🤯Climate Change - 7. Tackling Greta

< previous 🤯Climate Change - 6. As seen from a Single Perspective

How would a Systems Thinker use the ideas in v2-combined critique Greta Thunbergs view of science summarised at ‘We cannot make it without science’: Greta Thunberg says climate experts are being ignored | Greta Thunberg | The Guardian

Based on the theoretical frameworks in the provided collection, a Systems Thinker would critique Greta Thunberg’s view—which prioritizes “following the science” as a singular, objective path to resolution—by highlighting that her stance risks falling into several major epistemological and systemic traps.

While acknowledging the physical reality of climate change, a systems thinker would argue that “Science” is only one component of a much larger, “wicked” problem that cannot be solved by technical data alone.

1. The Trap of “Taming” a Wicked Problem

Systems thinkers like Horst Rittel and C. West Churchman would argue that climate change is a “wicked problem,” meaning it has no definitive formulation and no clear stopping rule. By insisting that we simply “listen to the experts,” Thunberg treats a social mess as a “tame problem” or a technical puzzle.

• The Critique: Science can describe “what is,” but it cannot definitively say “what ought to be”. Decisions about climate action involve irreconcilable value conflicts between stakeholders (e.g., economic survival vs. ecological preservation) that scientific data cannot resolve.

2. The Fallacy of the “God’s Eye View”

Practitioners of Second-Order Cybernetics, such as Humberto Maturana and Niklas Luhmann, would critique the idea that “The Science” provides a single, objective truth.

• The Critique: Systems theory posits that “anything said is said by an observer”. Scientific models are epistemological constructs or “maps,” not the “territory” itself.

• Situational Perspective: Different systems (the economy, the legal system, the political system) use different “binary codes” to observe the world. The science system observes through true/false, but the political system observes through power/non-power. Simply shouting “truth” at a system that operates on “power” is systemically ineffective because systems are operationally closed—they only “hear” what their own internal logic allows them to process.

3. “The Enemy is Out There” Syndrome

Peter Senge would point out that Thunberg’s framing often relies on a “hero-villain” narrative (activists/scientists vs. ignoring politicians).

• The Critique: Systems thinking teaches that “there is no outside”—the cause of the problem and the observer are part of the same system. Believing “the enemy is out there” is a learning disability that prevents us from seeing how our own internal mental models and societal structures co-create the very environment we are fighting.

4. The Limits of “Programmed Knowledge”

Reg Revans would distinguish between Programmed Knowledge (P)—the established facts provided by climate experts—and Questioning Insight (Q).

• The Critique: In a “turbulent environment” where the rate of change is high, relying solely on P is insufficient. Science provides the “P,” but navigating the complexity of global implementation requires “Q”—the ability to ask fresh questions and take responsible action in the face of ignorance. “Following the science” can lead to a dangerous dependency on experts, stifling the action learning required for societies to adapt.

5. Scientism and the “Eichmannism” of Efficiency

Neil Postman would warn that Thunberg’s view edges toward “Scientism”—the misguided belief that natural science provides a source of moral authority.

• The Critique: By elevating “technique” and expert calculation above all else, we risk “Eichmannism”: a state where we focus obsessively on the how (the technical carbon-reduction methods) while ignoring the why (the human and moral consequences of those methods). Postman argues that life cannot be reduced to a single system without doing “violence to life itself”.

6. The Necessity of “Systemic Wisdom”

Sir Geoffrey Vickers would argue that the goal should not be “solving” the climate (a goal-seeking behavior) but “relationship-maintenance”.

• The Critique: A systems thinker doesn’t just want to reach a “target” (like 1.5°C). They want to regulate a dynamic web of desired relationships—social, economic, and ecological. If we “follow the science” to a degree that we destroy social cohesion or political stability, we have failed systemically, even if we meet a physical metric.

---

Summary Comparison Table

Greta Thunberg’s Stance	Systems Thinker’s Critique
Science is an objective truth “out there.”	Science is an observer-dependent mental model.
We must “follow” the experts.	We must “negotiate” an accommodation between conflicting worldviews.
The problem is a lack of political will/action.	The problem is a “mess” of interacting structures and mental models.
The goal is a specific physical target (1.5°C).	The goal is maintaining a viable, resilient relationship with our environment.

And what would the recommended actions be from these critiques?

To move from a critique of a science-only view to a systemic approach, a Systems Thinker would recommend shifting the focus from “imposing technical solutions” to “managing systemic conditions”.

Based on the provided collection, the recommended actions would involve the following:

1. Shift from “Solving” to “Dissolving” and “Accommodating”

Instead of treating the climate crisis as a puzzle to be “solved” by experts, practitioners should aim to dissolve the problem by redesigning the underlying systems that produce it.

• Seek Accommodations, Not Consensus: In pluralistic societies, total agreement is rare. Recommended action involves using Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) to find a “version of the situation” that conflicting parties (e.g., industry, activists, and labor unions) can “live with” to allow purposeful action to proceed.

• Idealized Design: Stakeholders should collaboratively design the system they would build right now if the current one were destroyed. This bypasses existing political gridlock and focuses on shared desiderata (human desires and hopes).

2. Practice “Variety Engineering”

Climate policy often fails because it is too rigid to handle the complexity of the real world. According to Ashby’s Law, “only variety can absorb variety”.

• Amplify Local Autonomy: Distribute power to the periphery. Rather than top-down global mandates, recommended action involves empowering local communities to create their own adaptive responses, as they have the “local knowledge” required to manage local variety.

• Attenuate Noise: Policy-makers should use filters to distinguish between “meaningful regularities” and “chaotic noise,” focusing on the few high-leverage variables rather than trying to track everything.

3. Move from “Direct” to “Indirect” Design

Complexity science dictates that we cannot directly control a Complex Adaptive System.

• Manage the Present, Not the Future: Abandon the “idealist fallacy” of designing a specific 50-year future state. Instead, “manage the evolutionary potential of the present”.

• Safe-to-Fail Probes: Conduct small, parallel experiments (probes) to see how the system reacts. If a probe yields positive ecological results, amplify it; if it yields negative results, dampen it. This replaces “fail-safe” rigidity with “safe-fail” resilience.

4. Apply “Boundary Critique” to Ethics

Recommended action requires interrogating the “Water” (implicit mental models) and boundary judgments of climate interventions.

• CSH Interrogations: Use the 12 questions of Critical Systems Heuristics to expose who is marginalized by “scientific” policies.

• Include the “Affected”: Ensure that “witnesses”—those who bear the consequences of climate change but have no power (like future generations or vulnerable populations)—are structurally represented in the decision-making process.

5. Cultivate “Systemic Wisdom” through Reflection

Rather than shouting facts, leaders must act as Designers, Teachers, and Stewards.

• Balance Advocacy with Inquiry: Instead of just advocating for “The Science,” activists and leaders should inquire into the reasoning of those who resist it. Action should involve making one’s own assumptions explicit and inviting others to find flaws in that reasoning.

• Double-Loop Learning: Don’t just ask “Are we hitting the target?” (Single-loop). Ask “Are the targets themselves right, and what underlying values are they based on?” (Double-loop).

Summary of Strategic Shifts

From (Conventional Critique)	To (Systemic Recommended Action)
Mandates: Top-down carbon taxes.	Nudges: Shaping environmental constraints to foster emergence.
Prediction: Relying on long-term climate models.	Adaptation: “Muddling through” via fast feedback loops.
Expertise: Listening only to scientists.	Pluralism: Synthesizing technical, organizational, and personal views.
Control: Forcing the system to stay below 1.5°C.	Viability: Designing a system that can survive unforeseen shocks.

Can you produce a rich picture from this analysis?

A Rich Picture is a specific Systems Thinking tool designed to capture the “messiness” of a problem situation—including structures, processes, conflicts, and emotions—without imposing a rigid early boundary.

Based on the systemic critique of a “science-only” climate approach, here is a description of the Rich Picture representing this complex social “mess.”

Components of the Climate Strategy Rich Picture:

• The “Science” Pillar (Structure):

  • Represented as a large, rigid ivory tower or a high-precision digital clock.

  • The Tension: It emits “Programmed Knowledge” (P) in the form of charts showing 1.5°C targets, but these signals are being “bounced off” other parts of the picture due to a lack of shared context.

• The Political and Economic Gears (Processes):

  • Represented as a series of interlocking “Machine Age” gears grinding against one another.

  • The Conflict: “Command and Control” levers (carbon taxes, mandates) are being pulled, but “compensating feedback” is shown as a spring pushing the levers back, representing societal resistance and economic “side effects”.

• The “Water” (The Hidden Environment):

  • The background is shaded as “Water,” representing the implicit mental models—like the belief that “growth is infinite”—that stakeholders are swimming in without realizing it.

  • Swords are drawn between “The Environment” (represented as a finite container with limits) and “Industrial Growth” (an exponential curve attempting to break the container).

• The Human Actors (Perspectives):

  • Greta/Activists: Shown with a megaphone labeled “Follow the Science,” but positioned within a “Hero-Villain-Victim” narrative bubble that isolates them from other stakeholders.

  • Labor/Industry: Shown with thought bubbles about “Economic Survival” and “Identity,” expressing “Value Rigidity”—the fear that “The Science” ignores their human “Why”.

  • The “Affected” (The Marginalized): Future generations and vulnerable populations are drawn as “Witnesses” standing outside the boundary, looking in but with no hands on the control levers.

• The “Muddle” (Complexity):

  • The center of the picture is a tangled “Thicket of Brambles,” where cause and effect are blurred and only visible in retrospect.

  • Small “Safe-to-Fail Probes” (tiny magnifying glasses) are shown scattered in the muddle, representing local experiments trying to find emergent paths forward.

The Core Message of the Picture:

The picture illustrates that while “Science” provides the data, the Real Problem is the lack of “Structural Coupling” between the experts, the politicians, and the diverse worldviews of the people. The recommended action is to stop trying to “fix the machine” and instead start a Search Conference to negotiate an Accommodation in the middle of this mess.

Would you like me to take one element of this picture—for example, the “Limits to Growth” archetype—and explain it in more detail?