Preprint Concept Paper Version 1 This version is not peer-reviewed

Choices We Make: Rethinking Decision-making in the Context of Climate Crisis

Version 1 : Received: 27 January 2020 / Approved: 28 January 2020 / Online: 28 January 2020 (10:44:27 CET)

How to cite: Waeber, P.; Stoudmann, N.; Ghazoul, J.; Wilmé, L.; Sayer, J.; Nobre, C.; Innes, J.; Garcia, C. Choices We Make: Rethinking Decision-making in the Context of Climate Crisis. Preprints 2020, 2020010339 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202001.0339.v1). Waeber, P.; Stoudmann, N.; Ghazoul, J.; Wilmé, L.; Sayer, J.; Nobre, C.; Innes, J.; Garcia, C. Choices We Make: Rethinking Decision-making in the Context of Climate Crisis. Preprints 2020, 2020010339 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202001.0339.v1).

Abstract

Leaders are failing to respond to the climate and environmental urgency the world is facing. A growing action gap, clearly visible during the recent CoP25, has been fueled by leaders' inability to respond efficiently to the mounting threats scientists—and increasingly society—are concerned about. Bridging this gap and tackling the growing polarization within society calls for leaders to accept the full complexity of the issues the world is facing. This will require them to question their understanding of these geopolitical affairs and embrace the dynamics at play, and avoid falling back on simplistic cognitive models. We propose a heuristic to convey the pathways available to decision-makers to make their way out of the current inaction impasse. By breaking free of this deadlock, a social transition will have the potential to take place, helping us to avoid crossing the climate system tipping points.

Subject Areas

decision-making; change; behavior; climate change; deforestation; social norms; lobbyist, climate denier

Comments (2)

Comment 1
Received: 29 January 2020
Commenter: Patrick Waeber
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: I wonder how we (we as in science, citizen, any kind of stakeholder really) can make the step from Concerned to Architect (see Figure 1), or how an Architect can "convince" the Concerned to make the transition towards sustainability? Also, what are the transition costs in doing so?

Another line of thought... If a political leader has to deal with many more "urgent" (pressing, immediate) issues such as a virus outbreak, or high rates of unemployment, or impeachment for that matter... basically if he/ she has no "time" (e.g., human or economic resources, or willingness, or simply, no time as in different priority) to devote to the growing evidence of climate change and thus takes no actions in this regard... what archetype would he/ she be in?
+ Respond to this comment
Response 1 to Comment 1
Received: 30 January 2020
Commenter: Claude A Garcia
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: A policy maker that understands the issues, accepts its severity but is tied by more urgent matters is in the Lobbyst Archtype. There are omore pressing matters to them. Their possible "positive" strategy is to delegate. Similarly, a poor farmers struggling to feed his or her family falls under the same category and the best they can do is hope others deal with the issue. There are very valuable and respectable reasons to be part of the Lobbyst archetype. In retrospect, I wonder if the name is apt. The Busy might be more neutral.

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 2
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.