Places to Intervene in a System Point No.2 The Goals of the System

“I said a while back that changing the players in a system is a low-level intervention, as long as the players fit into the same old system. The exception to that rule is at the top, if a single player can change the system's goal. I have watched in wonder as—only very occasionally—a new leader in an organization, from Dartmouth College to Nazi Germany, comes in, enunciates a new goal, and single-handedly changes the behavior of hundreds or thousands or millions of perfectly rational people.” Dona Meadows.

The current goal of the system in many advanced economies as well as the most of the developing world countries is to ensure that there is a reasonable level of GDP of 2%-3% annually. This is in line with debt-service objectives of banks and profit functioning of organizations. This growth at any cost is the current goal of the system particularly cost to people and the planet (in terms of increased forced labor, human rights violations, gender inequities, income inequities, and planetary limits breach, etc.) Growth at any costs has been thoroughly embedded within behavior in the US and even the rest of world has been changed since Reagan is testimony to the high leverage of articulating, repeating, standing for, insisting upon new system goals. One person changed the goals of the system, e.g., Reaganomics.

If the new goal of the system is to combat climate change, then Carbon Budget needs to be the new goal of the system. This also requires a motivation that is stronger than capitalism, as an ideology that endured for at least 500 years, to combat it. A new goal, ideology, and almost a creed that is articulated, repeated, stood up for, and insisted up to endure for at least one century to galvanize this goal. It needs a few powerful actors on top of the system to keep the Carbon Budget dashboard as the main goal of the system that trumps everything else, including debt-servicing, profit seeking, and special interests. This would definitely need new type of leaders and new type of leadership that would take the long view over short term gain at all levels of society, we need an inversed Reaganomics.

We need 3.5% of the population to act decisively and collectively to move the needle on climate change. Empirical Research from Harvard University scholar, Erica Chenoweth, found out that if 3.5% of the population is involved in mass protest coupled with momentum, organization, strategic leadership, and sustainability— can turn things around and force non democratic governments to change.

Imagine a world, where the top 1% of income earners in the world had a change of heart from pursue of profit to something beyond themselves, and as grandeur as saving Planet Earth. Imagine that the major investors, philanthropies, charities, banks, billionaires, get together and decide to invest in altering the systematic reliance on fossil fuels. Imagine that the $3-$6 trillion that is required annually to fund the transition away from fossil fuel is funded from the $44 trillion owned by top 1%. This wishful thinking pretty much. Alternatively, imagine that all the governments of the world transitioned the $7 trillion subsidies (Year 2023) from the fossil fuel industries to renewable energy industries. Imagine that the governments of the world backed the renewable energy industries with government insurance, treasury like bonds, grants, and subsidized loans.

However, we cannot expect the leadership, mentalities, ideologies, and mindsets that brought us here to solve this problem for us, that would be “insane”. “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” We need new thinking, new mindsets and new paradigms.