Power Lays in Certainty        …        Adaptability vs Resistance

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”

Charles Darwin

The question of where nature ranks in our system of values is crucial if we are to find a positive alternative to traditional environmentalism; whether we can solve rather than just manage the problems industry currently creates. Granted, the chameleon characteristics of sustainability enhance its universal appeal; and the concept has begun shifting the debate from traditional environmentalism, with its rhetoric of limitations and protectionism, to a more complex process of conceptual and real trade-offs between social, economic and environmental priorities. The current language of sustainability is built on the faith that if everybody has a seat at the table, they can find common ground, but in politics, power lays in certainty—and one man’s certainty threatens another’s.

This relates to a concept typically called the principle of certainty, which supposes that it is better to know nothing (that is actionable) than to know something false. According to Chen, “Conventional practice allows a larger margin of error for rejecting a cause and effect relationship when it in fact exists” (2003: 125). In other words, one can only take action if there is sufficient proof that a problem exists. Conversely, the precautionary principle pushes the process of policy formation to the side of precaution, even allowing some decisions to be pre-emptive[1]. The certainty and precautionary principles prompt two general ways of dealing with risk: to minimize false positives, avoiding the possibility of concluding that something is risky or dangerous when it really is not; or to minimize false negatives, avoiding the possibility of concluding that something is not risky or dangerous when it really is. In more common parlance, the former would be called a false alarm and the latter an oversight. The key differences between the two are that the former is reactive and more conducive to maximizing yield for its economic value, whereas the latter is proactive and facilitates careful planning (i.e. precautionary treatment of scientific uncertainty).

America’s awakening desire for sustainability and the political necessity of certainty crystallized into the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1970[2]—the game-changing, think-before-you-act policy. NEPA requires federal agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision making processes by preparing a detailed testimony known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This statute is simply procedural, a requirement to identify the environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives of a proposed action as early as possible and using robust science (EPA, 2007). It does not require a specific outcome. In regards to environmental problems, where interactions among numerous parameters are unpredictable and occur in unexpected sequences, inherently precautionary laws like NEPA are apt to push environmental science to its current boundaries. Practical alternatives are as elusive as they are debatable in the absence of scientific certainty. When environmental issues are caught in a scientific treadmill, more certain economic and political issues easily take precedence in the policy hierarchy, and compromises promise only reactive change^[3].

If learning can be equated to problem-solving, then the gap in US politics between certainty and precaution reflects the unfortunate reality that increasing awareness is hollow unless we learn what it means to do the right thing. In other words, public notions about risk invariably entail a series of trade-offs that reflect the historical, political and economic climate, but environmental issues remain an afterthought despite a remarkable increase in green awareness. Considering trends in industrial problem-solving, where engineering strategies are implemented to fine-tune a fundamentally flawed system, most policy-makers and scientists are clearly more concerned about minimizing the number of times they are wrong—not maximizing the number of times they are right. Eco-efficiency, as stated previously, is not enough, but the dangers of proactive action, of solving scientifically ambiguous problems, allegedly outweigh the dangers of inaction. After all, the certainty of one man inevitably raises questions about another’s certainty, and the final arbiters of environmental risks, the policymakers, judges and business leaders, always prefer certain profits over uncertain environmental losses.

The viral diffusion of a new green awareness is as vigorously documented as the pervasiveness of uncertainty in US politics (Adams, 2006; Ashok Khosla, 2003; Braungart et al., 2007; Chen, 2003; Dovers & Handmer, 1993; McDonough & Braungart, 2002; Morren, 2007). The former stresses the need for each individual to do their part, however small it may be, while the latter stresses the importance of patience for those who must navigate these tricky waters. Participation is important because every sector of society is affected by the environment, and patience is important because hasty compromises often result in adverse effects. Even NEPA has failed to deal with the inevitable uncertainties of an EIS, as indicated by Professor Morren, “The precept that social impacts were to be accorded the same importance as impacts on the natural environment turned [out] to look better on paper than in fact” (2007: 300).

Therefore, the difference between where we are now and the next step is the difference between an ecological consciousness and an ecological conscience. As environmental issues infiltrate into the daily lives of average Americans, transparency becomes increasingly tied to accountability, competitive differentiation can be obtained by leveraging environmental literacy and green product offerings, and truly sustainable change becomes increasingly inevitable. Nevertheless, new research is needed to understand how resistance to change is embedded in our institutions, and to develop ideas that will mobilize the new green awareness and rigorously inspire [read incentivize] truly sustainable change [read investment and implementation]. The most adaptable species on earth must become, dare I say, more adaptable.

---

[1] A pre-emptive decision is one that is based on incomplete information and a sense of urgency. It is crucial, however, that the notion of a precautionary approach to environmental problems be limited, lest the pursuant actions be so hasty as to diminish the potential for political and economic flexibility to respond to future problems.

[2] The Act “requires the federal government to use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans” (EPA, 2007).

^[3] This kind of policy is known as tailpipe environmentalism because it treats the symptoms of the problem rather than anticipating it. The name comes from the catalytic converter, which was introduced in the US market 1975 in order to reduce noxious tailpipe emissions, but this end-of-pipe technology overlooks the root causes as it fails to provide a complete picture of carbon emissions. For example, the dramatic buildup of US roads and the concomitant growth of the US car fleet largely offsets any gains coming from catalytic converters.