Agree. The era of a sustainability-focused idealpolitik is being overshadowed by the rising era of sustainability-focused realpolitik. We all knew this was coming. We’ve been discussing it since the 1970s, if not earlier. There are physical limits to material growth (separate from economic growth). The discussions I remember most from the “Limits to Growth” era always included statements like “let’s do this voluntarily, collaboratively and strategically before circumstances force us to do it reactively.” My takeaway from John’s essay is that we’ve reached the reactive era that Dana Meadows et al predicted.
First, thanks to John who is forever distilling interesting insights worth taking seriously. Then, I struggle to wrap my head around the underlying definition/origination/scope and ultimately implications of idealpolitik vs. realpolitik, Scot. By this, do we mean that we are throwing away the slow progress we’ve been making toward adopting a systems lens to our understanding of the world around us in favor of returning to the self-limiting black & white, single issue in isolation world view at least some of us have been trying to evolve? I hope not. I do believe progress can be made in black and white mandates like we’re seeing from China on energy and transportation — and perhaps those mandates are the result of far-forward systems thinking in action. If so, that might give me hope were I to understand the “what for”. My hope is the thesis is the same as ours was getting going 20+ years ago — that the market drivers of the future would favor those who anticipated the limits to growth and sought to retool for them. If so, wouldn’t there continue to be a place for the inherent imagination and creativity inherent in “idealpolitik” as I think I understand it?
I am disheartened by the results we are seeing in the market of the moment as an organization that fundamentally believes in the win/win/win opportunity embedded in the wide open set of possibilities represented by environmental and social innovation. I’m certainly delighted to take the wins from Realpolitik, but at the same time, it seems there should be a place for continued exploration around the wholesale transformation of our economic systems so that they ultimately thrive by design in harmony with nature, no? Love thoughts on that from this group.
It continues to feel to me that our fundamental choice as a species is whether to choose life, or death. I can see the incremental benefit in the moment of “realpolitik”, but in isolation, without the balance of idealpolitik in action, I can’t see how it is likely to lead to the former over the long haul. And if you agree, how do we continue to surface and support the power of both/and?
Experimentation is fundamental, at every level, KoAnn. The framing obviously changes in different value regimes. It I suspect we’re moving inti an era where the brutal implications of this Anthopocenic moment become very clearer, even to the know-nothings. Hope all’s well?
Agree! Thanks for keeping the dialogue going, John. I always appreciate your writing. And on the moment, this too shall pass…as our friend Neil Theise says, “this is the upside of impermanence”
Wonderful question, KoAnn. As I understand it, Realpolitik and Idealpolitik always exist in balance with one another. They are not oppositional, but mutually reinforcing. Sometimes one resonates more than another until a balance is restored.
The sustainability concerns that systems-focused thinkers in the 1970s predicted are only now becoming “real” to some people. The percentage of those in the “we should worry about ____ and behave accordingly” crowd and its focus on ideas(Idealpolitik) is shifting towards “we are worried about ____ and must take action” (Realpolitik) and its focus on power. As a result, new options are emerging.
Dylan probably said it more eloquently, “For the times they are a-changin'.”
Looking forward to discussing in-person at the Sustainable Brands conference. Great conversations always bring me greater clarity.
Darkly ironic isn't it that disastrous wars started by two petro-dictators - Putin and the orange one -- will probably drive the clean transition faster than any policy would have. Only quibble I have with this argument is that I don't think the energy transition was ever built solely (or maybe in any way) on climate logic. There's a pretty strong case to be made that almost every bit of corporate buying of renewables happened when it became economic, not because of climate goals. That's the slightly more cynical take, I suppose.
Well said. One other element I believe must be part of our current understanding: We need to act as individuals to cut our emissions while we work to develop collective responses. All paths to reasonable emissions include personal behavior change, yet we often pretend these changes will all be directed by changes in policies and laws. But in the US, we simply cant keep waiting for rational climate policy - there are actions we can take to reduce our emissions today. See more https://www.co2mmit.org/p/system-change-or-personal-action
Hard to quibble with this elegant framing John. Only to ask, are we brave enough for this new world? Or is there a wider path… As a sailor, I know when the storm approaches, it’s time to take a reef, and point downwind until it passes. And it will. But not without wreaking havoc. No one wants this world, save for a few psychopaths with way too much power.
How do we restrain the hegemon? This feels like the unifying new global interest we desperately need.
I agree, John. I certainly don't want it. But wanting and getting are two different things. And the wider path is something we all need to work on and map.
I’m rather thrilled to finally have the structured arguments we’ve been struggling to find in building the (economic) case for these investments. The military angle was quite a new scope to add to my thinking. Haven’t heard it referenced since Jens Stoltenberg, then NATO lead, made the case on the podcast Outrage + Optimism.
I unabashedly wept (softly, with joy) while listening to the end of Tickling Sharks just now. In particular, I appreciated your thanking the listeners for their work in the collective mission. We need that sometimes!!
Now, good sir, when is your book with Char coming out?!
At last hard sustainability explained with clarity thank you.
Agree. The era of a sustainability-focused idealpolitik is being overshadowed by the rising era of sustainability-focused realpolitik. We all knew this was coming. We’ve been discussing it since the 1970s, if not earlier. There are physical limits to material growth (separate from economic growth). The discussions I remember most from the “Limits to Growth” era always included statements like “let’s do this voluntarily, collaboratively and strategically before circumstances force us to do it reactively.” My takeaway from John’s essay is that we’ve reached the reactive era that Dana Meadows et al predicted.
First, thanks to John who is forever distilling interesting insights worth taking seriously. Then, I struggle to wrap my head around the underlying definition/origination/scope and ultimately implications of idealpolitik vs. realpolitik, Scot. By this, do we mean that we are throwing away the slow progress we’ve been making toward adopting a systems lens to our understanding of the world around us in favor of returning to the self-limiting black & white, single issue in isolation world view at least some of us have been trying to evolve? I hope not. I do believe progress can be made in black and white mandates like we’re seeing from China on energy and transportation — and perhaps those mandates are the result of far-forward systems thinking in action. If so, that might give me hope were I to understand the “what for”. My hope is the thesis is the same as ours was getting going 20+ years ago — that the market drivers of the future would favor those who anticipated the limits to growth and sought to retool for them. If so, wouldn’t there continue to be a place for the inherent imagination and creativity inherent in “idealpolitik” as I think I understand it?
I am disheartened by the results we are seeing in the market of the moment as an organization that fundamentally believes in the win/win/win opportunity embedded in the wide open set of possibilities represented by environmental and social innovation. I’m certainly delighted to take the wins from Realpolitik, but at the same time, it seems there should be a place for continued exploration around the wholesale transformation of our economic systems so that they ultimately thrive by design in harmony with nature, no? Love thoughts on that from this group.
It continues to feel to me that our fundamental choice as a species is whether to choose life, or death. I can see the incremental benefit in the moment of “realpolitik”, but in isolation, without the balance of idealpolitik in action, I can’t see how it is likely to lead to the former over the long haul. And if you agree, how do we continue to surface and support the power of both/and?
Experimentation is fundamental, at every level, KoAnn. The framing obviously changes in different value regimes. It I suspect we’re moving inti an era where the brutal implications of this Anthopocenic moment become very clearer, even to the know-nothings. Hope all’s well?
Agree! Thanks for keeping the dialogue going, John. I always appreciate your writing. And on the moment, this too shall pass…as our friend Neil Theise says, “this is the upside of impermanence”
Wonderful question, KoAnn. As I understand it, Realpolitik and Idealpolitik always exist in balance with one another. They are not oppositional, but mutually reinforcing. Sometimes one resonates more than another until a balance is restored.
The sustainability concerns that systems-focused thinkers in the 1970s predicted are only now becoming “real” to some people. The percentage of those in the “we should worry about ____ and behave accordingly” crowd and its focus on ideas(Idealpolitik) is shifting towards “we are worried about ____ and must take action” (Realpolitik) and its focus on power. As a result, new options are emerging.
Dylan probably said it more eloquently, “For the times they are a-changin'.”
Looking forward to discussing in-person at the Sustainable Brands conference. Great conversations always bring me greater clarity.
Gotcha. Definitions are always helpful ☺️ And me too on being together for good discussion and more clarity. See you soon!
Darkly ironic isn't it that disastrous wars started by two petro-dictators - Putin and the orange one -- will probably drive the clean transition faster than any policy would have. Only quibble I have with this argument is that I don't think the energy transition was ever built solely (or maybe in any way) on climate logic. There's a pretty strong case to be made that almost every bit of corporate buying of renewables happened when it became economic, not because of climate goals. That's the slightly more cynical take, I suppose.
Well said. One other element I believe must be part of our current understanding: We need to act as individuals to cut our emissions while we work to develop collective responses. All paths to reasonable emissions include personal behavior change, yet we often pretend these changes will all be directed by changes in policies and laws. But in the US, we simply cant keep waiting for rational climate policy - there are actions we can take to reduce our emissions today. See more https://www.co2mmit.org/p/system-change-or-personal-action
Hard to quibble with this elegant framing John. Only to ask, are we brave enough for this new world? Or is there a wider path… As a sailor, I know when the storm approaches, it’s time to take a reef, and point downwind until it passes. And it will. But not without wreaking havoc. No one wants this world, save for a few psychopaths with way too much power.
How do we restrain the hegemon? This feels like the unifying new global interest we desperately need.
I agree, John. I certainly don't want it. But wanting and getting are two different things. And the wider path is something we all need to work on and map.
Horribly, a world we need to acknowledge and now act within. Thanks for your clear thinking and writing as always
I’m rather thrilled to finally have the structured arguments we’ve been struggling to find in building the (economic) case for these investments. The military angle was quite a new scope to add to my thinking. Haven’t heard it referenced since Jens Stoltenberg, then NATO lead, made the case on the podcast Outrage + Optimism.
Thank you John.
I unabashedly wept (softly, with joy) while listening to the end of Tickling Sharks just now. In particular, I appreciated your thanking the listeners for their work in the collective mission. We need that sometimes!!
Now, good sir, when is your book with Char coming out?!
Wonderful to hear, Jennie-Marie, though normally not keen to leave people in tears!
Joy tears always welcome 💚