Traditional scientific research is grounded on the abstraction of features of the world in the form of symbols in mathematical equations or concepts in logical statements [1]. However, this approach to understanding nature encounters challenges when dealing with complex interdisciplinary topics that require a holistic perspective, as is the case with climate change.
On the one hand, natural science research requires the division of nature into components that can be somewhat understood separately. Hence, the significance of scientific knowledge is contained within these segments of nature that hardly relate to the whole*. In the case of climate science, there is a need to aggregate different natural science disciplines that study components of vastly different temporal and spatial scales. This not only compounds the uncertainties within the fields but also creates new epistemic uncertainties. For example, how can microbial respiration in soils, chemical transport in rivers and cloud formation in the troposphere, to name a few, be aggregated into the same model? Admirably, the integration of the natural science fields that describe the climate system in Earth system models has proven to be quite successful, at least in explaining its large-scale behaviours [2].
On the other hand, traditional scientific research blurs when the humanities and the social sciences are brought into the picture. The clear fragmentation of nature into self-sufficing components becomes quite hazy when the studied phenomenon is human and societal behaviour. Earth system models mainly consider human factors as an external forcing to the climate system, rather than an intrinsic component of it [2]. Consequently, I believe that, nowadays, politically meaningful scientific knowledge is quite technocratic, as human behaviour is reduced to a limited set of variables that can be incorporated into an Earth system model, such as future carbon dioxide emission scenarios [2]. I believe this approach overlooks the fact that these scenarios will evolve within the material and social context of a changing climate, rendering them unevenly plausible. For example, the scenario with the least emissions is quite implausible given present-day social drivers [3]. In contrast, the highest emissions scenario could be influenced by the changing climate, making it challenging for society to sustain the production schemes that would lead to such emissions.
As a response to uncertainties, the mainstream policymaking framework usually revolves around disregarding the climate system altogether, focusing solely on a predefined physical target that should not be exceeded—like the 1.5 ºC temperature rise stipulated in the Paris Agreement. Following this, the optimal socioeconomic path is deduced by computing the least costly path in compliance with such a target [4].
In my opinion, this approach to policymaking is quite naive. First of all, it undermines the material reality of social development. The cost of the optimal socioeconomic path is computed in relation to an ideal ‘business as usual’ economic path, where the climate system does not intercede with human productivity. This perspective overlooks the intricate interdependencies between economic activity and physical factors –”How can we keep the ‘business as usual’ path in a world depleted of fossil fuels?”. Secondly, the optimal economic path adheres to the mainstream societal norms [5], which are, unavoidably, those coming from the Global North. Specifically, the belief that the ideal path is that of prolonged GDP growth. Hence, what clearly is an ethical statement—’GDP growth is desirable for society at large’—is often perceived as neutral or objective within the framework of capitalism.
In sum, given that the inclusion of human factors into Earth system models is impractical under present-day scientific formalism, economists have endeavoured to construct a mathematical framework for policymaking under uncertainties. In parallel, qualitative social sciences have raised concerns about the potential oversight of the intricate interdependencies of climate change [5, 6, 7]. In my view, we should move away from the utopian ideal that policies can be derived solely from the narrow equations of economics since, within capitalism, they undermine the conditions that produce goods** [8]. Instead, we ought to acknowledge and appreciate the diversities that shape society, and the perspectives that attribute value to factors beyond material commodities—such as the beauty of our landscapes, the joy in our arts, or the meaning in our relationships. Scientific knowledge that drives action should enrich human lives and extend beyond the sole maximisation of economic activity or the greedy luxuries of the few. I believe that society at large will start engaging in climate action when such action enhances their sense of connection and vitality—when science shapes not only our technological and material reality but also our ontological and spiritual one.
Footnotes
*One may, for example, examine the two most prominent theories in the field of theoretical physics: general relativity and quantum field theory. While both have been recognised as extremely successful in describing a vast array of natural phenomena, one theory cannot be comprehended through the lens of the other.
**Capitalism tends to underestimate the costs of its reproduction, the economic value of a certain good will hardly account for the labour, resources, residues and impacts of its production.
References
[1] Heisenberg, Werner (1958). Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science. New York: Harper.
[3] Engels, Anita, Marotzke, Jochem, Gresse, Eduardo, López-Rivera, Andrés, Pagnone, Anna, & Wilkens, Jan. (2023, February 1). Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook: The plausibility of a 1.5°C limit to global warming – social drivers and physical processes
[5] Sarewitz, Daniel. “Does climate change knowledge really matter?.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2.4 (2011): 475-481.
[6] Castree, Noel, et al. “Changing the intellectual climate.” Nature climate change 4.9 (2014): 763-768.
[7] Grundmann, Reiner. “Climate change as a wicked social problem.” Nature geoscience 9.8 (2016): 562-563.
[8] Moore, Jason W. “The end of cheap nature. Or how I learned to stop worrying about “the” environment and love the crisis of capitalism.” Structures of the world political economy and the future of global conflict and cooperation (2014): 285-314.
Wow, this was such a nice read!
You address a lot of very crucial points concerning the way we might have to look at the wicked problem of climate change in the future and especially what might be more worthwhile to focus on. I feel like this blog post really showcases why courses, such as “Researching and Shaping Climate Futures”, are important (especially in the natural science field) to broaden our understanding of complex interconnnections between the natural and the social world.
Your critique of the way societal behavior and its outcomes are reduced to an economic goal that is seen as a positive target for “all” is well explained and you clearly lay out the problems with this line of thought. The idea that we can enhance climate action by laying focus on the things we humans actually value seems self-explanatory, but the reality is that economic growth in that sense (which is used as a “minimum” boundary condition for our action) does not actually reflect the people’s desires.
Our blogposts go hand in hand with each other and I feel like in the big picture, that all of our course blogposts paint, they would be puzzle pieces right next to each other!
So much to unpack here! Beautifully written:)
Your criticism of Benthamite utilitarianism is eloquent. These Renaissance and Industrial Revolution era ideas still underpin all of the rampant economic frameworks we know of today. The cost benefit calculations that are prevalent in the field of sustainability have the same underlying issues : cost for WHOM? Benefit for WHOM? Have we asked the people who are actually inhabiting that region how they conceptualise costs and benefits or are we projecting our conclusions based on preconceived notions of what utility maximisation is? One has to wonder whether economics might change, when the people doing economics change. If these old ideas aren’t good enough , do we have to go further back to derive better ones?
The conclusion reads very heartfelt. As they say, the answer to addiction (in this case, to consumerism as a coping mechanism against our insecurities, alienation and general melancholy) is connection 🙂