An Important Statement from the Chief Inspector

What remains the same when a system becomes something else? How do we know who “we”, as a society, are? Although such questions are typically considered hopelessly philosophical by those crunching numbers, in sustainability science, they must be meticulously answered in order to generate meaningful and responsible quantifications. When dealing with complexity, one only measures what one first defines as relevant and one only defines as relevant what one feels is deeply related to one’s own identity, passions and concerns. In sustainability science, therefore, responsible quantification requires reflexivity. Knowledge, since it is only ever transferable in an incomplete, fragmented form, must be co-produced. Sustainability science itself must be recognized to entail the societal pursuit of satoriA term used by the Japanese Buddhists to refer to a sudden awakening or comprehension.. An informed dialogue over the narratives needed to give meaning to data must be (re)opened and the otherwise tacit priorities over concerns must be (re)negotiated.

A Belief of Ours

Our society is not experiencing a sustainability crisis only due to climate change. While climate change is indeed a concerning phenomenon, the perceived crisis is due to a much deeper trouble—the changing of “epoch”. The ideologies, the storytellings, the very institutions guiding our actions, are obsolete. Making things yet worse, very few are willing to admit that we are in a situation of ancien régime, incapable of understanding the signals of danger generated from our interaction with the external world. As a consequence, the official framings of sustainability issues are based on policy legends: “Yes, we can!” proclamations making the assertion that new business models and technological innovations—doing more of the same—will catapult us to our own salvation. In this imaginary, we’ve managed to majestically reduce carbon emissions. We’ve managed to ensure a high and mighty life within a circular economy—despite the laws of thermodynamics—one that doesn’t only protect biodiversity but enhances it.

At LIPHE4, we do not think this rosy imaginary is grounded in reality. We believe it is time that we empower ourselves with more sober reflections over our future, to organize a movement of résistance against the mounting déluge of policy legends. Easier said than done. To address their gravest sustainability problems, societies must, first, acknowledge their existence. What we need is better-informed dialogue driving fair deliberations over sustainability policies.

Quantitative Storytelling

Quantitative storytelling (QST) is a relatively novel approach for checking the quality of policy discussions in the sustainability arena. QST does not pretend to reveal the “truth” about a given issue, nor to have an optimal solution for a given problem. Sustainability problems are notoriously wicked in the sense that all numbers can always be calculated in a variety of different ways and narratives are always contestable. QST aims simply to check for inconsistencies in the “official” storytelling adopted in policy discussions and to flag the existence of alternative stories about given sustainability issues that could be relevant and are, otherwise, ignored. Such stories can result useful in that they enrich the diversity of insights about a given concern.

Read more about “the problem” quantitative storytelling addresses and “the solution” it presents.