How is it that with all the brains and capacity locked up in society’s many institutions that humanity is unable to steer towards real sustainability? Could it be that in their current configuration they’re simply impotent in the face of an all-powerful status quo (Business as Usual) that protects the interests of the very rich?
Sometimes it seems all the actors working towards a better tomorrow are like squabbling children in a sand pit where the loudest voice always seems to triumph. Well, let’s play a mind game in which a few of our institutions are personified as people arguing in a pub.
Three experts in a pub
There were three people sitting at a bar – a scientist, a lawyer and an economist – and they are arguing about how to solve the intractable problem of sustainability, and specifically climate change.
The scientist says we just need to know a little more, remove some of the uncertainty around our knowledge on the Earth system (and what humans are doing to it), and then society would fall behind the overwhelming scientific consensus that something needs to happen. It’s simply a rational problem.
The lawyer says we just need better laws proscribing what’s acceptable and what’s not. Better rules are the solution.
And the economist says we just need to provide the right incentives for people to begin doing the right thing and discourage them from doing the wrong thing. Bad behaviour, says the economist, should simply cost more making it ‘common sense’ to do the right thing, and this is true path to sustainability.
…enter the politician
“You mean, like putting a price on carbon?” interrupts a greying, white gentleman in an expensive suit who butts into the conversation. “That worked a treat for Australia’s climate change policy.”
“Actually,” says the economist, “it did work well when it was introduced in 2011. It’s just that the next incoming conservative government reversed the legislation three years later.”
“But that’s the point,” purrs the politician. “We proposed to ‘axe the tax’ and the people voted us in and we did… axe the tax that is. Putting a price on carbon was electoral poison and may we never hear of it again.”
“And you, Ms Scientist,” the politician says, turning on the person representing science.
“It’s ‘doctor’ actually…” stammers the scientist; but she’s totally ignored by the politician who is now building up a good head of righteous steam.
“…how effective has all your additional science reportage been in winning ‘hearts and minds’? For God’s sake, the IPCC’s latest climate report reads like a scary movie in terms of what it’s predicting. Yet we were able to deflect its potency by describing it as ‘horror porn’ and pointing out we were actually beating our emission targets (poor though those targets may have been). The report quickly faded from the news cycle.
“And as for you, Ms Lawyer, it’s all well and good to let scared children block coal developments by dragging our Minister for the Environment through the court saying she’s abandoned her duty of care to the future but just you watch happens on appeal.
“Mark my words,” he booms, “No higher court will uphold a judgement that threatens to block every major economic development that brings with it a residue of environmental harm. To do so would kill the economy, the voters won’t hear of it.
“No, don’t you worry your pretty little heads with all this sustainability clap trap. The adults are in charge, and we’ll make sure there’ll be technology aplenty to ensure our thriving economy continues apace! Efficiency to the rescue, I say.
“And don’t forget whose taxes keep you happy and out of danger playing away in your little academic sandpits,” he finishes with a flourish.
Shifting piles of sand
“You might be surprised what you find in sandpits, Mr Member of Parliament,” hisses back the scientist. “Back in the 80s, physicists experimented with models of sandpiles and discovered they were complex systems. The more grains you add to a pile of sand, the more unstable it becomes. It moves into what’s called a critical state.
“As the pile grows, more and more parts of the sand slope become unstable requiring just one more grain of sand to trigger a slide. At a certain point there are enough small triggers across the pile that setting off one small slide creates an avalanche that can rearrange the whole pile.
“You might think you’re safe from one of the small slides but the interconnected critical nature of the pile means change will occur well away from the initiating disturbance.”
“Thanks for that,” quips the politician. “I’ll remember that next time a blunder into a sandpit.”
Pile on
“You don’t get it, do you?” snaps the economist. “Our colleague is actually describing society. You and your conservative brethren are trying to hold things in the same state because that best serves your vested interests, your fossil-fuel backers. But our sandpit society is slowly building up a resistance to your efforts. And when the instability corrects itself, your lack of action means the correction will be big.
“Companies and governments are trying to figure out how to sustain themselves in this increasingly uncertain climate-afflicted world. More and more countries are signing up to economic measures like a price on carbon. Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms are being developed by the G7. Even coal companies, irony of irony, are feeling the heat as insurance companies refuse to insure them; companies are having to figure out how they can do this themselves.
“All these things are little patches of instability on the sandpile and it’s making the whole sandpile unstable. This is not just a physics model, economists recognise it all too well and have seen it at play in every economic upheaval from the Great Depression to the GFC.”
“And you treat the law with contempt, Mr Politician,” chimes in the lawyer. “But do you not see what’s happening everywhere at the moment?
“It’s not just a few children disillusioned at your deceit and lack of action. It’s courts at all levels calling you out. The whole Sydney City Council just endorsed the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and, of course, most of the world signed up to the Paris Agreement. Citizens everywhere are now standing up and demanding what our governments are actually doing to meet these agreements.
“A Dutch court, in a landmark ruling, has recently ordered Royal Dutch Shell to drastically deepen planned greenhouse gas emission cuts. This could trigger legal action against energy companies around the world.
“And a Paris court has found the French Government legally responsible for its failure to meet targets intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
“So, Mr Politician,” says the scientist, taking back the reins of the argument, “what does it mean for your efforts to stop change when all sectors of society – law, economics and science just to mention three – begin building in checks and balances to force change? Your malfeasance enables you to disable some of our efforts – ‘axe the tax’, as you say – but over time the little efforts across society build up, the triggers accumulate, the demographics change and the evidence emerges.
“I’d say you’re sitting on a hypercritical pile of sand being peppered by little grains of sand. And each new grain, each new disturbance, could trigger the slide that triggers the avalanche. And when that happens, your smug self-assurance over the success of the games you’ve been playing will be unable to staunch the flow; or protect your privileged position of influence.”
“And if we’ve scared you out of the sandpit, Mr Politician, think of it as a game of musical chairs,” observes the economist. “Unfortunately, I can’t hear the music anymore.”
Out of the sandpit…
So, this little mind game describes a hypothetical debate between four people (in a pub) representing four institutions guiding society. On the ‘good’ side is science, law and economics representing rationality and ideas that might create a sustainable future. On the ‘bad’ side is politics and the forces of power and pragmatism laughing at what the politician thinks are disconnected ideas from the ivory tower of academia.
Don’t you worry, says the arrogant politician: “The adults are in charge, and we’ll make sure there’ll be technology aplenty to ensure our growing economy continues apace!” There’s a strong case to be made that our politician is simply singing the siren songs of business as usual while representing the vested interests of the super elite.
So, in our metaphorical sand pit, the politician discounts the ideas of academia as being largely irrelevant and will fail to shift the status quo and the vested interests behind it. In response, the academics fight back by pointing out that blocking change never works in the long run because in complex systems, which is what society is, no-one is in control and while you can stall change for a while, all you’re doing is setting up the system for a bigger change – and possibly a cascading collapse – down the line. The politician can ignore and deny the lessons emerging from science, law and economics but the institutions based on these disciplines (research agencies, courts and markets for example) will eventually hold our politicians to account.
Well, that’s the hope, anyway. In many ways this hypothetical debate is a rose-tinted picture of today’s society in which the guard rails provided by our institutions will act in concert to keep humanity away from the abyss of environmental collapse. And yet, anyone following current events may beg to differ.
…and into the real world
Yes, courts in multiple jurisdictions are beginning to prosecute companies (and even governments) for failing to rein in carbon emissions, yet emissions continue to increase and the climate crisis deepens.
Yes, insurance companies are pricing in the growing toll from extreme weather making it prohibitively expensive for many people – usually the poorest people – to insure their homes and livelihoods, yet society’s trajectory of ever-increasing economic growth continues unabated.
And, yes, the science behind climate change and environmental decline is now settled with the solutions well understood; yet that science is not informing policy and, indeed, a growing wave of denialism and disinformation is turning a growing segment of society against science.
Which is not to say our hypothetical politician is right. Change (in a complex world) is always happening but resisting all the little changes (as is what happening as conservatives and oil lobbyists block a move to clean energy) sets us up for a big change, possibly a collapsing change when it inevitably comes (the collapsing sand pile).
So, our existing institutions operating within the current status quo are not protecting us or our environment from the impacts of unbounded economic development. Why, and what can we do about it?
As to the why, it has a lot to do with a basic disconnect across society and a failure of our representative democracy to serve the greater community. As to what we can do about it, well it’s not about better science, stronger laws or more nuanced economics, it’s about addressing the problem of disconnection and a failing democracy, on which I’ll be discussing more in up-and-coming blogs.
However, I’ll leave you with this quote which sums up a big part of the problem:
“The poor and middle class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the very rich pay lawyers – and the ultra-rich pay politicians.”
George Monbiot (in the Guardian) quoting Mohammed Saha
A Sus Bites Postscript: The first half of this blog on the debate in the pub originally appeared in Sustainability Bites around five years ago and presented a hopeful vision of how our institutions might bring about positive change and shift society onto a more sustainable trajectory. In the time since then I have become increasingly despondent as the climate crisis has intensified yet action has dwindled. As I describe above, the sandpit debate is probably more a rose-tinted view of the world than a real one. What’s the problem and what can we do about it? Well, that’s what I discuss with my co-author Quentin Grafton in our forthcoming book The Great Disconnect. And I’ll discuss the themes of this book in forthcoming blogs.
Image: Image by Rob Lineberger from Pixabay
Well said David!