This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on September 5, 2022 - September 11, 2022

In thinking about a green future for Southeast Asia, we propose two zones of analysis. One is technology development-focused (Technology Road Mapping, or TRM) and the other is ecosystem growth-oriented (Ecosystem Growth Mapping, or EGM). The latter is central to the whole nature of Southeast Asian countries.

TRM develops a set of possible forward technology road maps and establishes key technical feasibility and costing issues, so that detailed clarifying explorations can be initiated within an overall plan. Everything can then be evidence-based, both concerning technical possibilities (detailed products and infrastructural issues) and risks (giving a clear sight of not only what the risks are, but where we should focus work to explore and clarify the risks).

Carbon accounting (CA), which takes account of all carbon costs (CC) and carbon benefits (CB), is fundamental in TRM because it is what we are trying to achieve — that is, decarbonisation.

Calculating carbon benefits from a product is easier than calculating carbon costs. A complete accounting of carbon costs means the total carbon cost of developing, producing and operating it — from the establishing of the mines for the ores, transporting the ores and smelting the metals from the ores to completing and installing the product and supplying the fuel for operating it.

Using energy and materials for human purposes without counting the cost seems to be where mankind is heading. To suggest a carbon benefit from a product without analysing and setting out the total carbon cost is not “accounting for it” at all. It is promulgating a wish.

Getting the basic data will be difficult. How do you get the underlying energy usage “cost” of creating and operating a whole new mining operation, for instance? It requires the global mining companies to become collaborative and transparent. However, they will not disagree with the principle of doing so. Hence, it is an exercise in diplomacy to start those conversations and open them up. It is about developing trust. It is essential if the world is ever to achieve a transparent understanding of the carbon emissions it creates in the process of “going about its business”.

The second zone of analysis, EGM, considers soil, forests, mangroves, corals, seagrass and so on as ecosystems. These require road maps on how to nourish ecosystems.

While technology needs decarbonising, ecosystems — which invest carbon to create life — have suffered from being decarbonised and they need investing in, not decarbonising. Growing ecosystems is in fact a process of recarbonising the natural ecosystem.

Most of the developed world is highly technically developed and thus naturally thinks in terms of technology road mapping into the future. However, the majority of Southeast Asian countries are still heavily dominated by natural ecosystems. We need to develop a forward strategy for the region that not only recognises this but puts it centre stage in our forward strategy.

Mainstream decarbonisation research leans heavily in the TRM direction and does not really contain the EGM dimension, and there is no thought of mindset change. Even suggesting that a mindset change is needed will be something people will struggle with and not take on board easily.

We need to develop the mindset, vocabulary, behaviour and actions for carbon accounting and nourishing ecosystems. In addition to developing analytical capabilities, we must also establish the language necessary for humanity to really evolve and deserve sustainability. The insights that come from humility in the EGM zone are key.

It is not simply about not losing — or not destroying — the major global ecosystems within which the Southeast Asian countries live, it is about developing a more understanding relationship with them, recognising the enormous living value that they embody in their complexity and learning to enhance it and draw harvest from it.

Getting people to understand the coordinated complexity of life that a total ecosystem is and respect it as that totality is important. Humans are part of a community of beings within an ecosystem. Sustainability is not only about securing the well-being of future human generations, but also about ensuring the vibrancy of other living beings with which we share one planet. This is the way of nature — the tao or heaven’s justice.

Climate justice — which is usually discussed in distributional and procedural (horizontal plane) terms — includes heaven’s justice (vertical plane). It is important to have the vertical axis in the frame because it tightens discussion and expands coverage at the same time.

There is another mindset issue that needs to be understood and grasped in TRM. All the renewable (supposedly “sustainable”) energy technology currently installed, being designed and developed and due to be installed in the near future — wind and solar especially — has design lives of around 25 years, which means that none of it, anywhere in the world, will still be operational in 2050. All will be derelict, in need of being dismantled and replaced. Calling this “sustainable” is self-delusion.

When civil engineers design infrastructure, it is usual to have design lives of 120 years in mind; much of the infrastructure around us is centuries old. Something designed to last 25 years is not infrastructure. Getting excited about it is inadequate thinking. We need to think about developing long lifetime technology.

Michael James Platts is with the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, University of Cambridge. Leong Yuen Yoong co-leads the Asean Green Future project at the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Sunway University.

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.