self-sustaining system. The environment is not depleted or destroyed, and the goal is to perpetuate a thriving environment for future generations. Rather than humans being above and external to the world they live in, people feel a connection and a part of the world. This makes it harder and, in fact, foolhardy to operate from a place of self-interest.

Can the dominant economic culture change worldviews from “getting more” to “making it better”? It is difficult to know if climate change agreements, the UN sustainable development goals, global biodiversity frameworks and the declaration of rights for Indigenous Peoples will help to shift away from short-term self-interest as the goal, but I have to hope they will. These agreements and frameworks are an opportunity to appeal to higher values and to get organizations, communities, and nations to think about long-term outcomes and legacies.

As an individual working within an economic system founded on self-interest, I can use these agreements and frameworks to the planet’s advantage. The opportunity may come when I develop business cases for projects that include climate action or specifically for climate action. Typically, the business case will look at the technical solutions that could be applied to the climate change problem and provide cost-effective measures for the organization to invest in. However, there is an opportunity within the business case to include a benefit plan that is tied to the organization’s social values, research opportunities or long-term strategies (Herman & Siegelaub, 2009). I believe this is the opportunity to include consideration of environmental footprint, embodied carbon, health and well-being impacts, community benefits, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and climate adaptation solutions. Perhaps the business plan could help to establish a goal of regeneration. In this way, although the organization may be focused on self-interest, I can use the opportunity to appeal to higher moral values of the individuals within the organization to include decisions that will improve the planet rather than degrade it. Perhaps this will start to change the corporate culture from within.

Ultimately, the transformation needed to survive climate change will not come from any organization’s or community’s action but from all of us successfully achieving climate action goals. The more collaboration, collective learning, and sharing of resources and strategies, the more likely the planet will be a habitable place for humans. Climate action is a long-term, ongoing, team, community, and national effort unlikely to be sustained by short-term self-interest. Somehow we all must aspire to higher values.

Resources

Ahlefeldt, F. (n.d.). Common Good Market Thief. Illustration. Frits Ahlefeldt Shop

Herman, B. & Siegelaub, J.M. (2009). Is this really worth the effort? The need for a business case. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2009 – North America, Orlando, FL. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/need-business-case-6730

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2021). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3−32, https://doi:10.1017/9781009157896.001

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Summary for Policymakers. [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Tignor, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem (eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3–33, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.001.

Kuokkanen, R. (2007). The Logic of the Gift: Reclaiming Indigenous Peoples’ Philosophies. In Botz-Bornstein, T., & Hengelbrock, J. (Eds.). Re-ethnicizing the Minds? Cultural Revival in Contemporary Thought. Brill Ropodi. (p. 251-271).

Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer (D. Wright, Ed.). Chelsea Green Publishing. https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/thinking-in-systems/

Nelson, J. A. (2018). Climate Change and Economic Self-Interest (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198813248.003.0006