CALS 501

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.

February 12, 2022

Robert Burns observation that “the best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men / Gang aft agley” (go often awry) has relevance in climate change risk assessment and adaptation planning. The social-ecological complexities of climate change together with the human dynamics of adaptation work elevate the risk of best laid plans going awry and the potential for ‘maladaptation’. Barnett and O’Neill (2010) define maladaptation as “action taken ostensibly to avoid or reduce vulnerability to climate change that impacts adversely on, or increases the vulnerability of other systems, sectors or social groups” (p. 211). My observation is that the process itself of adaptation planning either amplifies or mitigates the risk of maladaptation. In the CALS501 design challenge we are developing a workshop prototype to help Albertans explore what climate change means to their community, identify adaptation approaches, and empower action. The following are reflections on maladaptation and risk reduction of relevance to this work.

The human impacts of climate change are “place and culture specific” (Reed & Kendrick, 2018, p. 6) and are differentially experienced by Indigenous and non-indigenous peoples (p. 6). When assessing climate change risks and formulating adaptative strategies, how does the exclusion of Indigenous voices lead to maladaptation?  

Western models of climate risk assessments pose blind spots rooted in a cultural-economic system that neglects the interdependence of people and nature, elevates people over nature, and favours short-term thinking (Tuhiwai Smith, 2012, pp. 100-109). While adaptation planning solely derived from Western knowledge systems may provide near-term benefits for some parts of Western systems, Reed and Kendrick (2018) highlight that they may also promote maladaptation through failing to consider how these approaches may increase vulnerability and risks to Indigenous peoples (p. 13). They assert that these risks can be mitigated by early engagement with Indigenous knowledge holders to shape the risk assessment and adaptation planning process, and further by including Indigenous voices in the deployment of these processes (p. 8-11). While our class project did not allow for co-development with Indigenous knowledge keepers, we requested input on our prototype from an Indigenous advisor. One learning outcome was the potential to transform mindsets and enhance agency through the integration of Indigenous storytelling in the workshop process. Another was the importance of integrating guidance in our prototype on the protection of Indigenous knowledge from misappropriation.

Participatory community engagement processes comprise individuals with diverse values, worldviews and identities. Moser (2016) emphasises that such attributes colour an individual’s perception and interpretation of climate science, and subsequently the acceptability of potential adaptation approaches (p.350). Moser underscores that efforts to “bring into consciousness the momentousness of what is actually occurring” (p. 347) can give rise to both acceptance and resistance. Leaders of participatory adaptation processes may be faced with strong responses such as denial, disbelief, grief, and anxiety, which can pose risks to the participants and to workshop outcomes. How then do we mitigate these risks?

Climate communications research literature offers guidance on participatory climate action approaches that is of relevance to our prototype. For example, Moser (2016) recommends a set of strategies when communicating about climate change to lower the psychological defenses that may arise as individuals seek to avoid the discomfort associated with this information (p. 354-356). Framing is also highlighted as effective in climate communications (Armstrong, 2018). Framing refers to the “features of a message to evoke ideas and ways of thinking” (p. 59); for example, climate change health framing. Our prototype employs local framing which can help dimmish the sense that climate change is far away in time and place by “localizing the consequences and… giving personal, local meanings to global issues” (Altinay, 2017, p. 295). To mitigate the risk of being overwhelmed by the magnitude of the climate challenge, our prototype offers a participatory process that encourages dialogue to foster shared understanding, motivate self-efficacy and collective agency, and inspire hope (Armstrong, 2018, p. 60). Finally, to address the risk that participants may experience anxiety and grief, our prototype will include resources on eco-anxiety.

In climate adaptation planning, the process employed either amplifies or mitigates the risk of maladaptation. Including Indigenous voices in community adaptation planning initiatives promotes holistic thinking about climate impacts and adaptation approaches as well as outcomes that reduce risks to Indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. Climate change communications research literature offers insights to reduce risks within participatory community engagement processes. These include strategies to reduce psychological defenses, framing approaches to give local meaning to global climate change, and participatory dialogue to foster shared understanding, collective action, and hope. The complexity of this work necessitates pre-emptive planning to mitigate best laid plans from going awry.

References

Altinay, Z. (2017). Visual communication of climate change: Local framing and place attachment. Coastal Management 45(4), 293-309. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2017.1327344. (17 pages) https://go.openathens.net/redirector/royalroads.ca?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1080%2F08920753.2017.1327344

Armstrong, A. K., Schuldt, J. P., & Krasny, M. E. (2018).  Establishing trust. Communicating climate change: A guide for educators. Cornell University Press. Ebook. (1 page) https://cornellopen.org/9781501730795/communicating-climate-change/  

Barnett, J. and O’Neill, S. (2010) Maladaptation. Global Environmental Change 20, 211–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.004

Burns, R. (1785). To a Mouse. Poetry Foundation. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43816/to-a-mouse-56d222ab36e33

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.  (24 pages). WIREs Climate Change 2016, 7:345–369. doi: 10.1002/wcc.403  https://go.openathens.net/redirector/royalroads.ca?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2Ffull%2F10.1002%2Fwcc.403%3Fsid%3Dworldcat.org

Reed, G., & Kendrick, A. (2018). Including Indigenous Knowledge Systems in Canada’s climate assessment.  Including Indigenous Knowledge Systems in Canada’s climate assessment (02 -25-2018v).

Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies – Research and Indigenous Peoples (2nd Ed.). Zed Books. Retrieved from the Ebook Central e-book database*.

October 20, 2021

In Episode 5 of the Post Carbon Institute’s podcast series entitled What could possibly go right? (2020), Suzanne Moser shares a compelling perspective on the importance of hope in hard and uncertain times, and how uncertainty itself lays the foundation for hope. Moser highlights two core ingredients of hope. The first is getting a real assessment of the current state – what I refer to as ‘facing the facts’ and the uncertainties for the future they present, and second is then searching together for what could possibly be a better way forward (Moser, 2020, 5:34). I found this perspective intriguing because in many ways it brings together the core content of CALS500 – Climate Science, Impacts, and Services, and CALS501 – Leading Climate Action in Society. Climate Science provides us the means for ‘facing the facts’ and getting a real assessment of the current state, and Leading Climate Action in Society focuses us on the art of supporting and empowering others for climate action. This led me to the questions: what are the core ingredients to convening and engaging others in climate action?

Climate action leadership entails working with diverse groups at organizational or community levels to find new ways forward. These groups comprise individuals with diverse life experiences, values and worldviews. Experiences, values and worldviews directly shape how individuals receive and respond to information about climate change (Hodson, 2019, p. 2). Views about climate change can be very different, and like vaccines and masks in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, views on climate change can be highly polarized. The first core ingredient to convening and engaging others in climate action is then to find common ground from which to begin.

In organizational work, this might begin with working from common organizational values. For example, framing climate action in risk mitigation or business continuity. In community work common values may not be as easily identified. Here lies a second core ingredient which is an initial step in design thinking: to gain understanding and empathy. Crichton and Carter (2017) highlight that we can “gain empathy for a situation by developing understanding of the concerns, insights, lived experiences, and/or needs of others.” (p. 47). Through asking generative questions, perhaps also respectfully asking provocative questions, and then actively listening we gain understanding and empathy. From this learning emerges shared values or shared hopes and worries around which we can begin to collectively engage. Further, through inquiring more systemically and more deeply, we can begin to understand the “assumptions that underpin existing structures and ways of doing things.” (Lonsdale and Turner, 2015, p. 21). Perhaps even belief systems that hold current approaches in place. What then is the next core ingredient to move forward?

The magnitude of the climate crises and the complexity of addressing the climate change challenge can be overwhelming. Research has shown that providing climate change facts to motivate action has limited effectiveness in changing attitudes (Hodson, 2019 p. 2) and can lead to responses such as “doom, dissonance or denial” (Stoknes, 2017). So how then do we work with the tension between facing the facts and supporting and enabling others in climate action? This highlights the next core ingredient: find shared positive aspiration to ignite hope and the human capacity for innovation.

Positive framing around climate action has been shown to promote hope and a sense of self-efficacy (Armstrong et al., 2018). Adaptation refers to “adapting to life in a changing climate” (NASA, n.d.) and offers a more positive framing for climate action. For example, working together to protect shared community assets or a beloved regional ecosystem. Grounding climate action in community-based or organizationally-based adaptation approaches enables people to collaborate around shared positive aspiration and promotes hope.

As climate leadership professionals, climate science grounds our work in evidence and provides us with a real assessment of the current situation. It allows us to consider the diverse and far-reaching impacts of climate change; for example, impacts to human health and human rights, ecosystem health and food systems, and risks to core infrastructure and our communities. Each of these in-turn provides a pathway to talking about climate change. These impacts provide the basis for new conversations about how we might work together to protect what we value and love. Herein lies the balance between being grounded in the scientific facts and igniting the human capacity for empathy, creativity, collective action, and hope.

References

Armstrong, A. K., Schuldt, J. P., & Krasny, M. E. (2018).  Establishing trust. Communicating climate change: A guide for educators. Cornell University Press. https://cornellopen.org/9781501730795/communicating-climate-change/

Crichton, S., & Carter, D. (2017) Taking Making Into Classrooms: A Toolkit for Fostering Creativity and Imagination. British Columbia Ministry of Education. file:///Users/jperdue/Downloads/Taking_Making_into_ClassroomsBC2018.pdf

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), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1625101 

Lonsdale, K., Pringle, P., Turner, B. (2015). Transformative adaptation: what it is, why it matters & what is needed. UK Climate Impacts Programme, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. www.ukcip.org.uk

Moser, S. (2020, July 2). What Could Possible Go Right? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bJTCOROhsA&t=1s

NASA (n.d.). Global Climate Change, Solutions.  https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adaptation-mitigation/

Stoknes, P.E. (2017, December 8). How to transform apocalypse fatigue into action on global warming [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5h6ynoq8uM

June 14, 2021

A key determinant of our continued slow pace towards a just transition to rebuild ecosystem health and respond to the climate crisis can be found in our affinity for quick solutions; to achieve more transformational change we need to more deeply understand the problems we are seeking to solve and develop our capacity for complexity thinking.  

Climate action in Western society is largely focused on incremental quick solutions with success determined in near term and local scales, often at a component level. This can lead to a false sense of progress and pre-empt the capacity for more transformative change. For example, a broadly considered climate change mitigation strategy is the rapid transition of cities to energy efficient buildings powered by renewable energy generation systems. However, in the absence of considering different spatial or temporal scales in the determination of success (Adger et al., 2005) we often fail to consider the socio-ecological consequences of scaling such solutions. For instance, the production of renewable energy systems and building materials have their own climate change consequences as a result of their extraction and production processes. Given the Earth’s finite resources, can this solution be delivered in an equitable way across all global communities? When we spend more time on exploring the problem and develop our capacity for complexity thinking, we see beyond the local contexts and begin to consider connections across and within interconnected socio-ecological systems (Dixon, 2017). In the city infrastructure example, considering Earth’s finite resources and a need for resource equity, might then lead to more transformative solutions such as developing regional circular material solutions or rethinking city planning and core energy needs.  By centering our efforts on deepening problem understanding and developing the capacity for complexity thinking we increase the potential to attain more effective solutions and transformative change.  

So how then do we refocus our thinking? The integration of Indigenous ways of knowing in climate action leadership contributes to the process of Reconciliation and provides a key pathway to recalibrate the predominate Western worldview and affinity for quick solutions. For example, gaining an understanding of traditional ecological knowledge and “the relationships of living beings (including humans) with one another and their environment” (Berkes, 1999, p. 8, as cited in Alexander, 2011, p. 477). can help shift Western perspectives from a predominant disassociation with the natural systems on which we depend. Further, In the exploration of a “…more relational disposition to collaborative knowledge creation and sharing.” (Goodchild, 2021, p. 79)., Melanie Goodchild contrasts the Western analytical pursuit of knowledge to the Indigenous practice of the pursuit of ‘wisdom in action’ (Goodchild, 2021, p. 79). Indigenous oral histories and storytelling can teach us how to listen more deeply, shift our worldview, increase our capacity to engage with complexity and thereby reflect more deeply on problem definition.  

In the context of Reconciliation and climate action, resilience is an important determinate in shaping how systems respond to change. This is applicable at individual and community scales as well as within ecological and socio-economic systems. Béné’s three typologies of resilience (Béné et al., 2012, as cited in Lonsdale et al., 2015) include persistence, incremental adjustment and transformational responses. This provides a helpful way of thinking about different dimensions of resilience. For example, the persistence of social or economic structures to change can lock in unsustainable or colonial practices. At the other end of the spectrum, Christine Nieve’s TedMED 2018 talk on lessons post-Hurricane Maria demonstrates both individual and community level transformational responses in the face of severe disruptive change.  A precondition for transformational responses is the degree of “…openness, adaptability and flexibility within the system.” (Dovers & Handmer, 1992, as cited in Lonsdale et al., 2015, p.  15). Thus, openness to Indigenous ways of knowing, flexibility to embrace change and the capacity for adaptive thinking are determinates in attaining transformative change.

Transformational change in the context of climate action requires a significant shift from quickly devised localized solutions to a deeper framing and understanding of the core problems with all their extended complexity. Reconciliation can provide an important pathway in broadening the Western mindset and exploring more deeply. Resilience thinking, particularly openness and adaptive thinking, establishes the conditions conducive to transformation change at individual and community scales. Such reflective change lays the path to transformative climate action.

References

Adger, W.N., Arnell, N.W., and Tompkins, E.L. (2005). Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change, 15(2), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005.

Alexander, C., Bynum, N., Johnson, E.G., King, U., Mustonen, T., Neofotis, P., Oettlé, N., Rosenzweig. C., Sakakiabara, C., Shadrin, V., Vicarelli, M., Waterhouse, J., & Weeks, B.C. (2011). Linking Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge of Climate Change. BioScience, 61(6), 477-484.

Dixon, T.H.  (2011). “Complexity Science,” Oxford Leadership Journal, 2(1),1-15.

Goodchild, M., Senge, P., Scharmer, C.O., Roronhiakewen (He Clears the Sky), D.L., Kahontakwas, D.L., Hill, R., & Ka’nahsohon (A Feather Dipped in Paint), K.D. (2021). Relational Systems Thinking: That’s how change is going to come, from Our Mother Earth. Journal of Awareness Based Systems Change 1(1), 75-103. https://doi.org/10.47061/jabsc.v1i1.577

Lonsdale, K., Pringle, P. & Turner, B. (2015). Transformative adaptation: what it is, why it matters & what is needed. UK Climate Impacts Programme, University of Oxford, Oxford UK. www.ukcip.org.uk.

Thanks to the MACAL leadership team and the inaugural MACAL cohort for a wonderfully rich first week in the Learning Intensive. Recalling the words of Mike Lickers, RRU Indigenous Scholar in residence, from our Tuesday session: “connectedness is co-created”. Thank you all for creating such strong connectedness over such a short period of time. I look forward to our journey together and continuing to learn from and be inspired by all of you.