Besides informing a general audience about the historical and current development of the climate system, findings of climate science are the basis for informed adaptation and mitigation efforts and overall climate action. Given the central role of climate science in climate action, it is worth looking at aspects that are either not or only remotely included in current Western climate science and how adding alternative approaches, knowledges, and concepts could be a strategy to potentially aid more holistic climate action.
The dynamics and structure of the Earth’s climate system are studied by climate science. It examines the processes by which global, regional, and local climates are maintained and how they change over time. It employs data and theories from numerous fields, including meteorology, oceanography, physics, chemistry, etc. These inputs also inform computer models of the climate system, which are a keystone of contemporary climate research (Parker, 2018). Hence, climate science provides us with robust and detailed data and information about how the Earth’s climate evolved over thousands (and even millions) of years and how it will continue to change under current and future emissions scenarios in the Anthropocene.
One of the key principles of Western (climate) science states that “scientific evidence is objective and independent of its discoverer’s personal or social attributes“ (Howarth et al., 2020, p. 323). While science itself is objective, scientific findings are influenced by what is measured, calculated and factored into, for instance, a scenario or a model. While data is a quantitative value, the qualitative value is added by a research hypothesis or the general interpretation of data. Therefore, climate scientists and their communicators need to recognize the subjectivities, including their own, that shape how people see climate science to avoid being seen as the bearers of a single, universal truth. Instead, climate science must embrace the plurality of its interpretation by acknowledging that science is perceived differently by different audiences and adapting its messages accordingly (Howarth et al., 2020).
Besides the risk of different perceptions of scientific findings, another aspect speaks against relying on Western climate science as the representation of a single, universal truth. Several concepts and ideas are not (yet) considered in Western climate science and highlight the potential for more extensive and inclusive climate research. The following two concepts exemplify how our capacity to apply meaningful climate action could be expanded.
Climate models, such as the CMIP6 models used in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), cover a range of perceivable scenarios and, thus, result in a range of projections depending on the data input (ECCC, 2022). However, certain approaches are not represented in climate models and scenarios. Adding alternative concepts and ways of thinking could expand the applicability of climate science information in adaptation and mitigation planning and overall climate action. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) are the most recent scenarios utilized in the CMIP6 climate models. In the absence of climate policy, the SSPs suggest how the world might evolve over the current century under different emission scenarios and socioeconomic circumstances. Considering what information is missing from these scenarios, notably from a socioeconomic standpoint, it is evident that all SSPs assume continued economic growth and do not evaluate alternative economic pathways. Growth-critical concepts that could reduce production and consumption are not applied, which rules out the idea of a solution-based shift away from an economically growth-focused society. Hence, approaches outside the predominant neoliberal growth logic are effectively barred from climate policy and social discourse (Kuhnhenn, 2018).
Compared to Western climate science, Indigenous climate change studies show a different approach to understanding environmental changes through memories and knowledges derived from Indigenous peoples’ living heritages as societies with stories, lessons, and long histories of having to adjust to seasonal and inter-annual environmental changes and external disruptions. Colonialism and capitalism laid the groundwork for industrialization and carbon-intensive economies, which generate the drivers of anthropogenic climate change, such as widespread deforestation for commodity agriculture and the use of petrochemical technologies that rely on burning fossil fuels for energy. Anthropogenic environmental changes, such as deforestation, pollution, modification of hydrological cycles, and intensification of soil use and terraforming for specific types of farming, grazing, transportation, residential, commercial, and governmental infrastructure, significantly disrupted the lives of many Indigenous peoples shortly after the colonial invasion began several centuries ago. The natural circumstances that fostered Indigenous peoples’ cultures, health, economies, and political autonomy were disrupted due to colonial activity (Whyte, 2017).
Indigenous knowledges are systems of observing, recording, communicating, and learning about the relationships between humans, plants and animals, and ecosystems that are essential for any community to live and thrive in specific ecosystems that are subject to various disturbances. Indigenous knowledges range from how ecological information is encoded in Indigenous languages to elder and youth mentorship protocols, kin-based and spiritual relationships with plants and animals, and memories of environmental change used to draw lessons about how to adapt to similar changes in the future. Therefore, the Indigenous approach to climate change studies is structurally different from Western climate science’s data- and objectivity-driven approach. Indigenous peoples consider the renewal of their knowledge systems as a crucial method for successful adaptation planning because they believe traditional knowledges provide critical insights into navigating today’s environmental issues (Whyte, 2017).
Since Indigenous climate change studies originate from memories, knowledges, histories, and experiences of oppression that differ significantly from the approaches of non-indigenous scientists, environmentalists, and politicians who frame the current climate change discourse, Indigenous people might rightfully worry that climate scientists could rush to Indigenous communities, either on purpose or unintentionally, to claim Indigenous peoples’ knowledges to fill in gaps in Western climate science research (Whyte, 2017). Yet, the more scientists understand the importance of the practice and renewal of Indigenous knowledges for Indigenous peoples’ own purposes of preparing for climate change and protecting their ways of life, the more they will understand their responsibilities to work with Indigenous collaborators in a way that is mutually beneficial instead of exploitative (Hardison & Williams, 2013). This could pave the way for expanding the understanding of Western climate science by including Indigenous knowledges and knowledge holders without facilitating cultural appropriation.
The examples of growth-critical approaches and Indigenous climate change studies show that focusing on what can be added to Western science and tools, such as climate models, projections and scenarios, could open a path for more inclusive, just, transdisciplinary and thus holistic strategies and potentially even systemic shifts. Suppose we remain within the current framework of Western climate science instead of exploring pathways that could undoubtedly require radical ideological and practical transformations. Aren’t we limiting our scope of action by excluding alternative approaches and potential solutions that could make a significant difference in climate action? What other concepts are there? Which additional knowledges and ways of thinking can inform action and strategies and, eventually, even policies? How can additional narratives shape how we understand and think about climate change? This is not to say that Western climate science in itself is insufficient. However, the “yes, and” should be a crucial part of future research and climate action.
References
Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) (2022, January 20). CMIP6 and Shared Socio-economic Pathways overview. https://climate-scenarios.canada.ca/?page=cmip6-overview-notes
Hardison, P., & Williams, T. (2013). Culture, Law, Risk and Governance: Contexts of Traditional Knowledge in Climate Change Adaptation. Climatic Change 120(3), 531-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0850-0
Howarth, C., Parsons, L., Thew, H. (2020). Effectively communicating climate science beyond academia: Harnessing the heterogeneity of climate knowledge. One Earth, 2(4), 320-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.04.001
Kuhnhenn, K. (2018). Economic growth in mitigation scenarios: A blind spot in climate science? Global scenarios from a growth-critical perspective. Heinrich Böll Foundation. https://www.boell.de/sites/default/files/endf2_kuhnhenn_growth_in_mitigation_scenarios.pdf
Parker, W. (2018, May 11). Climate Science. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/climate-science/
Whyte, K. (2017). Indigenous Climate Change Studies: Indigenizing Futures, Decolonizing the Anthropocene. English Language Notes 55(1-2), 153-162. https://kylewhyte.marcom.cal.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2018/07/IndigenousClimateChangeStudies.pdf