as a start at answering these questions, here are five ways we can (still!) 2022年卡塔尔世界杯官网 .

first, we can take on climate change as the unique and unprecedented moral challenge that it is. given the nature of the problem, it is not surprising that we have not yet developed a sufficiently durable regulatory framework for addressing it. in the absence of a federal regulatory framework, we can focus on developing adequate moral frameworks. we will need to articulate workable visions that inspire and guide us to take responsibility for the effects of decisions that are only meaningful when large groups of people make them, and that will play out over decades and centuries. while traditional notions of blame and culpability may be inadequate – as carbon-emitting behavior is not inherently “bad,” and only causes problems at the aggregate level – we will nonetheless have to confront questions around the responsibility of nations that have benefited most from carbon-emitting behaviors to those most likely to incur harm.

second, we can try to recognize and address people’s concerns about the political and economic impacts of large-scale climate change policies. while social science research consistently shows that the majority of americans are concerned about climate change and think something should be done about it, people’s relative prioritizations of climate change vis-à-vis other issues vary. reasonable people can prioritize different values – and the appropriate role for government in protecting them – in different ways. it is an over simplification, furthermore, to assume that all who object to climate change policies deny the science of climate change and its human causes. they may be placing a higher priority on protecting the economic strength of the us and its political sovereignty, and see climate policies and agreements – rightly or wrongly – as threats to those concerns. we need to address these concerns in principle, practice, and message. even though the paris accords are quite minimalist in that they do not empower any global agency or enforcement mechanism, for example, they were not necessarily perceived that way by those who are most concerned with us sovereignty. maybe the next such effort should take place in pittsburgh.

third, we can recognize the importance and success of efforts at the scale of states, cities, corporations, and municipalities. after the u.s. withdrawal from paris, leaders at all scales of governance below the federal, as well as within the private and non-profit sectors are empowering themselves and each other to minimize and adapt to the impacts of climate change. examples include the michael bloomberg-led initiative to get sub-national players officially involved in paris; california’s push to strengthen its already strong, legislation-mandated emissions reductions; pittsburgh’s plan to transition to 100% renewable energy; indiana university’s grand challenge on environmental change, and several states forming the united states climate alliance. these efforts will drive change in and of themselves and will serve as experimental laboratories for the development of larger-scale approaches to climate change.

fourth, we can work to understand and address the increasing polarization of environmental issues, in particular climate change. the environment – and in particular climate – is becoming an issue that fractures along partisan lines. this was not always the case, and it need not be the case in the future. however, it will take serious dialog and creative thinking to break out of the current rut. social science can help us understand the roots and bounds of this polarization. to chart new pathways forward, we will also need to draw on art, religion, and the power of storytelling. we will need to develop new narratives and lines of engagement in order to depolarize. when it comes to issues for which passion abounds on all sides, consensus may not always be possible or even desirable. to what extent are shared goals possible? when they are not, what might it mean to move forward without consensus? these questions and others will have to be addressed.

finally, we can learn to “think like a planet.” almost 100 years ago, when aldo leopold learned that exterminating wolves would lead not to “hunters’ paradise” but to deer explosions and denuded hillsides, he was willing and able to accept his error and begin to learn to “think like a mountain.” in the face of anthropogenic climate change, we now must follow his example and take on the moral and mental shifts required to “think like a planet.” fortunately, cultural and cognitive shifts do not depend on government policy – indeed, they must take place before any meaningful large-scale policy will hold.

my answer to this question is that the biggest environmental problem is polarization. it’s that caring about the environment has become a politically and socially divisive issue — one among so many others. this polarization has led people on all sides to expend energy on demonizing others and validating their own positions, rather than on gaining the necessary perspective to address real issues whose impacts transcend the barriers of politics and culture.  

it is polarization that has resulted in a situation where the amount of science one knows regarding an issue like climate change — as social science research shows — has little if any effect on whether one views climate change as a serious issue, which is influenced to a far greater degree by one’s social affiliation and ideological orientation.

polarization is not difference or disagreement, which are healthy aspects of any social process. when people and groups polarize, however, they define their positions solely in terms of each other rather than either their internal systems of guidance or need to adapt to changing circumstances. polarization in the environmental domain is a problem because it stands in the way of the best thing we have going for us in addressing problems that transcend the boundaries region, culture, and often country: our ability to talk and think together.

to paraphrase einstein, we cannot address today’s environmental issues at the same level of thinking that created them. but the level of thinking required to address biodiversity loss, climate change, environmental injustice, and the rest must be a form of brilliance that emerges not from the solitary genius but from the synergistic engagement of multiple and distinct minds, housed in multiple and distinct bodies, working and living in multiple and distinct contexts.

our ability to think together is innate — it is what has made humanity as successful as we are, and anyone who learned to play with others as a child has the capacity to think with others as an adult. to exercise our ability to think together about the pressing and complex problems we now face involves learning to recognize the inevitable partiality of our own perspectives. with this recognition – really a form of humility — comes an increased ability to find value in alternative perspectives. this, in turn, requires learning to live with a degree of tension and ambiguity when diverse values and ways of looking at the world do not easily align.   

if we can learn to experience this tension and ambiguity as an invitation to dialogue, however, rather than an excuse for digging in our heels, then we can start thinking together and finding genuinely innovative solutions to our most pressing problems.

after the 2016 election, it seems to me, the art of serious storytelling just got both harder and more interesting. if we are to adapt and avoid becoming irrelevant to significant portions of public life, serious storytellers are in need of a game changer. in “game of thrones,” the khaleesi’s dragons are a game changer. for those who are able to embrace them, the impossible becomes possible.

three modern-day dragons have been brought into stark relief by the 2016 election: first, the fallibility of modeling and analysis in the face of complex and changing patterns; second, the extreme divergence of worldview between different sectors of society; and third, the increasing linkages between the legitimation of knowledge and the exercise of power.

none of these things, of course, are new to 2016. like the khaleesi’s dragons, they have been growing for several seasons, and were passed down through the ages in dormant form long before that. now, however, they are full grown dragons that must be reckoned with. but — if we are willing to embrace them, there is reason for hope, and even joy. this joy is not for everyone, perhaps: it’s a kind of serious joy that comes when a confined space opens up, the walls and floor fall away, and one is free to fly or fall.

it takes courage to embrace a full-grown fire-breathing dragon, and it takes both courage and creativity to embrace three of them at once. what might such an embrace look like in practice for people whose job and/or calling it is to promote reasoned dialog, rational decision making, and critical thinking?

embracing the first dragon looks like drawing on science to amplify and empower people’s innate curiosity rather than their need for ultimate truth or justification. embracing the second looks like telling stories that engage and inspire people across political and cultural divides. and embracing the third dragon means authentically engaging the interplay between knowledge and power. 

watch out for this third dragon, though: it’s a feisty one. its message is that eloquent words and nifty diagrams can be masks for those whose interests are served by a particular claim of cause and effect, or a particular way of framing an issue. as i write this ode to complexity, for example, i am aware that even characterizing an issue as complex can be a form of power masquerading as knowledge, as when a toxic polluter strives to avoid responsibility by pointing to the multiplicity of factors that might be contributing to a pattern of disease or harm.

that’s not my intention in talking about complexity though. i see the acknowledgement of complexity as recognition that any single perspective offers only a partial view. this recognition then serves as an opening — an invitation to have conversations with people holding different views, to develop new forms of creativity, and to engage in new kinds of collaborations. but that’s my perspective, from where i sit as someone who wants to build and empower platforms for meaningful engagement across people, disciplines and organizations. 

how do we get around this unavoidability of perspective, and its linkages to interests and values? we don’t. in characterizing an issue or problem, or in framing an issue, we are also characterizing ourselves — our backgrounds, influences, values, and interests. embracing the dragon of knowledge linked to power does not require a descent into the flames of partisanship, however. rather, it is an invitation to make ourselves as characters more visible in the stories we tell.