REMARK 1 We agree that this formulation of the complex of environmental problems is rightly expressed and something with which most people on earth would agree and would accept. People like journalist Andrew Revkin, climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, and reports by respected bodies such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and others, and even some of the signatories to the memorandum are noting that to get from "A" – where we are, to "B" – where we know we need to be to reduce risks to an acceptable level, we need to fully engage the knowledge of the social sciences, history, and the humanities. For instance, one can draw upon social science and humanities knowledge about the ways that a new civilization paradigm – whether it be the “Enlightenment”, a new religion, or the conception that motivated and guided industrialization – emerges and develops. What forces are mobilized? What constraints exist? What are sources and powers of opposition(s)? How can constraints and opposition be overcome? There is a substantial body of knowledge about such phenomena found in history and related social sciences and humanities. A global task force should be mobilized and asked to address the challenge. At the same time, the task force must be kept aware of the existence of diverse and contentious perspectives. For instance, there is no single, agreed-upon conception of “equitable”, “secure”, or “prosperous”. Meanwhile aiming for population stabilization can alienate many, depending on how it is phrased and implemented. The task force needs to be as inclusive as possible of many viewpoints while keeping in mind the importance of the preamble as expressed in the Memorandum. |Back|

REMARK 2 Unfortunately, there is a great deal of denial: about climate change, the risks of many chemicals to human health and environment, and, in general, the many threats to the planet’s environment and human societies. Substantial economic, ideological, and political resources have been mobilized to propagate and reinforce doubt, uncertainty, and denial. Scientific evidence is, therefore, important but not sufficient. Many people do not believe in or respect the authority of science. Others find its "truths" to be inconvenient and a fundamental threat to their ways of doing business. Many scientists accept the fact that more than science is needed for policy and strategic actions For instance, the 21lst report of the U.K. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1998) stated that scientific assessments must inform policy decisions but cannot pre-empt them, and that public opinion must be taken into account throughout. We need to understand better if and how rational analyses and arguments can address the human challenge of global environmental change. However, there are many formally organized groups – with millions of open or tacit supporters – who oppose efforts to engage, mitigate or solve global environmental threats such as climate change. In what ways has such denial or resistance emerged and developed? What can be done about it under conditions of democracy? How can similar forces be leveraged in support of environmental sustainability? We need to mobilize the knowledges of the social sciences and humanities concerning a number of critical questions and socio-political challenges: How has such opposition been overcome in cases in the past, for instance the organized opposition to scientific evidence and policies against smoking? Would the strategies used (or similar strategies) work today? Or, are there new strategies available to overcome denial and well-financed and effective propaganda; or, to overcome the widespread resignation and indifference among significant parts of the human population? Some of these questions are already well-researched in the social sciences and humanities. Mobilizing and applying this knowledge now would be timely and would in all likelihood make a significant difference in the medium to long-term. At the same time, natural as well as social scientists are often enough connected to the rich and powerful, providing avenues of leverage. |Back|

REMARK 3 Fundamental Transformation suggests revolution! Most people – except for some of those marginalized, denied appropriate recognition and justice (and possibly prepared to take risks for their causes) – are opposed to revolutionary changes, other things being equal. Alternatively, sometimes “quiet revolutions” or “slow revolutions” do yield a “fundamental transformation” with majority support. We need to know under what conditions – and through what mechanisms and human agency – would the fundamental transformation be possible or even feasible without causing more harm than good? What gradual or “soft” transformations might be most feasible and acceptable? What risks would such efforts entail? This deserves a global taskforce engaging leading researchers in the social sciences and humanities working together with natural scientists to specify what material transformations of a fundamental character are necessary as well as feasible, given particular strategies. In most areas of the contemporary world, one is not starting with a vast, open landscape just waiting to be built on with new forms of sustainability arrangements. Researchers and policymakers must take into account old and rigid ingrained forms, social and infrastructure lock-in, vested powerful interests, arenas of struggle, generalized fear and suspicion, and resistance (often, with diverse motives). The social sciences and humanities, as social cartographers, are able to provide rough maps of the modern world (and its historic background), revealing a highly complex and changing landscape – with difficult terrains, diverse hazards, and potentially catastrophic pitfalls. To move forward in such a world, it is essential to marry the capabilities of both natural and social scientists and humanists in articulating and promoting a more sustainable future. |Back|

REMARK 4 Many people feel positive about “innovation” in general-- but not all of the people, all of the time, accept all innovations. For example, innovations in solar and wind production of electricity are not welcomed by the coal industry, but solar and wind are increasingly supported by many businesses, local governments, and publics. The factors accounting for these differences in the acceptance of technological progress need to be sorted out -- as numerous studies of technical, economic, governance, and cultural studies of innovation have shown. Again, social science and humanities investigations have identified some of the ways in which innovation takes place, and is successful (or fails, as the case may be). They assist in identifying entrepreneurs and other change agents, the institutional and cultural opportunities, facilitators, and barriers while taking into account the influence of larger institutional and cultural contexts. For instance, in its investigations of drivers of and constraints on social change, social science research has identified several key factors, even in complex social contexts: (1) socio-cultural mechanisms of re-framing, re-definition, and other cognitive shifts such that problems are seen from new perspectives and new solutions envisioned; (2) development of new narratives and discourses which play a major role in many value shifts and cognitive changes; (3) social movements which raise awareness and play critical roles in cognitive and value shifts and the development of new identities such as "responsible corporations" and "green citizens"); (4) the role of institutional arrangements and social power dimensions which may facilitate (or, alternatively constrain) innovation initiatives and their successes (or failures) (for related research on innovation in energy technologies and policies, see works of Burns and collaborators);(5) the influential role of "cultural educators and protagonists" in developing a new sustainability ethos and practices. For instance, research shows how governments and NGOs may "pressure" not only a national business community to take on sustainability as a mission but may impact on global developments through a "civilizing business mission or movement" (e.g. stressing Global Compact, Global Reporting Initiative, and OECD guidelines). Thus, Nordic countries (joint efforts of governments and NGOs) have been particularly active in strengthening the international dimension of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the extension of the CSR movement to all countries including developing countries. |Back|

• Achieve the Millennium Development Goals, in the spirit of the Millennium Declaration, recognising that global sustainability is a precondition of success.
Adopt a global contract between industrialized and developing countries to scale up investment in approaches that integrate poverty reduction, climate stabilization, and ecosystem stewardship. (Remark 7)

• Keep global warming below 2oC, implying a peak in global CO2 emissions no later than 2015 and recognise that even a warming of 2oC carries a very high risk of serious impacts and the need for major adaptation efforts.
• Put a sufficiently high price on carbon and deliver the G-20 commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, using these funds to contribute to the several hundred billion US dollars per year needed to scale up investments in renewable energy. (Remark 8)

REMARK 8 Imposing a high price on carbon [for instance, through a carbon “tax” (or fossil fuel energy tax)] makes perfectly good, rational sense. But powerful interests – and hundreds of millions of global citizens – are reluctant or opposed to such prudent but drastic action. Air travel alone produces 33 million tons of carbon each year (and alternative fuels aircraft designs are being developed, but this will take a much longer time to have an impact than an immediate radical price hike). Much is at stake in air travel. More generally, making fossil fuels highly expensive when the whole modern economy is built on relatively cheap energy – major industries and entire infrastructures are dependent on it – is arguably an enormous hurdle – not least because of the public and political resistance it engenders. Europe failed to adopt a carbon or energy tax (although it might be accomplished in the medium to long-run); it is very unlikely to succeed in the USA in the short to medium run. China and India are unwilling to jeopardize their development paths with such measures. Incremental and indirect changes are being introduced, for instance increasing substantially taxes on large, heavier automobiles; or, changing the standards of emissions for diesel driven vehicles. In sum, while taxes might be the most direct and effective solution from a pure economic theory point of view, research is needed on which “second best policies” might be appropriate from political, social, and even economic points of view. Task forces should be established to identify and understand better successful patterns of change, incremental ones as well as revolutionary ones. |Back|

• Introduce strict resource efficiency standards to enable a decoupling of economic growth from resource use.
• Develop new business models, based on radically improved energy and material efficiency. (Remark 10)

REMARK 9 Again, this proposal makes good sense, a goal with which most would agree in the abstract. When we start exploring concretely how we are going to go about achieving it, we come up against established institutions, built environments, powerful interests – the Devil is in the details! Much social science research demonstrates the likely resistance – and, indeed, the “massive efforts” that will have to be made. This leads to another “how question.” How are these massive efforts to be mobilized, led, and problems of reluctance and indifference, not to speak of powerful opposition, to be overcome. Through what mechanisms – or social and policy strategies – can the “throw away” culture be transformed. Millions have lifestyles and practices built on this. Industries, employment, community and regional economies are claimed to depend on it – without attention to the research which demonstrates potentially more worthwile alternatives in terms of employment, economy, and community? The “automobile culture” is another case in point. Powerful manufacturing and oil industries, highway infrastructures (with their own vested interests), and 100s of millions of people whose status, lifestyles, and practices all are interlocked in a system, which will not be readily or easily transformed, unfortunately for the health of the planet and its peoples The picture is not completely negative. There are successful cases from which lessons can be drawn -- there are strategies that work, under some conditions, to overcome indifference, reluctance, and opposition. But this knowledge, principally from the social sciences and humanities, needs to be brought to light and applied in practice, a matter touched upon earlier. For example, we are currently experiencing a window of opportunity with respect to a questioning by different actors of the conventional idea of what is a “car”. In order to exploit the transformative potential of this window of opportunity, cooperation between engineers and researchers in the social sciences and humanities is needed to find beneficial solutions and pathways to achieve these solutions. |Back|

REMARK 10 The development of new business models is a worthy challenge. Already there are numerous models and more coming on stream – this development is occurring at the corporate and sector levels but even at more global levels as new conceptions are formulated of “green capitalism” and “sustainability capitalism” as well as other hyphenated capitalisms. Management scientists as well as other social scientists need to be mobilized in one or more global task forces to establish a systematic comparative assessment and development of models of capitalism, which would be the basis of further innovation and development toward sustainability. There is a need for projects to investigate and assess feasible alternatives and to conduct systematic experimentation. Conferences reporting and continuously assessing developments would be an important part of the learning and innovation processes. |Back|

• Foster a new agricultural revolution where more food is produced in a sustainable way on current agricultural land and within safe boundaries of water resources. (Remark 11)
• Fund appropriate sustainable agricultural technology to deliver significant yield increases on small farms in developing countries.
• Government intervention in the agricultural sector (through subsidies) is notorious for producing waste on a massive scale – lakes of milk and mountains of butter in the EU – and negative innovation – corn ethanol and high fructose corn syrup in the US. Meta-analysis and other methods can be use to conclude how negative outcomes of major government intervention can be avoided. Also, other interventions (for instance, providing knowledge inputs and discussions), which have in some cases worked effectively need to be analyzed.

REMARK 11 A new “agricultural revolution” as suggested in the Memorandum would necessarily involve massive transformations of material, social structural, and population conditions. Such a transformation would surpass those referred to earlier, for instance, a transformation of the “automobile system” or of “the throw-away culture.” Opposition and resistance would come not only from powerful agricultural interests in agro-business but from 100s of millions of relatively small farmers and their families and communities whose way of life could be threatened and, indeed, radically changed. Even if all possible threats were minimized, most adult populations are not enthusiastic about revolutionary transformations of their lives and life conditions. There are usually too many unknowns, or it is to far outside most people’s comfort zone. Historians and social scientists have a substantial body of knowledge about major societal transformations, the impacts they have on people’s lives, the resistance they foster, the conditions under which they were brought about (or conversely, the many failures of transformative efforts). For instance, religious and socio-political movements have played significant roles in successful “revolutions”, even agricultural revolutions (as the one that transformed Danish agriculture in the 19th Century). Thus, we are not only pointing out the barriers and oppositions to transformation but also suggesting facilitating conditions and developments, which social science and humanistic research would help identify and analyze. |Back|

• Take account of natural capital, ecosystem services and social aspects of progress in all economic decisions and poverty reduction strategies. This requires the development of new welfare indicators that address the shortcomings of GDP. (Remark 13)
• Reset economic incentives so that innovation is driven by wider societal interests and reaches the large proportion of the global population that is currently not benefitting from these innovations. (Remark 14)

REMARK 12 Remark 10 called for the mobilization of one or more global task forces to systematically investigate, analyze, and develop “models of capitalism”. This work would identify feasible alternatives. Conferences reporting and continuously assessing results and developments would be an important part of the learning and innovation processes. |Back|

REMARK 13 The development of new welfare and “quality of life” indicators has been going on for some time in the social science communities, in large part in reaction to the obvious shortcomings of monetary measures of profitability and GDP in accounting for particular social and environmental conditions. Economists and other social scientists as well as management researchers have been working at developing new as well as extending existing systems. In general, the challenge will be to transcend and eventually replace the established accounting systems which are historical products and were never designed to take into account social and environmental dimensions. “Triple bottom line” is a good start, but insufficient, since the economic, social, and environmental dimensions are not commensurable (or reducible to a single measure). No convincing candidate, for instance an algorithm, for “translating” between the measures has been formulated; and, in any case, it would be far away from being institutionalized in accounting and regulatory practices. A new conceptual framework of accounting – when and if it is accomplished – will need to be institutionalized. And this will entail the exercise of power and struggle. Who are the agents who will drive this transformation? How will it be accomplished? What is a realistic time frame? Once again, we are back to issues of paradigm shifts, societal transformations, and the importance of mobilizing and exercising social power. These are key components in the Memorandum’s “Black Box” of society about which the social sciences and humanities have an enormous knowledge to offer. |Back|

REMARK 14 Reorienting the economy – and the millions of enterprises which make up the global economy is, of course, a major challenge. Considerable resistance to a new accounting (and calculating) system will come from within these ranks (see our previous point). But more than a change in accounting framework will be necessary. “Economic incentives driven by wider societal interests” means empowering these interests – transforming them from subjects or targets of power maneuvers to “stakeholders”. This implies mobilizing and exercising power to bring about systemic change –, in effect, revolution (again, our major topic in this context). Major societal transformations have been brought about peacefully. We need to collectively know more about this, the conditions and ways such shifts have been accomplished. Use needs to be made of theories of revolution and social transformation, empirical cases, and conclusions from a substantial body of social science and humanities knowledge. |Back|

• Raise public awareness about the impacts of unsustainable consumption and shift away from the prevailing culture of consumerism to sustainability (Remark 15)
• Greatly increased access to reproductive health services, education and credit, aiming at empowering women all over the world. Such measures are important in their own right but will also reduce birth rates. (Remark 16)

REMARK 15 Earlier we pointed out the vested interests, particularly within some parts of the global capitalist system, supporting and driving the culture of hyper-consumerism. Thus, we are led to considering or imagining types of capitalism that would not depend on such consumerism (or in any case would be much less dependent). In other words, what kind of functioning capitalism, if any, would not require full-blown consumerism. How would one bring about changes in everyday practices and lifestyles toward greater sustainability without autocracy and draconian measures? Even autocracy and draconian measures have been shown to have their limitations. “Democratic” measures are highly promising under some conditions, but not always reliable or effective. |Back|

REMARK 16 As the authors of the Memorandum are fully aware, there are nation-states, religious communities, and large populations opposed to empowering women and, in particular, supporting “reproductive health services” (which includes contraception and abortion). We need to draw on already existing knowledge as well as to conduct further systematic investigations into what can (and cannot) be accomplished in the short to medium run in these areas. We need a global map. We need comparative historical studies. And we need new concepts, data, and strategies which NGOs and policymakers as well as applied science can utilize. |Back|

• Develop and strengthen institutions that can integrate the climate, biodiversity and development agendas.
• Explore new institutions that help to address the legitimate interests of future generations. (Remark 17)

REMARK 17 This calls for drawing upon and developing institutional analyses and related empirical data in the social sciences and humanities to identify institutional changes and new designs for such a challenging task. Established research – including research on institutional design – can assist in strengthening institutions appropriate for sustainability and also in designing entirely new institutions that might address effectively the “legitimate interests of future generations.” |Back|

• Launch a major research initiative on the earth system and global sustainability, at a scale similar to those devoted to areas such as space, defense and health, to tap all sources of ingenuity across disciplines and across the globe. (Remark 19)
• Scale up our education efforts to increase scientific literacy especially among the young (Remark 20).

REMARK 18 The major investments would presumably encompass the social sciences and humanities as well. |Back|

REMARK 19 A growing number of respected experts and authoritative bodies are already pointing out the importance of engaging the social sciences and humanities communities in this necessary endeavor and especially focusing on working across and without disciplinary boundaries. A much greater investment in the natural and related sciences is clearly required, and matching such initiatives with comparable investments in the social sciences and humanities is essential given that many if not most of the major fundamental problems and their solutions relate to human behavior and hence concern the social science and humanities. Such a substantial shift in support would be a revolution in itself, a major turning point in the history of science and knowledge production and application generally. |Back|

REMARK 20 One must include literacy in the humanities and social sciences concerning the complex social systems – their histories, their institutions, their cultures - in which we live and which will require systematic transformation in the decades ahead. The field of education and pedagogy is huge within the social sciences and humanities, again demonstrating the need to involve scientists from all disciplines—and working across and without disciplinary boundaries. |Back|

REMARK 21 In sum, these MAHB remarks on the Stockholm Memorandum argue that without the mobilization and application of appropriate and substantial knowledge of the social sciences and humanities, we are left trying to construct a new world without all the necessary strategies and tools. We know a lot about where we need to go, but perilously little about how to map out and accomplish that journey. This needs to be presented in a way that cannot be read as competition between the natural and social sciences or as an effort to garner more resources for selfish reasons. It is all about problem solving that simply cannot be accomplished without the knowledge and understanding provided by (or sought by) the social sciences and humanities. We require “wise agency” commanding and integrating essential knowledges: natural science and engineering, of course, and much more than thus far the engagement of the social science and humanities. |Back|

|Back to TITLE|

Page 1      Page 2      Page 3      Page 4      Page 5      Page 6      Page 7      Page 8      Page 9

Supplement 1      Supplement 2      Supplement 3      Supplement 4      Supplement 5      Supplement 6

PelicanWeb Home Page