CALS 501 – Unit 2 Blog Post
Upon reflection of my learning from CALS500: Climate Science, Impacts, and Services, I can say that one idea that intrigued me most was less about the science itself and more about gaining an understanding and appreciation for the differences between Western and Indigenous worldviews related to science; specifically, where science is situated within our respective governing societal structures, and what that tells us about efforts toward climate adaptation and mitigation measures. CALS500 also provided an opportunity for me to deepen my understanding of the science that supports climate action generally, but also emphasized how important it is to focus on adaptation efforts, knowing that while mitigation is still required, it is an insufficient response to the problem on its own (Moser et al., 2017).
Exploring solutions for a low-carbon, resilient future needs to address mitigating climate change through reducing emissions, and addressing climate hazards of the present and future to support the built and natural systems on which we depend (Moser et al, 2017). For example, we can build a carbon-neutral, energy-efficient LEED-certified building, but if it isn’t built for future climate, it will not be sustainable (Moser et al., 2017; Shuttleworth & MacAskill, 2021). It will not function properly when there are extreme heat events. It will not shed/drain water adequately during prolonged, intense precipitation events. It may be constructed in a location that will increase its risk of flooding; e.g. built on a floodplain, in the coastal zone subject to sea-level rise and storm surge, etc. (Moser et al., 2017; Moudrak & Feltmate, 2019). We need to construct buildings and infrastructure to be responsive and resilient to future climate extremes, yet building codes still utilize historical data to assess the risk of climate-related events; e.g., flood return rates, heat, etc. (Infrastructure Canada, 2020).
In our western approach to decision-making in the face of change, we tend to wait for the observational evidence to roll in before we act. We can’t afford to do that anymore, as the climate has already started changing in response to emissions from the distant past, and more change and impacts are locked in from those past emissions. We need to find ways to empower action based on the science of future climate projections. The planet is giving us all kinds of information and scientists have translated it, yet decision-makers in government seem unable to look at the potential climate future and make the meaningful, transformative change that is required to support the built and natural environments in closing the resiliency gap (Moser et al., 2017).
In a guest lecture this past August, Gwen Bridge (2021) discussed the differences in how science is positioned in western and Indigenous societies (see Figure 1), and this provided such an “ah-ha” moment for me in understanding why our system isn’t functioning as it needs to.
Figure 1: Adapted from Gwen Bridge’s lecture: Evolving toward ethical space: the authority of Earth knowledge (science) in Western and Indigenous societies (2021)
I hadn’t fully considered how due to its position at the bottom of that societal system, science in our Western context, seems destined to inform but never drive meaningful change in decision-making because it has to push up from the bottom. Conversely, Indigenous frameworks generally hold the Earth and science/ecological information second only to the Creator, which means that it drives behaviour and decision-making around management and how to live. This was such a powerful distinction that provided great insight into both understanding the problem we face, as well as potential solutions. The importance of understanding not just the contents, but also the structure of societal systems, led me to wonder about what that would mean for mitigation and adaptation efforts and actions.
Transformational change will require people to challenge their dominant worldviews and culture…to find the space where there is overlap between different ways of knowing, ways of doing things, and then explore respectfully within that overlap. Prioritization of efforts to deeply understand various underlying societal systems broadly and at community levels will be necessary and helpful to inform and stretch our collective imaginations to co-create new ways of organizing and operating within planetary boundaries, as dictated by nature and science. We may not know the exact details of our climate future, but we know how things are trending (Bush, et al, 2019). We know things are already changing beyond the stable climate normals from the past that continue to be used as a basis for things like building codes and infrastructure planning decisions (Infrastructure Canada, 2019). By using climate projections and feeding those into different scenarios, it becomes easier to paint the picture of various futures for people. To paint pictures that are relevant to people, we must ensure climate projections and scenarios are tailored to local contexts to inspire action.
In terms of how we have integrated some of this thinking into our team design challenge, the key considerations were related to scoping our audience, and taking local knowledge, impacts, physical conditions, etc. into account as a first step; appreciating the local experience of impacts, while linking climate change as a global phenomenon that plays out in the context of local and regional settings. We will need to bring forward an understanding of the regionally downscaled climate models and scenarios to make them locally relevant and scoped to each particular audience. Talking about sea-level rise in the coastal zone to a farmer in the prairies isn’t likely to inspire action. Talking about the loss of ice in northern communities may generate concern from someone living in an urban centre, but is unlikely to empower them to take action in their communities.
As such, our approach to the design challenge shifted from a national, multi-sectoral audience, to a community-based audience that would work with the local conditions, concerns, circumstances, and desired outcomes of each community using a design-thinking approach to affect change from within. By working outside the confines of our Western societal governance structure that positions science at the bottom (see Figure 1), we can take the science to communities and use it to inform and generate the stories, principles, and ways of living that will increase their resilience to climate futures, modeling the Indigenous societal governance structure. We can give science a more prominent position in our decision-making process while putting pressure on the existing Western structure of governance to make the required changes to support adaptation measures and make climate-informed decisions when planning things like building construction/retrofitting and infrastructure development at a local government level. Then hopefully, it will trickle UP.
References
Bridge, G. (2021). Evolving towards ethical space: the authority of Earth knowledge in Western and Indigenous societies. CALS500 Lecture, Royal Roads, August 12, 2021.
Bush, E., & Lemmen, D. (Eds.). (2019). Canada’s changing climate report. Government of Canada. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2019/eccc/En4-368-2019-eng.pdf
Infrastructure Canada. (2020). Climate-Resilient Buildings and Core Public Infrastructure Initiative. https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan/crbcpi-irccipb-eng.html
Moudrak, N. & Feltmate, B. (2019). Weathering the Storm: Developing a Canadian Standard for Flood-Resilient Existing Communities. Prepared for Standards Council of Canada and National Research Council of Canada. Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation, University of Waterloo. https://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Weathering-the-Storm.pdf
Moser, S.C., Coffee, J., Seville, A. (2017). Rising to the Challenge: A Review and Critical Assessment of the State of the US Climate Adaptation Field. Kresge Foundation. https://kresge.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/rising_to_the_challenge_together_linked_0.pdf
Shuttleworth, A. and MacAskill, K. (2021). Net-zero adaptation—a review of built environment sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability. 1. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2634-4505/ac1c5e