In her chapter on different motivators for climate action, economist Julie Nelson exposes the contrast between Christiana Figueres’ motivational speeches at COP 21 with Figueres’ own personal motivations for climate action (2019). Nelson describes how in her role directing the climate summit, Figueres attempted to inspire world leaders to agree to mitigation targets together by emphasizing how doing so would be in each nation’s economic best interest (2019, p. 112). Nelson then went on to explain how focusing on economic self-interest to motivate climate action is ineffective and risky; moreover, she argues that other more noble motivations such as ethics and concern for others are stronger influences for human behaviour and that they should be used to drive action in global climate negotiations (2019, p. 119, 120). The contrast between Figueres’ approach to motivating others and her own motivations really resonated with me. I agree with Nelson in that I think many of us, including politicians and business leaders, feel personally motivated by values such as a desire to protect and care for our loved ones, a sense of morality and/or a desire for fairness. That said, I think there are complex dynamics at play; for instance, I believe those same individuals can be swayed to act against their values based on perceived societal or corporate pressure. Figueres herself seems to exemplify this: she argues with one rationale in her political role, but describes a completely different set of personal motivations (Nelson, 2019, p. 120). Whether or not our assumptions are founded, we look around us and see everyone else following the status quo, so we do the same and perpetuate a vicious cycle. I think this tendency to conform makes Nelson’s call to disrupt the status quo and bring more noble rationale into public discourse all the more important and potent: Encouraging leaders and citizens to act based on what is just and fair could have a ripple effect by normalizing those motivations. Having said this, I think that shifting the status quo would be more challenging for someone lacking job security or seniority and/or for those experiencing forms of oppression such as BIPOC and women. Because of existing power dynamics and inequality within political, professional and public spaces, I think it should be especially incumbent on those of us who have enough privilege (e.g. financial comfort, seniority), influence (e.g. a leadership role) and/or immunity (e.g. anonymity) to take those risks.
All of this being said, I actually think self-interest still has a role in motivating climate action. Rather than self-interest itself, I would argue that it’s our western, humanistic worldview that’s problematic – more specifically the separation and elevation of (white) human beings above everyone else and the lack of reciprocity in our culture. Influenced by Greek philosophers, the western worldview is underpinned by a deeply engrained idea that human beings are not a part of nature (Tuhiwai Smith, 2012, p.100-101). This separation applies to the economy as well, separating it from the natural world that sustains it. In contrast, most Indigenous worldviews recognize nature as the sustaining system within our lives and therefore, very logically, are committed to protecting it. Central to many Indigenous worldviews is also a deep respect and egalitarian attitude towards plants, animals and other aspects of our ecosystems such as water and the land (Kimmerer, 2014, p. 21), whereas the humanistic worldview has placed humans in a hierarchical position of superiority (Tuhiwai Smith , 2012, p. 101). As argued earlier, I think human beings generally have the capacity and desire to care for those around us, but if we view others as inferior then we are less likely to take them into account. As beautifully stated by Robin Wall Kimmerer, “for much of humans’ time on the planet, before the great delusion, we lived in cultures that understood the covenant of reciprocity—that for the Earth to stay in balance, for the gifts to continue to flow, we must give back in equal measure for what we are given” (2014, p. 19). Through an Indigenous worldview, then, self-interest is not divorced from the needs of the other: we can tend to our personal needs while accounting for our impact on those around us, including the non-human world. Ultimately, because we are all part of and dependent on the natural world, it is in our own self-interest to protect it.
I realize that shifting the discourse and introducing or uplifting these concepts within a corporate or political context based on economic growth, dominance over nature and exploitation is a monumental undertaking. This is also just part of a dynamic interplay of factors, influences and motivations to consider, with different audiences and each situation requiring a tailored approach. That said, like the climate crisis itself, we can’t see the enormity or complexity of the problem as a reason not to tackle it.
References
Kimmerer, R. W. (2014). “Returning the Gift.” Center for Humans and Nature. https://www.humansandnature.org/returning-the-gift-article-177.php
Nelson, J.A. (2018). Climate Change and Economic Self-Interest. In R. Kanbur & H. Shue (Eds.), Climate Justice: Integrating Economics and Philosophy (pp. 112-122). Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198813248.001.0001
Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2012).Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (2nd edition). Zed Books. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/royalroadsebooks/detail.action?docID=1426837