It has been five years since 132 nations declared that only a complete overhaul of how our world works could save it. Yet we are still sleepwalking deeper into the climate and ecological crisis. A million species are still at risk of extinction, and we are among those that will lose because of our inaction. We have been lulled into complacency by urgent distractions and the comforts of modern life. For a healthy, sustainable future, we must change the very systems we rely on: economic, political, social and more.
While the COVID pandemic interrupted the groundswell of climate concern, nations were never really poised to initiate the “transformative change” they touted. The declaration was not mere posturing, though.
As a leading author of the UN report that inspired the declaration — the Global Assessment of the UN’s Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services — I could see genuine concern in the diplomats who negotiated the summary. But there’s a huge gap between calling for system change and making it happen. In hindsight, it was naïve to think that governments could undertake such a transformation without an adamant social movement demanding it.
Galvanizing that unified social movement is our task. It falls upon us to demand systems change towards sustainability. Fortunately, this doesn’t require giving up a day job to stop traffic on busy bridges. Instead, it starts from five feasible but essential foundations.
Go Deep
We must move beyond what’s quick and easy — both in our actions, and in policy. Picking low-hanging fruit is not a recipe for system change. It’s a favored approach of policymakers to achieve short-term wins when the system works well. New technologies like electric vehicles might help somewhat, but they are popular because they don’t require changes in our economic, political or social systems. This easy approach is insufficient.
So we challenge doing what’s easy in law and policy. We also need to prioritize what’s effective in the long-term, reminding skeptics that we are beyond easy solutions. So, not only subsidies to encourage low-carbon technology, but reforming the much larger subsidies that support the status quo in agriculture, fishing and other resource extraction.
Update Tradition
We must transcend “this is how we do things”. How often have you heard people justify an action this way? History provides context, but we cannot fix what’s broken by following precedent.
We can challenge decision-making by questioning the process. Policy making in many nations is rooted in economic analyses that assume little will change. This is self-defeating when seeking system change. Economic analysis must be complemented by systems science — the integrated study of social and natural systems that acknowledges deep uncertainty, nonlinear change and multiple ways of knowing. This way we don’t get trapped in decisions that only make sense economically in the short-term.
Embrace Uncertainty
We must resist oversimplifying problems. As American writer H.L. Mencken wrote, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” Populist political parties spout simple-sounding solutions to all that’s broken, glossing over the uncertainty and unintended consequences inherent in big changes. We must keep questioning.
We also can’t be certain about our own favored policies for big changes. Is a strong carbon tax the way to go? Maybe. Should governments subsidize businesses facing rising fuel costs? Probably not, but maybe. When systems evolve, everything is subject to change, and the way forward is to proceed adaptively. Not meekly, but boldly, experimenting for the sake of learning, with a plan to use that learning to improve our decision-making and institutions.
Seek Widespread Solidarity
We must embrace multiple perspectives. It is easy to find comfort in echo chambers. However, polarization not only breeds hate and fear, it poisons harmonious futures. To change laws, the economy and society in democratic nations, we must push together.
We can guard against division by actively supporting rigorous and balanced journalism, so we draw from a common body of facts across the political spectrum. Juxtaposing contrasting perspectives in context is what’s needed — that’s how journalism favors discussion over disconnection.
Engage Science
We must enhance public access to system science. With everything connected, how else can we orient efforts to change systems, or anticipate the resulting impacts? How else can we contest policies? When politicians of all stripes promise to make housing affordable, voters struggle to interpret what each intends, or what evidence supports each approach. By enlisting academics — whose job it is to assess evidence while divulging and overcoming biases — we can all interpret claims and better understand pressing problems.
We can initiate and grow partnerships involving academics and communities. Scientists such as myself have long felt that merely studying problems is deeply unsatisfying. While I remain curious, my bigger purpose is to help anyone find community in their unique contribution to a better future.
I’m not alone.
Globally, we’re not on track to a rosy future. But by leveraging systems together, boldly and adaptively, we can meet this challenge that’s bigger than any one of us alone.
Dr. Kai Chan is a professor and Canada Research Chair at the University of British Columbia, a TEDx speaker, and founder of CoSphere, a Community of Small-Planet Heroes.
Comments
Hah! Here in Alberta we have a government that hasn't yet caught on!
And actively almost every day states it is not a problem, both been to cut emissions and has gaslighted enough Albertans into believing their bumhf!
Renewable.. let's just prohibit them on most Alberta land! Science, heck vaccines are dangerous
At first I thought that Dr Chan was doing a disservice to the global climate. His article felt completely dis-empowering at a personal level. Even the title made me just want to give up, put my head in the sand and try to go about my life knowing there's nothing I can do to help.
Embrace uncertainty? Maybe I should be doing this? Maybe I should be doing that? If I can't make up my mind- I end up doing nothing! I and society as a whole, could really use tangible suggestions that we can do, to help change the climate trajectory. For example- give up flying for pleasure! The atmospheric impacts and carbon and energy intensity of this common pastime is one of the easiest personal choices to change.
Go deep. Yes. But no point in waiting years, working up the nerve to dive off the deep end when you can start in the shallows and work your way out. We have to be clearly shown what low hanging fruit to pick, even heat pumps and local solar generation may need an economic ladder to get at. Once started on a path, it becomes easier to tackle more difficult terrain.
Seek Widespread Solidarity and Engage Science, again yes. But we live in a time where you can find "scientists" who come up with completely opposite conclusions to the same data or where "data" itself appears contradictory. There's a bewildering choice as to who to believe and that leads to mis-trust and polarization. The only way to change that, to draw more segments of society to your side is clear messaging. Right now, the message that driving a big truck/ SUV, flying to a tropical vacation or buying more clothes will make your life better is the message that is winning. Those are easy choices for people to make. For the sake of the environment, messaging has to offer up clear, attractive alternatives.
I see now Dr. Chan, that your article is more of a big picture almost philosophical piece for society as a whole. But for me, it just doesn't work well at the personal level.
I agree. Generalizations have their limitations. It's time for specifics.
Maintaining carbon pricing is only a first step. It's now time for more direct government participation in building the infrastructure society needs. If critics harp on the necessary subsidies for renewables, electric rail in all its permutations, a national-scale smart grid, ramped up grants for energy efficiency measures in structures, rewards for cities that practice sustainable urbanism through the intersection of transit and zoning and more, then start the conversation by defining the efforts as job creation and wealth building. Invite key private partners into project such as Vestas, GE, Seimens and Alstom to build offshore and onshore wind power, intercity rail and so forth.
Pointing out that polluting but profitable industries have been subsidized for decades is a viable counterargument. Have the numbers and their alternative investment equivalents in the back pocket for reference purposes.
These are the things people can chew on, hang their hat on and vote for. Gen Xers and Millennials who profess a caring attitude toward defeating climate change, but then who turn around and criticize Boomer's lifestyle and public resource consumption (read Max Fawcett's latest borderline ageist columns for reference) while they themselves buy the suburban dream and jet off to warm clime vacations like clockwork without a thought toward planning their own future medicare and financial needs, will not change their precious lifestyles based on generalities. In my view they will react mostly positively to real action on the ground that creates jobs in sustainable economic endeavours. Many of them will also receive one of the greatest transfers of wealth our society has ever seen from their Boomer parents who they have criticized so easily, then turned around to emulate them down to a T and added one more remarkable element: a bloated sense of entitlement.
One day today's youth will find themselves old and in need of medical assistance, but their attitude of taking that away from Boomers and putting resources into housing and reducing inflation and whatnot for today's under 50's to enjoy will come back and bite them when they too will need the very same services.
It's very sad to see the polls where so many youth are so angry at the status quo on costly housing and cost of already unsustainable lifestyles that they will swing so far over to a fellow like Poilievre who offer nothing but an echo chamber repeating the angry memes over and over. This will cost Canada its last shred of credibility on the climate file.
Speaking of status quo and/or standard approaches not working, vague generalities about politics and politicians seems to be the norm for scientists and academics generally. It's the "ivory tower" hierarchy where it's tawdry and somehow beneath them to get involved. Their preferred position is to sail beyond the fray anyway, but particularly the political fray where the players involved are deemed to be less trustworthy than used car salesmen.
But this hands-off approach in the current, drastically altered political circumstances where everything actually rides on keeping the climate-science-denying conservatives OUT of power denies political reality on a par with them.
You don't have to run as a candidate but as Seth Klein said, you have to "pick a damn side" and that particularly includes scientists.