Discover more from Douglass’s Newsletter
At least some effort at coping with climate change has to be ststem-wide because sub -optimization will make system performance worse,
For example cheaper electricity rates for home air conditiooing can raise overall use of electricity produced in power stations that burn coal or gas to create steam to run generators that give us the illusion we are using clean energy and producing no co2
Management , like most key words, has a history that tells us about the concept we are trying to use. From https://www.etymonline.com/word/manage?ref=etymonline_crossreference
1560s, "to handle, train, or direct" (a horse), from the now-obsolete noun manage "the handling or training of a horse; horsemanship" (see manege, which is a modern revival of it), from Old French manège "horsemanship," from Italian maneggio, from maneggiare "to handle, touch," especially "to control a horse," which ultimately from Latin noun manus "hand" (from PIE root *man- (2) "hand").
So for us it carries the implication of hands-on, not just theory, policy nor plans. It is what is missing in the climate discussion. - avoiding who will cut where and with what consequences? An example:
I was a consultant at Bell Labs just before divestiture, late 70’s. I had a team looking at new ways to manage the labs. JIT, just in time was a management fad popular as part of “efficiency. The Labs had small “stores” spread widely in the Labs buildings, places where staff could obtain tools and parts, such as transistors, for projects. The team instituted smaller stores on the idea that the existing stores had parts that hadnt been sought by staff for fifteen years. Brining inventory down to things actually being requested let store size shrink by more than half. After a year AT&T, which owned Bell Labs, gave prizes for creative innovations. The JIT stores won. But one of our team-members poked around and found that another prize was won by accounting for its increase in the number of invoices it processed. JIT requires the stores to place more JIT orders but the estimated cost of processing an order (pre computer) was $75 and the total system cost had gone up. The group had no governing procedure for testing an innovation across the system . Simple questions, like what did the new stores do to the amount of time spent by staff walking to the store? Well, often the store dint have the part. So the staff person had to return again after JIT obtained the part from a wholesaler.
In climate change we have thousands of such examples. More money for the global south to cope with climate change. OK, but the money distributed (by banks making loans) must come from somewhere or maybe just increases debt. Bu consequences? Some in the global south (what a crude map that is)will have more purchasing power that will be spent on goods that were already going somewhere. The result has to be, at least for a while, scarcity. That means in the Global North prices will rise with political consequences.mA systems view would take this into account but the current system looks at the process in a limited way.
Management as taking charge, hand on , implies also taking responsibility. Currently that means that climate projects must not cost jobs nor cut GDP. Since that is probably not possible, if we look at secondary and tertiary consequences, how does managment proceed? Increasing fairness would mean a better distribution, but how? Two obvious possibilities: redistribute whet we have (few. climate consequences) or create more that goes to the global south - lots of climate consciences.
But hey, what if we don’t have any management at the problem level?