Leverage points: how sticky are the levers?

            In Chapter 6, Meadows introduces a list of leverage points, ordered from the least effective to most effective places to seek change. Easterbrook then applies these leverage points to the climate and financial systems, in order to demonstrate how the solutions we typically pursue to societal problems often target the least effective leverage points. Meadows list makes intuitive sense, in terms of how effective each lever is compared to the others. However, I think we need to go a step further, and consider which levers we can actually move.

            Meadows notes that numbers are the one of the most difficult places to change a system, and yet they are also where we focus most of our time. There is an adage that I’ve often heard in the context of sustainability: “What isn’t measured, doesn’t get managed.” I’ve found that quantifying non-numeric benefits is a great source of consternation for environmentalists, as they are often forced to justify their interventions using cost-benefit tests. For example, when utilities run energy efficiency programs, they have to submit cost-benefit tests to regulators every couple of years, which prove that the programs they proposed are cost-effective (i.e. the programs deliver more benefits than costs). Yet, there are many benefits to energy efficiency that elude easy quantification, including greenhouse gas reductions and improved health and safety of homes. Instead of acknowledging that cost-benefit tests are an imperfect tool for decision making and adopting a more multi-faceted approach, researchers spend time trying to quantify these “squishy” benefits, so that they are considered in the decision-making process. Is this really the most effective way for researchers to spend their time?

            What I found really interesting about this (and the examples presented by Easterbrook and Meadows) is that there are clearly more effective places for us to intervene. However, I also wonder how feasible it is to intervene at these more effective leverage points. Using my example above, is it more feasible for researchers to accept that cost-benefit analysis is the norm, and work within that system to drive better decision making? Or should they try to adjust the Information Flow of the system, by convincing policy makers to use a broader set of tools to make decisions? Alternatively, they could pursue an even more radical approach and try to convince policy makers that the utility’s responsibility is to deliver energy that is affordable, reliable and sustainably produced to customers, which would be a paradigm shift. As Meadows and Easterbrook both point out, it’s difficult to amend how we address economic and climate systems, when our policy-making process isn’t fully functional. I think that it’s safe to say that the same principles apply to our energy system. Different parties within the energy industry are working at all of these leverage points, so perhaps time will tell what the most effective strategy is.  

Question: How much should we weigh effectiveness vs. feasibility when deciding which leverage point to use to try to change a system?

Comments

[Cody Janousek]

Having just come from our Capstone class where we discussed risk and feasibility, I think your question at the end has extreme relevance. To me, I think the risk I care about the most is wasting my time. Time is money, resources, but literally my life and what I exert myself towards. Depending on the lever I might weight the risk differently if it has a larger or smaller payout perceived for the amount of time that I'm going to devote towards trying to change. If something demands a large amount of my time and has little payout, then I'm less likely to pursue it. This desire to undergo the different levers has nothing to do with their efficiency, though, so I find myself at a standstill. I am interested to discuss this during class.