Spot the difference...

Take a look at the image on the left above. How does it make you feel? Concerned? Shocked? Repulsed? Now take a look at the image on the right. How does that make you feel? Excited about your forthcoming vacation? Curious about what lies ahead? Inspired?

Whatever these images make you feel it is likely that the image on the left portrays behaviours which you find morally objectionable. My objection to the behaviour portrayed in the image on the left is that the environment of an unborn child is being poisoned unnecessarily and therefore jeopardizing the quality of life for a future person. When I look at the image on the right these feelings are much less prevalent even though the behaviour in that image is also poisoning the environment for future people. Why do these two images evoke such different feelings?

I have heard people say that smokers should receive a lower priority in the healthcare system. This is something a heard quite a lot during the Covid pandemic. Smoking kills about 7 million people annually according to a recent report from The Lancet. The World Health Organization attributes 7 million premature death per year to air pollution. But I have never heard anyone say that frequent flyers should be deprioritized in the healthcare system. Why is that?

Opinion varies on the topic of climate change ranging from complete denial that humankind is responsible for climate change to belief that AI or divine intervention will save the day. For those of us who accept that humans are (partly) responsible for climate change through our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and that we can take the necessary measure to avoid runaway global warming, opinions are also divided roughly along the lines of whether this will be achieved by Evolution or Revolution. What do you think?

I recently very much enjoyed reading The Heart of Business by Hubert Joly. One of the ideas which stuck with me was Joly’s assertion that ‘either/or’ provocations often present a corrupted zero-sum view of the options available to us. He suggests we should replace ‘either/or’ with ‘and’. If we want to avoid the worst effects of global warming, we have agreed globally that we need to half our GHG emissions by 2030 and reduce them to zero by 2050. We have formalized this consensus in the Paris Agreement. My provocation is that to achieve this we need Evolution and Revolution. What do I mean by that?

Government institutes and companies are busily legislating and planning respectively with a focus on meeting the objectives set forth in the Paris Agreement. This is commendable and very much required. I work for Vodafone and I am delighted to read the regular progress reports we publish on our achievements as we work towards our objective to reduce our CO2 emissions to net-zero by 2030 across our own operations and throughout our full supply chain by 2040. That would be 10 years ahead of the targets set forth in the Paris Agreement. And we are not alone. The companies I work with, typically large multinationals have all made commitments to reduce GHG emissions in one way or another. The frameworks of legislative policy, funding, business plan and operational changes implemented by government institutes and companies is what I refer to as the Evolution.

The thin blue line in the above chart shows the impact on global warming, if (and it’s a big if) all of the pledges and target a met, namely +2.1?C. That is 40% higher than the objective of +1.5?C. We must also recognize that to date we have not seen any reduction in GHG emissions except for a small decline during the strictest lockdown measures of the Covid pandemic. As of the time of writing this post we have 2734 days to half our GHG emissions. ?So, more needs to be done. What can we do?

When I worked at IBM in the mid-nineties most of my department including me smoked for most of the day at our desk. The office was thick with smoke most of the time. We actively resisted change when it was proposed citing infringement of our personal freedoms, discrimination, questionable scientific evidence, and any other excuse we could think of to hang on to our ‘precious’ habit. Now of course it is unthinkable for someone to light up a cigarette in the office in any developed economy. A cultural Revolution has taken place. Since the 1990’s smoking prevalence among women has reduced by 37%. The reduction is smoking prevalence has been most pronounced in the wealthiest countries. Why does that matter?

If we all lived in the same way as the residents of the United States, we would need 5.1 Earths to sustain us. A bit closer to home (for me) if we all lived like Germans, we would need 3 Earths. In my home country The Netherlands we overconsume the biocapacity of our country by a factor of 7+. However, if we all lived like Mexicans, we would ‘only’ need 1.5 Earths. The situation is clear. The low-hanging fruit for a rapid, high-impact reduction in GHG emissions resides in countries with more developed economies. That is great new because those of us living in these countries have the luxury of choice. Just like giving up smoking, giving up our GHG emissions habit is a bit difficult in the beginning but every time we choose not to indulge it gets easier and our own health and the air quality around us improves. We can follow the same process to ‘quit’ GHG emissions one decision at a time: a train instead of the car or a plane, the veggie options instead of the steak. Does this mean we can’t enjoy exploring the planet or visiting fabulous restaurants? Of course not.

In my day-to-day life, which includes working with people at large corporations, this behaviour is not yet the norm. The GHG emissions implications are not yet hardwired into decision-making. To continue the smoking metaphor, it’s still normal to be smoking in the office. But there is some uncomfortable body language and accusing glances. It’s only a matter of time until someone stands up and asks the smokers to leave the room. This is the spark. The metaphorical Revolution I believe we need to accelerate the Evolution. A change in how we feel about behaviours that drive GHG emissions. That is what will mobilize people to advocate purpose above profit. The Revolution to fuel the Evolution.

What an exciting time it is to be alive. What a privilege to be part of the movement that builds a sustainable future for generations to come. Transformational change can be very divisive. But when it comes to global warming, we are all in it together whether we like it or not. It is therefore so important to work together taking all stakeholders hopes, aspirations and concerns into account. With this in mind I invite you to provide feedback on this post.