As I sit and reflect on the past two weeks, my brain is cluttered with an abundance of information, weeding through themes, and picking out what I see as the driving force of climate action in todays world. What I’ve found most intriguing is the role transdisciplinarity plays and the growing need to implement it in the field of climate action. McGregor (2014) defines transdisciplinarity as “going beyond disciplines to engage civil society” (p. 201). The need to transcend singular trains of thought and include a multitude of perspectives, ideologies, and expertise is how positive change can occur. After listening to the panel on, Climate Action: Designing with Policy in Mind, I began thinking about how essential transdisciplinarity, listening from a place of empathy, and bipartisanship are, specifically, in the context of environmental policy. 

    At the heart of environmental policy is an increased need for bipartisanship in the political sphere. More often than not, we see the issues associated with climate change leveraged within political agendas cementing a tactic to lure in constituents who view climate related topics as a partisan issue. This has got to change. Our climate is not a partisan issue and should not be exploited in such a way. This tactic is simply baffling to me. The science is out there and the need is greater than ever to prioritize and demand climate action from all political parties, philosophies, sectors, and walks of life. A transdisciplinary agenda in a bipartisan setting can help bridge the divide and result in productive policy making.

Bipartisanship is defined by Harbridge et al. (2014) as both “concessions [made] by parties to meet in the middle…and can be perceived as a focus on places of preexisting common ground” (p. 331). My grandfather, Jacob Javits, was the Senator of the state of New York for nearly thirty years. He was a Republican at a time when Republicans were much different than they are today. He helped pass the Civil Rights Act alongside Lyndon B. Johnson and Martin Luther King Jr. and deeply believed in bipartisanship. When he passed away he left a legacy of working across the isle to find common ground and achieve a common goal. This type of bipartisanship, that my grandfather exemplified in his years in office, is largely hidden under the surface in todays political climate. To tackle climate change and to find common ground, bipartisanship must be the stepping stone on the path to more impactful environmental policy. We must reestablish the ability to disagree while simultaneously respecting our differences. 

At the core of underwhelming environmental policy lies the stark polarization between political parties, those that believe in climate science, and those that deny its very existence. The United States, where I am originally from, is the epitome of this conflict. Ehret et al. (2018) add that the “US congress has failed to act because of political polarization over climate policy” (p. 308). This polarization is not new. It is deep rooted, difficult to fix, and requires a systematic makeover. The partisan divide in the United States “provides a good case for analyzing the problem of…[climate change]…because it has the dubious distinction of being a deeply polarized country [over] environmental politics” (Brown & Hess, 2016, p. 972). We can’t continue to avoid the unavoidable. It’s time to set aside our bickering ways, redirect political discourse, and demand across the isle collaboration with regards to environmental policy making. 

How can we tackle this issue of integrating differing political viewpoints and perspectives into the writing and enactment of prompt, effective, and important environmental policy? I think it starts with listening from a place of empathy across sectors and to a wide variety of stakeholders and community members. Listening is fundamental to any real progress. Our leaders must listen to the communities most impacted by the harsh realities of a changing climate and bring those voices to the policy making table. When we listen from a place of empathy we “tak[e] the perspective of the other and [feel] an emotional bond with that [person’s story] (Brown et al., 2019, p. 11). By bringing empathy into policy making, transdisciplinarity into practice, and bipartisanship into politics we can foster inclusivity and lasting environmental policy.

References

Brown, K., Adger, W. N., Devine-Wright, P., Anderies, J. M., Barr, S., Bousquet, F., Butler, C., Evans, L., Marshall, N., & Quinn, T. (2019). Empathy, place and identity interactions for sustainability. Global Environmental Change, 56, 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.003

Brown, K. P., & Hess, D. J. (2016). Pathways to policy: Partisanship and bipartisanship in renewable energy legislation. Environmental Politics, 25(6), 971–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2016.1203523

Ehret, P. J., Van Boven, L., & Sherman, D. K. (2018). Partisan Barriers to Bipartisanship. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(3), 308–318. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1948550618758709

Harbridge, L., Malhotra, N., & Harrison, B. F. (2014). Public Preferences for Bipartisanship in the Policymaking Process. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 39(3), 327–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsq.12048

McGregor, S. L. T. (2014). Transdisciplinarity and Conceptual Change. World Futures, 70(3-4), 200–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/02604027.2014.934635

In many ways, design thinking is the way of the future. The intersection and collaboration of diverse ideas, perspectives, and Indigenous ways of thinking and knowing is how we, as a society, can effectively tackle the pressing issues driven by the factors of climate change. The purpose of design thinking is in “redesigning existing ecosystems” to focus on the wicked problems generated by an altering climate (Cankurtaran and Beverland, 2020, p. 259). The question I ask is how do we redesign an existing ecosystem? Where and how do we begin this complex process? During and throughout the anthropocene, human induced changes have caused crippling impacts to every ecosystem on our planet. I argue that deep listening and decolonizing the anthropocene through a design thinking lens is not only how we can understand the current climatic issues at hand but further problem solve practical and realistic solutions. 

Design thinking must begin from a place of empathy and listening deeply. As defined by Gram-Hanssen et al. (2021) “deep listening is different from active listening in that it goes beyond listening to the words spoken; it enters into an engagement with Indigenous paradigms, ontologies and epistemologies in a meaningful effort to think, feel, and act” (para. 24). Deep listening actively engages us, as human beings, in the past and present context of colonialism. Colonization is directly linked to climate change and design thinking must inherently begin with this profound and ever present concept when facing the climate challenges presented. Indigenous ways of knowing, through story, oral history, and traditional ecological knowledge, offers perspective and expertise yet to be adopted by mainstream western philosophy. Gadgil et al. (1993) add that “Indigenous knowledge…hold[s] valuable information on the role that species play in [creating] ecologically sustainable system[s]” (p. 156). Design thinking must incorporate this vastly important and unique knowledge base, along with western scientific practice, to generate a multi dimensional approach to confront climate variability. 

In conclusion, the way forward is in many ways the way of the past. The anthropocene has been driven by mass production and extraction of our planet’s ecosystems and the unfathomable amount of GHGs emitted into our atmosphere for the sole purpose of fulfilling human need and the desire to conquest. It is colonialism at its worst. Indigenous knowledge offers insights into reestablishing and recreating harmony within our earth systems and introduces us to solutions based on a history of adaptability. By utilizing Indigenous knowledge, deep listening, and design thinking we can reshape and redefine our role as actors in the climate action space in order to tackle the most pressing dilemma of our time. 

References

Cankurtaran, P., & Beverland, M.B. (2020). Using design thinking to respond to crises: B2B lessons from the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 255-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.030

Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1993). Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio, 22(2-3), 151-156. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4314060

Gram-Hanssen, I., Schafenacker, N., & Bentz, J.(2021). Decolonizing transformations through ‘right relations’. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00960-9