Greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions reductions continue to fall well short of meeting the IPCC’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees, and the horrific and deeply inequitable effects of warming beyond that threshold are now irrefutable (IPCC, 2022). Meanwhile, the solutions to this crisis are abundant and readily available (Hoff, M.). As well, the majority of people in North America are concerned about climate change – pre-election polls in 2019 indicated that “69% of Canadians believe addressing climate change to be a top priority” (Klein, 2020, p.79). That said, research points toward the weak correlation between thoughts and action when it comes to concern for the environment (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). What, then, is holding us back from acting on our concerns and contributing to solutions?
My Personal Theory of Change
This has been the central question in my mind as I’ve progressed through the MACAL degree, because I believe that higher levels of civic engagement in climate action are necessary not only for individual behaviour change, but also to accelerate mitigation in the public and private spheres. I agree with Newell, Twena and Daley (2021) that action must take place concurrently in all of these spheres, and that these actions can be mutually reinforcing. As an example, more sustainable options becoming available in the private sector could facilitate individual behaviour change, which then could foster political will for stronger regulatory changes, causing a virtuous feedback loop (Newell, Twena and Daley, 2021). These feedbacks can happen interchangeably across all elements in the system.
In answer then to the question of individuals’ concern failing to lead to action, my focus has turned towards the role of community-based empowerment and capacity building. To understand the disconnect between individuals’ concern for climate change and their willingness to act, academics are increasingly focusing their attention on the psychological motivators and deterrents for action. Iype, Sheppard, Cote and Salter (2015) discuss social mobilization as a tool for action; they recommend working through local citizen groups to bolster trust, as well as the power of engaging at the group level (p.5). Fritsche and Masson also discuss the power of collective climate action, citing “in group identification, social norms, emotions, and collective efficacy” as predictors for collective climate action (2021, p.115). Harth also researched the power of group-based emotions in driving climate action (2021).
While collective action is powerful and motivating, there are many additional reasons for focusing on local-level engagement. Firstly, municipalities play a pivotal role in reducing emissions, with half of GhG emissions in Canada falling within their sphere of influence (FCM, n.d.). By acting locally, therefore, community members are well-positioned to influence municipal emissions. Working together locally also allows community members to build solutions that are tailored to their unique context and needs, and these initiatives could potentially contribute to local green job creation. In addition, working together with others builds feelings of pride, optimism and courage, which promote further action (Harth, 2021) and contribute to personal well-being. Lastly, working together strengthens community social fabric, thus fostering social resilience in the face of climate impacts.
The Need for Knowledge Mobilization, Capacity-Building and Empowerment to Increase Engagement
In their research to understand what is needed to drive public-sphere action, Doherty and Webler (2016) found that “those who acted did so because they believed similar others were acting, they trusted in their personal ability, and had confidence in the effectiveness of their individual and collective efforts” (p.882). Not only are these important drivers, but individuals often underestimate the degree to which others care (Bouman and Steg, 2020, p.14). I myself am guilty of this misperception; even though I’ve been exposed to research proving otherwise, I still find it hard to believe that the majority of Canadians care when I don’t see their concern being translated into words and action. Fritsche and Masson also discuss the important impact of social norms, stating that “even if people would consider their personal contribution important, the anticipated inaction of others de-motivate(s) people to personally invest in the collective good of climate change mitigation” (2021).
To add to these psychological barriers, the general public lacks clarity around which actions have the most impact. Most people, even environmentalists, “tend to focus on (climate) actions with small benefits. There is a wide gulf between the environmental behaviors most people think about and adjust (such as recycling or turning off lights) and their behaviours with large impact” (Wynes & Nicholas, 2017). There is also a lack of accurate information being shared with the general public, through government and in schools for instance: researchers found that ten Canadian high-school textbooks suggested incremental emissions reductions strategies rather than informing students of high-impact options. Similarly, “government resources on climate change from the EU, USA, Canada, and Australia also focus(ed) recommendations on lower-impact actions” (Wynes & Nicholas, 2017). This lack of clarity slow progress because well-meaning individuals fail to advocate for the most important initiatives. I further believe that Canadians are reluctant to make big adjustments to their behaviour until we are getting a clear message from our federal leaders to do so (Klein, 2020). Unless we see that there is a national mobilization to make these changes as a collective, we are likely to feel like ‘a drop in the bucket’.
For all these reasons, my Theory of Change is centered around providing information that is empowering, that debunks misperceptions around how much others care, that builds capacity for collective action and that provides accurate information about meaningful mitigation efforts. I believe that if individuals are more engaged in collective action at a local level and are empowered to understand their own agency, this will produce a virtuous cycle: due to the power of descriptive social norms, as individuals engage in climate actions they will break the misperception of others not caring about this issue, thus inspiring more engagement. This engagement will in turn bolster political will at all levels, with politicians seeing that their constituents are ready for substantial action.
Equity Considerations
All of this being said, it is essential that equity be taken into account in the delivery of this proposed approach. On one level, this community-based capacity-building has the potential to reduce barriers to education by making knowledge more accessible and providing free training opportunities. Importantly, it fosters development of locally-relevant solutions that are tailored to community members’ unique needs and contexts, and could foster local green job creation. It would be important, however, to ensure that knowledge mobilization opportunities reach all communities in culturally-appropriate ways, in order to ensure equitable access and reduce barriers to participation. Efforts should be made to support initiatives led by equity-deserving communities, and community members should be paid for sharing their expertise when involved in focus groups, committees and any other activities where they are providing insights on their experiences (Mohnot, Bishop & Sanchez, 2019). In addition, it would be important to advocate for funding to ensure that new initiatives can quickly transition from volunteer-dependent initiatives to programs with hired staff (S. Fralin, personal communication, November 14, 2023).
References
Bouman, T. & Steg, L. (2020). Motivating Climate Action [chapter] Applied Psychology Around the World.- Climate Change and Environmental Psychology. International Association of Applied Psychology. IAAP Bulletin. Vol. 2, Iss. 3. ISSN: 2639-652
Fritsche, I. & Masson, T. (2021) Collective climate action: When do people turn into collective environmental agents? Science Direct. Elsevier.
Empower Me. (n.d.). What We Do. Empower Me. Retrieved November 24, 2023, from https://empowerme.ca/what-we-do-bc/
Harth, N. (2021). Affect, (group-based) emotions, and climate change action. Science Direct. Elsevier. 42:140-144
Hoff, M. (2022). Project Drawdown updates & expands its climate solutions set. Project Drawdown. https://drawdown.org/news/insights/project-drawdown-updates-expands-its-climate-solutions-set
IPCC. (2022). Press Release: Climate change: a threat to human wellbeing and health of the planet. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/resources/press/press-release/
Iype, M.; Sheppard, S.; Cote, S. & Salter, J. (2015). Synthesis of Social Mobilization Research: Preliminary Report. Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions.
Klein, S. (2020). A Good War – Mobilizing Canada for the Climate Emergency. ECW Press.
Kollmuss A, Agyeman (2002). J: Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res, 8:239–260, https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401.
Mohnot, S.; Bishop, J.; & Sanchez, A. (2019). Making Equity Real in Climate Adaptation and Community Resilience Policies and Programs: A Guidebook. The Greenlining Institute. https://greenlining.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Making-Equity-Real-
in-Climate-Adaption-and-Community-Resilience-Policies-and-Programs-A-Guidebook-1.pdf
Newell, P.; Twena, M. & Daley, F. (2021). Scaling behaviour change for a 1.5-degree world: challenges and opportunities. Global Sustainability. https:// doi.org/10.1017/sus.2021.23
Ponette, M. (2023). Personal Theory of Change [Unpublished manuscript]. School of Environment & Sustainability. Royal Roads
University.
Stoknes, P.E.. (2017). How to transform apocalypse fatigue into action on global warming. [Video]. TED.