TLDR;
- I summarise here the elegant maths equation to solving sustainability;
- And also why its so hard to implement.
Oh my, two posts in one evening.
I’ve seen my social media (mainly linkedin, and some news) feeds being a flurry of activity and complaints meaningful progress, blame and finger pointing on the lack of action on climate progress. It spurred me to more acutely synthesise my thoughts on this topic. Previous thoughts are found here.
Quick Mafs innit (feat Big Shaq)
First, a governing equation to model the situation.
C = Consumption
T = Technology (in this context, this specifically refers to technologies that reduces the impact). For the sake of the mafs, we keep 0<T<1. Love me some coefficients and decimals.
I = Planetery Impact
B = Boundary (Planetary)
C (1-T) = I < B
We need to Keep Impact less than the Planetary boundary. In other words, we need to keep the pace of envrionmental (in its many defintions and forms) below the rate of the planet’s natural recovery rate.
To me, meaningfull advances fall under the following core categoires:
- Reduction of consumption. I think this is sorely underappreciated, for reasons below.
- Improvements in Technologies that minimise the multiplier of our consumption habits.
- Ways to improve the Planet’s natural recovery rate (i.e. increase B)
We DO NOT need another greenwashed sustainable consumption brand which practically promotes continued consumption
We DO NOT need yet another green media or advocacy agency
We DO NOT need yet another service provider to advise companies how they can be more sustainble through a complex web of metrics to justify the existing model. (read: Bullshit jobs)
We DO NOT need a non-industrial business owner writing a blog post on how “easy” it is to decarbonise their primary economic activity. (tell that to your food producer, and tell that to your electrictiy provider)
We DO need practical technologies that can reverse the multiplicate impact that our consumption has had on the planet.
We DO need a mechanism to reduce absolute consumption, given the current rate of technology development.
The Qual to the Quant
Second, we must reognise the inherent barriers wtihin the context of a International Political Economy.
Consumption is required for production, and production creates jobs. Politicians want jobs. Is there an existing economic model that isn’t modelled after the US-led democratic, global, capitalist system that says otherwise at this stage? Well many have theorised, but these are all yet to be tested in the same measure.
Quite simply, it is not in the political interest of any country to intentionally weaken their own economy if no other country does it. “Collective Action” as harped about ought to be reframed as “Collective Sacrifice” to understand the apprehension to act. This is one…downside (please don’t hurt me) of the Democractic system focused on short term benefits. In a world already highly unequal - the barriers to action remain ever high.
On a broader level, when geopolitical tensions are creeping up again - no country will want to weaken its position in the world.
It is the ultimate Tragedy of the commons; the ultimate Prisoners Dillema. Who will blink first?
The Ultimate Sacrifice - What is at Steak?
Third, we must acknwoledge that be it governments or individuals - many want their cake and eat it .
Lets not forget that what has defined modern soceity, economic growth and the existing model of consumption include:
- Cheap energy (Fossil fuels)
- Cheap food (Industrial fertiliser, meat consumption)
- Cheap transport (Consumer cars, aircraft)
- Global Economic competition (increased exposure to the Prisoners Dilemma - there are now more Prisoner. Mo’ prisoners, Mo problems)
- Western Democracy (4 year short termism)
And so - See you at COP27!
PS. COP1 took place in 1995. Hmm