The Invisible Compass: How Worldviews Steer Us on Climate Change
Thanks for stopping by. I'm Genevieve, a PhD candidate exploring interests at the intersection of human behaviour, technology, and climate.
‘That's just, like, your opinion, man’ , The Dude
Why dive into worldviews as the first topic? It is the filter in which we perceive the problem of climate change, how we envisage the future and ultimately, what solutions we choose to develop.
Living here in the Northern Rivers I feel I’m more exposed to the spectrum of worldviews in everyday conversations vs life in the city. Here you can be waiting for your coffee and quickly have to navigate a big spectrum of positions in your morning chat spanning the education system, property development, inequality, shrooms and of course, climate change. They range from the purists, activists, the optimists, the pragmatists, and the denialists and on a spectrum of engaged vs. disengaged.
Underpinning these views seems to be, your relationship to science/facts, do you see an individual or collective based society, your relationship to time and how you look at the role of individual, government & business/finance system (some call this the three legged race required to address big climate issues). My intent here is not to judge what’s the ‘right’ worldview, rather to explore how this dovetails into what people choose to build and invest in.
Why Worldviews Matter
Scholar Diana Meadows offered a helpful framework in her book Thinking in Systems, proposing a hierarchy of "leverage points" for impactful change within any system. You can apply this to large scale systems like capitalism, a cult or even a workplace. The most influential, yet challenging point to build a transition pathway? They are mental models aka worldviews.
Our mental models act like frames, influencing how we perceive information. Our worldview acts as an invisible compass dictating what we value and what we consider morally right, in turn shaping our decisions and actions.
But what guides these beliefs?
Research suggests emotions play a central role in shaping our views. Through our experience of this thing called life, emotions can amplify or even alter beliefs, making them resistant to change (9). Taking it a bit further psychologists now believe emotions are the driving force behind most of our significant life decisions (1). So through this lense we can view our decisions around living sustainably as a way to manage our emotions, seeking to avoid negativity (like guilt or regret) and pursue positive feelings (like pride or happiness) (1).
Each person therefore approaches the climate problem with their own unique compass. This compass is calibrated by emotional factors like our tolerance for negativity, our comfort with uncertainty, our capacity to focus, the effort we anticipate it requires, our sense of control, and the responsibility we assign to others (1).
One study applying worldviews to climate positions explored specifically how people's views on government regulation and social structures influence their opinions on climate action (8). It found that if you held a free-market ideology or you favour hierarchal systems you are likely to deny climate mitigation is necessary, and if you are from a fossil-fuel reliant nation you are likely to hold strong views (8), and this is irrespective of how educated someone is. This work highlighted that people’s appraisals of climate facts are skewed by deeper sets of values and orientations to the world that are not technically about the climate at all: rather their worldviews about how governments should run and how societies should be structured.
Climate Reality Check
To recap what the science based evidence is:
- It has been concretely established that human emissions are the primary driver of global warming (20)
- The planet has warmed by 1 degree, experienced the warmest month in 125k years, had the first 2 degree + day, costs of climate catastrophes are climbing
- This ecological shift includes possible overshoot of ‘tipping points’ that could trigger cascades of earth systems change (14).
- To avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change, we need to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
- This translates to radically reducing global CO2 emissions from roughly 50 gigatons per year in 2023 to net zero by 2050.
- We need to halve emissions by 2030 to stay on track, but current policies put us on course for a temperature increase of around 2.7°C by 2100.
- Even if countries fulfil their current pledges, we're still looking at a potential increase of 2.1°C.
Source: (4)
Understanding the Human Factor: The Gap Between Awareness and Action
Despite acknowledging the climate issue since the 1970s, our slow progress reveals this curious disconnect with the idea of risk we humans seem to have.
Whilst it seems like awareness is translating into action – cultural shifts, net zero legislation, and a surge in new climate tech, why the delay?
Research explains this disconnect through human psychology (2). Here's the gist:
- Scale and Duration: Climate change impacts unfold on a massive scale and over extended periods, making them difficult for our brains to grasp.
- Predictive Models: We rely on models to assess risk, but these models struggle to capture the full uncertainty of climate change.
- Remote Impacts: The consequences of climate change often feel far away, both geographically and temporally, leading to a sense of detachment.
- Common Pool Resources: Our dependence on fossil fuels creates a "common pool" dilemma, where individual action seems insignificant compared to the systemic problem.
Or as author Kim Stanley Robinson, author of Ministry of the Future (ps highly recommend!) puts it, "it seems to me that it's a psychological necessity of us humans to not think about the end point... almost a mental mechanism to discount bad things for future evolutionary need."
Ecologist Garrett Hardin's 1968 concept of the "tragedy of the commons" offers another insight into our struggle to address climate change. It suggests that when faced with shared resources, individuals often prioritise short-term gain and overuse those resources. You can see this play out in any natural resource we have access to, for example here in the northern rivers there is a consistent fight between preserving nature/green hills and the pressures of housing development (some locals refer to this ecosystem as the 'monetisers'). If you believe that this concept continues to be alive and thriving, unless we move towards systems that take responsibility for these shared resources, we'll remain on an unsustainable path.
So what seems to drive action?
There’s been a few interesting studies that have connected exposure to a problem and action. Studies like Rooney-Varga et al. (3) simulated a role-playing game on climate negotiations which demonstrated that experiencing the urgency of climate change firsthand, along with incentives for action, can lead to increased action. In simpler terms, exposure to the problem combined with a reason to act is a recipe for progress.
Worldviews & Climate Solutions: A Spectrum of Approaches
There's no single answer to tackling climate change. Research, governments, and industry propose diverse pathways, some anchored in individual responsibility to complete system overhaul. Some advocate for technological innovation, while others see a crucial role for government intervention.
In navigating these options, I find the socio-technical perspective on systems change helpful (11, 12). This framework, emphasises a "co-evolutionary" relationship between technological advancements and societal shifts (15). It highlights how all these forces: individual actions, technology innovations, politics, economics and government policies all work together in a symbiotic way.
So what are some examples of suggested pathways?
A dominant trend or at least narrative is techno-optimism, the belief that free markets and technological advancements will solve climate change. This idea is not new, however a good zeitgeist, arguably extreme view was captured recently in marc andreeson's 'Techno-Optmist Manifesto'. Here he talks about our evolutionary skills to usher in positive progress, expansion of humans, abundance, trust technology and human exceptionalism to do all the good things, don’t worry about externalities we’ve got this, ‘hold my beer’ if you will.
For a more balanced view, Mariana Mazzatto [19], economist and author of "Mission Economy," embodies a optimistic but more holistic view advocating for a necessary wider system change, including a public-private partnership similar to the space race from the 1950s. Her idea is that we need to collectively focus on the problem and invest in a comprehensive suite of solutions to address our 'grand challenges' rather than focusing on specific sectors, technologies or companies
Another important piece worth noting is Doughnut Economics by Kate Raworth, which ditches the endless growth narrative by economists and proposes there is a sweet spot for humanity: meeting everyone's basic needs within Earth's ecological limitations, for a just and sustainable future through the analogy of a doughnut (one ring is for human needs, the other are the ecological boundaries).
However, others find these forms of optimism misplaced. They argue that this is too idealistic claiming green growth is not working, there is zero evidence that any Western nation is even close to achieving the necessary emissions reductions or that technology has been able to decouple emissions from economic growth (7).
So how do we build a mental model for all these positions? Here is my attempt to summarise some of key ideas across a spectrum of vantage points, from denialists, to complete system overhaul. It’s not easy to articulate all of this so welcome feedback !
So Where do We Place Our Bets ?
So we know our personal philosophies, knowingly or unknowingly influence how we address a warming climate, but in a world of constrained resources what solution do we bet on?
Do we believe existing technologies are sufficient, just needing a larger scale? Or do we favour a more radical approach, re-imagining the entire system and investing in a broad range of solutions?
Firstly there's debate on the exact amount of tech needed for climate goals. Some models suggest simply continuing to scale up renewables due to their falling costs could potentially achieve 85% reduction in emissions as captured by Saul Griffiths book Electrify. Other models illustrate these mature technologies (e.g. such as solar) on their current pathways are projected to contribute to a quarter of required emissions drawdown for a <2% scenario (16), the remaining drawdown requires emerging or prototype stage technologies to scale (such as industrial processes, aviation, carbon removal).
For the advocates of entire systems change, there is reason for optimism. Startups across industries are emerging, each offering different approaches to reshape our current systems. This creates a vast array of potential solutions of which BCG estimates the investment opportunity globally ranges from $100 - $150 trillion over the next 30 years [18], current momentum in funding and startup creation is strong, in 2022 $70.1B flowed into deals up 89% [17].
Whatever your view on "what" and "how" a sustainability transition will occur, this debate will no doubt continue for years to come. For the record I want to bet on a big energy transfer and co-investment across the board, but there needs to be a mammoth shift in our financing system and regulation to put us on the right path. Elon is not going to save us.
For illustrative purposes here are some personas I’ve come across in my chats that share ‘green growth’ and ‘regenerative systems’ beliefs
Bridging the Gap: A Guide for Navigating Divergent Worldviews
So what do we do with all of this if you are building, investing, or considering a career shift into this space?
- Develop Your Own Change Theory: Start by defining your ideal future state and the logic behind your approach. Then, challenge the big assumptions, this can help you bridge gaps in conversations with a different outlook. Frameworks like Project Drawdown, John Doer Speed & Scale, and The Circular Economy Framework offer valuable starting points.
- Get a handle on Industry Protocols Matter and how you relate to it: Familiarise yourself with key protocols like the Paris Accord, Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP), and the SDGs.
- Critically appraise your product/service, where could different worldviews see an alternate path? For example if you are building a physical product conducting a techno-economic assessment [some sources here & TEA] helps test assumptions to answer the question, will this technology compete? Or if you are building a service/software solution simply doing a scenario planning exercise against key uncertainties such as speed of tech development, changes in consumer behaviour, and government intervention to refine your position and/or risk-adjust assumptions.
- Beware of different definitions: Critically evaluate stakeholder definitions and motivations against your own goals. "Impact" and "Net Zero" have various interpretations. For example Impact for investors could mean they are simply not funding fossil fuels, time horizons & sense of urgency can be very different (is it 5 or 20 years?), Impact can be defined as mitigation or adaption, and impact could include social good or it can be purely environmental.
If you are still here, wow what an honour for me to have your attention! For your time here is a gift from Shuzo Matsuoka, retiring from the pro tennis circuit in 1998 he released a series of excellent motivational videos that are just great.
Onwards !
Genevieve
Sources:
(1) Lerner et al, 2015. ‘Emotion and Decision Making’ https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jenniferlerner/files/emotion_and_decision_making.pdf
(2) Walsh, T., Evatt, A., de Witt, C.S. (2020). Artificial intelligence & climate change: supplementary impact report. Oxford, 1, 1–15. https://www.oxfordfoundry.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/learning-guide/2019-11/Artificial%20Intelligence%20%26%20Climate%20Change_%20Supplementary%20Impact%20Report.pdf
(3) Rooney-Varga (et al.) (source)
(4) Our world in Data https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions?insight=current-climate-policies-will-reduce-emissions-but-not-enough-to-keep-temperature-rise-below-2c#key-insights
(5) M. Douglas, A. Wildavsky
Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers University of California Press (1982) Google Scholar
(6) B.B. Johnson, B. Swedlow, Cultural theory’s contributions to risk analysis: a thematic review with directions and resources for further research, Risk Anal (2019), 10.1111/risa.13299
(7) Vogel & Hickel (2023) Is green growth happening? An empirical analysis of achieved versus Paris-compliant CO2–GDP decoupling in high-income countries’ accessed: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00174-2
(8) Hornsey, M, (2021) The role of worldviews in shaping how people appraise climate change accessed: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154621000437
(10) Frijda, N. H., Manstead, A. S. R., & Bem, S. (Eds.). (2000). Emotions and belief: How feelings influence thoughts. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511659904
(10) Geels, F. (2002) ‘Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study’, Research Policy, 31(8), pp. 1257–1274. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8.
(11) Geels, F. W. et al. (2016) ‘The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014)’, Research Policy, 45(4), pp. 896–913. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.015.
(12) Geels, F. W. and Schot, J. (2007) ‘Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways’, Research Policy, 36, pp. 399–417. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003003.
(13) Markard, J. and Hoffmann, V. H. (2016) ‘Analysis of complementarities: Framework and examples from the energy transition’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change. North-Holland, 111, pp. 63–75. doi: 10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2016.06.008.
(14) Lenton, T. M. et al. (2008) ‘Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(6), pp. 1786–1793. doi: 10.1073/PNAS.0705414105.
(15) Foxon, T. J. and Steinberger, J. K. (2013) Energy, efficiency and economic growth: a coevolutionary perspective and implications for a low carbon transition. 146. Available at: http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/sri. (Accessed: 2 September 2019).
[16] IEA, 2020. Global energy sector CO2 emissions reductions by current technology readiness category in the Sustainable Development Scenario relative to the Stated Policies Scenario, 2019-2070, Accessed March 2022
[17] Pitchbook, 2022. Introduction to Climate Tech: A Taxonomy Overview. accessed March 2022 https://pitchbook.com/news/reports/2021-introduction-to-climate-tech-a-taxonomy-overview
[18] Kanika, C, Duso, M, Frédeau, M, Nielsen, J, Pamlin, J & Pieper, C, 2021 The Next Generation of Climate Innovation, Boston Consulting Group, Accessed March 2022: https://www.bcg.com/en-au/publications/2021/next-generation-climate-innovation
[19] Mazzucato, M & Semieniuk, G. 2018, Financing Renewable Energy: Who is financing what and why it matters?, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, United Kingdom.
[20] Cook, J. et al. (2016) ‘Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming’, Environmental Research Letters. IOP Publishing, 11(4), p. 048002. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.