Smart Business: Making a New Case for Action on Climate Change

I began this post by thinking about who we wrote this book for and why. After all, it’s just a book—the audience should be pretty clear, right? And we’ve been adamant that we designed this book to speak to a larger audience than just scientists and politicians.

To be fair, at least scientists and politicians are speaking about the climate change issue. No matter what side of the coin they’re on, dialogue is usually a productive thing if it goes on long enough. But our book attempts to reach people far beyond those groups for a very simple reason: there are others who have a hand in action.

Climate science, as my esteemed colleague Rachael Jonassen points out, is complicated. The data is tough to wade through (which is why LMI designed its Climate Change Knowledge Engine to allow greater accessibility to the data). And we’re at a crossroads where people can either figure out a path toward action by becoming an engaged stakeholder, or wait, and discover that the issue has become substantially more difficult to manage.

The challenge remains convincing people that this is smart business.

A new study by researchers at Stanford University has revealed the disconcerting notion that in the United States over the past two years, public support for adopting policies to address climate change has fallen.

In the Stanford study, the authors found that, in addition to a growing distrust for environmental scientists by some demographics, there was a decline in the number of people who wanted government action on the issue—five percentage points each year, in fact.

The rise in distrust is not unexpected. Part of this is a general atmosphere of distrust that’s developed over the past decade in what’s real and what’s not. We see it everywhere from digital photography to scientific data—certainly with the climate change issue. Once a seed of doubt has been planted, it’s tough to regain lost trust.

Likewise, the desire to see less government action is understandable. We’re in lean times, and the political divide in this country largely revolves around how taxpayer dollars should be spent.

But I believe there’s another issue: messaging. It’s not the first time that this has happened—the unfortunate phrase global warming is still in wide use, rather than the more accurate climate change. But at the core of a changing climate is a threat that must be comprehended without a set of well-defined impacts.

Fairly straight forward.

For instance, it’s easy to make the case that you shouldn’t light matches and throw them in a wastebasket filled with paper. The result of that action is a very easy thing to demonstrate. But the impacts of a changing climate are more fluid, and there is greater range to the severity. We have a pretty good idea of what’s going to happen and a strong feel for the time frame, but it’s impossible to be more precise—you won’t hear anyone say with a straight face that in 5 years, 7 month, and 12 days the Southwestern U.S. will be in a crippling drought. There’s no wastebasket fire to point at and say, “See?!?”

So while the public might struggle to see a broad impact, managers of organizations have a better feel for the issue. They already look down the road and make strategic decisions to ensure their organization’s sustainability. They’re making investments now that will pay off later. The problem is that no one is talking to functional managers about climate change, no one is helping them understand the issue and the risk, and no one is outlining the possible steps they can take. There’s a serious lack of enough understanding that is needed make the case for the investment their organization’s resources. A different approach is needed.

So what would this different approach be, and what makes us believe it can be an effective one? I think it goes back to the heart of why a thriving organization earns its success—they think strategically, they use their resources wisely, and they understand the risks facing their organization.

Simply put, it means appealing to purse strings over heart strings.

Right, but why do you really do it?

Look, the case that addressing a changing climate is the right thing to do remains a valid argument. But it’s not an entirely convincing one—I’m reminded of Helen Lovejoy lamenting “Won’t somebody please think of the children!?”—and certainly not when shareholders are involved.

But shareholders do care about the profitability and sustainability of the organizations they invest in (and to this end, taxpayers should be viewed as investors in the federal government). The message surrounding climate change should be that it makes sense for the health of any organization, whether it’s in the private sector or the public sector.

And in fact, what we found is, yes, that case can be made. It’s a strong one. It involves addressing climate change by applying tools that any successful organization is probably already using—cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, and life-cycle analysis. It means strategic investments that don’t damage the long-term health of an organization.

Which brings us back to the Stanford research and the notion that, more and more, people don’t want the government to lead this effort. Let’s put the power in the hands of the private sector by helping them understand how their organization can benefit from acting on climate change. Let’s show them a path that makes them more profitable, more efficient, and at the same time addressing an issue of critical importance. That’s who this book is for, and that’s what this book is trying to accomplish.