In the second installment of our ongoing series “Three Decades & Counting: Insights from successes and failures in 30+ years of communicating about sustainability,” Mathis Wackernagel explores the perceptions and misperceptions of climate action and how we talk about it. Join the conversation below!
What’s holding back the sustainability transition most is not the fact that decision-makers do not know that we are systematically depleting the planet. The problem is that they think it is too costly for them to act. This may be one of the most damaging misconceptions we face.
Therefore, this is the shift Global Footprint Network is looking for: moving public perception from perceiving being caught in a “free-riding problem” to realizing that each one of us has “skin in the game.” “Free-riding” (or “tragedy of the commons” as some call it) implies action benefits humanity, but costs me. “Skin in the game” recognizes that my own fate is tied to taking action; my action is an investment into my own ability to thrive (and is also beneficial for humanity).
If I see “free-riding” as the main obstacle sustainability faces, I conclude that it takes heroic, noble action to address the challenge. If I feel “skin in the game,” then me acting for sustainability becomes an obvious necessity for myself.
The table below highlights key differences between the conventional “noble” narrative and the “necessary” narrative, and why at Global Footprint Network we are convinced that the “necessary” narrative would be far more effective in unleashing the sustainability transformation.
A summary of noble vs. necessary view of sustainability action
|
“NOBLE NARRATIVE” |
“NECESSARY NARRATIVE” |
| I believe… |
I am caught in misaligned incentives between humanity and my country/city/ company/ self. |
My incentives and humanity’s incentives are aligned. |
| Therefore… |
I bear the costs of reducing my carbon emissions, and all the benefits go to humanity. |
I don’t want to wait to ready myself for the predictable challenges of climate change and resource constraints. |
| In response… |
We need international commitments and noble deeds (with no benefits to myself). |
I see taking action as necessary and essential for my own success. |
| As a result… |
I wait for others to act, and find myself in perpetual stalemate. |
I act now and find opportunities and synergies to amplify my efforts. |
Most climate and sustainability commentators today see primarily misaligned incentives, where what would be good for humanity comes at a cost to themself. But given that the calamites of ecological overuse ultimately affect our cities, companies and countries, don’t we have direct incentives to prepare our cities, companies and countries for the future we anticipate? This implies that incentives between us and humanity are primarily aligned: investing in the sustainability transformation also has overwhelming benefits for the actor/investor.
Misaligned incentives, meaning what is good for me is not good for humanity, and vice versa, are technically called “free-rider problem” or “tragedy of the commons.” They require “noble responses.” Noble actors only expect costs and no personal benefits. Being trapped in such tragedies of the commons is still the dominant view of the situation we are in. Since such tragedies require noble actions, they are typically relegated to Sunday afternoons, if ever.
Aligned incentives mean that my interest and humanity’s go together. Some express it as “people have skin in the game.” For those people, action is NECESSARY if not ESSENTIAL for themselves. Granted, some people still do not act, even if necessary (e.g., quitting smoking, maintaining a healthy diet, getting enough sleep), but having skin in the game makes action far more likely. But also, the sustainability challenge is characterized far more by aligned incentives than what’s being recognized. That’s what we need to shift the narrative.
Any organization’s power, and particularly that of not-for-profit organizations, comes from helping people see aligned incentives, where they now misperceive misaligned incentives. This is what I am obsessed about these days.
P.S.: Free-riding and the “tragedy of the commons”. “Free-riding” and “tragedy of the commons” I use here interchangeably, and this requires a short explanation. “Free-riding” means that people can take advantage of open access to public goods. They can privatize benefits and socialize costs. It erodes trust and collaboration. For instance, I benefit from using fossil fuel in my car, while the ensuing noise and pollution is shared with humanity. Or vice versa, I pick up litter at the beach, and the benefit goes to everybody. An ecologist, Garrett Hardin, wrote about this dilemma in a famous article he called “the tragedy of the commons” . This title has become a common term for “free-riding,” a concept more commonly used within the field of economics. Harding unfortunately used a confusing title. He should have called his paper “the tragedy of freeriding”, because commons can be a powerful solution to “freeriding”, as even Hardin pointed out in his article. He stated that it requires mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon, possibly the most succinct definition of “a commons”. Tragically, Hardin’s poor title caused much confusion, put on the positive side also led to a Nobel Prize for Elinor Ostrom clearing up some of that confusion.
![[groups_small]](groups_small.gif)