Power usually seeks a particular objective, often a self-serving one. It is mostly interested in seeing things happen in a particular way, using particular means, and with a particular end in mind. Change, at least in the sense we use it here at WorldChanging, is not particular in this way. It admits of many paths and many solutions. It recognizes that there are many points of leverage which are not necessarily those traditionally employed in the service of power. Many of these points of leverage can push or nudge things in a particular direction, but do not control the outcome. They only make certain outcomes easier, more possible, or more likely.
Politics aims to change things in a concrete way, to accomplish an ideological purpose. Sir John A. MacDonald desired to keep British North America together, and considered his National Policy (of forging economic links between east and west), to be the best avenue to do that. In this case, we have an ideological purpose (preserving British North America) which stands behind a range of measures, including a technological intervention like building a transcontinental railroad.
Individuals can sometimes agree on a pragmatic purpose, but differ in their rationale. In the case of green technology, people may be interested in protecting the environment, saving lives, or preserving civilization. They may be concerned about energy security, or the difference in living standards between rich and poor. In this case, the problems of creating change can look like bringing differently-minded people together in common cause.
Conversely, individuals may agree on the specific threats of climate change, but have very different ideas about the appropriate technological or political means to avert its worst effects. Some may argue for the continued use of coal (on the grounds of their high energy density), but with mandatory carbon sequestration. Others may argue that carbon capture and storage is untried, and we should be uncompromisingly steering a path towards smart grids and renewables. Some feel that we should simply change the playing field, and let the market sort it out. Others feel that these measures are too little, too late, and that we had better start on the road of mitigation and climate engineering.
Such projects do not necessarily contradict each-other. When it is not clear which solutions will bear fruit, we need to recognize our susceptibility to the single-action bias, and find ways to pursue all viable solutions.
When resources are scarce, however, one project may compete with another. Doing research on hydrogen cars meant focussing more resources on hydrogen fuel cells, and fewer resources on electric vehicles. In such cases we need better data, and better foresight, so that we know which options will produce the desired goods. We then need to be willing to abandon those that do not.
Some options are genuinely mutually exclusive: many people are divided on the use of nuclear power, for instance. Sometimes in these cases, compromises might sometimes be sought. Although even these may be controversial: James Hansen's suggested pursuit of 4th generation reactors, for instance.
One of the things we try to do here at WorldChanging is provide some of the analysis that is pre-requisite to change. We discuss some of the reasons that change might be desirable. We inventory options that are working, analyze their strengths and weaknesses, and the context in which they are best deployed. We look at some of the means by which change happens, especially new and emerging tools.
The need for change is now urgent. And in our thinking about change we must address challenges that stem from that urgency: how can we foster innovation? How can we fast-track regulation? How can we remove barriers? What are the pre-requisites and challenges for making a particular kind of change easy, desirable, or inevitable?
We must think of the difficulties inherent in rapid change. When we move quickly, how can we monitor the consequences, and adapt to them? What do we do when we make mistakes, and how can we change course in an agile way? How can we ensure that new measures are debated thoroughly and deployed quickly?
As Lester Brown noted in an interview I did with him a couple of years ago, one of the keys to change seems to be crossing a particular social threshhold, precipitated, very often, by a catalytic event—a Pearl Harbour, or an economic collapse. The global economy may have just experienced such a tipping point, with an accompanying change in consciousness, which means that in the next couple of years, changes may occur that were not possible in the last twenty. Change is in the air, and not simply because of the recent elections in the United States. Such tipping points could also bring about profound dislocation. These are frightening, exciting, and unprecedented times to be alive. It is, for all of us, a tremendous privilege, a tremendous opportunity, and a tremendous challenge to understand and shape that change.
Photo: Mark Tovey
