Finding (people) capacity for climate change

A couple of recent conversations about climate change and green energy efforts led to the topic of capacity. People capacity, not green energy capacity.

People capacity to learn, and then to do. How might we build the capacity to learn and do things (differently) that move us forward to address climate change?

The conversations were about entirely different contexts but had me thinking about the insights we might glean from each.

One conversation was about developing the technical skills to meet the emerging demand for installing and maintaining new types of energy solutions (such as heat pumps or solar panels). The chat was with a friend and former colleague – James Altman – who leads a learning design and development business which, in part, is building solutions to support the work that needs to be done to meet climate change challenges.

This technical skills gap is one example. AI is not going to come into your home or apartment building, dismantle your furnace, and install a heat pump system to meet your specific dwelling’s needs. People need to do that. And in certain urban markets, there is a capacity gap. Not enough folks with the skills to meet the growing demand.

This is a classic business-case scenario. In NYC, the demand side of the business case is influenced by the city’s carbon emission policies for buildings. Policy drives demand which leads to people-skill capacity needing development. Resources to do that development (funding, time) are committed when folks see the opportunity for a marketplace payoff (jobs, projects).

That’s a simplified business-case narrative. In reality, all the potential stakeholders involved (such as James) work really hard to find slices of funding to help support the work they wish to do. But it is all driven by the policy-marketplace-skills demand backdrop.

The second conversation was with Dan Butt – like me, a volunteer working as part of Climate Action Evanston. Dan’s professional expertise is in service design. He’s worked in the non-profit/social service sector and now is focusing more of his time on climate change issues. We share a lot of the same mindset around design, community engagement, and co-creation/co-design.

During our conversation we were talking about the challenges of really pushing toward community co-design. Dan noted a capacity issue; Dan, or I, could lead projects or facilitate events that move toward co-design, but our capacity is limited. If you believe – as Dan and I do – that a co-design way-of-working leads to more effective solutions to solving sustainable energy adoption locally, then you desire more capacity to utilize this new way-of-working. In that way it is a similar people-capacity problem to the technical skills problem.

They are different, however, in some respects. I don’t quite yet see the marketplace incentive that might drive folks to spend budget and time that would then lead to resources being dedicated to developing co-design project/facilitation skills. Maybe it’s there but I’m just not looking at it correctly.

Evanston has carbon emissions goals. As well, it has environmental equity and justice goals. I cannot say that these appear to be significantly driving marketplace activity (economic incentives) or a movement (community organizing incentives). Activity is there – but the energy driving it is intrinsic, motivated by the folks and organizations who are already motivated.

In cases like this, dedicating resources to building any kind of new-way-of-working capacity runs into the perceived challenge of time. “I wish we had time to learn how to develop folks’ skills in leading community co-creation efforts.” It’s a challenge I have heard again and again when working through some kind of change effort. “I wish we had time….” but….

My take: When dealing with intrinsic motivation and the challenge of time, it’s useful to look for small moments where motivation and opportunity align. It’s the same mindset as working to prove the business case when there is economic incentive: Maybe we don’t win a big deal, or capture a windfall, but we secure just enough funding to prove the value of our offering.

The good news is you start to see a significant network of people resources if you look across all the groups involved in addressing climate change or equity issues in Evanston. Each is focused on problems and opportunities specific to its work (e.g., green spaces, local food production, home energy). Yet, underlying all of this is a common challenge: Getting community members to do something. Plant trees, grow gardens, install heat pumps. Advocate for sustainable investments in their condo or co-op buildings. Invest in their home energy systems. And more.

This is where improving community listening and discovery provides huge potential value. Many organizations believe they know how their consumers think about the services or programs or solutions the organizations offer. They do, to a degree. But they also tend to miss a lot. Things also change a lot, continuously.

“How’s that working for you?” is a question I’ve asked to get at whether current practices are really getting the outcomes organizations desire. That question typically opens the door to looking more broadly at new ways of thinking or working.

That might just be the business case and opportunity space for finding ways to build capacity to do better community listening and co-creation. Among the rich network of organizations and groups directly or indirectly involved in addressing climate change and environmental justice, look for little slivers of opportunity to insert a small new way of thinking or working. And then ask again: “Now, how’s that working for you?”

Postscript Aug. 28

Three days after I published this post, I got this in my email subscriptions feed from the Stanford Social Innovation Review: From Climate Policy to Climate Talent.

“The path to a zero-carbon future isn’t paved solely with technologies and laws—it runs through people’s livelihoods, labor, and leadership. To make real progress, the field must invest in the next generation of climate leaders, create cheap and scalable green skilling pathways, strengthen organizational capacity, and connect new talent to meaningful climate careers…”

“…Climate philanthropy can’t continue to focus on scientists, policy makers, and activists. It has to widen the tent; it needs electricians, construction workers, investors, farmers, operations experts, logisticians, filmmakers, software engineers, plumbers, teachers, influencers, and administrators to apply their skills and experience to the climate crisis.“

The piece goes on to make several points about talent shortfalls, and how to address them by focusing on the people capacity side of climate change action.

Hmmm. Seems like there is something there to pursue.

---

The photographs which accompany these posts are taken by me, and show different settings and views of Evanston (where I live). It is a visual reminder that this is the most important setting for belonging and contributing to community: our neighborhoods, our cities.