March 28, 2013 — It’s a strange time to be an environmentalist.
Over the years, the once-cohesive environmental community has divided into multiple factions, splitting along philosophical and tactical lines. Some environmentalists, such as Arne Naess, have advocated a “deep ecology” view, which retreats from the modern world, seeking ways to live in harmony with the nature. Others, such as Bill McKibben and his 350.org group, are focused on creating a widespread political and social movement, reminiscent of the 1960s and ’70s, to rattle cages and change things through protests and grassroots action. Then there are the wonks and scientists, such as most of us in academia and government, who typically focus on the role of science and policy in shaping the future of the environment.
Others, like Bjorn Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus group, challenge traditional environmentalism and call for different international priorities, mainly focused on economic development, poverty alleviation and public health. Also challenging the environmental mainstream are Michael Shellenberger, Ted Nordhaus and the Breakthrough Institute, who focus on the power of innovation and technological change to solve big environmental problems.
Once divided, the debates start. Whether about nuclear power, the use of genetically modified crops, the Keystone pipeline, the importance of climate change or the role of businesses in addressing sustainability, these factions couldn’t be further apart. Sadly, over time, these groups have become suspicious and distrustful of each other. Like those among members of a family, the fights among these closely related groups are sometimes vicious. Most days, it’s hard to even imagine we all think of ourselves as “environmentalists.”
A theory of change is simply that: a theory about how you think the world changes for the better.
Yet we all generally want the same things: a sustainable world, where people can live full and productive lives without compromising the environment or the opportunities of future generations. So why all the friction? Why all the division, debate and suspicion?
I think a lot these differences boil down to people having different “theories of change.”
A theory of change is simply that: a theory about how you think the world changes for the better. Some people, like Bill McKibben, think the world changes because of political and social movements. Others, like the Deep Ecologists, think it takes fundamental cultural shifts in our attitudes toward nature, while Neo-environmentalists think it takes economic transformation and radical technological change. And there are many other theories of change, each representing a deeply held set of assumptions about how the world changes.
Regardless of their underlying assumptions, the most important thing about a theory of change is that it be a real, working theory. To me, as a scientist, this means it starts as a hypothesis (an initial guess or assumption) and then is constantly tested against data through ongoing observation and experimentation. This is how a theory works: It must be tested. Data, not our feelings, rule. If the data say a theory is wrong, then it’s simply wrong — and it’s time to move on to a new one.
But most of us are reluctant to give up our deeply held assumptions, and are unwilling to put our theory of change to the test. We stubbornly ignore the data around us and cling to these theories even in the face of contradictory evidence.
Let’s consider two different theories of change that are pretty common these days.
First, many of my friends are deeply concerned about climate change and have become involved with Bill McKibben’s latest political movement, focused on stopping the construction of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. It’s easy to admire these folks: They’re committed and deeply caring, and are putting themselves on the front line. When challenged on the efficacy of their movement — especially by those who say that Keystone would only add a tiny amount to the nation’s emissions, and that reducing coal use, improving efficiency and deploying more renewables would have far bigger impacts — they speak of the powerful symbolism of the pipeline, and its ability to galvanize a larger climate “movement” in the future. That makes sense, but when was the last time a social or political movement caused a major environmental policy change in Washington? Wasn’t it the early 1970s when we saw landmark federal legislation to protect clean air, clean water and endangered species? (If I’m wrong about this, please let me know.) In today’s toxic political landscape, where outside money, dime-a-dozen pundits and hyper-partisanship have utterly gridlocked D.C., do we honestly think activists and protests can change anything? With all possible respect, I have to ask: Where is the evidence to support this theory of change? (For the record, I’ll be very happy to be proven wrong about this. But, for the moment, I just don’t see enough data to support this theory. Instead, I see people taking this as an article of faith more than an observable fact.)
In another part of the social and political spectrum, I have friends who deeply believe that capitalism and unfettered markets will be the key to solving our biggest social and environmental problems. Markets do help solve some problems; there is plenty of evidence for that. But markets are far from perfect, and they have failed to solve our most pressing social challenges so far. In the real world — not an economics classroom — markets are always distorted by powerful special interests (it’s called a political economy for a reason) with all their loopholes, tax breaks and subsidies. Also, our current market system chooses to discount the value of the future (even when real people value their children more than anything else) and describe our most important values (such as freedom, health, security and sustainability) as “externalities,” as if they’re not worthy of consideration. So, I wonder, where is the evidence that market forces, left to themselves, will fix our biggest problems? I’d like to believe this too, but I’m skeptical.
I’m not trying to undermine either of these worldviews, but I would like to respectfully challenge my friends in both camps to scrutinize their underlying theories of change and test them against the available evidence. Do the data really support this theory of change? If they do, that’s great! You’re on to something! But if they don’t, then isn’t it time to step back and try again, starting with new assumptions?
Of course, testing our theory of change is excruciatingly hard. I’ll admit it. Most of us aren’t even aware of our theories of change and the biases that go along with them, so the idea of testing them is far from most of our minds.
Testing our theories of change requires a lot of work, intellectual rigor, the willingness to challenge our friends, and, worst of all, the ability to admit that maybe I was wrong.
Making things even harder, the social pressures associated with our theory of change (what some call the “tribalism of ideas”) are enormous. We tend to surround ourselves with the people who share our theory of change, creating an inadvertent echo chamber, reinforcing our core beliefs and assumptions, rarely letting new ideas in. Heck, we can even choose entire media outlets that reinforce our deeply held theories, whether it’s Fox News or MSNBC. So testing our theory of change is tough. It can alienate our friends and make them feel that we have betrayed the cause. (Just ask Mark Lynas, who went from anti-GMO social activist to GMO technology proponent, how he’s feeling these days. He tested his theory of change, found it lacking, said so very publicly, and lost a lot of friends in the process.)
Over the years, I’ve had to toss out some of my own assumptions and theories of change (and I still have some scars to show for it). In the end, I try to scrutinize my own (and my “tribe’s”) assumptions and theories of change as much as possible, and have learned to let go of bad ideas. But it’s very, very hard.
So beware: Testing our theories of change requires a lot of work, intellectual rigor, the willingness to challenge our friends, and, worst of all, the ability to admit that maybe I was wrong. It’s not easy. It’s not for the timid. It’s likely to hurt. And it’s absolutely necessary.
My instincts tell me that all of our theories of change are probably wrong, at least in part. But they all probably contain an element of truth as well. The trick is to constantly scrutinize our theories, and those of others, and rigorously test for that truth.
At the University of Wisconsin–Madison, where I spent many years as a student and professor, there is a wonderful plaque that encourages the “…continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.” We should take this advice to heart. Only by challenging our theories of change, subjecting them to that sifting and winnowing process, will we find the right ones — the ones that actually work and allow us to change the world. A failure to do so is a failure we can no longer afford. 
Editor’s note: The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of Ensia. We present them to further discussion around important topics. We encourage you to respond with a comment below, following our commenting guidelines, which can be found here. In addition, you might consider submitting a Voices piece of your own. See Ensia’s “Contact” page for submission guidelines.
UPDATED 03.28.13 to clarify distinctions among various individuals and groups challenging the environmental mainstream.
Ensia shares solutions-focused stories free of charge through our online magazine and partner media. That means audiences around the world have ready access to stories that can — and do — help them shape a better future. If you value our work, please show your support today.
Yes, I'll support Ensia!
That was not my intent. (And I don't think I actually said that.)
BTI focuses on innovation, including powerful new technologies and mechanisms that can solve environmental problems. (To me, these are linked to markets too, but innovation is more than that!) My point was to show how some new environmental thinkers (which I called neo-environmentalists, as others have) are focused on innovation, technology and markets to solve environmental problems.
In any event, I wanted to clarify this here. I regret any confusion on this point.
And speaking of provocative... your article here is just that : ) It's clear that you are coming at this from a scientific perspective, which ironically could be seen as your own 'theory of change' (ask a creationist about the credibility of science and you'll find the paradox here). This point opens up a deeper issue within this broader discourse - that is the difficulty of science, or data, being able to effect the change that it itself calls for. My take is that because of this proven difficulty, change is driven much more by feelings than it is by data (which opposes your statement that 'data, not our feelings, rule').
Let's propose that there were actually a way to test these various theories of change (which I would argue is an impossibility based off, first, the level of complexity within these issues, second, the notion that most environmentalists are not mutually exclusive in the theories of change they support, and third, the inability to measure 'change' in an objective or fair way). Even if the data were to determine that, say, the neo-environmentalists premise of economic transformation and technological innovation is the 'most effective theory of change', would this proclamation actually translate to any meaningful action? Would this data change the minds of the Deep Ecologists who have a fundamentally different worldview, let alone the political pundits who are focused solely on serving their own special interests? My guess is probably not. That's because everyone has a different 'truth', and their theories of change are uniquely catered towards supporting that truth.
I say bring on McKibben’s social movement, bring on neo-environmentalists economic transformation, and bring on Deep Ecology's quest to reunite us with nature. All of these are valid and powerful tools in shaping a better world, and each are uniquely capable of catalysing change in people with diverse interests and abilities. It seems that an attempt to validate the effectiveness of each movement would do nothing more than perpetuate the debate and separation of all of these issues.
And on a completely different note, when I was reading this piece, my mind went directly to Donella Meadow's '12 leverage points to intervene in a system'. Are you familiar with this (link below)? If so, what are your thoughts on how a tool of this nature might be used to determine the effectiveness of a theory of change, or any other effort for that matter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points
Again, thanks for the fantastic event last night, and for this provocative article... ; )
-josh
As I think of this, and the inevitable needed work on the boundaries, I find hard denying a preference for a polycentric approach (E. Ostrom). It is a bumpy road, with lot of testing and tossing, yet I don't see another way to go ahead...
In this context, I highly value the call for "facing the punch" and working to fix the road according to new findings. I would add then, the urgent need for public understanding of the inherent learning process in building a more sustainable world and that not every change of mind has a "paycheck" behind.
Thanks for the reflections!
Delfi
Not really true dude , there are wolves in sheeps clothing, pseudo environmentalists, whom can be bought issue by issue.
While I agree that a rational examination of efficacy makes sense, looking to the past for confirmation to these different approaches has pitfalls. For one, I believe the contributions of the internet and social media can be game-changing for many of these theories, especially the innovators and followers of the Grand March paradigm (as Milan Kundera calls it the Unbearable Lightness of Being). The advances in communication an information accessibility have really changed the landscape of change. Look at the Arab spring as an example of how the Grand March theory was able to do something it could not have accomplished 10 years ago: connect and mobilize a mass protest that endured what the entrenched powers could throw at it.
Along the lines of the Arab Spring, I have to ask, why limit the power of social movements and protest on environmental change? After all, the environmental movement is young, and doesn’t have many data points. What if you include racial equality, women’s rights, gay rights, to the data set in evaluating the efficacy of the Long March? I think you will find more support for the Grand March theory. Mix in Google and Twitter (and a high unemployment rate), and one conclude that past performance in environmental change alone is not a predictor of future returns.
What I originally thought you were building towards is an all of the above approach, with the different factions approaching the problem differently, and keeping each other honest. You could argue that Martin Luther King and Malcom X needed each other, although their approaches were very different. Likewise you could argue that radical groups like Earth First are important because they define the extreme end of the discussion, which creates moderate groups like Sierra Club or 350 space in the middle in which to operate. I think the Deep Eco side can offer valuable reminders of why this is important, and that nature bats last, and of just how small we are and how little we know about the world we are tinkering with. If the innovators would listen, Deep Eco could provide not only reminders to be humble but also ideas for technology—see biomimicry.
Just as biological systems thrive on diversity, so could a multi-pronged movement that amounts to an all-of-the-above or “kitchen sink approach.” What this approach would need, and as you point out is sorely lacking, is respectful dialog among the factions.
Regarding markets not looking to the future, to some extent I agree, but not completely. Markets are forward looking. For example, many people look at the stock market making new highs as indication of an economic recovery, while others look around and don’t see much change on the ground. If this recovery is sustained on Wall Street (and doesn’t crash again like in 2000 and 2008, the last time the market hit similar levels), I would take that to indicate that the market, which is a mix of all participant’ hopes, dreams, feelings, insider knowledge, and best guesses, believes the economy is headed to a healthier place than it has been in 14 years.
Along these lines, the market grasped the power of the internet long before people could actually figure out how to make money on it. Hence the dot-com bubble and crash. But now, years later, the Nasdaq is climbing back to those levels, based on actual earnings. So in the case of the dot-com bubble, the market was too ahead of the curve for its own good, and paid the price. So I would be very careful about characterizing the market as not forward looking.
Best,
Ari
Environmental sustainability is a too big and complex an issue to be defined in a way which could demand agreement from all sides. Climate change alone is so fraught with uncertainties and complexities that some have called it a wicked problem which cannot be solved, but only managed more or less well (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/).
It is not only differences in theories of change but more fundamentally differences in world views and cultures which cannot be changed according to a simple hypothesis testing mode as allegedly practiced by scientists (see Mike Hulme's Why We Disagree on Climate Change). But even scientists often adhere to world views and are reluctant to give up old beliefs which are contradicted by new data (see Max Planck, Popper and Kuhn's work).
So overall you recommend a rationalistic model for self-examination - this will have an unlikely impact on those who you hope to convince.
While I definitely agree with many of the points raised by others here, I still stand by my main point: many groups have an underlying theory of change that is never actually expresses or tested. And such groups tend to fail, again and again, and are never sure why.
It reminds me of Einstein's definition of insanity: doing the same thing, again and again, knowing that *next* time will give a different result.
So my advice to different environmental groups is this: know what your implicit theory of change is, test it periodically, and see if it really makes sense. If it doesn't, you have to ask yourself: Is it more important to hold on to an inclmplete (or just plain wrong) theory, or to actually solve the problem?
of course much depends on your definition of failure (and thus also of success). Consider the Occupy Wall Street movement. You might say they failed. Or did they? Runciman argues it's not so easy, see here his review of David Graeber's new book http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/28/democracy-project-david-graeber-review
I wonder if you can give an example from politics where you have a clear instance of success, based on a rational re-examination of strategies. How could you produce such an example? How can you be sure that it was only the re-examination that led to success? Other factors can rarely, if ever, be ruled out.
Nice thoughtful piece - and obviously a topic near to my heart. Many of your commenters above make excellent points too. I think your "testing our theories of change" approach is useful, but it misses some of the stochastic and frankly evolutionary nature of social change. The social conditions that allow real, radical change are seldom the social conditions that set up the initial social conflict. Your operating theory for social change may be workable at one moment, but may be utterly inappropriate for a subsequent set of political/economic/social conditions. So while groups don't always articulate or test their theories of change, they also don't face a stable set of conditions within which to test those theories. Some people and organizations have more influence on the social conditions of decision making than others, and will use that influence to undermine others who seem to be gaining influence. The relentless efforts of (for example) the tobacco industry to cast doubt on the link between cigarettes and lung cancer created a set of political conditions that thwarted folks who thought that scientific consensus on health impacts would result in policy change. So you don't just need a theory of change - you need a theory of the politics of power. McKibben has one. What's yours?
Oh - the Greens in Germany represent a social movement that had an enormous effect on that country's energy policy in the 80s and 90s. Social movements seldom create coherent policy alternatives, but they do shake up social conditions that make it possible for policy change to happen. We need them.
"power concedes nothing without a demand. it never did and it never will." -frederick douglass
that said, activists of course can't do it alone... we need pressure from all corners and better synergy amongst the various factions that have evolved. there will be times when we need to come together in solidarity (ie keystone imo) and times when our diversity will give us strength and resiliency.