When I started at Alberta Environment as an intern student in 1996, one of my first projects was to develop a “valuation” model for air quality. Assigning dollars to each doctor’s visit, hospital stay and mortality resulting from air pollution, I thought, “…what a compelling way to convince people to drive less!” I really “bought into” the concept. Throughout my career in environmental policy, I have since tried many times to use dollars and cents as a way to assign value to environmental attributes such as tree stands, clean lakes and bird watching, for example. I thought I could convince decision-makers to choose to preserve nature over short-term financial gain. It hasn’t worked; and now I know why.
Traditional economic theory is founded on the concept that the best financial benefit for all relies on individuals prioritizing economic gain (economic self-interest). It is a capitalistic, gender-biased, western philosophy that has achieved many positive outcomes for humanity, but effective climate action is not one of them. In fact, our need to prioritize financial gain has now resulted in an ongoing loss of billions of dollars in assets due to climate impacts, not to mention human lives and staggering biodiversity loss. Why has this occurred? Countries have been aware of the costs of pollution for years, but that has not been enough to motivate the type of transformational action required to counteract climate change. After reflecting on Julie Nelson’s paper, “Climate Change and Economic Self-Interest” (2019) in the context of, “The Logic of the Gift: Reclaiming Indigenous Peoples’ Philosophies” (Kukkanen, 2006), the answers are becoming clearer. Economic self-interest is not the strongest motivator for climate change because self-interest ignores three key concepts, all of which are inherent in Indigenous worldview: feminist values of care, interconnectedness with nature, and the innate human need to be social. A more effective way to motivate climate action is therefore to take a Two-Eyed Seeing approach that balances Indigenous and Western worldviews and puts more value on feminist-style care, nature and community.
The capitalistic approach to problem-solving is gender-biased towards men. It assumes that individuals will choose financial gain over values that are more traditionally thought to be feminist, such as “connection and care, emotion, body, interdependence with others, interdependence with ‘mother’ nature, richness, qualitative methods, home and community, and need” (Nelson, 2019, p.118). All of these feminist values of care are urgently required in climate leadership, as we aim to protect vulnerable populations, save lives and create a future that is livable for our grandchildren. Indigenous worldview prioritizes the value of care, recognizes the capacity of both men and women, and “mothers are seen as keepers of the culture, the nation, and the future” (Native Women’s Association of Canada, 2010, p. 9). Colonial, sexist, traditional economics considers ethics as a “demand” instead of as a “preference” (Nelson, 2019, p. 118), and ethics are exactly what we need more of in climate action to choose the well-being of others over economic gain.
Mainstream economics also prioritizes “autonomy, reason, mind, and separation from others and from the rest of nature” (Nelson, p. 118). There is no acknowledgement of the interconnectedness of a healthy economy and a healthy environment. Economic self-interest keeps humans focused on their jobs and their bank accounts, and it is easy to simply forget about nature. In contrast, the notion of “the gift” in Indigenous philosophy, is “characterized by a perception of the natural environment as a living entity which gives its gifts and abundance to people if it is treated with respect and gratitude (i.e., if certain responsibilities are observed)” (Kuokkanen, 2006, p. 258). In order to motivate climate action, humans must spend more time in nature and recognize that our physical, emotional and spiritual well-being is dependent on a healthy natural environment.
Finally, “…considerable social science research contradicts the claim that self-interest is the strongest motivator” (Nelson, 2019, p. 115). The innate human desire to show regard for others, to be fair, and to maintain a sense of identity within the world has been shown to motivate action, even when it is economically costly (Nelson, 2019). In other words, people are good and need a sense of community, and this sense is key to inspiring the collective action required to address the climate crisis. This aligns with an Indigenous worldview’s notion of duty to community; a duty that we must tap into to motivate climate action, because it is based on ethics and justice instead of economics (Thexton, 2022). Like the Iroquois Constitution, Gayanashagowa (The Great Binding Law) says, “self interest is cast into oblivion” (Dekanawidah, n.d., Article 28).
After realizing that climate action needs to be motivated by more than economic self-interest, I have had to rethink my capitalistic, western approach to valuation of environmental attributes. The reason I could not convince decision-makers to choose environment over economics with a simple dollar and cents explanation was because my approach lacked a focus on care and emotion, connection to nature and regard for community. When these three concepts are integrated into a Two-Eyed Seeing approach, motivation on climate action will prevail. We do not have to rely solely on the argument to save money, but rather the argument to save ourselves. Ultimately, effective action on the climate crisis requires that more women be in leadership roles, the human-nature connection is strengthened with more time spent in nature, and our sense of community is fostered through more awareness of the injustice caused by climate impacts.
Do you think we should motivate climate action with economic self-interest? Why or why not? I am interested in your comments and feedback. Please connect with me on social media or email me at: kerra.chomlak@royalroads.ca.
References
Dekanawidah. (n.d.) Constitution of the Iroquois Nations. Gayanashagowa (The Great Binding Law). http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm.
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. (pp. 251 – 271). https://rauna.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/s21_sip_17_rauna-kuokkanen.pdf
Native Women’s Association of Canada (2010). Culturally Relevant Gender Based Models of Reconciliation. https://www.nwac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2010-NWAC-Culturally-Relevant-Gender-Based-Models-of-Reconciliation.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. (pp. 113- 122). https://moodle.royalroads.ca/moodle/pluginfile.php/957059/mod_book/chapter/220197/Nelson%20%282019%29%20Climate%20Change%20and%20Economic%20Self-Interest.pdf
Thexton, T. (2022). Welcome to CALS504 Orientation Video. March 28, 2022. Royal Roads University. Moodle.