Scarlett’s presentation at the EED conference, titled Temporal Fluidity in Global Politics: A Process Philosophical Perspective on Sustainability and Development, offered a novel framework for interpreting sustainability and governance. Her approach, grounded in process philosophy, challenges traditional models that regard political entities and international relations as static and linear. Instead, she presented a dynamic view, emphasizing that global politics, much like nature, is characterized by constant evolution, adaptation, and interconnectedness.
She began by introducing process philosophy, rooted in ideas by Heraclitus, who asserted that one cannot “step into the same river twice,” and later expanded by Alfred North Whitehead. This philosophy suggests that entities are not isolated but defined by their relationships and interactions, continuously shifting over time. Scarlett argued that this perspective of constant flux provides a more realistic model of global politics than conventional theories, which often treat states and political events as fixed and unchanging.
Scarlett then explored how process philosophy could reshape our understanding of sustainability. Traditional sustainability efforts typically focus on achieving fixed outcomes, such as setting specific CO2 reduction targets or long-term development goals. These static approaches, however, often struggle to keep pace with the unpredictable nature of global socio-economic and environmental changes. In contrast, Scarlett advocated for a dynamic approach, viewing sustainability not as a fixed goal but as an ongoing, adaptive process. By adopting this flexible mindset, policies could better respond to unexpected shifts, such as ecological changes or economic crises. She cited Denmark’s climate policies as an example of such an adaptive approach, where continuous adjustments allowed the nation to meet evolving climate goals.
Scarlett emphasized the importance of interconnected systems in addressing global challenges, noting that political, economic, and ecological systems do not function in isolation. Policy decisions in one sphere, like trade, inevitably impact others, such as environmental sustainability. This interconnectedness, according to Scarlett, necessitates a holistic approach to policymaking, one that acknowledges the ripple effects across systems and nations.
As a case study, Scarlett highlighted the Paris Climate Agreement, which exemplifies process-oriented global governance. The agreement encourages countries to set and periodically update their own emissions targets through Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), accommodating nations’ unique development levels and capabilities. This bottom-up flexibility, Scarlett argued, is a hallmark of a process-based framework, fostering collaboration while allowing room for change in response to new environmental data and political realities. Similarly, the European Union’s Green Deal aims for net-zero emissions by 2050, but individual member states retain the freedom to chart their own paths. The EU’s willingness to adjust targets based on emerging climate impact data and innovations demonstrates a balance of flexibility and overarching goals, embodying the adaptability that Scarlett champions.
Scarlett acknowledged criticisms of a process-oriented, fluid approach, noting that while adaptability is crucial, overemphasizing fluidity could lead to inconsistencies and potential political instability. Striking the right balance between flexibility and the establishment of clear, long-term goals is essential for maintaining both adaptability and predictability in policy.
In her conclusion, Scarlett argued that process philosophy offers a paradigm shift from traditional governance models, better aligning with the realities of a globally connected, ever-changing world. By embracing process-based frameworks, nations can adapt their strategies to respond effectively to new scientific insights, technological advancements, and shifting political landscapes. However, she cautioned that this fluidity must be balanced to avoid instability, advocating for policies that remain grounded in clearly defined objectives while allowing room for responsive change.