Direct causation is a common way of thinking about problems. It can work fine for simple dilemmas: “Listening to scary bedtime stories gives Sam nightmares.” Applying the same direct logic to complex problems, however, often falls flat. This mismatch is apparent in two attempts in the last few days to respond to rising energy costs. The latest responses by George W. Bush and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to escalating oil prices reflect some of the same flaws as earlier calls by Senators Clinton and McCain to suspend gas taxes. As we shall see, they were real doozies.

While these shortsighted proposals may not be surprising, they do provide an opportunity to examine a trap to avoid when we present solutions of our own.

On Thursday, the governor of Alaska responded to rising gas prices by proposing to give debit cards worth $100 in fuel each month to every Alaska resident. One Alaskan blogger pointed out some of the many deficiencies of this plan, including the fact that the cards cannot be used to increase energy efficiency and that it will do nothing to reduce real energy costs. She replies to the governor as follows:

“I’m sorry, Governor Palin, but I think this energy card idea is seriously flawed. If you’re going to give out money to the public to deal with energy costs, then do it in such a way that it reaches those who really need it, and encourage (or at least allow!) them to conserve energy and use renewable energy sources. This is just a way of giving cash back to the oil and coal companies, ultimately, and doesn’t help solve the actual problem.”

Bush’s reaction to complaints about high gas prices this week was no more promising. On his trip to the Middle East, Bush beseeched Saudi King Abdullah to increase oil production so that U.S. consumers could enjoy lower gas prices. Initial reports stated that the Saudi government rejected Bush’s plea, and told journalists that growing demand from Asian economies as well as speculation, not Saudi output levels, were responsible for current oil prices. Later, the Saudi authorities offered Bush an apparent face-saving measure by announcing that they had decided prior to Bush’s trip to increase oil production modestly, allowing a semblance of success.

If you’re questioning the motivations of these politicians, you’re not alone. Such doubts arise in part from the recognition that complex problems are unlikely to be solved by one-dimensional fixes.

In both cases, we can see the imprint and limits of direct causation in addressing complex problems. Alaska’s governor saw growing concern about high gas prices and decided to hand out gas cards, paid for through the state’s revenues. Bush responded to rising frustration over the cost of gasoline by pleading with the Saudi monarch to put more oil on the market. The causes of rising gas prices are many, including depletion of many of the world’s largest oil fields, growing demand from China and India, declining value of the U.S. dollar, increasing climatic instability, and prospects of war with Iran and violence in other oil-rich areas. These underlying causes are ignored by both Bush and Palin, who instead focus on one aspect of the problem in isolation. As Joe has written elsewhere, such direct causation permeates conservative thought.

By contrast, systemic causation is needed to explain and react to complex problems. When conservationists face an environmental problem, such as a sharp drop in the population of an endangered species, they recognize the need to look beyond a single simple cause and a single solution. Due to the complex interactions inherent in ecosystems, the causes are likely to be multiple, such as human encroachment into the endangered animal’s habitat, pollution, and competition with or predation by non-native species. A single measure, such as breeding more of the endangered species and releasing the animals into the wild, would not succeed if other hazardous conditions remain in place. Multiple remedies that support each other are often required.

As community entrepreneurs seek to address environmental and social problems, the solutions they devise are often partial, even if though they may recognize the complex causes of the problem they seek to solve. On its own, a company that uses sustainably grown bamboo to build fences cannot avert the climate crisis. Neither can a restaurant that serves locally grown food, nor can a solar-powered web hosting service. But prospective customers recognize this. They’re not looking for a quick fix any more than voters are looking for a free gas card or a promise from a Saudi monarch. And they will be inclined to dismiss those who reduce a complex problem to a simple cause, while offering themselves as the total solution. Instead, they will respect entrepreneurs who show that what they’re offering is a small part of the solution and offer ways to connect with others to advance complementary measures.

Evan

Technorati Tags: energy, oil