What exactly are we talking about?

Yesterday I took a walk at a wonderful Botanic Garden with my spouse and a friend. This week if you are living in Sweden, after Greta Thunberg's speech, you simply can’t avoid the subject of environment and global climate change. So we didn’t either...

What began as a pleasant chat in our little group, shortly ended in some kind of unpleasant mood after naming what forums exist, what they are discussing, what treaties are signed, what is their jurisdiction, what are the actual priorities, how they are addressed and by whom.

What exactly are we talking about when it comes to the global environment and climate changes? I hope I am wrong, but a glance on the list of agreements made me very frustrated because they were too many to wide and scattered in so many different areas. Take a look yourself: List of international environmental agreements

The main challenge seems to be that the whole show is governed by the politicians and sometimes scientists in the very disparate areas. Not so promising, thinking on the current political situation in the world, with threats for the basic democratic principles in some countries in Europe, not to talk about the escalating economic conflicts between big powers, Brexit, etc... same with the scientists and researchers. Without having the clear goals and KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) there is no way to connect the results from all different research areas and get the big consistent picture, all the progress we are experiencing in what Steven Pinker calls The best Time in Human History, may just go in another direction.

At the moment we do not have a forum that can understand and act to resolve the challenges. Try to find the top 10 environmental concerns. You will find everything between heaven and earth (and beyond :)), depending on the driving interest of the list maker, except the consistency between the topics. The complexity due to the mixture of hi and low legal, ethical, political, economic, technological and national interests, makes this without a doubt the biggest puzzle the humanity has ever faced. 

One hour ago I had the honor to unexpectedly met Nassim Nicholas Thaleb, one of the top influencers on my whole life doctrine, while he has been interviewed on his latest book "Skin in the Game", at Gothenburg book fair. We managed to exchange a couple of quick words on this subject. In this short exchange, the solution Mr. Thaleb proposed, was the enforcement of the regulations driving toward modern technical solutions like electric cars, alternative sources of energy, etc. Because of the lack of time, in the context of a book fair, we didn't manage to develop this further.

Nevertheless, the striking simplicity of having your skin in the game is an absolute condition for discussing the right direction for the big powers could take us far. For example, the United States withdrawal from the Paris agreement in 2017, makes one wonder if the only way to go is the deployment on the local level (federal level) or even more local, where the decision-makers on the municipality level can act in accordance to their situation. Many of the big actors in this game like China, Brazil, India are not even sitting at the same table at the moment, and this is the question that politics could solve. 

Something to consider next time we are voting? To quote Mr. Thaleb: "The factor of being exposed to possible shame by having to meet the locals in a convenience store or drink the same water like the rest of the citizens in the area makes one take decisions differently". I think that there is a need for both actings locally and making the framework for the global rules.

After a moment of a brief feeling of shock, caused by the sheer quantity of agreements and their diversity and the awareness of the topics mentioned above, my engineer-nerdy brain tells me that in this state we need to structure the issues in the cross-functional-priority-matrix-relational model so we can first understand the complexity and then act. We are dealing with a system problem and the solution needs a systematic approach not only single initiatives! 

It is said that people are voting with their wallets. at least there is some movement in this front made by the banks. The latest agreement with 130 banks holding USD 47 trillion in assets commit to climate action and sustainability is encouraging, concrete action. The question is if it is too little and too diffuse if not even too late? And how does it correlate with technical progress, where is a good baseline to find?

Sometimes not acting prematurely is the best way to avoid trouble. The stakes, in this case, are so high and possible impact on the next generation(s) that will inherit our legacy is so big that this doesn't seem like a sound option.

What are your thoughts?