April 2022

April 12, 2022

The IPCC Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change report brings to light the ‘emissions gap’ between current country-level commitments and the Paris Agreement commitments to limit global warming to 2C and preferably 1.5C. It also underscores the ‘implementation gap’ between the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) of countries and their current climate policies (Hausfather, 2022). Hausfather’s (2022) analysis of this IPCC report in Carbon Brief identifies that current climate policies are projected to result in an approximate 3C warming over pre-industrial levels by 2100. What then is needed to accelerate our societal pace and scale of ambition to close these gaps? A compelling idea that emerged for me through the transdisciplinary focus of the MACAL program is that disrupting the persistent inertia found in our economic, political, and cultural systems will entail changes in individual mindsets and collective patterns of thinking. At its core, the climate crisis is a human problem and to achieve transformative change will require a human-centric approach.

Building on Ken Wilber’s foundational concept of “all quadrants, all levels” (2006), Lonsdale, Pringle and Turner (2015) identify four dimensions of social change (see Figure 1) that link human-centric approaches and transformative change. These include personal transformation (mindsets), transforming collective patterns of thinking (collective behavior and shared identify), transforming relationships (dialogue and relational behaviors), and transforming structures, systems and experiences (policies and procedures). While many authors have argued that sustainable transformation requires operating simultaneously at multiple scales (Lonsdale et al., p. 13), my observation is that in practice we have an affinity to largely focus on changing the external procedural systems in organizations and societies. For example, codes, standards, and policies; systems that are easy to see and quantify. However, if we focus on these external systems without also addressing the internal dimensions, I argue that we are likely to continue a path of incremental change that does not match the scale of innovation that unprecedented climate change requires of us. If on the other hand we employ a human-centric approach that focuses on transforming the internal dimension of personal mindsets and collective patterns of thinking, we significantly expand the potential for transformative change.  How then do we do this?

Participatory and dialogic processes, particularly those that include storytelling, offer a pathway to transforming relationships as well as collection patterns of thinking and action; this in turn expands personal transformation. Our individual “attitudes, emotions, norms and values” (Hodson, 2019, p. 2) colour how we receive information on climate change. Moser’s (2016) research identifies that participatory dialogic processes can “open minds, deepen understanding, foster empathy, [and] change attitudes” (p. 352). Within dialogic processes, the use of storytelling and narratives, particularly locally framed narratives, deepens the potential to shift values and beliefs. Sundin, Anderson, and Watt (2018) remind us that storytelling is a long-held art form that can “inspire, educate, and communicate values and cultural traditions” (p. 2), one that helps us cultivates imagination, and make sense of the world around us and our place in it. Indigenous storytelling offers a powerful pathway to open new perspectives. Sium and Ritskes (2013) emphasize that Indigenous storytelling can “bind communities together spiritually and relationally” (p.5), and that they are agentic in knowledge building, and in disrupting long held and limiting worldviews. Dialogic processes and storytelling offer a human-centric approach to transforming mindsets, relationships and collective patterns of thinking. Integral to this process is our human capacity for empathy.

The design thinking challenge project undertaken in our MACAL 501 class employed the Stanford Design Thinking model with five distinct steps: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. This process also offers a human-centric approach to climate action engagement. Drawing on the four dimensions of social change and my assertion that reaching transformative change necessitates transformation at the personal level and in our collective patterns of thinking, my reflection is that the first step (empathize) of the design thinking process is the most important. When we slow down, ask questions and listen more deeply, we learn from the insights and lived experiences of others, and we gain new perspectives (Crichton & Carter 2017, p 34). This also leads to improved understanding of the problem, particularly for complex issues such as climate change. When we understand the problem more deeply, we can then shape more effective and transformational responses. Here again our human capacity for empathy lies at the foundation of change. Reflecting on this, I would expand the Dimensions of Social Change model by adding “empathy” to the heart of the model.

To avoid surpassing 1.5C climate warming requires change at “organizational [and] sectoral level[s], as well as changing perceptions, sense-making frameworks, practices and beliefs at a personal level” (Lonsdale et al., 2015, p. 14). The Dimensions of Change model (Lonsdale et al., 2015) reminds us of the multi-dimensional nature of the work to be done and that we need a human-centric approach. Participatory and dialogic processes, particularly those that include Indigenous storytelling, offer a pathway to transforming relationships, collection patterns of thinking and action, and personal mindsets. With this in place we open pathways to the innovation and ambition necessary to transform the external systems of governance, policies, and practices to close the ’emissions and implementation gap’ required to meet the commitments of the Paris Agreement.

References

Hausfather, Z. (2022). Analysis: What the new IPCC report says about how to limit warming to 1.5C or 2C. Carbon Brief. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-what-the-new-ipcc-report-says-about-how-to-limit-warming-to-1-5c-or-2c

Hodson, J. (2019). An ecological model of climate marketing: A conceptual framework for understanding climate science related attitude and behavior change. Cogent Social Sciences, 5:1, 1625101. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1625101

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [ authors]. Publisher. In Press. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf

Lonsdale, K., Pringle, P., and Turner, B. (2015). Transformational adaptation: what it is, why it matters & what is needed. UK Climate Impacts Programme, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. https://www.ukcip.org.uk/wp-content/PDFs/UKCIP-transformational-adaptation-final.pdf).

Moser, S.C. (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 May/June, 345-369. WIREs Clim Change 2016, 7:345–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.403   

Sium, A., Ritskes, E. (2013). Speaking truth to power: Indigenous storytelling as an act of living resistance. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. I-X. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/19626/16256

Sundin, A. Andersson, K., & Watt, R. (2018). Rethinking communication: integrating storytelling for increasing stakeholder engagement in environmental evidence synthesis. Environmental Evidence 7(6), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0116-4

Wilber, K. (2006). Integral Spirituality: A Startling New Role for Religion in the Modern and Postmodern World. Shambhala.

April 10, 2022

The role of self-interest as an incentive for undertaking climate action is problematic, even if at its core it contains the fact that if we do not address climate change we will all be harmed. Culturally, motivation is a complex issue and when combined with the uncertainties of climate change the rational notion that we primarily make decisions based on self-interest quickly unravels.

Our cultural perspectives, how we view the world and our place in it, influence how we conceive self-interest. Western and Indigenous cultural perspectives differ significantly and are shaped by different knowledge systems built over millennia. Western worldviews have roots in both religion and philosophy, each of which imparts a cultural perspective of humanity as separate from nature. One argument for the genesis of the Western worldview of humanity as separate from and superior over nature can be seen in Lynn White, Jr.’s seminal article “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis”. White (1967) writes: “Man named all the animals, thus establishing his dominance over them. God planned all of this explicitly for man’s benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man’s purposes” (p. 5-6). This stands in stark contrast to Indigenous spirituality in which nature and humanity are inseparable.

In Western philosophical thought logic/reason was first articulated by the ancient Greeks. Within this philosophical tradition, humanity is seen as separate from the natural world. In The Logic of the Gift: Reclaiming Indigenous Peoples’ Philosophies Rauna Kuokkanen (2006) analyzes and compares our Westerns philosophical attitudes towards our environment with Indigenous worldviews. She characterizes the Western perspective as remote or removed from nature creating a separation between humanity and nature. This resulting duality establishes a realm of nature and a realm of people/culture. She writes: “The hierarchical dualism and control of reason over nature have also contributed to the creation of the fault-line between the West (the sphere of reason) and indigenous [sic] peoples (the sphere of nature)” (p. 251). Western worldviews conceive of the natural world as separate, and because of this they have difficulties in viscerally understanding that protecting nature is integral to wellbeing and self-interest.

In contrast Kuokkanen (2006) describes Indigenous philosophies as holistic and relationship based. Indigenous philosophies “are  particularly concerned of the human relationship with the world” (p. 255). Kuokkanen expands drawing on the writing of Tim Ingold: “the world is not an external domain of objects that I look at, or do things to, but is rather going on, or undergoing continuous generation, with me and around me” (Ingold, 2000, as cited in Kuokkanen, 2006, p. 255). The contrast in Indigenous and Western philosophical underpinnings is perhaps most clearly demonstrated through the Indigenous practices of gifts, where gifts are given to “acknowledge and renew a sense of kinship and coexistence” (p. 256) with the natural world. In contrast, Western practices view nature through a one-way lens, one of commodification in which ‘natural resources’ exist to support the economic ‘needs’ of people. In these contrasting worldviews we can glint why Western cultural perceptions are predisposed to disregard climate action as being in their self-interest. Western perceptions do not see that we are interdependent with the natural world, but believe that human ingenuity will mold the natural world to meet our needs and overcome the climate crisis.

While Western worldviews prioritize rational thinking, our actions are not as rational as we like to believe. Self-interest or doing what is best for oneself is a primal and instinctual behavior. Our bodies react in protective ways when in danger, for example, shutting our eyes when something gets too near or our instinctual ‘fight or flight’ response in the face of physical or psychological danger. The notion of ‘homo economicus’ who consistently approaches problems through the rational lens of self-interest is an illusion. Empirical evidence suggests that humans are not strictly rational creatures. If we were truly rational and motivated only by economic self-interest there would be no need for advertising firms that appeal to emotion and sex appeal to sell us different brands of vehicles. We would simply review the product data and purchase the best performing vehicle, we might even choose alternative transportation options as there is rarely a return on investment in buying a car. But that is not how we work. We have multiple motivations for the choices we make at individual and societal levels.

In her chapter essay “Climate Change and Economic Self-Interest”, Julie A. Nelson (2019) confronts the question of what motivates climate action. Her article challenges COP21 director Christiana Figueres’ statement that “this summit [COP21] would reach an agreement because nations are now recognizing that it is in their national self-interest—and, more precisely, in their national economic self-interest—to reach a pact” (Nelson, 2019, p. 112). Nelson critiques this assumption based on both theory and social science research, which contradicts the assertion that “self-interest is the strongest motivator” (p. 113). Drawing of the fields of social psychology and cognitive neuroscience, Nelson highlights the large body of evidence on the “complexity and sociality of human motivations” (p. 116). She identifies several ethical and moral motivators for national actions such as ethical sensibilities, sanctity, responsibility, ‘doing the right thing’, Defense of Freedom, or National Honor. She adds “some actions may be motivated by the desire to preserve one’s identity—one’s sense of who one is in the world-even when this is economically costly” (p. 117).

Considering the role of self-interest as an incentive for climate action raises many questions, incongruences, and complexities. Our cultural perspectives, how we view the world and our place in it, shape our decision-making and influence how we conceive self-interest. Self-interest and self-preservation are a powerful instinctual motivator of action and urgency. If Western cultures can recognize humanities interdependence with nature and its dependence on a stable climate system we can unlock the ambition and innovation necessary for the change we need. Hope also lies in the research and empirical evidence that affirms ethical and moral foundations are powerful and often used motivators in decision making.

References

Kuokkanen, R.  (2006). 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 Rodopi. https://rauna.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/s21_sip_17_rauna-kuokkanen.pdf

Nelson, J.A. (2019). Chapter 6: Climate change and economic self-interest. In Kanbur, R., & Shue, H. (Eds.). Climate justice:  Integrating economics and philosophy.  Oxford University Press. https://moodle.royalroads.ca/moodle/pluginfile.php/957059/mod_book/chapter/220197/Nelson%20%282019%29%20Climate%20Change%20and%20Economic%20Self-Interest.pdf

White, L. (1967). The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science. New Series, Vol.155, No.3767 (Mar. 10, 1967), pp. 1203-1207. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1720120?seq=1

---