Systems-Thinking Critical in Developing Solutions to Sustainability Challenges - Literature review Example

Systems thinking critical in developing solutions to sustainability challenges Name Class Unit Introduction Systems’ thinking is a mode of analysis which uses a holistic approach, unlike the traditional analysis. According to Best and Holmes (2010), systems thinking focuses on the ways which things being studied interact with each other in a system. Through systems thinking, views are expanded to take into account the different interactions on the issue being studied (Maani, 2013). This makes systems thinking very important in solving complex problems especially those that depends on the past actions or actions of the others. Climate change is a wicked problem that affects the environment, economies and society. This has led to the nations coming together with an aim of developing a solution (Jotzo, 2012). An agreement was made to limit increase in earth temperatures to 2 degrees at the 2015 COP21 climate conference in Paris. This required reduction of Green House Gases (GHG) in a period of few decades (BBC, 2015). Carbon pricing is one of the key policies that were made as part of the framework to address climate change by most countries. This report proves that systems thinking are critical in developing solutions to sustainability challenges. This is through explaining how systems thinking has helped in coming up with carbon pricing as a successful policy framework. Looking at the development of the carbon pricing, one can appreciate the importance of systems thinking in addressing sustainability. The original Kyoto Protocol which was based on the traditional thinking approach using top-down approach failed to be implemented (Carbon Price.com, 2016). The semi top-down approach failed to reach a consensus on capping formula due to a fact that most of the caps were too contentious (Neuhoff, 2011). The common cap was not possible and cannot be recognised by every country. The semi top-bottom approach failed to look at the climate change as a complex issue with many stakeholders. According to Carbon Price.com (2016), there was the lack of cooperation due to many stakeholders involved. This led to the abandonment of the cap approach and introduction of the price commitment which was supported by the majority (Carbon Price.com, 2016). The new protocol on the carbon price is based on system thinking approach where cooperation was fostered based on price instead of a cap. Use of systems thinking approach can be evidenced in carbon pricing methodology. This can be best depicted in a diagram (Maani, 2013). Carbon pricing mechanism is depicted as a feedback process where the changes in the systems remove or minimises the symptoms and also address the cause of the problem. This is a constructing systems model which explains the scope of the problem at hand and helps the decision makers to come up with a collective solution (Maani and Cavana, 2007). The decision makers, in this case, include the stakeholders in the government, firms and citizens. Fig.1, systems thinking model used in carbon pricing (Maani, 2013). The iceberg model used in systems thinking helps in viewing the complex problem at deeper levels (Maani and Cavana, 2007). Looking at the climate change as a complex system, the four levels of thinking can be applied in coming up with carbon pricing. The first level is event level which attracts attention leading to a speedy solution. For example, in the case of climate change floods are addressed quickly through dykes. Air pollution can be addressed at this level through the use of gas masks. The second level involves looking at the patterns. This is where deeper information like the history of GHG gas, levels and a number of emitters is analysed. The trends are also looked at this level. The next level is systematic structures (Best and Holmes, 2010). At this level, the stakeholders can analyse and describe the existing interactions. They aim at the factors and their drivers that lead to the patterns and events. In this case, the increase in the number of factories, vehicles, human activities and production of fossil fuels could be the main cause of the rising levels of GHG. The fourth level of thinking is known as the mental models. At this level, the stakeholders look at the deeper human factors which include beliefs, motivations, and their views on the world which has an impact on the human actions and decisions (Cabrera, Colosi and Lobdell, 2008). This is the cause of the human to increase their level of GHG emissions. This shows that through the use of systems thinking in addressing GHG gas, it become possible to develop a policy that focuses on the causing factors rather than just events. Fig.2, Iceberg model (Maani, 2013). Carbon pricing is a solution developed to make the polluters pay (Carbon Price.com, 2016). The increasing GHG emission comes from the power production, cutting of trees and driving of cars. The problem of increasing GHG in the atmosphere has been a complex issue. This is because there are different sources of GHG with each source having a different amount. The location and timing also differ with the impacts on the atmosphere being catastrophic (World Bank, 2016). The emitters of the GHG have been imposing huge costs on people over time (Neuhoff, 2011). Despite this, the emitters cannot face the consequences based on the market unless there is policy intervention. If a policy intervention is made, they are discouraged from emitting huge amount of GHG and their products costs becomes high hence reducing demand. This leads to the emitters of GHG looking for innovations to cut costs and reduce GHG emissions (World Bank, 2016). This has been the basis of the carbon pricing policy. Systems’ thinking has proved to be of great use in addressing complex issues such as climate change (Midgley, 2003). This is due to the fact that it provides a better way to deal with complex problems. The issue of climate change involves multiple actors and is a result of past actions which have alleviated it. This makes the conventional solutions using the traditional way of thinking less effective (Midgley, 2003). The main advantage of using critical thinking in addressing climate change is the ability to create results needed in difficult situations. These are situations which are marked by different interactions, lack of effectiveness and solutions which are not apparent (Maani, 2013). Climate change falls under the wicked problems making it vital to use critical thinking. This is a challenge that requires new ways of decisions making and collaboration. As a wicked problem, climate change cannot be addressed based on expert-driven top down approach (Maani, 2013). Rationality assumption and narrow solutions cannot work to address the GHG emissions. At this point, partnership is highly required between different stakeholders. The action used in coming up with carbon pricing has been based on new levels of cooperation and partnership. At the moment, there has been collaboration among a lot of countries to address the issue of carbon pricing (Jotzo, 2012). Countries collaborating on carbon pricing are; Japan, India, Finland, Netherland, Sweden, United Kingdom and Australia (Carbon Price.com, 2016). This is proof that pricing carbon is a solution designed to address a wicked problem through system thinking. Systems thinking involve pattern analysis (Maani, 2013). This is analysing the behaviour over time to reveal the history of a problem. In coming up with carbon pricing, pattern analysis was used. This is through looking at the history of emissions, the current levels and the trend among the emitters. Expert opinions were used to come up with the patterns (Cabrera, Colosi and Lobdell, 2008). Without the pattern analysis, it would have been difficult to set the targets and come up with the pricing mechanism. The use of pattern analysis to come up with behaviour over time led to harmonised perception on the GHG emissions and helped the countries to set the price. It also helped in understanding the severity of the problem brought about by GHG (Neuhoff, 2011). This is due to the fact that pattern analysis is an effective tool in structuring and understanding a complex problem. For a complex problem such as climate change, the influencers are in most cases are obscure. This makes it hard to use the traditional approach in problem-solving. The intangible variances such as trust and friendship, cooperation and confidence play a major role in the decisions made and their sustainability. These variances are the web that holds all the parts together (Best and Holmes, 2010). They have the power to make or break a system. An example is the willingness of the community and companies to respond to the reduction of GHG gas. When the carbon price was being set, the estimation of cost was a difficult exercise. This had to involve different stakeholders who were expected to show support for the policy (World Bank, 2016). The level of trust and confidence in the policy makers also played a role. This led to an agreement where a general conclusion was the price should rise over the years at a constant rate. The circumstances and governance in countries differ. The conditions in a country determine the use of a given policy. This has led to some of the government implementing given policies while others are yet to adapt a carbon pricing policy (Neuhoff, 2011). This shows the importance of cooperation in different countries to come up with system thinking based solution. According to Maani and Cavana (2007), systems thinking allow affinity method in brainstorming which is vital in addressing the wicked problem. The first step in coming up with a solution is identifying the problem. Complex problems such as determining means to reduce GHG or coming up with the carbon pricing do not require the simple solution. This is due to the fact that the problem has a lot of stakeholders who looks at the problem in different ways (Richmond, 2000). Before coming up with carbon pricing, the stakeholders who included policy makers, car owners, suppliers of fossils fuels and consumers looked at the problem in different ways. For example, the firm owners would not like to adhere to carbon pricing since it reduces their profits. For consumers, they would like carbon pricing implemented to improve the quality of lives. This leads to the need for a comprehensive way to come up with a solution where all stakeholders input is considered. Systems thinking has proved to be capable of coming up with a solution on sustainability where all stakeholders are involved (Maani, 2013). This is evidenced by the current carbon pricing in most countries where different stakeholders have agreed on. Based on the evidence, it is correct to say that success of carbon pricing is based on systems thinking. It portrays the ability of the decision-makers to look at the problem in way that addresses the causation rather than just events (Maani, 2013). The analysis of carbon pricing shows that the four levels of systems thinking were used in coming up with the policy. Through systems thinking the stakeholders have been able to enhance equitability through the polluter pays principle. The policies have been made in a transparent with high environmental reliability and integrity. This is due to fact that they can address the cause of GHG gas instead of addressing the symptoms. The success of carbon pricing in most countries is proof that systems thinking is critical in coming up with the solutions to sustainability challenges (Bailey, MacGill, Passey and Compston, 2012). Conclusions To sum up, the analysis shows that systems’ thinking is vital in addressing sustainability challenges. Carbon pricing is a solution to the wicked problem of climate change and has been developed through systems thinking. It is proof that climate change is a complex issue and cannot be addressed at the event level. There has been needing to address the problem of climate change based on the iceberg model where the cause is identified and addressed. Use of traditional thinking of top-down approach has not been successful in addressing the challenge as evidenced by the first Kyoto semi top-bottom approach. The lack of cooperation among the stakeholders led to the lack of implementation since they could not agree on caps. Without the use of systems thinking, it would have been hard to come up with a feasible solution to address the issue of GHG. References Bailey, I., MacGill, I., Passey, R. and Compston, H., 2012, The fall (and rise) of carbon pricing in Australia: a political strategy analysis of the carbon pollution reduction scheme. Environmental Politics, 21(5), pp.691-711. BBC, 2015, COP21 climate change summit reaches deal in Paris, Science and Environment, Retrieved 28th March 20016 from, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment- 35084374 Best, A. and Holmes, B., 2010, Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 6(2), pp.145-159. Cabrera, D., Colosi, L. and Lobdell, C., 2008, Systems thinking. Evaluation and program planning, 31(3), pp.299-310. Carbon Price.com, 2016, Carbon Pricing: A Breakthrough, Carbon-Price.com: A Strategy for International Climate Negotiations, http://carbon-price.com/kyoto-protocol Jotzo, F., 2012, Australia's carbon price. Nature Climate Change, 2(7), pp.475-476. Maani, K. and Cavana, R.Y., 2007, Systems thinking, system dynamics: Managing change and complexity. Prentice Hall. Maani, K., 2013, Richmond, B. and Peterson, S., 2001, An introduction to systems thinking. High Performance Systems., Incorporated. Maani, K., 2013. Decision-making for climate change adaptation: a systems thinking approach. Report for the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. http://apo.org.au/files/Resource/Maani-2013-systems- thinking-WEB_0.pdf Midgley, G. ed., 2003, Systems thinking. London: Sage. Neuhoff, K., 2011, Climate policy after Copenhagen: the role of carbon pricing. Cambridge University Press. Richmond, B., 2000, The" thinking" in systems thinking. Inc., Waltham: Pegasus Communications. World Bank, 2016, Pricing Carbon, http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/pricing-carbon Read More