The psychological principles that govern the perception of decision problems and the evaluation of probabilities and outcomes produce predictable shifts of preference when the same problem is framed in different ways…The dependence of preferences on the formulation of decision problems is a significant concern for the theory of rational choice.”[1]
One of the things I always have difficulty with it is persuading people, and more so experts in any field, to spend time thinking about how issues should be framed to improve the chances that they will be successfully addressed.
Those who have spent most of their time in any particular field have their own subconscious framing (rarely clarified) around the issues. They are therefore keen to dive into the weeds of the problem – because they are very familiar with the weeds and seem to feel that there is where the action is. They believe that they are being logical and ‘rational’ in addressing the issues.
Yet, there is an immense literature showing that how issues are framed has a huge impact on how they are perceived and therefore approached. Spending time on framing the issues appropriately is therefore essential if progress is to be made.
Which brings us, finally, to COP29 in Baku.
All the endless discussions about climate finance and who is to make monies available to whom have dogged the conference in Baku and many COPs before it. In the end, few are satisfied with the outcome. Certainly not developing countries and low-lying countries at highest risk.
Yet nobody should be surprised at any of this. First of all, most things boil down to haggling over money. But, more important, this issue has, from the start, been framed in a way as to make cooperative agreement well-nigh impossible.
The climate finance question has been framed as one of the payment of reparations. It has split the global community into two camps: villains and victims. Developed countries whose development throughout the 18th and 19th century industrial revolution was driven by the use of fossil fuels (well before we knew the extent of their harms - remember when oil was seen as black gold?) are framed as the villains. Developing countries most exposed to the effects of climate change are framed as victims. The ‘villains’ are now expected to pay ‘reparations’ to the ‘victims’ for the harms that they have visited upon them.
Framing the issue in this way automatically creates the psychology of conflict. It pits one group against the other, each resenting what the other is pushing for. This conflict keeps escalating as does the resentment. It was there for all to see in glorious Technicolor in Baku and in previous COPs. It will never be overcome.
COPs are supposed to be forums for global cooperation to try to achieve collective solutions to one of the defining issues of our time. Yet, whoever were the bright sparks who framed the finance issue as one of embedded conflict between different groups have more or less destroyed any chance of agreement being reached in the spirit of mutual understanding and mutual support. In fact, they have probably destroyed the chance of ever reaching any kind of meaningful agreement at all.
Yes, soft pledges will be made. They will continue to be hedged with all sorts of caveats. And the amounts of money written into texts will never materialise in full.
All the tens of thousands of experts and negotiators that descend on these conferences are very knowledgeable about the weeds of the problem. They do their best to make it work. Yet, the framing of the issue has been successful at only one thing: converting what was intended to be a cooperative process into a never-ending, unseemly bunfight.
[1] Tversky A and Kahneman D. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, New Series, Vol 211, Number 4481 (Jan. 30, 1981) pp 453-458.
Comments