When thinking of “big picture” solutions there are some concepts that are helpful.

Systems thinking

Thanks to ecology, geology, studies on complexity and the interconnectedness of parts and systems in engineering, medicine and biology, we know that we need to think in terms of interacting agents and systems.

It is fine to break a system down, to reduce a system to components to understand the components better, but you gain little understanding and predictive power unless you put Humpty Dumpty back together again and look at the big picture.

How can we parse ideas about what drives carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, big picture, to better see how we might intervene?

Kaya identity

(as presented in En-ROADS):

The rate of CO2 emissions = population times consumption times energy use. Energy use, efficiency and consumption are modifiable factors.

I=PAT

A similar formulation is I=PAT. Human impact (I) on the environment = population (P)  times affluence (A; the average consumption per capita). P times A = how much resources are used.  That is multiplied by technology (T; the environmental impact of the technologies we use).

Population growth: Population growth has been modified in some regions through family planning/birth control, education (especially for women), equity and increased wealth for the lower income groups, populations and nations. It likely has limits given cultural, religious, demographic and economic factors that can be difficult to modify.

Affluence: We want more affluence for low-income groups, but increases in affluence need not be endless. The rate of growth in affluence can be more modest for those who have plenty, who are affluent by any standard. Sometimes enough is enough, though it seems many who are affluent do not agree!

Technology:  Clearly interventions that increase efficiency of power used for the amount of CO2 produced (e.g., renewables) or sequesters carbon are desired. We need to develop sources of energy and processes that don’t produce GHG.

These formulations are general, a bit simplistic, but are meant to be a scaffolding for our thinking. Where do these suggest we apply our efforts? As we do in medicine, we ask: what are the modifiable factors?

Other big picture considerations

Wicked problems and the commons

Addressing these problems is not just a matter of applying technology. Climate change and environmental degradation can be at times wicked problems (yes, that is recognized jargon).

A wicked problem is one that is difficult to address, with unclear markers of success, complex interactions requiring risk:benefit calculations for multiple projected outcomes involving different spheres (environmental, economic, social), despite often insufficient information, and necessary trade-offs where some groups will be harmed by many of the solutions.

Climate change and environmental degradation also suffers from the problem of the commons: some actors profit more by doing nothing or actually causing harm and letting others worry about the damages. The term is based historically on the British community commons, a public patch of green where all could graze their cows, though some over-grazed while others stuck to the agreement.

Greenhouse gases (GHG) and other pollution, changes to the ocean, extreme weather events, smoke from wildfires, and droughts with stresses on water supplies and agricultural output, do not respect political lines drawn on a map. Supply line issues, social disruption and displacement of populations can also spill over boundary markers.

Why do some great ideas not have the impact we expect?

Why might some interventions that are obviously effective not work as well to solve the problems of climate change in a timely fashion as we would expect when modelled in simulations? We can think about capital stock turnover, crowding out and squeezing the balloon.

These are well illustrated by the En-ROADS simulator modeling and well explained on En-ROADS. The terminology is less important than the ideas.

Capital stock turnover

Interventions take time! Trees have to grow, old cars need to be replaced as do coal-fired power plants as new infrastructure is built and new technologies are adapted. These can take years to decades to bear fruit.

Crowding out and squeezing the balloon

These also explain why you might get less effect than expected when a new intervention is adapted. These are adaptations of terms used in economics, often about government interventions. The interpretations of these here may differ a bit from the way they are used by En-ROADS or economists, but it reflects ways you might find the concepts useful.

Crowding out:

One intervention replaces another, at least in part. This can be good, neutral (a shift with no or little net change), or even harmful.

Renewables crowd out natural gas and coal, but also other sources of renewables, so adding is not always exactly additive (2 + 2 may be an effect of 3, not 4!).

Adding wind may not help much if there is a lot of solar in the area, so solar has “crowded out” wind (and vice versa; that may not be as much of an issue when using the technology most appropriate to the region).

Another example is renewable sources of energy crowding out nuclear energy. Many believe that is great, nuclear energy should be crowded out, but nuclear energy does have potential benefits (see discussion in What Can Be Done).

Planting trees is great for many reasons, not just CO2 drawdown from photosynthesis. But it would take planting trees on half of the landmass of the Earth to compensate for the CO2 produced by just America alone. More forests results in less arable land for food. Whose land gets planted and where? So, trees crowd out other land use.

Squeezing the balloon:

Less “here” (the squeeze) may result in more “there.” Like when you squeeze a balloon (less here) and another part of the balloon enlarges. Crowding out is more “here,” a new or increased use of an intervention, results in less “there” (takes up the “space” of an intervention that has similar goals).

If the alternatives aren’t much better, it may diminish the expected gains of the new intervention. It is shifting things around. That doesn’t mean don’t do the intervention, just don’t be surprised if reality doesn’t meet your expectations and hopes.

Less coal = more natural gas if we don’t find or use alternative sources of energy (or if they aren’t available); i.e., squeeze the balloon at coal and it bulges at natural gas. Perhaps that is an improvement, but not a solution.

This overlaps a bit with crowding out as both explain why one intervention results in another being less effective than expected. The difference is that crowding out is: more of this, less of that, but squeeze the balloon is: less here, more there.

That doesn’t mean don’t do these things, just don’t indulge in wishful thinking and inefficient interventions and hope if you throw everything at it the results are additive and the problem goes away without unintended consequences.

Multisolving and cycles

Multisolving

“Multisolving” is a term coined by Dr. Beth Sawin. Solutions to one problem can have a positive effect on others. This is extremely useful to have in mind when thinking about the big picture.

For example, a recent project in drought-ridden California testing the idea of covering aqueducts with solar panels. Not only are there more solar panels, but less water loss from evaporation, critical in drought-ridden California. https://www.tid.org/about-tid/current-projects/project-nexus/

Another example is that by developing solar and wind alternatives, not only are less GHG produced, but cheaper energy is available, jobs are created, and less air pollution is created (particularly particulate pollution due to coal), saving lives. Electric vehicles also helps climate change and result in less air pollution.

Cycles

Cycles currently are mostly not in our favor.

Negative cycles (downward or “vicious” spirals):

Increased temperatures melt ice, including in northern waters and ice glaciers on land, and there is less snow cover, which decreases albedo (albedo: lighter colored features that reflect sunlight rather than absorb it, resulting in less warming of the land), the land and ocean (and other large bodies of water) warm, more ice and snow melts more quickly, more loss of albedo. Repeat.

The increased heat melts permafrost, particularly as global warming is worse in higher northern latitudes, say Siberia or Alaska, methane is released (there are vast reserves of GHG carbon in permafrost), more global warming. Repeat.

The hotter air holds more water, which is a greenhouse gas, so more greenhouse effect, more water evaporates into the air that can now hold more water, resulting in more extreme weather events, more heavy rains and more droughts in dry areas where the water evaporates, but does not increase rainfall locally. Repeat.

High levels of CO2 increase the temperature, more water evaporates from the Earth’s surface, the warmer air holds more water, there are more droughts, plants are drier, wildfires are more common and more extensive, burning trees release CO2, that increases the temperature. Repeat.

We have to break these cycles!

Positive (or “virtuous”) cycles:

New technology gets cheaper as it shows it can work and people get used to it, and there are savings of economies of scale, improved technology and manufacturing processes (as has happened with solar electricity), more people learn about it, neighbors talk about it, feel good about it, use it more, even more people hear about it, it gets cheaper, innovators and investors see this and innovate and invest in the field. Repeat.

People take action, have less despair, so then people find new ways to take action that they can handle in their busy lives, then take more action with more enthusiasm. They and others are inspired, and take action. Repeat.

An employer or industry makes changes, becomes more efficient, saves money, and employees are happier and proud, are more productive, the company makes more money, makes more changes, and other organizations see this, they make changes. Repeat.

You get the idea. Kind of the rich get richer, success breeds success, but ethical and useful!

We have to increase these cycles!

Think of your own examples! Be creative! Be positive!

Additional Resources

Much of this information can be found in several books, especially on planetary health, which is very much about systems thinking. The explanations on En-ROADS are useful (https://learn.climateinteractive.org). They have a manual and explanations you can find with the simulator if you are not interested in doing their online training.

It is disturbing how little some interventions do, but while it may be less than expected, as in examples above, that doesn’t mean they don’t work and on the margins they may be very useful. Sometimes the issue is just whether or not alternatives are already out there!