Many experts and pundits from the popular media often depict sustainable, low-carbon transformation as a revolution (see Sawin & Moomaw 2009; Pan 2016a, 2016b). For example, Tom Delay (2009) of The Guardian sees “a new revolution that fast tracks the deployment of a new set of technologies.” He continues that the new low carbon economy is “poised to be the mother of all markets and will be as transformative in its impact as the first industrial revolution.” Delay sees this revolution as an opportunity for countries to re-establish themselves as major global competitors. For Janet Sawin and William Moomaw (2009) the ‘renewable revolution’ of the entire global energy system is a matter of preventing catastrophic climate change. In addition, for Claus Leggewie and Dirk Messner (2012), the ‘Great Transformation towards a global low-carbon economy,’ which can be compared to the Neolithic Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, is not self-perpetuating (Selbstläufer). They argue that while the main technological, economic, and social elements that will permit the transformation are already in motion, additional changes (behavioral change, social mandates, paradigm shifts, and structural changes) are still necessary to allow the transformation to unfold. The momentum of transformation needs constant ‘spurring.’
Throughout this book, I have cautioned against labelling sustainable, low-carbon transformation as a revolution, because a revolution connotes a system that has collapsed, that has drastically realigned relationships, and that has created new winners and losers. As sustainable, low-carbon transformation is a process, linking it to a revolution is misleading if not useless, because transformation needs to build not only through leapfrogging but also incrementally, with learning curves and consensus-building, while effectively absorbing new game-changing impulses that modify the equilibrium of policies/decisions. A revolution produces anxieties through vacuums and ‘surprises’ that often justify drastic and Draconian measures, including the suspension of hard-fought principles such as fairness, human rights and social equality. Because of the uncertainty of revolutions, potential losers attempt and are often successful at ‘re-mobilizing’ support from various societal groups and organizing counter-movements, which further creates instability. In some cases, counter-revolutions as historical examples, such as the counter-reformation or even the current state of post-truth politics, might employ coercion that often surpasses the boundaries of what is acceptable, particularly when these movements assume the emotional narrative of struggle. This remobilization initiates self-enforcing dynamics that further increase complexity. Some of these dynamics may be successful in shattering negotiation processes and increasing the threshold for renegotiations. Finally, because sustainable, low-carbon transformation is a non-linear process, it can be strategically facilitated. In this case, the management of procedures needs both conceptual and empirical underpinnings to understand and adapt to challenges. Strategic planning means persistence and creativity. In addition, the reflexivity of the transformation can be useful in determining ad hoc strategies to resolve challenges at various levels of joint decision-making through the possibility of differentiating impacts and purposes. Reflexivity helps to achieve measurable, specific and credible results. It identifies what it takes to help focus emotions and energy by knowing which questions need to be asked and by thinking about the answers of questions around power, purpose, and success, which can mobilize individual and collective actions. What specific actions are needed to achieve a transformation towards sustainability?
Anzeige
The ultimate goal of this book is to provide a comprehensive and integrated understanding of sustainable, low-carbon transformation that is both global and domestic in its scope and that broadens the theoretical and methodological capacity of scholarly disciplines to analyze underlying concepts, ideas, principles, and notions relevant to explaining why and how distinct collective actions are reached as well as how functional, institutional, and bargaining interactions influence collective actions. I have integrated the ‘understanding’ and ‘explaining’ approaches to ‘grasp’ complex processes and dynamics that are often observed by stakeholders. ‘Understanding’ identifies the purpose and ‘explanation’ determines the necessary action.
Studying transformation processes is challenging. Possibly the most important question when analyzing transformation is to estimate how much change or intervention (assuming that transformation is initiated by revisions of the status quo) can be tolerated by the system without causing system ruptures, without initiating fragmentation, without reproducing inequalities that made the transformation necessary in the first place, and without creating fractures as negative externalities to other systems. Interestingly, the most prominent reason why certain actors can (successfully) resist change is the claim that changes that are ‘sold’ as solutions may de facto lead, directly or indirectly, to more problems that could easily escalate into system ruptures. Particularly when changes are understood as threats to system stability, coercion (including physical violence) can be easily justified. I have argued that what is missing in the current discourse on the transformation towards sustainability is that there is the need for the transformation to stop, reflect upon, and modify processes.
As sustainable, low-carbon transformation deals with multiple processes, the analysis needs to grasp the connection between the departure point of the process and the point at which process goals are achieved. Studying transformation also implies the need to look at both the past and the future, as well as what the past means for the future and what the future means for the present. Although, in general, the past can be captured using historical analysis, assessing the meaning of a past event for the future is constrained by the fact that not all significant data and information can be found or is accessible when connecting, with absolute certainty, causes to effects in order to justify corrective interventions (including positive and negative externalities caused by actors to other actors, and causes by one modular sub-system to another sub-system). In addition, because studies in transformation also look at trajectories and development pathways, they need to address the specificities of making sense of the future. Is it possible to acquire the ability to predict future events or to predict how behavior will change when certain parameters have been or can be altered? Hence, uncertainty becomes an inevitable condition of transformation and major attention should be given to early warning and quick response mechanisms when implementing transformative goals. Decision-makers will also need to find ways to ‘manage’ uncertainty, not only to justify their decisions, but also to ensure that the most efficient decision can be made, even with incomplete information. Moreover, as a non-linear process, sustainable, low-carbon transformation will very likely witness self-driving dynamics and self-enforcing processes that have gained independence from agents due to the emergence of lock-ins.
A comprehensive and integrated understanding of sustainable, low-carbon transformation is established by the research approaches used in this book. After resolving the ontological and epistemological baggage of various concepts, ideas and notions relevant to sustainable low-carbon, gaps and trade-offs have been identified to analyze the proximity between the analytical value of sustainable, low-carbon transformation and its actual practical value for decision-makers. For example, by understanding the implications of the conflictive nature of transformation, strategies can be forged for stakeholders to allow them to benefit from several functional, institutional, and bargaining interactions. With this understanding, measures can be better explained to stakeholders, resolving credibility gaps resulting from the complexity of the issues involved and the diffuseness of the jurisdictions. By understanding that power refers to creating dependence on the monolithic architecture of the world system, collaboration and coordination problems can be resolved. The calculative meaning of connecting basic bargaining and policy games provides a new explanation for how weaker parties can effectively interact with stronger parties.
Anzeige
In this project, I have defined transformation as shifting from the initially chosen (or taken) pathway to another pathway, as goals have been revised for the system to adapt to changes. Pathways are sets of critical junctures and lock-ins that frame decisions and actions. With this definition, sustainable, low-carbon transformation is then depicted as shifting from one pathway to another by shouldering transition costs, that is, the costs of detaching a system from existing unsustainable and carbon lock-ins. The methodologies employed in this book follow a storyline to resonate the complexity of transformation processes. After identifying the theoretical parameters for the theoretical models (ideal types) presented in chapters 2 to 6 and chapter 8, an assessment of the case studies was conducted in chapters 9 through 12 to give context to sustainable, low-carbon transformation. The theoretical models (ideal types) used the negotiation perspective in understanding and explaining how interactions are managed in different policy models (authoritarian, democratic, etc.) as well as in different variations of policy models (institutional activity, post-democracy, and technocratic). In addition, chapters 9 to 12 ‘unmasked’ sustainable, low-carbon transformation and demanded clear proximity to normativity. Functional, institutional, and bargaining interactions were highlighted, through which collective actions were made. In addition, data assessment through process-tracing and congruence methods has led to theory development (theoretical claims) (chapter 13) and a reflexivity analysis & engagement plan (chapter 14). A check-list of questions was presented to assist stakeholders when strategically preparing their engagement.
15.1 Theoretical Claims: A Theory of Transformative Pathways (TTP)
As the theoretical models were contextualized to test their empirical value, chapter 13 introduced a Conceptual Framework of Transformative Pathways (CFTP). This CFTP attempted to provide additional theoretical inputs to better grasp the complexity of shifting from the initially chosen or assumed pathway (‘business-as-usual’) to other pathways. As a framework, the CFTP provided an explanation of causality, which was substantiated using existing theories and empirical data. This explanation was supported by the case studies presented. Afterwards, an assessment of their ability to predict congruence was further evaluated, exploring its possible re-occurrence in future events as well as its applicability to other contexts.
The theory problematized how studies of transformation processes need to deal with normative and narrative bias when analyzing interactions within transformation systems, which are mainly attributed to the cognitive challenges brought by emotions, empathy (or the lack thereof), and biases. Because sustainable, low-carbon transformation requires justifications and legitimacy, implying that an additional analysis is needed to understand how social mandates and (input/output) legitimacies are achieved, normativity is inevitably a fundamental pillar of transformation. Furthermore, the theory addresses various methodological challenges brought about by the complexity of transformation, such as the difficulties of scaling up, identifying benchmarks, assessing tipping points, externalities & synergies, and evaluating boundaries.
Moreover, the CFTP argues that decision-making requires a basis or some points of reference for orientation. It introduces the four cognitive frames: the social contract, the power game, discourses and outcomes. These cognitive frames are stable constructs that provide a lens to see and understand the situation and to create a context for complex behavioral responses. Corresponding with the cognitive frames are stages of interaction: collaboration, coordination, deliberation, and application, which address the various related problems of collective actions: collaboration problems, coordination problems, deliberation problems, and application problems. While the cognitive frames pertain to the constitution of collective action, the stages of interaction concur within relationships among actors, between issues, and between structure & actors.
15.1.1 To Summarize, the Theory has made the Following Concrete Arguments:
-
At the domestic level, if the levels of capacity and autonomy of the state facilitating the transformation process are low, then defection from the state-sponsored transformative pathway will be very likely.
-
The increasing relevance of fractal decision-making systems in the context of sustainable, low-carbon transformation at both the global and domestic level is associated with the frequent occurrence of disconnections between various bargaining and policy games. Fractal decision-making is likely to impose a polycentric order, both at the global and the domestic level.
-
The diffusion of norms, principles, and standards within a system is associated with the concept of citizenry both at the global and national level, because citizenry underpins the flow of social practices among actors.
-
At the domestic and global level, power asymmetries define the asymmetries of privileges. As the transformation process unfolds, if structural arrangements and institutions (including norms and practices) are preventing changes in the distribution of privileges and are actively seeking the reproduction of old privileges in previously powerful actors, then individual incentives to defect from the transformation process are likely to outweigh the incentives of continued cooperation/collaboration.
-
At the global level, if the states are experiencing increased convergence, then the motivation to defect decreases. In other words, a convergence of norms, principles, and practices is necessary for cooperation.
-
If critical junctures (and lock-ins) in the context of sustainable, low-carbon transformation create conflicts in social mandates, then there is a need to find a concept for the ‘conversion’ of relevant values through a ‘common currency.’
-
If the deliberation over the factors relevant to legitimacy, efficiency, and capacity focuses mainly on ‘big bang’ situations, then it will lose count of the importance of ‘low’ politics for systemic and social integration.
15.2 Further Recommendations for Facilitating the Transformation Towards Sustainability
Facilitating sustainable, low-carbon transformation to become the ‘Great Transformation towards a global low carbon economy’ (Messner 2015), and one that is comparable to the Neolithic and Industrial Revolutions, is not only necessary to concretize and make use of the lessons of past transformations to prevent or limit the occurrence and effects of vacuums and externalities, but also to ensure that human systems are able to develop adaptive mechanisms to ensure that aggregated changes will not lead to system ruptures.
15.2.1 Actors
The targets and ambitions of both state and non-state stakeholders should be aligned with the principles of sustainable, low-carbon transformation. This book has highlighted the elusiveness of motives and the fact that decisions are no longer merely about the facts. The elusiveness of motives remains a huge challenge for policy-making in the context of sustainable low-carbon, because deviancy is not always rational and predictable, making efforts to understand it highly complicated. Nevertheless, while these motives are a riddle, they can still be controlled. The convergence of the utility preferences of individuals and collective groups can be achieved and controlled through cooperation, where reciprocity is enhanced by learning curves and incremental values.
For the alignment of targets and ambitions to occur, appropriate data and information are needed for actors to adequately reflect upon their interests, and for them to recognize that fulfilling the interests of others is necessary to achieving one’s own interests. Appropriate data and information do not mean completeness, as this is impossible. What is possible, however, is for actors to have genuine access to available information and for them to find ways of handling incomplete information, even when they need to make immediate decisions. In addition, as interactions are hosted by a system that is monolithic in its architecture, cooperation is the only viable way to address linkages of interests. As ‘power’ is understood by this book as the capacity to deter dependence, actors can develop strategies to make them indispensable to the others, giving them some level of leverage even though the others have evident financial and institutional advantages.
15.2.1.1 The Identification of the Appropriate Capacity of Stakeholders
In addition, there is a need to assess which size of the polities or of the public sector is preferable when facilitating the long-term integration of these sustainability projects. The case studies presented in this book have provided insights into the effects of the low capacity and low autonomy of the state. For example, as demonstrated by the case study of Jamaica, the success of sustainable, low-carbon transformation is also contingent upon the human resources capacity of the state to monitor and evaluate the transformation process. Is the state able to provide the technical expertise on various issues related to the transformation process? Is this ‘lagging behind’ of the state responsible for inefficient legislation and other policy instruments? When a state such as Jamaica is subjected to austerity measures as imposed by international donors, can the state really develop a ‘healthy’ capacity? Therefore, the facilitation of sustainable, low-carbon transformation will also need to assess the effects of international donors and creditors in terms of capacity-building. The dilemma of a state that is subjected to austerity measures is that the ‘butterfly effect’ of small provisions is inhibited, such as investments that are deemed to have small effects on the present but could lead to bigger effects in the medium- and long-term.
Nevertheless, the size of state apparatus is also determined by existing lock-ins, which, as shown by the case study on Jamaica, are causes that are maintained by a dependence on specific stakeholders. Carbon lock-ins will very likely lead to goals and actions from government agencies and state resources that will resonate these lock-ins, in terms of government subsidies and market incentives for example, which will most likely put further non-carbon technologies in a disadvantageous position. Therefore, there is a need to find an ideal size for the public sector, based on needs and not on lock-ins.
15.2.2 Issues
Sustainable, low-carbon transformation will involve a multitude of issues. Each issue will call for a different set of actors, structures, knowledge, and temporal & spatial contexts, as well as ontological and epistemological conceptions. Each issue will very likely produce externalities and feedbacks, which further complicate the planning of collective actions. In addition, issues will be prioritized differently by actors depending on how these issues are perceived as relevant problems. Further, addressing specific issues can create a demand for decisions that require efforts that cut across different modular sub-systems, each of which will very likely have distinct mandates, jurisdictions, senses of equality & ‘fairness tolerable’ windows, and sense of urgency.
With this complexity of issues, the facilitation of sustainable, low-carbon transformation will need to be able to ‘detach’ issues from all types of baggage to allow new ideas and concepts as well as paradigm shifts, and to eventually identify additional entry points for sustainable, low-carbon transformation. Such entry points can serve as departure points for collective actions. In addition, these entry points can be used to define various basic bargaining and policy games as multiple processes (e.g., consensus-building, state-building, economic transition, and de-colonization) unfold.
15.2.2.1 Revisit Public Discourses and Debate
Developing countries need to assess the relevance of the roots and origins of sustainable, low-carbon discourse, particularly, regarding sustainability. Many scholars suggest that the environmental roots of sustainability discourse in most European countries have created a basic asymmetry between the environment and the social (see Kapoor 2001; Agyeman & Evans 2004; Davidson 2009; Boström 2014). Davison (2009) and Kapoor (2001) argue that, as the concept of sustainability resulted from discourses on environmental forums, it carries a particular ‘ontological and epistemological baggage’, which creates a conservative bias towards how sustainability issues are defined and addressed. This bias causes, for example, the prioritization of environmental integrity over social justice.
Magnus Boström (2014) contends that while conservation of the environment is desirable, it is usually less important than the conservation of certain social sustainability aspects. He explains that environmental aspects generally take precedence over social aspects, because of the diffuse and multitudinous nature of social sustainability, which may refer to social welfare, quality of life, social justice, social cohesion, cultural diversity, democratic rights, gender issues, workers’ rights, broad citizen participation, and the development of social capital & individual capabilities, among others (Boström 2012). This bias was demonstrated by the policies introduced and implemented by former Philippine Environmental secretary Gina Lopez during her brief tenure, when she prioritized environmental conservation over the livelihood of the thousands of individuals who lost their jobs. As a result, participatory opportunities were deliberately restricted by not inviting numerous stakeholders, as Gina Lopez did not see their relevance due to her narrow framing. As a result, these excluded actors (business groups, local government units, and community development groups) sought other forums to address their concerns. Although she attempted to reframe public discourse by equating social justice with environmental integrity, it became apparent that the ‘ontological and epistemological baggage’ of her environmental advocacy conflicted with the livelihood concerns of those affected by the closure of the mines.
The ontological and epistemological pretext of sustainable, low-carbon discourse is inevitably derived from the contemporary political priorities of the national government, as well as from tangible problem-issues. As most developing countries with medium-income levels demonstrate, their development trajectory is mainly driven by the process of consolidating power as these countries undergo state-building. The consolidation of power will likely define functional, institutional, and bargaining interactions, as stakeholders seek to maximize their individual utility before lock-ins are established. With various insurgencies controlling parts of several developing countries as well as boundary conflicts with neighboring countries, issues relevant to state-building will be virtually certainly inherent to the discourse on sustainability.
Without the historical environmental discourse that occurred in developed countries, the connotation of sustainability in these countries will very likely deviate from the connotation prevalent in the political and academic discourse. As highlighted by Mikael Klintman (2012), the dichotomy between local and global is often simplistically framed as a duality of social versus environmental concerns. Therefore, for many developing countries, the distance between the global and the local can be explained by this difference in discourse. What if the caveats for developing countries against embracing similar commitments to sustainable, low carbon exist because of the conditions wherein environmental sustainability is exogenous to them, as this concept was instilled in them by developed countries? If the Eurocentric discourse on sustainability is expected to be of value in developing countries from the ‘South,’ will this exacerbate the already existing gaps between the ‘global’ and the ‘local,’ where the global is driven by environmental sustainability and the local by social sustainability? Furthermore, assuming that the Eurocentric discourse on sustainability is inevitable, because of existing power asymmetries, how can climate policies in developing countries still achieve legitimacy, where gaps between the intangible global climate goals and the tangible social realities are evident?
The conflicts between developed and developing countries in terms of climate mitigation can be partly explained by the ontological and epistemological differences in the concepts of climate mitigation among countries. As climate policies were initiated by environmental scientists and advocacy groups, binding emission reductions are not inherent to the public discourse on sustainability in developing countries, preconceived as issues around state-building. In this regard, sustainable, low-carbon transformation in many developing countries will be framed by a concept of sustainability that is different to the concept framing the behavior and actions of most developed countries, where the dominance of environmental sustainability has defined concrete objectives, measurable indicators, and universal applications, and has elevated an approach based on the ‘technocratic, top-down expert culture in environmental management’ (Kapoor 2001) regarding deliberations on social and economic sustainability.
With the clarification and understanding of the ontological and epistemological differences of concepts related to sustainable, low-carbon transformation, how can ‘frame-bridging’ efforts be made to support sustainable, low-carbon transformation? How can frame-bridging lead to mutual learning experiences between actors as they engage in functional, institutional, and bargaining interactions? Can this frame-bridging also facilitate a different notion of politics and the political (see Davidson 2009)? Asymmetries resulting from ontological and epistemological differences between concepts of sustainable, low-carbon transformation can be effectively addressed by promoting the capacities of stakeholders.
15.2.3 Structures
The facilitation of sustainable, low-carbon transformation is also defined by the integration of multiple structures, which may both promote and inhibit the pace of transformation. While these structures are mutually complementing, others are mutually contradicting. Transformation is not unitary and encompasses transformation within multiple modular sub-systems, which may be converging or diverging. Structures are entities that have been intentionally and unintentionally established to manage various processes and can both drive and inhibit decisions and actions. The comparative analysis of structures across different modular sub-systems can provide insights into why a specific structure, for example, promotes transformation in one sector but inhibits another. How are these structures interconnected, and what happens when they are disconnected? Can actors effectively use this connectedness as a strategy to pursue their interests, as was demonstrated in the case study on the Philippines, where mining groups were successful in disconnecting from basic bargaining and policy games?
In addition, the effective integration of structures will also depend on the institutional designs and arrangements of each sub-system as well as of the whole system. Institutions require the careful planning of organizational design, checks & balances, legitimacy, and social mandates. Of equal importance to facilitation is the understanding of how structures can be self-reinforcing. As institutions and mechanisms become separated from the behavior of humans, additional resources are needed to ensure that these institutions and mechanisms comply with the principles of sustainable, low-carbon transformation.
15.2.3.1 Promoting Mobility and Global Networking
As Magnus Boström (2014) contends, some actors are entangled in a local context, whereas other actors move more freely between different levels (from local to global and vice versa) and can mobilize and combine various resources from their global networks. The precedence of environmental sustainability in public discourses on sustainable, low-carbon transformation is reinforced by the mobility of environmental groups as compared to that of social groups, which tend to be entangled at the local level, because of the local nature of social issues, as well as because of the structural limitations on global networks when addressing social sustainability, such as civil rights and gender equality.
The strategic use of new technologies to advance and promote innovative organizational structures and communication channels is inevitable. It can further improve the capacities of local stakeholders to forge useful partnerships and attract global attention to local concerns. The careful deployment of technologies needs to be complemented by improvements in the ability to monitor and intervene in institutional, functional, and bargaining interactions occurring at various levels to enable the identification of gaps and learning from best practices. Technologies should not be the only drivers of transformation, because by allowing this, other societal goals will very likely become secondary.
Moreover, additional resources are needed to help stakeholders to refrain from perceiving, framing, and representing a ‘global view’ or a universal interest that is too distant from local conditions (see Boström & Tamm Hallström 2010). As Eurocentric claims of universality are formalized, standardized, and institutionalized, improving the capacity of local stakeholders to interconnect and link local problems to global matters will very likely reduce the ‘context blindness’ and ‘local uselessness’ of these universal principles and standards. When theoretical knowledge (global), which tends to be abstracted and detached from the local context (see Cheyns 2011), ceases to subordinate practical knowledge (local) through improved interconnectedness, asymmetries resulting from ontological and epistemological differences in concepts of sustainable, low-carbon transformation will be less likely to define interactions between stakeholders.
As demonstrated by the case study on Mexico, the emergence of a bottom-up, public sphere is crucial to the sustainable, low-carbon transformation process. By developing the capacity of actors and their ownership of the process to highlight social sustainability, decisions that are made will most likely be more effective. As discussed, inclusivity is an investment that is often underestimated, because the costs of transition will not only be shouldered by more actors, but the total costs will also be limited, as individual stakeholders will limit the negative externalities that they are producing for the others, because they will also be paying for them.
15.2.4 Processes
Sustainable, low-carbon transformation is driven by the accumulation and orchestration of multiple processes, which can be both self-driving and managed. The growing numbers of actors relevant for the required paradigm shifts and behavioral changes as well as the types (including hybrids) of policy regimes imply the co-existence of multiple processes that are co-evolving. Transformative pathways involve processes that converge as lock-ins are established. Therefore, any facilitation of sustainable, low-carbon transformation will need to grasp the drivers of each of these relevant processes, including how and where these processes are inter-connected and how they are affecting each other. The pace of transformation of each sub-system also affects the pace of transformation of the others. When the transformation of a sub-system is ‘too fast’ or ‘too slow,’ it may send wrong or distorted signals to others. Rebound effects can also emerge in certain sub-systems, off-setting the gains made by the others.
Furthermore, any facilitation needs to effectively link these processes to contexts and collective actions to address mutual feedbacks. As an analysis of a process is often done by looking at its application to a specific context, it is a huge challenge to completely grasp the different cause-and-effect relationships that drive processes. As such, it is recommended that this analysis of processes be complemented by innovative methods of scientific inquiry that allow the detaching of processes from contexts to better understand causalities.
15.2.4.1 Highlighting the Long-Term Aspects of Interactions
Effectively abrogating carbon lock-ins will require a long-term outlook on interactions. As changes in the utility preferences of stakeholders will very likely require time, facilitating sustainable, low-carbon transformation will require additional resources to establish and maintain long-term platforms and incentive systems. As suggested by Nicolas Faysse (2006), establishing long-term multi-stakeholder platforms means better opportunities for capacity building. As entry points for sustainable low carbon transformation are identified, stakeholders can focus on synergies and co-benefits that will alter their utility preferences. Synergies and co-benefits require the linking of issues, where the realization of benefits will occur after a given set of time. As these synergies and co-benefits materialize, these long-term platforms and incentive systems will need to be documented and assessed, constituting a ‘memory’ that will ensure that these benefits are properly documented and therefore useful.
Nevertheless, because many sustainability projects have a limited time-frame, they use a ‘project mind-set’ (Casula Viffel & Thedvall 2012 p. 26). As such, there are missed learning opportunities resulting from the failure to connect these sustainability projects, assess impacts and feasibility, and modify future projects. As argued by Magnus Bostöm (2014), the integration of the social, economic, and environmental aspects addressed by these sustainability projects necessitates a learning period characterized by multiple communications and interactions. Therefore, the success of sustainable, low-carbon transformation is dependent on incrementalism.
15.2.5 Outcomes
Each modular sub-system has its own set of interactions, which include the resolution of problem-issues. Many types of agreements are produced, which can be both binding or non-binding. Most cooperation frameworks aim at producing binding agreements, as social trust is still elusive. However, reality shows that it is often better to achieve non-binding agreements than having no agreement at all. Furthermore, non-binding agreements often produce additional impulses for future agreements as learning unfolds. In addition, from the negotiation perspective, these outcomes can be relevant for agenda-setting, but not for the clarification of interests or the concretization of solutions. The outcome of interactions in one sub-system can either complement or compete with the outcomes of the others. Outcomes can be limited in their temporal validity or can be perpetual in their consequences. In addition, outcomes can be the means to an end or can be an end in themselves. Furthermore, the success of outcomes in achieving predetermined goals will depend highly on established compliance systems that can be dependent upon other outcomes. Ambiguities and flexibilities can be both useful and detrimental elements of outcomes.
15.2.6 Gaps in Knowledge and Future Research
While conducting this book, several gaps in the knowledge have been identified and collected. While some gaps were addressed, others were not, because they needed further theoretical and empirical analyses that could not be accommodated by this project. Some of them are presented in this section as suggestions for further future research.
This book attempted to introduce a conceptual foundation to the study of sustainable, low-carbon transformation. Major gaps in the knowledge refer to the methodological shortcomings of future studies, as the enormous variety of processes and technologies adds to the complexity of assessment (see Tanaka 2008; Siitonen et al. 2010). New systematic approaches and underlying methodologies are further needed to avoid double-counting, for example, due to the many different ways of attributing emissions (see Fischedick et al. 2014) or externalities.
The collection and assessment of data and information is confronted with a lack of globally standardized and homogenized data. An analysis of sustainable, low-carbon transformation involves multiple sectors, such as the private and public sectors as well as the sectors representing industry, energy, agriculture, etc. There is a diversity in practices within and among sectors, leading to uncertainty, a lack of comparability, incompleteness, and doubts about the quality of available data. While some sectors are keen to produce data, others, such as the informal sector, refuse to cooperate. Sector data tend to be collected by the private sector, which is highly aggregated and gives little information about individual processes.
The availability and quality of data in the public domain is often subjected to political the calculations of authorities. In many cases, an improved understanding of the mitigation potentials, interplay, and costs, as well as environmental and socio-economic consequences of policies are desirable, but there are some situations where this improvement is linked with a fear of being compelled to decide in a specific direction, which may be contrary to the ideological stance of the policy-makers. Furthermore, an improvement in knowledge does not automatically mean a change in behavior, because this knowledge may not be aligned with one’s identity or may not be useful, as the assessment of mitigation potentials on a global and national scale may fail to address the boundaries of global and national jurisdictions. Particularly when addressing trade-offs between many sustainable, low-carbon policy goals requires cross-cutting actions from competing and cooperating institutions, government agencies, and societal groups, the boundaries between them may be ‘too high’ to overcome. Addressing trade-offs will not only require an understanding of the net impacts of different types of policies, it also requires concretizing the linkages between them. As these linkages are very likely process-driven, mutual feedback can change over time, making it difficult to attribute effects to causes. In addition, the quantification and monetization of both positive and negative externalities are difficult to achieve, and, if done at all, are often not well-integrated into the decision-making processes.
Further gaps in knowledge refer to governance issues on sustainable, low-carbon transformation. There are questions around how partnerships of sectors, government bodies, civil society, and private governance for climate governance can overcome caveats brought about by existing ontological and epistemological baggage.
15.2.7 Final Message
A significant factor that hinders sustainable, low-carbon transformation is the establishment and use of ‘false dichotomies’ in understanding and explaining collective decisions and actions that are driven by elusive motives. These false dichotomies abuse gaps between rationality and preferences. Gideon Lasco (2018) problematizes the wide use of false dichotomies in political discourses where narratives such as “stupid people with good intentions… (are better)… than smart people with bad intentions” are offered and compel people pick between two options as if these were the only choices. As such, the analysis of sustainable, low-carbon becomes a matter of choice between rejection and support, where criticisms are easily branded as rejection of the entire transformation. Sustainable, low-carbon transformation involves issues that are complex, making it impossible to be either ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ sustainable, low-carbon transformation. For example, criticizing the wind energy projects of Danish companies in Mexico because they are causing irreversible social problems does not mean that one is anti-sustainability. In the same manner, when someone is ‘eco’ friendly, it does not mean that this person needs to stop using planes and cars as a means of transportation or stop printing out journal articles to read manually. As each one of us experiences sustainable, low-carbon transformation in different ways, we need to be open and empathic. We should not be chained to political correctness.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.