<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Humanity is on the backfoot. For decades, environmentalists and conservationists have warned of the detrimental effects human habits are having on the planet. Only now, as \u2018climate change\u2019 undergoes a rebrand to \u2018climate crisis\u2019, have we started to listen. Humans need to adapt, mitigate and, ultimately, irrevocably change their behaviours. How do we do this for good? As our Director of Lynn Planet, Samar Khanna<\/a>, would advise, it starts and ends with systems thinking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis is, at its heart, the result of a ripple \u2013 or butterfly \u2013 effect. One which, after being left relatively unaddressed since the monumental behaviour shifts of the industrial revolution, has turned into a tidal wave. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Indeed, the industrial revolution <\/a>saw the marked increase in consumption of air polluting fossil fuels. While coal may have been the fuel of choice at the time, gasoline would smoothly take over, tripling the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This has all been helped along, of course, by flagrant deforestation: 1.9 billion hectares of <\/a>Earth’s forests have been destroyed in the last 300 years. We\u2019re suffocating ourselves, all while we destroy our planet\u2019s built in air purification system. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The ripple, of course, does not end there. While the air becomes thicker with CO2, it heats the planet. Specifically, it heats the oceans. This is where the real crisis begins. Not only do polar ice caps melt \u2013 affecting sea levels and animal habitats \u2013 but more water evaporates, forming clouds. Clouds which, given the higher air temperatures, can hold more water for longer. Clouds which abstain from turning into rain in some areas, and lead to monumental downpours in others. Hence, the increase in droughts and, conversely, floods<\/a>. The ripple continues. The knock on effects of both droughts and floods destroy habitats and cause food scarcity. After that, we have environmental collapse. <\/p>\n\n\n\n However, these ripples are not caused by a singular stone. We cannot forget that we have an energy crisis to contend with, too. As the world\u2019s population continues to exponentially increase, so does its demand for energy. As ever, this demand puts increasing amounts of pressure on the planet\u2019s resources. Put simply, there is not \u2013 and there cannot be \u2013 enough to go around. As fuel prices soar \u2013 from scarcity, from tax \u2013 so with it soars the cost of living, destabilising economies. And what does this result in? That which governments fear most: social unrest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Governments tread a fine line between protecting the future environment, keeping the economy stable and, eventually, being voted in again. At times, achieving all three might seem practically impossible. Thus, these conflicting ideals often lead to staggered \u2013 or even backtracked \u2013 decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Take the EU\u2019s recent ban on the production of combustion engines, for example. Where stakeholder tension delayed the very vote itself, the final 2035 concessionary policy<\/a> resulted in an exemption of e-fuels. E-fuels which \u2013 while keeping brands such as Ferrari and Lamborghini in business \u2013 both requires a lot of energy to produce and pollutes far more than standard petrol and diesel<\/a>. Here, conceding to stakeholders demands and their influence on the economy has won out over resolutely safeguarding the future environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Closer to home, the UK has seen its own brand of tenuous government backtracking. From the delay in Manchester\u2019s Clean Air Zone<\/a>, to delays and complications in the recycling \u2018Deposit Return Scheme\u2019 \u2013 to name but a couple \u2013 are clear examples of local governments who want change, have planned them, but, upon reflection, have been unable to follow through. As Samar put it: \u2018Developing a simple, fair and effective system is much harder than it sounds.\u2019<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n And what happened to those who stood their ground without exploring the implications of these changes? Backlash. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The perfect example is how Oxford\u2019s Low Traffic Neighbourhoods spawned a huge upsurge of misinformation narratives and, with it, demonstrations<\/a>. In February, thousands of people surged into the city centre in protest. And notably, what they were protesting about was completely incorrect. Just as conspiracy theorists would have it, the protests seemed to be about a \u2018hybrid interpretation\u2019<\/a> of the cordoning off of streets (which comes with low traffic neighbourhoods) combined with the \u201815 minute cities\u2019 plan (which aims to reduce car journeys by providing all basic amenities within 15 minutes walk of where people live). The product: protests about neighbourhood lock-ins. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As Samar explains, backlash comes from a place of fear: \u2018vulnerable communities, if not engaged and managed appropriately, are susceptible to be weaponized<\/a> by misinformation narratives and conspiracy theories\u2019. Indeed, when we do not consider barriers to change, behaviour change policies have the power to directly threaten perceptions of health and freedom. Hence, why schemes involving reducing car dependency<\/a> and traffic reduction<\/a> are so potent to vulnerability and, ergo, misinformation narratives. <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n The fears and threats to personal freedom are direct results of behaviour change policies and campaigns being launched without the barriers to change being addressed. Knowledge, capability and motivation are all key points of entry in the change curve. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Look back at the protests for Oxford\u2019s LTNs, for example. People did not truly understand what they were protesting about; clearly, knowledge of the policy changes had not been effectively disseminated. On the other hand, Manchester\u2019s Clean Air Zone sought to introduce a vehicle levy at a time of economic turmoil. It\u2019s all well and good encouraging people to use public transport as an alternative, but when the cost of that is not equitable, nor is a reliable infrastructure there to support it, people feel incapable of making such a change. As for motivation, there\u2019s still a long way to go. <\/p>\n\n\n\n When barriers of change are not accounted for, stakeholders panic. We develop the perception of their freedom being taken away. Which is very dangerous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n When policies change, people need choices; they need feasible alternatives. Only by investigating which areas of society will be most affected by such changes, can systems be adapted to facilitate positive and sustainable behavioural change. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018From a systems thinking perspective,\u2019 Samar says, \u2018it’s important to move away from a #carbontunnelvision<\/a> and consider how different parts of the #system<\/a> (climate crisis, biodiversity loss, social inequality) are interconnected and how changes in one area can have ripple effects<\/a> throughout the entire system.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, there are always unforeseen impacts when making any changes. That\u2019s why qualitative and quantitative research, safe low-negative impact experimentation, as well as pre- and post-implementation testing are critical before larger changes are adopted. Germany\u2019s \u2018Deutschland Ticket\u2019<\/a> exemplifies this. As do the Future Transport Zones of the Solent, West Midlands, Derby and Nottingham.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\nThreats from all sides.<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Government intervention.<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The backlash.<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Addressing the barriers to change.<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Pre-empting the ripple effect with systems thinking.<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n