Dr Tadhg O'Mahony

4 April 2022|Adaptation, climate action, Development, Nature, Public investment, Scenarios, Sustainability, systems, transformation, Vision, Wellbeing

Thumbing through the IPCC AR6 WGII section 1.5.2 on ‘enabling transformation’ really stands out. The second report of the IPCC concerns Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, but also has key conclusions for emissions mitigation and sustainable development.

Chapter 1 emphasises that technological tweaks and marginal change are not enough, and that fundamental changes to systems are necessary, for mitigation, adaptation and for sustainable development. It notes how market and institutions often maintain status quo, how managed transformation can overcome that, and how it is necessary to avoid disruptive outcomes. What would have previously been considered the ‘safe pair of hands,’ that reproduces current dynamics, and shuns even contemplation of fundamental systems change, guarantees that outcomes will range from the sub-optimal to the traumatic and catastrophic.

Some of the interesting sections include:

“Many actors can contribute to launching or blocking significant system change. Pelling et al (2015) highlights power relationships within and among activity spheres that influence the process of transformational adaptation and distribution of risks. In the sustainability transitions literature each set of actors –including those from academia, politics, industry, civil society and households — brings their own resources, capabilities, beliefs, strategies and interests, which affects their interest, objectives, ability to affect the process and their ability to affect others (Kern and Rogge, 2018).”

Reaching our climate action, sustainable development and wellbeing goals, therefore requires far more than changes to indicators, or reliance on efficiency and technology. Reaching these goals requires transformation of key systems such as food and agriculture, spatial planning and transport, and must address social justice, power dynamics and values, as well as underlying governance and market structures that uphold them. To not engage with the social, cultural, political and institutional fundamentals will guarantee that we do not solve the challenges we are faced with, or grasp the opportunities for win-win outcomes this presents. 

As the report notes, this also requires changes to how we analyse and frame these challenges, technology forecasts are not sufficient and privilege some interests and solutions over others. We need to support our energy modellers with studies into systems changes. We need to explore visions of fundamentally different pathways, to consider multiple scenarios of how our underlying systems could evolve, develop shared visions and coalitions (such as small farmers, public health and conservation, or housing and civil society) and align public policy across fundamental functions (tax, public services, market regulations, investment). We need to gear ourselves towards achieving systems transformation, rather than upholding the current unsustainable systems and practices, which serve the economic freedoms of a minority, and short-term rent-seekers, at the expense of the majority, future generations and the natural world.