Inertia: Reflections on Resistance to Change

The concept of inertia is far more than a simple scientific principle; its roots and philosophical underpinnings have deep historical significance, stretching from ancient language to modern metaphors of societal and personal resistance to change. The word inertia originates from the Latin term iners, meaning “idle” or “inactive.” This word is a combination of in- (“without”) and ars (“skill” or “art”), suggesting something or someone without movement, action, or initiative. From its Latin origins, inertia evolved into a scientific term through its adoption by Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton, where it gained prominence in describing an object’s resistance to any change in its state of motion.

Newton’s First Law of Motion, often referred to as the Law of Inertia, states that an object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion, unless acted upon by an external force. While this law refers to the physical realm, its meaning has transcended physics to become a metaphor for human behavior and societal structures. Inertia is now frequently used to describe the reluctance of people, institutions, or entire systems to adapt or evolve unless provoked by external pressures.

Inertia as a Metaphor in Philosophy and Human Behavior

Philosophically, inertia can be seen as a reflection of human resistance to change. Ancient philosophers, though not explicitly using the term inertia, often grappled with the human tendency to avoid upheaval. Plato and Aristotle, for instance, spoke of the inherent difficulty in breaking free from established habits and customs. In their view, human beings often remain rooted in the familiar, not necessarily because it is better, but because it is known and comfortable.

Fast-forward to modern philosophy, and inertia begins to manifest more explicitly as a concept tied to systems of power, governance, and personal agency. Jean-Paul Sartre, in his existentialist philosophy, speaks to the idea that people often live in “bad faith”—an inertia of the self—where they resist the freedom to make authentic choices and instead follow societal norms out of fear or complacency. Sartre’s notion of “bad faith” represents a type of existential inertia, a failure to embrace one’s own potential for change, much like an object that resists movement without an external push.

In the context of political systems, Max Weber’s notion of bureaucratic inertia describes the tendency of organizations to become self-preserving, prioritizing their own survival and maintaining their structures even when they are no longer efficient or responsive to change. This bureaucratic form of inertia prevents innovation and adaptation, resulting in stagnation. Similarly, Friedrich Nietzsche saw societal inertia as a form of cultural decline, where individuals resist growth or transformation, preferring instead the comfort of established values and traditions.

Linguistic and Cultural Interpretations of Inertia

In addition to its etymological roots, the idea of inertia is present across different languages and cultures, each adding nuance to its interpretation.

In French, the term inertie maintains its Latin roots, but in modern usage, it not only describes physical inactivity but also metaphorical stagnation. Whether referring to a sluggish economy or political inaction, inertie highlights the pervasive reluctance to move forward.

In German, the word Trägheit is used to describe both physical inertia and lethargy, as well as metaphorical inertia in human action. It evokes a sense of heaviness and resistance that is not just mechanical but deeply emotional and psychological.

In Russian, инерция (inertsia) directly captures the scientific and everyday sense of inertia, from the resistance of objects to move to the human tendency to resist change. The concept of inertia in Russian society is often used to critique the slow progress of bureaucratic reform and the reluctance to embrace modernization.

In Chinese, the concept of inertia is expressed through 惯性 (guànxìng), with 惯 (guàn) meaning habit or custom and 性 (xìng) meaning nature or property. This representation underscores how inertia in Chinese philosophy and culture is deeply tied to the notion of habitual, unchanging behavior, reflecting a state that is challenging to disrupt unless a dramatic external force is applied.

In Hebrew, the term אינרציה (inertsya) similarly reflects the scientific principle but has been adopted into everyday language to represent societal and personal resistance to change.

The Ethical and Political Implications of Inertia

In the realm of ethics, inertia takes on an important role in discussions about moral responsibility. Immanuel Kant believed that humans are morally obligated to act, even in the face of overwhelming inertia. Inaction, for Kant, is ethically problematic because it represents a failure to live up to one’s duty to act according to the moral law. Similarly, Hannah Arendt, in her study of totalitarianism, suggests that societal inertia can enable great evils. She famously coined the phrase “the banality of evil”, referring to the passive complicity of individuals within a bureaucratic system that resists change, resulting in destructive consequences.

In modern environmental activism, the concept of inertia looms large, and my decades as a climate advocate—meeting more than 50 prime ministers and 20 kings—have given me a sobering perspective on its power. Despite the urgency of the climate crisis, institutions, governments, and industries are often mired in outdated systems, reluctant or outright unwilling to make the bold changes required to stave off disaster. This systemic inertia, one of the greatest barriers to meaningful climate action, forces advocates to push ever harder, hoping for external shocks—be they grassroots movements, legal victories, or international agreements—that might finally disrupt the status quo.

There have been glimmers of hope in the last 15 years, moments that gave me pause to reflect on whether the chains of inertia could be broken. The UK Climate Change Act of 2008, introduced during the leadership of Tony Blair—a crucial figure in spearheading this groundbreaking legislation—committed the country to significant emissions reductions. Blair’s support for the Climate Change Act was instrumental in setting a strong legal precedent for future climate policies. Yet, the inertia of global politics still loomed large, and as the years passed, it became clear that even such groundbreaking legislation was only a step in a much longer journey. The Paris Agreement of 2015 was another such moment—a diplomatic victory that united the world around a common goal. But in the years since, watching the slow implementation of its targets and the continued rise in global emissions, I’ve often wondered: is this, too, simply another moment where we are fooling ourselves that change is truly happening? Even when the UK committed to net-zero by 2050 in 2019, inertia felt palpable, as progress continues to move too slowly to meet the escalating threats of climate change. The global divestment movement, which has grown significantly since 2008, was a grassroots push that aimed to strip financial support from the fossil fuel industry. However, despite over $14 trillion in assets divested, the very industries that are driving climate breakdown continue to wield immense power and influence. Similarly, the explosion of renewable energy, particularly in the UK’s offshore wind revolution, brought a glimpse of possibility, yet the fossil fuel industry’s inertia continues to slow a full transition. The European Green Deal, launched in 2020, and the legal wins like the Dutch and German court rulings, which forced governments to commit to stricter climate action, gave advocates like me a brief sense of hope. But even these milestones reveal the limits of progress when real change is stymied by deep-rooted inertia in political and industrial systems. Grassroots movements like Fridays for Future have brought millions to the streets, their energy reminiscent of the unstoppable force we need to break through this inertia. Yet, despite the visibility and pressure created by these movements, governments often respond with half-measures, symbolizing how hard it is to break free from the chains of inaction. Even COP26 in Glasgow, with its headline agreements to tackle methane emissions and coal, felt like a moment when bold change might finally come. And yet, I couldn’t shake the feeling that it, too, was just another incremental step in a world bound by inertia. In the face of these victories, I find myself increasingly pessimistic. These moments, while significant, have not yet proven to be the external forces strong enough to fully break through the inertia that continues to slow real, transformative climate action. The world remains stuck, and despite these bright moments of progress, the inertia of governments and industries remains a weight that we may not be able to overcome in time.

In this light, overcoming inertia becomes not only a scientific problem but an ethical imperative. Just as Newtonian physics tells us that it takes a significant force to alter an object’s path, so too does the fight against climate inertia require sustained, powerful efforts. Political will, public pressure, and personal resolve must coalesce to break the forces that bind us to destructive paths, much as Sartre urged individuals to free themselves from the inertia of “bad faith.”

Conclusion: Inertia as Both Metaphor and Reality

Inertia, at its core, is a powerful and multifaceted concept that extends beyond its scientific roots into philosophy, culture, and ethics. It represents the forces—both external and internal—that resist change and prevent progress. Whether we speak of physical objects, societal systems, or personal habits, inertia remains a challenge to overcome, a barrier to motion, and yet, once it is defeated, it opens the door to transformation. As I reflect on my decades of climate advocacy, I see inertia not just as a force in nature but as a metaphor for the human struggle against complacency, a reminder that only through persistent action can we create the change the world so desperately needs.