The Roadblocks to Change: How Can We Overcome Them?
Emilly Fan
As a global commons problem, the devastating effects of climate change are already being experienced by every corner of the globe, particularly impoverished and marginalised communities who may lack the resources to implement mitigation and adaptation measures. It demands collective action from all sectors and actors, as well as extensive intergovernmental cooperation. This piece addresses some of the difficulties associated with making change and some potential strategies that are grounded in behavioural insights.
The widely espoused 2018 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report claimed that in order to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C and well below 2°C as pledged by the Paris Agreement, urgent and unprecedented action needed to be taken to limit emissions by 2030 as every fraction of additional warming would increase the severity of the impacts. Reducing carbon emissions through decarbonising the energy sector is essential to achieving these goals. By increasing the share of low-carbon energy sources such as solar and wind in overall power generation, increasing energy efficiency, and investing in new technologies like BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage), meaningful progress can be made. Given that climate change is now a widely accepted fact and that decarbonisation is recognised as a necessary action, why has change been so difficult?
The answer is deeply complex involving numerous factors that are intertwined politically, economically, socially, and technologically. The past centuries of economic growth in the industrialised countries were possible because of fossil fuel combustion and as a result, our societal structures and systems are built upon this foundation. Emerging economies are following this same trajectory of investing in fossil-fuel dependent infrastructure. Overhauling or even upgrading existing infrastructure will require enormous capital expenditure that may potentially compromise short-term economic activity. Given that greenhouse gas emissions represent a free-rider problem, the economic costs to a country outweigh the globally-distributed benefits it would receive by taking action without international cooperation.[1] When political polarisation is added to the mix, the likelihood of international coordination on effective policy tools such as a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system becomes even less likely. There are a number of cognitive biases that have also led to inaction: the futility thesis associated with the seemingly insurmountable scale of this problem; the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ mentality because greenhouse gas emissions are unobservable; and present bias which leads to hyperbolic discounting.
Timescales make for an irrefutable argument for immediate action because the stock of already-emitted greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for decades if not centuries, meaning that actions taken today can lock in emissions trajectories far into the future. To assist with achieving decarbonisation of the energy sector, below are three potential strategies based on the framework detailed in the book ‘Switch, How to Change Things when Change is Hard’ by Chip & Dan Heath, though they are by no means comprehensive:
1. Aim to characterise climate governance with institutional diversity that features both bottom-up and top-down processes. This would not only include international agreements with broad-based participation but also regional and sectoral strategies that include state-based and hybrid governance structures.[2] This is undoubtedly difficult to achieve but a first step could be to direct the rider by finding the bright spots. Although solutions to climate issues are highly differentiated, depending on regional factors that are geographic, political, and social to name a few, focusing on success stories worldwide can serve as a useful starting point to begin developing a unique strategy for a country, sector or company.
For example, the 1970 Clean Air Act has improved the air quality in the United States significantly by controlling pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, ground level ozone, and lead. This has prevented over 230,000 premature deaths by 2020 and drastically reduced the frequency of respiratory illnesses.[3] Other bright spots include the 1989 Montreal Protocol which was immensely successful in reducing harmful ozone-depleting substances. Without it, the Earth’s ozone layer would have collapsed by 2050 with terrifying consequences including an additional 280 million cases of skin cancer and 1.5 million skin cancer deaths.[4] The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement was also monumental in revolutionising the paradigm of climate diplomacy, symbolising a universal acknowledgement of the dangers of unchecked climate change. By analysing how these agreements and legislation managed to overcome numerous obstacles, we can glean valuable insights that can be adapted for present-day scenarios.
2. Solution aversion, when the change-making mechanism is so disagreeable that it makes the issue seem unlikely, is a major factor in climate inaction and denial. It leads to the sunk-cost fallacy where we are biased towards maintaining the current path despite negative outcomes or the overwhelming evidence to transition to a low-carbon future. By motivating the elephant and engaging the emotional side, more people can become invested to take action for the future of the climate. Shrinking the change is an essential step in an issue as large as climate change because it is easy to lose hope when viewing the myriads of obstacles that need to be overcome to achieve a meaningful reduction of emissions. It is much more motivating to see some progress being made and some effort being rewarded, even if the reality means that the progress is merely a minuscule portion of the overall picture.
The recent documentary ‘Planet of the Humans’ by Jeff Gibbs and Michael Moore has come under fire for painting a bleak picture of the future by dismissing renewable energy in a dangerously misleading way. It focuses on the imperfections of renewable energy technologies without considering their ability to reduce carbon and other pollutants, suggesting that all methods are futile and that the problem lies in the existence of human civilisation itself.[5] It offers no real alternatives and does the opposite of shrinking the change. This justifies why advocating for individual action is just as important as institutional changes; it empowers people to make small changes in their lifestyle which then translates to engagement with the issue and a greater inclination to support larger-scale decarbonisation.
3. Continuing along the theme of individual empowerment, the recent wave of youth activism has been astonishing in scale. This is evidence of shaping the path by rallying the herd. Creating social norms is an effective model for change and as the information surrounding climate change becomes increasingly salient, norm cascades are more likely to occur. Individuals are influenced by the decisions of others and when their peers are protesting for climate justice, they are much more likely to participate too. People have diverse thresholds so it takes different levels of collective action to prompt someone to act. The pervasiveness of social media and the intense media coverage on these movements have assisted in reinforcing a social norm of advocating for decarbonisation. This needs to continue, with spotlights not only placed on irresponsible companies and governments but also inspirational climate-forward figures like Greta Thunberg or countries like New Zealand who recently passed a zero-carbon bill, to highlight the bright spots.
—-
[1] Robert N. Stavins, “Opinion | Climate Realities - The New York Times,” n.d., https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/opinion/sunday/climate-realities.html.
[2] Jouni Paavola, “Climate Change: The Ultimate Tragedy of the Commons?,” in Property in Land and Other Resources (Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012), 418.
[3] U. N. Environment, “The United States Clean Air Act Turns 50: Is the Air Any Better Half a Century Later?,” UN Environment, March 17, 2020, http://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/united-states-clean-air-act-turns-50-air-any-better-half-century-later.
[4] “Without the Ozone Treaty You’d Get Sunburned in 5 Minutes,” National Geographic News, September 25, 2017, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/09/montreal-protocol-ozone-treaty-30-climate-change-hcfs-hfcs/.
[5] “Michael Moore’s ‘Planet of the Humans’ Documentary Peddles Dangerous Climate Denial » Yale Climate Connections,” Yale Climate Connections, May 1, 2020, https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/05/michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans-documentary-peddles-dangerous-climate-denial/.