A World Action Plan for the Global Polycrisis?
Piers Locke, PhD
What if we recognised that addressing climate change as a singular problem obstructs understanding of the global polycrisis we face, and therefore also the possibility of developing a coherent response?
Over the last several decades the problem of anthropogenic climate change has come to saturate our consciousness. It penetrates our awareness through scientific proclamations, policy promises, protest actions, and, of course, lived experience. It’s in our politics, it’s impacting our economies, and it mobilises civic action. A vast apparatus of institutional initiatives and policy mechanisms has emerged to address it. You may be reassured that the problem has acquired social momentum, even if you are frustrated by how inadequate action has been. But what if the singular focus on climate change itself is a problem?
It’s not hard to realise that climate change is but one aspect of abroader global ecological crisis even if prevailing institutional action does not tend to reflect that. For instance, in the Planetary Boundaries framework, climate change is just one of nine earth system processes crucial for the planet to remain habitable for humanity. And it’s merely one of six we are exceeding! The impetus for a more integrated approach to our planetray predicament is beginning to gain traction though- in social movements, in policy making, and even in business strategy. This is why I was excited to read The Club of Rome’s recently released Roundtable on The Human Future report [i].
You may remember The Club of Rome for commissioning The Limits to Growth back in 1972 [ii]-that pioneering work which modelled increasing human resource use and population growth in relation to planetary capacity, playing a major role stimulating the environmental movement and the emergence of green political parties. The Limits to Growth is foundational for the Degrowth principle of reducing the energetic and material throughput of human society. Repeat studies like Gaya Herrington’s 2021 update [iii] have confirmed the validity of its modelling. So what was this Roundtable report, and what did it conclude?
The Club of Rome and The Council for The Human Future brought together representatives from 26 groups, including Richard Heinberg of The Post-Carbon Institute, Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, Rupert Read of the Climate Majority Project, Jem Bendell, advocate for Deep Adaptation, and others. Participants were not afraid to assert that we are facing a panoply of interlinked, catastrophic risks; that governmental institutions barely recognise it; and that we not only lack an action plan to address them, but also that there is not yet concerted effort to do so.
They name this constellation of risks and problems as the global polycrisis- the interlinked and compounding threats of resource depletion, food insecurity, climate destablisation, ecosystem collapse, rising inequality, threats to democracy, delusion and disinformation, uncontrolled AI [iv], war, and geopolitical instability. Polycrisis is an idea gaining influence through think tank reports from environmentalist organisations like The Post-Carbon Institute [v] aswell as major business groups like the World Economic Forum, which featured it in its 2023 Global Risks report [vi].
Roundtable participants collectively agreed that solutions tend to be siloed (as with climate change); that we cannot operate within planetary boundaries without also addressing poverty and inequality; and that our extractivist economy, poor choice of technologies, and inability to cooperate globally on social problems all multiply the threats we are facing. They also agreed that awareness of the speed, scale, and gravity of the crisis among governments and the wider populace remains woefully low.
So what kinds of solution do they suggest? Three key priorities emerged, these being improved understanding of threats through collaborative networks; development of new governance structures; and specific actions covering tipping points, economic reform, civic mobilisation, and technology regulation. With regard to understanding threats, participants agreed we need narratives for a viable future; we need to foster greater dialogue among world leaders, researchers, and policy-makers (hopefully learning from the flaws of previous technocratic efforts); and that we need to develop a world action plan.
With regard to governance, some more substantive propositions emerged. At the broader level, they advocate reform of monetary institutions and a new architecture for global governance. More specifically, they advocate a People’s Assembly for the UN, an Earth System Council to enable the UN to pass binding legislation, and development of an Earth System Treaty [vii]. Clearly, these are bold ideas not easily implemented, which would require political will for a degree of global governance that has not yet been achieved. I can’t help but wonder if they have taken inspiration from Kim Stanley-Robinson’s climate fiction novel The Ministry for The Future! In his near-future imaginary, a UN body is only established after catastrophic climate breakdown severely disrupts the world.
Finally, we come to the specific actions, many of which are further elaborated in participants’ own specific proposals that constitute the majority of the report. The intent is to prevent escalation into irreversible crises, and this consists of more than a wish list of problems to be addressed. The transition off fossil fuels, rewilding and ecosystem restoration, transformed food systems, and mitigating actions for the biodiversity and toxicity crises are recognised as imperatives. However, participants also consider response pathways. These include training a new generation of leaders to understand, confront, and resolve catastrophic threats; creating an alliance of partners for Planet, People, and Peace; reforming international debt and finance; adopting economic models that don’t revolve around GDP; mobilising populations to help implement local changes; and regulating new technologies according to ethical, environmental, and social justice principles.
The Roundtable report presents a compelling diagnosis accompanied by a daunting vision for transformative change. For naysayers it may seem so bold as to be naive, but it’s one of the most succinct and powerful accounts of our global predicament that I have read. Perhaps like me you wonder what difference it might make? What might we do to ensure that people with influence read the report and commit to a world action plan for our global polycrisis?
[ii] Meadows, D et al. 1972. The Limits to Growth. Potomac Associates. 205pp.
[iii] Herrington, Gaya. 2021. Update to limits to growth: Comparing the world3 model with empirical data. Journal of Industrial Ecology 25: 614-626.
[iv] Some governments do at least recognise this as the 30 signatories to the Bletchely Declaration on AI attests- it acknowledges the potential for catastrophic harm. See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-safety-summit-2023-the-bletchley-declaration/the-bletchley-declaration-by-countries-attending-the-ai-safety-summit-1-2-november-2023
[vi] Available from: https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2023/ (N.B. the 2024 report is now also available: https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/)