Since I was a child, I have been told many stories. They have helped me define myself and understand how my surroundings are defined. When a story ends badly, I always ask myself why it is this way. Now approaching the bad ending to climate change… my inner child screams out loud: why is it this way!? Maybe the answer is not in the story, and I must read between the lines.

Behind the sustainability narrative

What is sustainability, and where does it come from?

The first definition of sustainability the Cambridge Dictionary gives us is: “the quality of being able to continue over a period of time”. The second, closer to our imaginary construct related to planet Earth is: “the quality of causing little or no damage to the environment and therefore able to continue for a long time”. Both suggest the meaning of balancing the negatives with positives, “to maintain”, for an equal outcome persisting in the future. In our economic scheme, it would mean to keep the same rate of production and consumption, for as long as we can. This is ideal and achievable for the capitalistic observer, but how can we keep this same rate that is evidently shown as detrimental to our lands, oceans, and atmosphere?

The carbon offset issue

While the causes of climate change are clear and politically accepted, some bright business owners have tried to compensate commercial activities by introducing carbon offset. Offsetting allows businesses that cannot solve this net zero equation in their operations, by buying emission reductions from stakeholders. A way to glamorize their story with a good-looking cover book called Green Washing. Just like the underlying narrative of sustainability, this tool creates a temporary equilibrium, to alter present consequences for later. But realistically, this solution cannot be viable. There is not even sufficient land to plant the promised trees from the newly responsible companies. “The bottom line is: we have an offset system that places profits over science, and the rules regulating it are just far too lax” (Olivier, J., 2022).

The gaps in climate change action

This heroic quest to reduce emission footprints is an example of the many ways our society tries to accommodate all parties, still favoring the human needs of everlasting growth. From the stories that I have been told as a child and taught later at university, I can draw three gaps in our climate change actions, which I named the 3Ds:

1.    Discounting time for immediate result

Temporal or delay discounting refers to an individual's tendency to perceive a desired result in the future as less valuable than one in the present (Rodzon et al., 2011). The “me/now” vs. “us/later”. It is the beginning of the tragedy of the commons. As selfish beings, we rather take a bigger piece of the pie while there is some now instead of saving some for later shared with others. And even though we could receive some story spoilers about global warming reaching above the 2-degree increase, it will continue that way.

2.     Designing uni-dimensional system

A unit to be explored, created, and implemented within one layer of a system. This is quite normal, as humans learn by compartmentalizing and dividing information for efficient memory. But a new product, project, organization, or any kind of human design in this way lacks multi-layered sensitivity. For acting in the Earth’s complex living system, there is an inadequate mapping of the positive and negative effects of moving outward or inward into larger or smaller networks.

3.    Disempowering living enablers

Political decision-makers, business owners and leading scientific experts often empower themselves to manage changing ecosystems. Although there is a growing movement to voice indigenous wisdom into environmental discussions, the communities are consulted, but somewhat not engaged. This is the same with the natural world, which is taking the role of an instrument rather than a guide.

Almost all international development plans and targets to save the environment have failed over the two decades of my living, with either one or more of these D(amaging) gaps. Why do we keep committing those mistakes? Following a “baking recipe” that ends up burning our forests?

The narrations we have been told

According to some environmentalists and sociologists, we persist in degrading present natural resources by acting upon past paradigms. Paradigms are myths and metaphors that help us shape a worldview. Using the good old Pestel analysis I have learned in business school; I will state five narratives amongst various literatures that are found between the lines of our shared story. Be aware that I use segmentation to ease comprehension, but all narrations are deeply inter-connected.

Political: Public entities are too webbed with red tape and administrative burdens; hence they cannot contribute to a fast-changing environment. Private and lucrative organizations are most suited for immediate action.

Economical: Wealth equates money by maximizing shareholder value. The finance sector’s growth is certainly positive due to “market completion” with a greater share of capital assets (Fullterton, J., 2019).

Social: Obtaining profit is a moral success. This can only be made by devoting ¾ of our living to work. The more competitive the nature of the work is, the more money you will get.

Technological: Planned obsolescence is required for disruptive innovations to be massively used (Interaction Design, 2022). The ‘efficient paradox’ increases performance for faster results, which equates to better.

Environmental: Natural resources are free to use, can be privately owned and must be found as cheaply as possible.

Legal: Human rights are superior to environmental rights. Morality is applicable to those who can think, which is exclusive to human beings.

These ideologies formulate the social construct that we unconsciously draw our actions upon, mostly during the last century. For some, they can be perceived as obvious, banal, normal, and impossible to get around (maybe the same folks who believe in carbon offsetting). Changing our paradigms requires an exhaustive amount of will, acceptance, and forbiddance… but it mostly calls for reciprocity. Reciprocity between humans to divert the outcome and fundamentally, reciprocity between humans and nature. And that’s where a new story between the lines begins.

Discover a new story of reciprocity titled Regeneration, on Julianne’s website Rewildem.

References

Fullerton, J. (2019). Finance for a Regenerative World. Capital Institute.

https://capitalinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Regen-Finan-RVSD-ACT-1-Interactive.pdf

Horton, A. (2022). John Oliver on corporate “net zero” proposals: “We cannot offset our way out of climate change.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/aug/22/john-oliver-net-zero-climate-change-last-week-tonight

Kasturika (2023). Sustainability is not enough. Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/sustainability-is-not-enough

Rodzon, K., Berry, M. S., and Odum, A. L. (2011). Within-subject comparison of degree of delay discounting using titrating and fixed sequence procedures. Behav. Process. 86, 164–167. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.09.007