Why didn’t you act when it was time? - Part 1
The question from your children that you will not be able to avoid
We are in 2033; my granddaughter Luana is now 12. It is incredible how early this generation developed sensitivity for sustainability issues.
We didn’t make much progress toward sustainability during the last ten years. Some more heat records are broken yearly, and more extreme weather events are reported. More and more population face difficulties in living where they used to. Climate action is in everyone’s mouth, but the results are still not the ones we would have expected.
We haven’t seen a great wave of popular support for climate action, and the world looks more like business as usual.
It is the end of the afternoon. It is already late in the year but still quite hot.
I am in the garden with a cup of tea, looking at the sunset. It is peaceful until Luana comes and stands in front of me, her hands on her hips. She looks straight at me and, in her style, asks the question that I have been waiting for: “Papoum, why didn’t you and your generation make anything for climate when it was still time to do something ten years ago?”
This is something that I was already reflecting upon for some time, so I am ready to face the conversation.
I begin by saying: “Ok, Luana, do you remember how I told you we should analyze a complex issue? Let’s start by setting the stage.”
The first global issue we had to face
The climate crisis is a crisis like no other. It is truly global. Not the way the Second World War was, but it actually impacts the world population globally. There is no place to hide away and stay safe. It is global in its impact and its causes.
In this crisis, an action by anyone impacts everyone else. The individual responsibility of everyone is impossible to escape.
Different from previous global crises, a few decision-makers cannot solve the issue. Nations cannot solve the situation for themselves or their population if all the others are not solving also the problem.
This crisis is an existential threat to the human being as a specie. This is a crisis where everyone loses or everyone wins. There is no possibility of some winning while others are losing.
We first believed that facing such a crisis, the world population would mobilize and collaborate to find a solution. We thought the world would embrace a change of lifestyle that could save the climate. It was visibly not the case, and seeing why may answer your question, Luana.
I propose you to review together the seven layers of resistance described by Dr. Eli Goldratt in the theory of constraints. This should give us clues of why my generation didn’t act enough back in 2023.
The First layer of resistance: I don’t agree with your agenda
This is often the first resistance you face and one difficult to supersede. You need to agree on the definition of what means winning. It is not as obvious as it may seem.
In the case of the climate crisis, we have to face divergent forces:
Governments have a life duration of 4 to 5 years and want to be re-elected. Winning for them is a solution that will not compromise their popularity or jeopardize their chances of winning the next election. Therefore it must be a solution demonstrating results in the short term without putting economic pressure on their population.
Developing countries will consider a winning solution must not increase inequalities between developed and developing countries. The solution should not prevent the developing country from accessing the same facilities the developed countries had in the past.
People in a developed country will consider a winning solution as a solution that allows them to make only marginal changes in their lifestyle and does not impact them economically.
Be sure that all of them want a solution because human beings are intrinsically good. But the conditions to find an acceptable solution are so diverse and often so contradictory that it is barely probable that everyone will agree on a single solution.
An example of this is the COP agreement signed after each meeting. They always begin with high expectations and firm commitments to reducing carbon emissions. Then negotiations start, and each country tries to pull the cover and gain some flexibility or delays. The final agreement is always weaker and even finishes not being complied with.
Fear also could be an excellent engine to federate people on a common goal. The fear of a world at 3° could be a good motivator. But what percent of the population truly understands what a 3° temperature increase means? Most people see the difference between 1.5° and 3° as marginal and don’t understand why we are making so much noise about 3°. The choice of that indicator was, I think, unfortunate as it prevents the development of a true sense of urgency across the population. Furthermore, it locks this matter as a subject for experts, always subject to argumentation, controversy, and fake news.
Experts were mistaken when saying fossil fuels were good for humanity; why should we believe them now?
Another point of discord is the trend in human beings to look for guilt in others. When young activists tell politicians they have “stolen their youth,” the message is clear: we will not align on a common agenda. Unfortunately, looking for guilty parties is not improving the odds of humanity.
Jacque Chirac’s discourse began with: “Our house is burning, and we are looking elsewhere.” This is still so true.
Second layer: I Don’t Agree That the Problem Is What You Say It Is.
More than agreeing on a goal, you must agree on the problem you will solve.
In the case of the climate crisis, the problem has so many symptoms that it is difficult for many people to imagine it is only one problem.
The rising of the sea means something for dwellers of Miami but is not triggering the interest of the people of Switzerland. Everyone sees the climate crisis through the lens of how they are impacted.
When you want to relate symptoms that may look isolated, you face fake science that may present the effects as originating from totally separate causes.
In this domain also, the trend of people looking for someone to bear responsibility is making things difficult.
Young people accuse older people of being responsible for the situation. Populations accuse the governments of inaction. In the Netherlands and France, some associations sued the governments, wasting energy and resources for a pointless debate about whether something could have been done better, as if this would change anything about our living situation. It is too late. The damages have been done.
Population accuses companies of favoring profits above sustainability and systematically treats as greenwashing by default all announcements in this domain made by companies.
As a result, the perception of the problem shifts from solving the climate crisis to transferring the responsibility to someone else and making them pay in the hope that this payment will cool the planet.
This may be reassuring for some, but this is no step forward. The problem is there and can be expressed as the planet is overheating due to human activity.
But it is not simple to get the world population to see the problem that way. If you cannot express the problem clearly, you have little chance of solving it.
You can read Part 2 here
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.