#RRUMACAL – Climate For All

In their literature review on transformative adaptation, authors Fedele et al. conclude that transformative adaptation might be “the only suitable response to climate change and other complex global environmental issues”, stating that transformative adaptation is needed to “help reach an impact that is commensurate to the extent of the issue, as well as avoid costs and delays due to failures of coping or incremental adaptation” (2019, p.122). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report highlights the three intertwined crisis of climate, biodiversity loss and inequity, emphasizing the need for much more ambitious action than incrementalism (IPCC, 2022). “Half measures are no longer an option” said Hoesung Lee, IPCC Chair (IPCC, 2022).

It is clear, then, that transformative adaptation is what is needed to address the interconnected crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and global and societal inequities. If all this is true, then what is holding us back? What rational do we still have for choosing incrementalism as a strategy? Certainly, transformative adaptation is not the easiest solution and many barriers stand in our way. As Fedele et al. describe, it runs the risk of encountering social or political resistance, it can be intimidating because it challenges the status quo, be hindered by rigid funding and institutional frameworks, or be sabotaged by those who benefit from the current systems that transformative change seeks to dismantle (2019, p. 117). As well, it is incredibly complex, ambitious and challenging to implement, requiring cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder collaboration and requiring shifts at both large-scale institutional levels as well as deeply personal ones, such as worldviews, norms, value systems and lifestyle changes (Fedele et al., 2019). In addition, while transformative adaptation has the potential to uproot inequities and transition us to a fairer state, the destabilizing nature of these major changes could have negative outcomes for the most vulnerable in the short-term (Pelling, O’Brien, & Matyas, 2015, p.124).

All of these challenges and complexities do not, however, erase the fact that transformative change is more effective and desirable; they simply acknowledge how challenging it will be. We know that incrementalism will only get us halfway there, but we are daunted by the scale and magnitude of the changes that are truly necessary. Ultimately, what I think is holding most of us back from choosing transformative adaptation as a strategy then, is fear. We are scared that the challenge is too big, that we will fail, that we will do more harm than good or slow the transition by aiming too high instead of focusing on a manageable (but ultimately inadequate) goal.

Possibly the most inspiring piece of research that has informed my thinking over the past few years and that has helped me to overcome that fear is Erica Chenoweth’s work and findings around “the 3.5% rule” (Robson, 2019). Based on an extensive literature review covering 323 civil resistance movements spanning the globe from the past century, she found that once active participation in these movements reached 3.5% of the population, success was virtually guaranteed. “There weren’t any campaigns that had failed after they had achieved 3.5% participation during a peak event,” says Chenoweth (Robson, 2019). While the focus of her research was on civil resistance aimed at overturning repressive political regimes, I interpret her findings as applying to transformational change in general. That the conflicts in her research took place in highly challenging political contexts make her findings that much more inspiring for me. If it takes 3.5 % of the population standing behind an idea to ensure its success (no matter how revolutionary or transformational it may seem), then that gives me enormous hope that we can achieve transformational change within the context of climate change and the multitude of societal and environmental crisis that we face. If the people who participated in the nonviolent protests studied by Chenoweth were brave enough to confront the status quo, I think most of us should reflect on our own political context and privilege, asking ourselves whether the hurdles we face really are so high or so insurmountable.

So, then, to me the question is not if or whether transformational adaptation is the right approach, but how do we go about it. According to climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, one of the most powerful things we can do is talk about it (2018). In her TED talk, she discusses polarization and explains that most people agree that climate change is real; their resistance to addressing it centres around ideology and identity (Hayhoe, 2018). In his book ‘A Good War’, Seth Klein shares polling data from 2019 revealing that 75% of Canadians are worried about climate change (2020, p.69). Hayhoe explains that talking about the science to someone who is not on board with progressive change could cause them to further entrench themselves in their position, but that speaking from the heart, finding common ground through shared values, interests and priorities and then “connect(ing) the dots between the values they already have and why they would care about a changing climate” is all we really need to do to shift the dial (Hayhoe, 2018). Chenoweth, meanwhile, explains that the success of the campaigns she researched centered around the domino effect and the influence of social and familial networks (n.d.). For one, as more people became noticeably involved in a movement, others were inspired to participate (Chenoweth, n.d.). Secondly, as the number of protestors began to approach the 3.5% threshold, the personal connections and relationships between protestors and politicians, law enforcement and other key influencers began to have an impact (Chenoweth, n.d.). Because we are all connected by family and social relationships, the sheer number of protestors meant that everyone knew someone who was involved, and those personal connections began to play a role in influencing key decision-makers (Chenoweth, n.d.).

Transformational change is without a doubt an extremely complex and daunting undertaking, that will require unimaginable levels of effort, coordination, perseverance, cooperation, goodwill and expertise. That being said, if we can inspire the people within our society operating at different levels to embark on this change with us, we can succeed.

References

Chenoweth, E. The success of nonviolent civil resistance: Erica Chenoweth at TEDxBoulder. TEDxBoulder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w

Fedele, G., Donatti, C. I., Harvey, C. A., Hannah, L., & Hole, D. G. (2019). Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological systems. Environmental Science and Policy, 101, 116–125.

Hayhoe, K. (2018). The most important thing you can do to fight climate change: talk about it. [recorded talk]. TEDWomen. https://www.ted.com/talks/katharine_hayhoe_the_most_important_thing_you_can_do_to_fight_climate_change_talk_about_it?language=en

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/

Klein, S. (2020). A Good War – Mobilizing Canada for the Climate Emergency. ECW Press.

Pelling, M., O’Brien, K., & Matyas, D. (2015). Adaptation and transformation. Climatic Change, 133. 113- 127.

Robson, D. (2019). The ‘3.5% rule’: How a small minority can change the world. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world

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 (2^nd edition). Zed Books. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/royalroadsebooks/detail.action?docID=1426837

Tag: #RRUMACAL

3.5% Is All We Need to Achieve Transformative Change

Is Self-Interest the Best Driver for Climate Action?