This article was written anonymously and submitted under a pseudonym (Mary Davis), in response to the 'War of the Worlds' article written by Mark Everard, and the two subsequent opinion pieces 'Sustainability is not a political debate' and 'A War of Evidence'. It provides this individual's perspective and represents personal views of the author to stimulate thought and discussion. It is not an opinion of the Institution of Environmental Sciences as an organisation.
As a membership organisation, we provide a convening space where members can share their views and engage in healthy debate, so if you have a perspective on these (or any other) issues, please get in touch. We are publishing a short series of papers from different IES members and stakeholders, leading to a discussion event later in the year where members can share their views.
The false dichotomy of environmentalism vs wealth
Environmental action is often framed as coming at a cost to society. This is despite overwhelming evidence of the costs that are likely to arise from inaction on environmental challenges and represents a disconnect from the importance of healthy ecosystems and the ecosystem services they provide for human wellbeing and wealth.1 This is without mentioning the inherent value of the natural world.
Proponents of deregulated capitalism would have you believe that environmental action will make you poorer. That investment in green energy, green infrastructure and nature-based solutions comes at the expense of societal and individual financial growth. Whilst discouraging environmental action through a focus on short-term financial gain, deregulated capitalism encourages overconsumption, deepens financial inequality, and causes untold environmental damage.
2024 was the first year that global temperatures exceeded 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.2 At the same time, wealth inequality within countries is growing3 - in the UK the wealth gap has increased by nearly 50% in the last 8 years,4 and global poverty rates are once more on the rise.5
Deregulated capitalism at its core drives environmental damage. The environment under this system is either commodified, and therefore overconsumed, or is seen as something to be used as an endless resource or as a dumping ground to drive profit and efficiency.
Many of these issues stem from the narrow way that we define wealth in western society, driven by our financial system. Shareholder profit and growth are the ways we measure wealth, but what if we reimagined what wealth actually was? This would support us in developing a new economic model that properly recognised the value of the natural world and the tangible and intangible benefits it brings.
Creating a new vision for wealth that is more holistic and recognises the importance of wellbeing, access to clean air and water, community cohesion, health and security would support us to make decisions that support long-term wellbeing and resilience for all communities, not just the richest. It would help us to recognise that we exist as part of a wider ecosystem, which we are dependent on for survival, and therefore that environmental action is not a cost to be borne, but the key to unlocking greater wealth for all.
Inequality and division
The narrow definition of wealth used by deregulated capitalism means that the impact it has on society and the environment are not properly recognised and attributed. As long as shareholder value increases, all is rosy.
The focus on profit maximisation leads to an exploitation of people and the environment and is a contributing factor to wealth inequality in advanced economies,6 which in turn drives social division. The system also goes one step further. In a so-called meritocracy, it tells you that you can achieve what the richest achieve, as long as you work hard enough for it. This is important, as it shifts the narrative away from holding corporations culpable for their negative impacts and instead shifts the blame to one of personal achievement or failure.
This embeds further the focus on individuality and individual action within a capitalist system. By shifting the focus from societal wellbeing to individual wellbeing, it places the onus on the individual to build wealth and support societal improvement. It also helps to sow division, as it leads to the idea that society is competitive rather than collaborative. We are seeing this play out on the global political stage with rising political polarisation and populism, often with harmful rhetoric blaming societal issues on marginalised communities or other groups, shifting the focus from corporations and governments. Inequality, and the negative outcomes of inequality, are therefore often weaponised by governments and corporations as a reason for not taking environmental action, with environmentalism being framed as too costly given other societal challenges.
This focus on individuality is often reflected in environmental action too. We need to take responsibility for recycling, we should buy the sustainable options, and make sure we don’t take too many flights. Although individual action is important and a key part of the solution, it will not be enough to drive the transformational change that we need. Social cohesion and collaboration are essential to tackling the wicked problems facing society and supporting a just transition.
No, reusable coffee cups are not the answer
As public awareness and interest in the environment and sustainability grows, we have seen the rise of a new type of consumerism – eco-consumerism.
When purchasing products, making more sustainable choices should be encouraged. To do so we need robust information on the environmental credentials of a product, in terms of where it was made, what materials were used, and its ability to be part of a circular economy. In the absence of proper certification for “eco friendly” products, people must trust organisational labelling of products, which can be misleading.
For example, sustainable fashion choices have been criticised, with a recent screening of sustainability claims in the textile, garment and shoe sector suggesting that 39% could be false or deceptive.7
This also doesn’t get to the root of the issue, which is that we are all just consuming too much. Deregulated capitalism, even when centred on more sustainable products, is premised on the need for encouraging more consumption and more spending. This way of living is not aligned with sustainable principles and there needs to be a cultural shift to change our consumer patterns that aligns with a sustainable future, one that is predicated on the circular economy and encourages a reduction in overall purchasing.
This again underlines the importance of social change, not just individual change. Consumer pressure cannot alone push forward the transition to a sustainable society – fundamental changes to our social and economic systems, supported by government regulation, are needed for this.
The power of social movements
The 20th century has seen many examples of transformational social change. Be it women’s enfranchisement, the civil rights movement, or the work to secure LGBTQIA+ rights, social movements have often been at the helm of changing social norms and subsequently achieving legislative change.
Social movements related to the environment are notoriously difficult, as they are often wide-ranging with less clear goals and milestones. Nevertheless, social movements and their role in shifting social norms have an extraordinary power for catalysing change, if they are used effectively.
This is where environmental scientists come in.
Social movements are dependent on effective coalitions – you need the right mix of expertise to drive change effectively. Firstly, the public needs to be equipped with access to evidence and knowledge so that they can make informed decisions and build evidence-informed plans/strategies for achieving their goals. They then need to be empowered to drive change through their actions, which are supported by trusted information and trusted individuals to build credibility and momentum and allow for adaptation in response to changing evidence.
Environmental science and those working in the field can not only provide the evidence needed to inform decision-making but can also support others in thinking critically in an age of disinformation and by translating this evidence into tangible actions.
Building connections across other disciplines to drive change will be key. Environmental scientists should seek to engage with social scientists and NGOs, those who have expertise in working with communities and stakeholders, so that environmental action and campaigns can be supported by robust data and evidence.
Environmental scientists should also seek to work with economists and policymakers to outline the evidence that can support the development of feasible pathways to achieve a sustainable society. As the debate continues on whether we should be pursuing green growth or a degrowth agenda, it is critical that environmental scientists are involved in these conversations and champion a science-led approach.
What key actions can environmental scientists take to support change?
- Fill the evidence gaps where they are needed – consider how your work can fill a knowledge gap and who you should be engaging with to use this evidence.
- Engage across disciplines and sectors – get involved in inter- and cross-disciplinary networks to support the mobilisation of key stakeholders and drive meaningful, evidence-informed change
- Upskill in communication and influencing – consider how you can drive change in your own sphere of influence as an important step towards effective knowledge exchange
- Step out of your silo – Understand the wider context in which your work sits. You cannot create an ecosystem for change if you only focus on one part of the system.
- Be part of a unified voice in the scientific community to tackle disinformation and maintain a solutions focus – environmental expertise must be at the forefront of the transition to a sustainable future, take part and have your say in fora and discussions.
As we experience a rollback on environmental protection, rampant inequality and increasing political polarisation, we must consider how we as environmental scientists can support social change and inform the development of a society that is in harmony rather than conflict with our natural world.
Effectively communicating environmental science and using scientific evidence to inform environmental action can help change stakeholder perceptions, identify the correct levers for change, and support the development of a social movement that is grounded in science and evidence, rather than political acceptability, leading to better outcomes for all.
“The great movements of the past century have won by taking issues that were unpopular and changing the boundaries of the politically acceptable, so that advances which previously seemed impossible were made inevitable.”8
