Previously in “Why didn’t you act when it was time?”
The granddaughter of 12 years old of the author asks him why he didn’t act for the climate when it was still time.
The author explains to his granddaughter by using the seven layers of resistance framework from TOC why the climate crisis is a different crisis, why it was difficult to find a common understanding of what winning the challenge was meaning, and why it was so difficult to agree about the problem humanity faces.
You can read Part 1 here
Third layer: I don't agree that the solution you are presenting is going in the right direction to get us a workable answer.
It would be reasonable to think that promoting daily small action by the whole population would mobilize everyone and create a compounding effect that would bring more sustainability. But this is not the case.
Sustainability is highly controversial, and everyone sees the opportunity to promote a belief or a philosophy.
Some ecologists promote stopping nuclear power. But nuclear energy is not generating carbon emissions. Do we have so many options for carbon-free energies that we want to get rid of it? Germany got rid of it, and their carbon emissions didn’t diminish. They even had to recommission coal-based power generation, hopefully temporarily.
Most sustainability technologies are recent and have yet to reach their peak efficiency. Turning agricultural land into solar plants diminishes food production and can impact feeding a still-growing population. Wind power is not easily predictable and faces lots of criticism. Do you know someone who would be happy to see those turbines near his home and discover that the value of his house has dramatically decreased?
Moving individual mobility to electric cars seems a good idea. Still, more and more voices are now stating that the increase in demand for electricity will negatively impact the growth of countries and finally will not have the expected impact as far as carbon-generating energy sources will have to be maintained to answer the increasing demand.
Each country and community faces an apparently different crisis and doesn’t want to pay for the solution others need. France, with most of its energy from nuclear, doesn’t want to pay for reducing the carbon footprint of energy generation in Germany.
The different and divergent perceptions of the climate crisis by the communities make it difficult to agree on the impact of solutions that are often perceived as only adapted to our own particular problems.
Some reservations are legitimate: for example, increasing the installed power from wind farms is not very practical as there are still considerable challenges to storing the energy. Some technologies are promising but must get ready for full deployment. And this could limit the practicalities of some of the proposed solutions.
Fourth Layer: I don't accept that the benefits you claim your solution will bring will actually materialize.
A lot of the energy used once to negate the climate crisis is now used to undermine the perceived benefits of the actions undertaken.
These are using fake science articles and the fear of the extreme weather events we are seeing now to affirm that whatever action we take will not have the positive impact we are promised.
This is easy in the case of the climate crisis, as the objective is not to obtain a positive impact but to limit a negative impact.
As stated above, it is difficult for a person to fully understand the benefit of limiting the warming to 2º instead of 3º. The difference between figures looks so insignificant, but the difference in the quality of life on the surface of Earth will be huge.
I suspect that most people are unable to tell if limiting to 2º will be good enough or not. I even suspect that most experts are also unable to tell it.
So, in the case of climate action, this layer of resistance is a legitimate reservation as it seems only remotely possible to convince with indisputable arguments that there will be enough benefits from our efforts.
Fifth Layer: I think there are possible negative side effects to your proposed solution
Even if most of the arguments deployed above could be reused here, this layer of resistance is much stronger and more challenging to dismiss.
In addition to discussing about evaluating the benefit, several arguments are advanced against the solutions that may help solve or alleviate the climate crisis.
These are related to the side effects of the climate action.
For instance:
Climate actions mean less consumption, but consumption often supports growth in many countries. So fighting the climate crisis may mean more unemployment and more poverty.
The burden of carbon emission reduction is not supported equally by every country, and this can result in rebalancing some of the existing equilibriums between economic poles.
The energy transition toward decarbonization will need to be financed. Some countries will increase taxes for that, which may result in social unrest and demonstrations.
Some countries have economies highly dependent on the production of oil. The energy transition will destabilize their economy, propelling it into recessions and the associated loss of jobs and revenue for the population.
These side effects are real pains and risks and must be considered internationally to avoid tensions. Unfortunately, countries have not yet demonstrated their capacities to collaborate in this domain, and international institutions like the UN or the FMI do not have the power to solve these issues efficiently and satisfactorily.
Sixth layer: I don't think we can overcome the obstacle your proposed plan will encounter on the way
Luana, this one is, in this case, primarily a consequence of the previous one.
The main issues humanity will have to face are that:
Countries are not ready to share the bill of other countries for getting more sustainable
Several countries and, most importantly, the most significant carbon generators are not playing by the rules. They are either decreasing their impact far too slowly or are not diminishing their impact at all. Some countries like China still install dozens of coal and fuel power plants yearly.
The populations still need to develop the required sense of urgency. A target of 1.5º of increase in temperature by the end of the century seems too remote for most people and, therefore, difficult to conceptualize. They may react badly to increased tax pressure to finance sustainability measures as this impacts their life immediately.
A final resolution to the climate crisis means that the collaboration across the Earth’s population has to reach a level that was never yet achieved. This is something that will not happen any time soon.
Additional layer: Who are you to tell me what to do?
This layer of resistance is when things get emotional. And it may be the most difficult to supersede.
This is what people express when:
Young people tell baby boomers: You create this crisis. How can you give me advice to solve it?
Developing countries tell developed countries: You benefit from fossil fuels without caring about pollution. How can you tell us now what we are not entitled to do?
Population tells the governments: You have missed all your targets up to now. How could we believe that you will meet them now?
Population tells companies: You favored your profits above sustainability for decades. How can we believe that you are now acting for sustainability? This is greenwashing!
This is often a consequence of all the previous layers of resistance. It comes from the distrust that is set up between the actors of the climate crisis and that we need to counterbalance to be able to make real progress.
Now, you understand the challenges we faced in 2023 and why the climate action was not as decisive as it should have been. This is also why we lost many opportunities to move powerfully toward a more sustainable lifestyle.
Conclusion
Luana looks at me. I can see some level of despair in her eyes. After a silence to digest everything we discussed, she asks: So, do we have a chance?
Of course, Luana, we have a chance to react and take the needed action. Humanity is resilient, and we will survive as a specie. But the lifestyle that nature will impose on us may not be as glamorous as we hoped.
There is also a necessary condition: people have to feel involved. They have to feel that their opinion is heard and counts. The decision-making must become decentralized as it cannot be delegated to governments or companies anymore. Action is the responsibility of each one of us. It is not a condition sufficient, but it is for sure necessary.
Fundatia Ananke launched the Blue Marble Project to give everyone an opportunity to raise his voice and participate in the decision of significant actions toward increasing sustainability. You want to have an impact, or you want to share ideas on how to create a more sustainable lifestyle.
If you want to learn more about the theory of constraints and how to use it to grow your operations, Visit www.sntc-ank.org and book a call with the author.
Awesome Explaination