Everyone knows that decades of international climate summits haven’t worked. Greenhouse gas emissions, concentrations and impacts all rise as if no discussion or agreement had ever been attempted. Yet climate conference agendas never include the question “why isn’t this working?”. Are big climate events doomed to fail year after year until the problems become irreversible? Or are they constrained in ways that can be quickly identified and opened up as new ways forward?
“If they talk about the same old stuff, they will get the same answer”
Prof James Hansen, Dec 2015
The challenge for COP21 in Paris, and all big international events, is to distill the endless complexity of the issues into manageable dialogues so that on the final day the organisers have an agreement to show the public and the event can claim success. The imperative of making the dialogues manageable means that the scope of the discussion has been tightly limited. Hence we have seen decades of climate talks that more-or-less remain manageable while the climate problem gets increasingly out of control.
Climate summits are stuck in a box. The sides of the box are people’s habits of constraining the dialogue to enable the collective ‘solution delusion’. Yet ironically if these constraints were simply removed then vastly more effective solutions would become visible and possible. The first two sides are about choosing physical variables to focus on. The next two sides are about defining a climate solution. The final two sides are about what to actually do to create change at the necessary scale and speed. The six sides can together be use as ‘programming settings’ to switch climate talks from persistent failure to the potential for genuine progress.
Side 1: Focus on average temperatures
Average global surface temperature is regulated by nature and buffered by the thermal inertia of oceans and polar ice. This is why average temperature has so far varied relatively little. The international focus on average temperature makes the climate problem appear slow. Predictions for temperatures in 2100 appear far-off and modest compared to everyday local temperature shifts. This makes the climate problem seem smaller and further away, inviting a too-small too-late response. Yet average temperature masks local extremes that are already becoming more extreme. Average temperatures in the Arctic are rising higher and faster than the global average. Climate talks should instead focus on equilibrium temperatures, which are the future conditions that we lock in at particular greenhouse gas (GHG) levels. Equilibrium temperatures remove the temporary inertias and time-delays of the Earth’s long-term response to human disruption, highlighting the full impact of our actions and inviting a full response.
Side 2: Focus on emissions
The focus on emissions is like living in a house where the residents argue about long-term plans turn off the taps when many rooms are already flooded by rising water levels. The persistent comparison of emissions with predictions of average temperatures installs a faulty mental model of the climate, where many people imagine that impacts can be reduced at any point simply by reducing emissions. Climate talks should instead focus primarily on GHG concentrations, which is the stocks of emissions that accumulate in the atmosphere and oceans. Atmospheric GHG concentrations are the key variable driving climate change. Highlighting GHG concentrations would allow policymakers to become aware of ‘climate sensitivity’, which is the equilibrium temperature resulting from a doubling of concentrations. Climate sensitivity is today a victim of a scientific consensus process mis-shaped by a quest for certainty and by government editing, so it is not mentioned in the Summary for Policymakers and the low estimate of around 3C has not been updated since 1979. Up to date analysis of climate sensitivity by David Wasdell shows that the climate has at least double this sensitivity to rising concentrations and consequently climate talks should plan cuts not just to emissions but also rapid cuts to GHG concentrations.
Side 3: Focus on climate action
Society’s persistent long-term failure with the climate makes adequate solutions seem really hard, especially policy solutions. This leads to climate talks with diminishing ambition, where effective international policy is abandoned in favour of encouragement for anyone to do anything. This is called climate action and climate solutions, both by institutional participants and by the NGO climate movement. Impressive actions, token actions and counterproductive actions all receive acclaim as climate solutions. The theory of change with climate action has no substance, there is only a psychological ploy of nurturing hope that small sub-system changes could somehow add up over time into big global transformation. Climate talks should instead focus primarily on non-reductionist systemic solutions. What are the diametrical changes in thinking, policy and practice that would enable sufficient change to self-organise everywhere? The systemic theory of change seeks to identify and move the levers that could switch the world from climate-destructive to climate-stabilising. The imaginative space where systemic solutions can be advanced becomes visible only after ending the ‘solution delusion’ of climate action. Climate talks should not shrink ambition to what seems achievable today, but expand ambition to enable what is necessary to become achievable.
Side 4: Focus on targets
Target-setting is the default answer for all governments, institutions and NGOs discussing how to solve any global problem but not knowing how. Committing to a target is the simplest possible demonstration that someone is serious about change, even if everyone’s subsequent actions overall continue to worsen the problem. The historical process of international climate talks is based on targets to cut emissions with the subsequent levels of emissions and concentrations both rising relentlessly. The latest COP21 in Paris organises do-it-yourself target-setting where nations choose their own starting point and whether the target is an absolute cut in emissions or just a cut in the intensity of emissions relative to economic activity. Climate talks should instead focus on systemic targets which are restorative, for example cutting GHG concentrations. Systemic targets ensure that any derivative targets, such as cutting emissions, are calibrated to actually solving the problem rather than only to worsen the problem less fast. Related issues such as loss of forests and soil carbon can also be addressed with systemic targets to rapidly reverse the loss of forests and soil carbon worldwide.
Side 5: Focus on a carbon price
The most ambitious proposals for climate action involve pricing carbon. The aim is to make fossil fuels more expensive which makes renewables and energy efficiency more competitive. A range of carbon pricing initiatives exist internationally and prominent institutions such as World Bank and OECD are supportive. However carbon pricing is not included in the negotiating text of COP21 and proposals elsewhere for carbon pricing do not consider how its well-documented obstacles stem from the narrow carbon-only focus. Without a wider economic vision, carbon pricing is a well-meaning market distortion within a form of capitalism that remains destructive. This limits both its political prospects and its practical benefits. Climate talks should instead focus on climate disruption as just one symptom of a systemic error in capitalism that can be corrected by a more ambitious pricing proposal. Dependence on fossil fuels (including government subsidies and support) is a symptom of obsolete linear ‘take, make, waste’ economics, that can be upgraded to circular economics by pricing the risk of products becoming wastes in ecosystems. This would reshape capitalism so markets can reverse problems they previously caused.
Side 6: Focus on the least complexity
Climate summits manage climate issues by reducing the complexity being considered, within the above five sides. This approach to problem solving is not new. René Descartes’ Discourse on Method proposed in 1637 to ‘Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is possible and necessary to resolve it.’ This established reductionism as the dominant habit of thinking that has been responsible for both the advance of civilisation and a range of systemic errors, including climate problems, that undermine any future for civilisation. Reductionism also dominates attempts to solve the problems it causes and obscures non-reductionist perspectives. Climate talks should instead focus on problem solving options that embrace and manage complexity. Ultimately the climate can be seen as an inseparable facet of an indivisible global whole system that may be solved only by whole system change. Given this understanding, the small number of big systemic errors that cause climate change, and other problems, could be identified and corrected with less time and effort than a single climate summit.
BlindSpot leads the Climate Rescue Centre, demonstrating policy and practice to reverse climate chaos. We provide inspiring talks, course and advice to recalibrate climate ambitions and policy to a new scale of effectiveness. See James Greyson’s presentation for COP21 in Paris. Please get in touch and follow our climate work via our @climate_rescue twitter account.
Help me to do more!
Get in touch with your ideas. The world urgently needs new ways to leverage fast global change so please support more blindspotting on Patreon or Paypal.
Everyone knows that decades of international climate summits haven’t worked.
Greenhouse gas emissions,… https://t.co/2mCMznhMgc
Why don’t climate summits work? https://t.co/9nINLgnNBm via blindspotting
Why don’t climate summits work? https://t.co/RQqPTy0TI8 via @blindspotting
Can #COP21 turn out a success? 6 tests, none passed yet: https://t.co/Zx4OOrKsHW @JacobaHollander @SolvedTogether @JukkaKajan @orastynkkynen
What would it take for #COP21Paris to be a real success? https://t.co/Zx4OOrKsHW #radicalrethink @solvedtogether @JukkaKajan @orastynkkynen
“Why don’t climate summits work?” https://t.co/Uvv7epOlYh
Drastic action doesn’t start with #tech. Let’s rethink on a new scale of ambition. https://t.co/Zx4OOrKsHW @worldresources @StocktonSays
Changing the paradigm in thinking about climate change. Systems thinking changes the conversation and the… https://t.co/BPYF9ENvFB
Mapping 6 ways to turn the climate train around. #COP21 #climaterescue https://t.co/Zx4OOrKsHW @heinerbenking
Both the #ParisAgreement and #carbontax are too limited. Let’s think #outofbox: https://t.co/Zx4OOrKsHW @socialmovetech @carbontaxcenter
21 years of climate talks designed to fail. 6 ways to make them work instantly. #COP21 https://t.co/Zx4OOs23zu @climatemessages @RobbBla
Brilliant @blindspotting on the ouroboros of reductionism in parsing climate issues & delineating tenable solutions https://t.co/dnQKpMoX7j
Why don’t #climatechange summits work? Complexity? https://t.co/s4Lrl1hZJJ https://t.co/Wd5enu5IWP @blindspotting #parisclimateUK #COP21
Who can solve climate change? unprepared in complexity https://t.co/OeKqyKpD5I inevitably lead 2 https://t.co/890xiQcY8v @blindspotting
@FastCoExist dont’t miss https://t.co/890xiQcY8v – its much graver that you suggest, missing the how to do it properly
Why don’t climate summits work? https://t.co/NzekkWqAJn #COP21 via @blindspotting
Flipside of #COP21. Why are climate summits always challenged at being successful? https://t.co/OCIfWM6Gos
Worth considering why climate summits don’t work? 6 ways to redesign to make them work: https://t.co/Zx4OOrKsHW @TheFinanceLab
My comment on the independent newspaper:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cop21-father-of-climate-change-awareness-james-hansen-denounces-paris-agreement-as-a-fraud-a6771171.html#commentsDiv
Given that governments can make ineffective agreements for 21 years while watching the problems grow – global governance already broke down long ago. The obstacle seems to be that everyone tries to make the problem manageable by mentally shrinking it. Some in denial shrink it to nothing. Governments and most activists shrink it to whatever can be solved with targets. Even Hansen shrinks it to what a carbon tax can cover. If we could avoid this ‘shrinking thinking’ we would see climate instability as just one symptom of global systemic errors that could be reversed with suitable policies; http://blindspot.org.uk/climate-summits/
Why don’t climate summits work? https://t.co/Zx4OOrKsHW New article for #COP21 @2050kidsorg @boatsie @PlaceToBcop21
The 21st annual International climate talks started today. How can we know already that they won’t work? https://t.co/VpJARaxiYo
Well said, and interesting analogy.
By the consistent dwelling on such collective failure, we continue to lower our expectations, although the urgency required rises higher with each passing day.
As a society, we are numb to the process of real change that is imperative to our current global state.
Thanks! You mean it’s helpful to notice our collective failure? 0r that we should beware low expectations? Your thoughts would be very welcome my tedx on “shrinking thinking” http://blindspot.org.uk/seven-policy-switches/
Transparency must come before accountability, of course. But the thinkers of our nation in the least have been aware and in fact, as you mentioned, utilize this awareness as an excuse for lack of action. Additionally, it cripples everyone in society due to a feeling of hopelessness (in some cases encouraging nihilism).
#designtofail https://t.co/Zx4OOrKsHW RT @kevsclimatecol: @Climate_Rescue Emissions have doubled since climate talks started.
Conventional climate talks are not designed to work. #COP21 has already failed. https://t.co/Zx4OOrKsHW @kevsclimatecol
Why don’t climate summits work? https://t.co/Zx4OOrKsHW #COP21 @chingtamluwang @Coy11France
#COP21 RT @drjimmygupta: Why don’t climate summits work? http://t.co/VpJARaxiYo via @blindspotting
Why don’t climate summits work? http://t.co/j1xJH9mHPN via @blindspotting
After 23 years of talk, #COP21 still missing 6 ways to agree fast effective action. #climaterescue http://t.co/Zx4OOrKsHW @connect4climate
Why don’t climate summits work? http://t.co/vI6uktV3jN via @blindspotting
6 ways to get #outofbox thinking to make #climatetalks work. http://t.co/Zx4OOrKsHW #COP21 #6thextinction @elizkolbert @road2paris
You observe similar #blindspots in climate talks? In theory these could guide talks that work. http://t.co/Zx4OOrKsHW #COP21 @msclairegsmith
6 ways to think outside the box and push for positive #ClimateAction; http://t.co/Zx4OOrKsHW @poletoparis
#COP21 is charade of #climatechange #blindspots. http://t.co/Zx4OOrKsHW @DanielPAldrich @UNEP @CECHR_UoD @Cecalli_Helper @ShiftingClimate
#400ppm is a big clue. But #COP21 remains clueless. #Climaterescue missing from agenda. http://t.co/Zx4OOrKsHW @CatalinaJaime2 @guardianeco
Why don’t climate summits work? http://t.co/orMuJcvTgD via @blindspotting
Why don’t climate summits work? http://t.co/NOoSCURF6H
An intersting analysis about the limits of the summit system when we talk about #climate
http://t.co/BHhjrUXwWc
@blindspotting @ClimateCoLab
“@blindspotting: How about a paradigm change in global climate talks? http://t.co/Ru7aIJpE6H @Climateillo”
“@blindspotting: How about a paradigm change in global #climate talks? http://t.co/PnKgTkvbBi @Climateillo”
Why don’t climate summits work? http://t.co/vZb4ZR6wx4
http://t.co/SysqVcDiiZ
How much to reduce emissions? = How much to turn down the taps when the house is already flooded. http://t.co/7RoKBEzu5t by @blindspotting
Reminds me of Dale Jamieson’s recent book…paging @luvintheanthrop — Why don’t climate summits work?@blindspotting http://t.co/04gneu0qhp
Paris climate summit is not weak vs strong, it’s herdthink vs systemsthinking. http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 @BSRnews @aroncramer #bsr14
2° target is blindspot #1 in collective failure to start a systemic response to climate. http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 @OpenToInfo @KevinClimate
Why don’t climate summits work? http://t.co/S7jL5WZxhK
Why don’t climate summits work? Reductionism and mistaken assumptions, missing #TrueCost http://t.co/jF2BHEOaLj
What are our #climatechange blindspots and how can we achieve change? http://t.co/kFD8Lusbpm
Another interseting take on why climate summits have so far failed to live up to their goal http://t.co/nnleJUof4q #Climate2014
This seems to be yet another proposal for commitment to % emissions cuts, aiming to meet a weak temperature goal.
Could the solution be a debt cancellation followed by Comparable Efforts with Differentiated Actions as suggested by Mike Maccracken? http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300701/phaseId/1301103/planId/1309352/tab/COMMENTS
Join @climate_rescue and @jankunnas to discuss options for past and future carbon emissions. http://t.co/mc2Gg0mJBX
The problem with Climate Summits so far, it is that they tried to solve all the issues simultaneously. I argue that splitting continued negotiations into two separate blocks could both save time and make it more likely to ultimately reach a comprehensive treaty. The first block would deal with historical emissions of greenhouse gases including a mutual debt cancellation: developed countries carbon debts vs. developing countries conventional monetary debts. The second block would deal with future emissions and how to finance adaption to climate change. http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6bf2k0dz#
Thanks for the helpful link Jan – if climate summits have really tried to solve anything I’ve yet to see it. What happens instead is chat about % emissions cuts. I agree that solutions for past and future carbon accumulation are different animals. Unlike, financial debts, debts of accumulated carbon cannot be cancelled on paper; this requires carbon-negative actions on a global scale. Financing adaptation to climate change is a small piece of the larger task to rapidly eliminate future accumulation of carbon. Policy options for both past and future carbon flows are presented here, http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300404/phaseId/1300404/planId/1309209/
Actually financial debts and carbon debts are deeply connected, and neither can be erased on paper. Consider the ability to create debt the same as creating money in the system. This is how projects and real assets get funded – promisses of working for a long time, hence creating the systemic conditions for furthering what is at root of the problems. Fundamentally this is the mechanism at a systemic level.
The solution to the riddle of climate is in changing the financial system. This is really simple and only takes recognizing that the securities trading system as such, based on exit values and bringing forward revenue streams, inevitably leads to exclude circular economy costs and to short term decisions. The alternative is a form of evergreen investment linking back ownership to real cash flows forever.
Agreed, carbon debt and financial debt are interlinked systemic errors. Your thoughts on these options for systemic change?
For circular economy, http://blindspot.org.uk/third-policy-switch/
For debt-free money supply, http://blindspot.org.uk/seventh-policy-switch/
For financing legacy debts (ecological + financial + social) http://blindspot.org.uk/sixth-policy-switch/
This guy is asking all the right questions http://t.co/j2FaLm5QzX @blindspotting #ClimateChange #systemsthinking
States avoid the complexity, hence unable to agree #climateaction. http://t.co/OcnL9i0ZMX @doyleclan1 @Francis_NL @HL_Villagran
Excellent piece. RT @teiwaz Hard to think and act outside of a six sided box: Why don’t climate change summits work? http://t.co/Fmhjg8okFV
Hard to think and act outside of a six sided box: Why don’t climate change summits work? http://t.co/nWyhvfoezL @blindspotting via @futuryst
Why don’t #climatechange summits work? We need need out of the box thinking says @blindspotting, http://t.co/iuev8uIvP8
I don’t agree with the initial premise, I would argue that its realistic to expect slow progress on such issues, its pretty much the nature of most humans. One fortunate example of when this was not true is that the world listened when the dangers of CFC’s were reported, surprisingly fast responses resulted in the mitigating the disaster of the ozone hole.
If we judge what’s realistic by what we expect and if what we expect more slow progress, then that’s what we’ll get 😉
TY Tom! RT @planoltom: Why don’t climate summits work? http://t.co/OcnL9i0ZMX
Great Paradigm thinking on solutions
Why don’t climate summits work? RT @planoltom: @AndreaLoken http://t.co/OcnL9i0ZMX
@AndreaLoken http://t.co/cMEPRRbiie
@Planoltom yes – I hope everyone gets to see this: http://t.co/PZ5GyWDUaY
Good perspectives – why don’t climate summits work? http://t.co/6YXPgI8QTQ
Thanks Maria, the paradigm change work is being advanced at Climate Rescue Centre http://blindspot.org.uk/projects/#climaterescue And the other BlindSpot projects. Please take a look – your feedback every welcome!
Why don’t climate summits work? http://t.co/Qm5gyd31Y0 — succinct writing – paradigm change (Side 5) is very important
Will #COP21 be designed to succeed? Past pattern of failure is avoidable: http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 @jpvanypersele @energieagent
Why don’t climate summits work? http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 #wordswordswords @aubreygci @Francis_NL
International talks have avoided #systemchange for decades, same as everyone. Not just lobbyists. http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 @swimsure
Why don’t climate summits work? http://t.co/8PYyIkIFua
If past climate summits have failed, try something else? #systemsthinking http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 @kevsclimatecol @CFigueres
#Systemchange = fast #climaterescue. http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 @quiline @RTCCnewswire @David_Cameron @Forum4theFuture
6 ways to get from #wordsoup to #climaterescue. http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 @viewfromtheedge @andrereichel @SulphurCocky @crossgreenman
Start with #systemthinking! http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 RT @PeaceTankCoop: @Climate_Rescue We must Lead by example; Be The #SystemsChange.
Geoengineering is no substitute for the serious ‘mitigation’ effort – that has yet to start. Sides 3-5 http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 @HL_Villagran
We should go for the big shift in worldviews +policies + emissions. http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 @chibaz101 @HoffmanAndy #systemschange
End austerity & unemployment by bringing on carbon-negative agriculture and living. http://t.co/qlvj16kpuI @brian_brian
You mean as a kind of currency? See my MIT proposal for a biochar economy, with local money spent into circulation on biochar-related activity. http://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/4/planId/14637/ This would quickly end austerity & most unemployment by bringing on carbon-negative agriculture and living.
How about adopting soil carbon as a medium of wealth?
Why don’t climate summits work? #Thinkoutsidethebox http://t.co/6wd8XE4EaM
@blindspotting: People forget that an effective global #climate deal needs new thinking not just new talking http://t.co/C5Lo4FXVPt
‘Hell & high water’ sure is the default policy. Helps to frame problems so we can get new policy? http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 @Francis_NL
More empowering to consider climate summit actors as playing out roles? 6 ways to rewrite the script, http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 @Francis_NL
Thanks, action is certainly the outcome needed. Ironically if climate summits had run as think tanks they may have worked out the above systems approach during their first event. Then economic growth fears would never have obstructed the action and we’d be 21 years ahead of where we are.
Climate-driven weather disaster areas clearly show that atmospheric concentrations are already too high. So we can forget all the negotiations planning higher levels.
To appeal to leadership (UN UNEP & all on down the line) requires open but firm parameters – hold the line for action oriented policies v. more think tank venues. The Marshall Islands, the Philippines, Japan, India, all serve as great examples of why we need to address climate directly to seek rapid deployment of beneficial actions.
How about designing climate summits not to fail? http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 @yvodeboer_kpmg
An effective climate movement needs #systemsthinking to see ways to reverse the problems. http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 #c4cmovement
Climate movement + systems thinking = climate summits that work. http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 #c4cMovement #COP19
Why don’t climate summits work? http://t.co/3XSz4rLXYs We wonder…
@Climate_Rescue “Shall we stay in the box?” that is the question 2 begin with. Your observations are on target 🙂 http://t.co/xvD69Q4Mjr
Climate summits designed to fail. Fix with #systemsthinking? http://t.co/Vq3nMcykT4 MT @AssaadRazzouk: not much is happening at #COP19