A fascinating-as-promised questioning of net zero narratives and policies at the Tuesday dinner invited a review of what has worked thus far in the climate policy space. While recognizing that some of the historical and philosophical considerations would invite raised eyebrows from the historians, philosophers, political theorists, and likely others among us, Professor Allen raised some critical questions.
The need of making climate policy accessible and transparent is irrefutable. Underlying this is the necessity of a refresher of the underlying narratives in this space. Narratives not just within climate policy, but in the communication of the science it is based on, and the understandings of the people it is influencing. There is much that we (as over-intellectualising ‘nerds’) contribute to rules in academia that we should take accountability for.
Success stories and solutions seen from our current vantage point in history often suffers from the difficulty of smoothing over the nuances and difficulties in the complex systems they were enacted in. The contestations between industry, consumers, and government (and the everybody else in the story) get reduced in the public view once the situation is ‘sorted’. The ozone hole, London smog, leaded petrol, and acid rain look like much tamer problems than they were when in the thick of things.
One can only hope that some of the other wicked problems in our space will be soon looked upon in similar ways. What are those essential services that people care about that can be safeguarded while the problem is fixed quietly in the background. It is unlikely that there will be a silver bullet type solution to the climate situation, and the problems with instruments like the carbon pricing and subsidies were effectively pointed out, while discussing the potential from approaches like product standardization (after all, standards make complexity possible!)
A crucial takeaway from the talk and the more systems-oriented ‘nerds’ in the space is that a suite of solutions enacted flexibly by multiple people and institutions has a higher likelihood of achieving all the different types of outcomes that we as (hopefully) global societies care about. A deeply unappealing ‘solution’ that is not fantastic for attractive headlines and screengrabs. Things are not going well from the perspective of many, but there are plenty that are benefiting grandly from the status quo and will put up a mighty fight to change this.
There are those that feel that there is not enough rules by 'nerds' and likely many more that want to bring an end to those that we already have. The bigger problem is that people are increasingly disconnected from the processes that are governing their lives and futures. What can be done to bridge the gap between the values that we claim to hold as society and the values that are actioned? What sorts of ‘ultrastructure’ can be designed for the collective decision-making required for our complex and stressful times? Watch this space.
Missed out?
The video recording can be viewed on our YouTube channel.
