The unknowns of climate change, and what they tell us about long-term political thinking
A quote from former United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, in response to a question on the potential of Iraq holding weapons of mass destruction, was at first ridiculed as a non-answer. An attempt at diffusing the seriousness of the question. In reality, it was a shrewd response that highlighted how we need to learn to manage not just what is known, but also what is not. Rumsfeld said:
“as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know”.
Although knowns and unknowns are commonly referenced in business management and strategic planning circles, the potential of the concept to instigate longer-term thinking on a wider scale has yet to be realised. Specifically, in relation to climate change, where there is an urgent need to learn from what we do know and to prepare for the daunting unknowns that place the very safety of our planet in danger, the concept seems particularly relevant.
Understanding knowns and unknowns
The idea of knowns and unknowns was created in the mid-1900s by two American psychologists, Joseph Luft and Harrington Ingham, in their development of the Johari window. They used it as a technique to help people better understand their relationship with themselves as well as others.
When considering risk, known knowns are those matters that you are fully aware of and can plan for in advance. The cause, process and outcome of a phenomenon are all understood. Known unknowns are those risks that you ‘know that you don’t know’ — expected or foreseeable conditions that can be reasonably anticipated but not quantified based on past experience. For instance, scientists identified the likelihood of a global pandemic before the emergence of COVID-19, but were not aware of when (or how) it would evolve.
Unknown unknowns, on the other hand, are the unexpected or unforeseeable conditions that pose a potentially greater risk, simply because they cannot be anticipated based on experience or investigation. John Allen Paulos’ quote, that “uncertainty is the only certainty there is”, comes to mind.
When considering climate change, perhaps, the most important known is that we know that we need to be working more. The main unknown is whether or not we are going to do that. Despite the recent passing of Northern Ireland’s first climate change Bill, we are yet to commit to the long-term policy targets necessary to create a truly responsive and resilient system of governance that can handle climate-related shocks that will, undoubtedly, impact upon all societal activities.
The trade-offs that will determine our future
Should we minimize tomorrow’s risks now by reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Or save money today and spend it on adapting to the effects of planetary warming once threats emerge more fully, like rising seas or prolonged droughts? The policy debate in NI, and beyond, increasingly tilts toward adaptation.
But we can’t adapt to perils from unknown unknowns. In such cases, adaptation will largely fail; only mitigation — i.e., addressing the root cause of the problem rather than dealing with its effects — will be effective. Moving toward a mitigative system of governance seems paramount, yet there is little evidence that such a shift is occurring in NI. The failure of the planning system to protect the environment, and to support sustainable and just development, is a clear example of this.
The knowns of climate change, put simply, are that the Earth is warming, humans are largely responsible, ecosystems are changing in response, and the impact on societies will be large. The unknowns include how much Earth will eventually warm, how rapidly oceans will rise, where and when weather extremes and water shortages might occur, and whether potential tipping points (like the collapse of Antarctic ice sheets) will, in fact, occur. The basic principle remains the same: the more we warm our planet, the more likely it is that deeply surprising environmental changes will ensue.
We can’t continue to simply adapt to problems as they arise on this island, be they flooding or energy security. We must take the initiative and mitigate against them, a move that will pay dividends in time by creating a more resilient society that is less at risk to shocks. Ceasing investment in fossil fuels and supporting the development of renewable energy, and the green economy more broadly, will be vital to achieving this aim.
A shift to long-term thinking (and action)
Our decisions in the next few years will determine the path of our climate journey. Perhaps, current policy discussions will navigate society through the journey’s recognised risks. If warming progresses rapidly, however, the known concerns will not be the whole story. Nature’s unforeseeable surprises, some unimaginable to us today, could become pivotal to our fate.
The challenge, then, is to develop strategies to be able to respond to unknown unknowns. Government and businesses need to be able to adapt quickly to new challenges, rather than just rely on their understanding of knowable risks. This goes beyond climate change, with the implications of Brexit, the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, illustrating how vulnerable we are to shocks.
What these recent shocks also highlight, however, is that the rapid reorganisation of financial structures and the reframing of governance frameworks is possible. How can we further these radical transformations so that they can help to establish a more responsive policy system, one which can ensure that we don’t waste any more time (and resources) adapting to things that we can, instead, mitigate against.
In reflection, Rumsfeld’s quote is more telling that many initially thought. Indeed, there are things we know and things we don’t. However, we can’t be blind to the unknown, as hard as it may sound. We either prepare (and get to a stage where we can efficiently respond to shocks) or we don’t (and allow them to push society into even more vulnerable and dangerous positions).
