Bleedin’ obvious? You tell me

February 10, 2010 by
Filed under: Politics, Public policy 

 We hosted an event here yesterday organised by a Scandinavian charitable foundation which promotes dialogue about major social, economic and environmental issues.  Although flattered to be asked to attend, I was a bit sceptical.

There are so many places where various experts discuss these big issues. In the artificial environment of a seminar in a smart location and with the lubrication for good food and wine they soon develop great ideas to right the world’s wrongs. But rarely do these ideas survive their first encounter with life back in the real world. Maybe all the well-meaning conversation in the ends adds up to something, but I’m not so sure so I tend to turn down the many kind invitations I receive.

But as this event was here I didn’t really have an excuse. Partly, I suspect, because almost all the people attending really were experts in environmental economics, it turned out to be fascinating. In particular there was a presentation by a Swedish academic which, in essence, poured a very large bucket of iced water on many of the claims of green consumerism. Anyone reading this who knows this area will know all these arguments, but I had never heard them put together as powerfully.

First, she argued that the impact of economic growth and our consequent greater ability to consume easily outweighs any reductions in emissions resulting from greener forms of consumption. 

Second, she cited a study of twenty families who were given strong incentives to reduce their overall emissions by twenty percent (I can’t remember the reference, maybe someone else can help out). They families did change their living patterns and reported they were happy with the new arrangements. But then, as soon as the incentives were removed, they reverted almost entirely to their old ways. 

Third, in response to the idea that people can save money by consuming less – for example through home insulation – she explained the ‘rebound’ problem, which is that people go on to use their savings to buy new stuff with its own carbon footprint  

Fourth, she pointed out that the service or knowledge economy sectors, which people say allow us to consume more without using up finite resources, generally involve material goods, for example, the boxes or consoles for video games, or mobile phone sets.  

Her conclusion, as an environmentalist, is that the only way rich countries can get anywhere near their carbon reduction targets is to accept zero, or close to zero, growth.

As might be expected in a room of economists, some of whom were in business these views were very controversial. One respondent said that he could not think of a single human civilisation which had survived without economic growth. In particular, it was forcefully argued that technological innovation in the energy sector can break the link between growth and carbon emissions.

I took this from the exchange: the crucial challenge for the public in relation to climate change (if we accept it is real and man-made) is not so much to change our lifestyles (although we might choose to do that for our own ethical or symbolic reasons) but to give our leaders permission to make brave choices on our behalf. For it is only through regulation (preferably international) and through investing heavily in technological innovation that we can hope to reconcile growth and sustainability.

Not for the first time I fear I am guilty of Basil Fawlty’s judgement of Sybil ‘meet my wife, specialist subject the bleedin’ obvious’. But it was, anyway, a new line of thought for me.

Share

No related posts.

Tags: ,

Comments

11 Comments on Bleedin’ obvious? You tell me

  1. Philip Craig on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 9:46 am

    2. We are clearly faced with a dilema. Dismantling the current economic system would/could lead to economic ruin. But incremental changes are unlikely to be enough. Our consumer society is depleting natural resources at an unsustainable rate. This is where Professor Tim Jackson from the University of Surrey reaches some very interesting conclusions. He suggests that rather than stimulating a continued search for high productivities it would be better to engage in structural transition towards low carbon, labour intensive activities and sectors. Investment in jobs, assets and infrastructures emerges as a key component of both a new ‘ecological macroeconomics’ and the basis of economic recovery. This could, potentially, be an attractive option for those lagging English regions currently suffering worst because of increasing joblessnees and long term structural decline.

  2. Dave Boyle on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 9:56 am

    3. It reminds me of a letter to the LRB which noted that the Government passed the Clean Air Act, and didn’t talk about individual coal-burning allowances.

    There’s something about the responses to the climate crisis which take their cue from the supremacy of the notion that markets as the only real tool for public policy to utilise, which itself feeds off a post-74 sense that legislative intervention is either impractical, impossible, or just passe.

    I’d concur with the zero-growth notion, but that makes me very pessimistic that we have a political system set-up to deliver that. Modern democracy is essentially about selling a story about satisfaction of wants, and there’s no track record about selling a story about the satisfaction of future generations. They’re not stakeholders in the process, but their needs are pretty diametrically opposed to ours in current generations.

  3. Indy on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 2:11 pm

    4. Oddly enough Matthew, this reminds me of one of your earlier posts about the brain/cognitive differences between those on the left and right.

    I think there’s a section of the people (and commenters here) who (like me) would say… yes… your conclusions are rather obvious. There are others however who cannot square it with their mental model of the world, so perhaps for them, it isn’t obvious… (I don’t know if it maps to “left” and “right” – I think it’s more likely about some elements of “systems thinking.”)

  4. Max on Thu, 11th Feb 2010 3:51 pm

    5. In danger of fulfilling Indy’s stereotype…yes, to me the conclusion is obvious.

    Though I would argue that this is not because of a particular political persuasion, but rather by following a reasonably simple path of logic.

    If:
    1. climate change is real, man-made, and linked to our emissions of greenhouse gases;
    2. emissions of greenhouse gases are strongly positively correlated with growth; and,
    3. without radically slowing climate change we are probably a bit stuffed;
    are all true, then it seems impossible to escape the conclusion:
    4. To avoid a high probability of being stuffed, we need to stop growing.

    Most people accept (1), and quite a few accept (3). Matthew it sounds as if the Swedish academic convinced you of (2) (or at least discounted the role of ethical consumerism, one of the principal arguments against (2)). If you now believe each of 1, 2, and 3, I can’t see how you can avoid 4.

    As you suggested, there remains the possibility that (2) could be made false by technological improvement. This would then make (4) false – we could keep growing.

    The environmentalist argument against this is that there has been no evidence in the past of technological improvements on anything like the scale needed. An economist might argue that there has never before been incentives for technological improvement on anything like the scale we see today, so the past can’t really compare.

    Without foreknowledge of whether the environmentalist or the economist is right on this issue, what we really require from government is an astute and very brave political decision to either pursue a very low growth model, or technological improvement (the two are probably, unfortunately, incompatible). Either will probably require international agreement, and either needs to be pursued very soon.

  5. rhian on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 12:09 am

    6. Well the Green Party were saying over 20 years ago in the 1980′s what this Environmentalist seems to be saying about the incompatibility between any sort of consumerism and conserving resources so yes it does seem obvious, and as for incentives to change our behaviour – everyone knows us most of us humans are most likely to take the easy way out..
    I agree the only way any real change can be made is by regulation. Either the government (or David Cameron in 12 weeks time) needs to take a definite line on its climate change policy and introduce legislation – especially for industry, or else it needs to shut-up about climate change for a while as people are beginning to be sick of the whole subject – which is contributing (along with conflicting evidence) to the current back-lash in the opinion polls on this matter..
    The ordinary person has become the media’s whipping boy for ‘climate guilt’, whereas the elite are still flying all over the world and heavy industry carries on belching out the same old gas & new air terminals are planned etc etc…
    Its starting to feel hypocritical, insolvable and just another political game, much like joining the Euro..or MP’s fiddling away whilst the planet burns…

  6. David Wilcox on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 8:20 am

    7. Aside from the importance of the topic, what a stunningly good use of a chief executive’s blog – to make accessible to a wider audience insights from a meeting they attended in a form that stimulates discussion.
    I wonder if this might be amplified to harness further thinking and action back within the RSA, as a demonatration of the potential for combined face-to-face and online hosting. Maybe gather a few other links – aided by staff expertise – then post into the RSA networks. Link to project work if possible. Tweet about it, mention in newsletters, encourtage meetups … there’s lots of possibilities.
    One of the great strengths of the RSA is its (external) convening power; one of its major challenges is how to realise the potential of its diverse Fellowship. Connect the two.

  7. Philip Craig on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 9:11 am

    8. All valid points about the limits of the political system, the need for regulation and the limits of market interventions. Faced with the complexity of the problem, there is no one answer, surely there is a need for a number of policy intervention. This includes regulation but as somebody who worked in the system and now provides advise to others I’m struck by its bluntness. So, as a starter for 10, I also offer the following non-mutually exclusive activities: new technology / new industries (low resource use); managing agglomeration costs and benefits (improved resource efficiency); more sustainable consumption patterns (nudging improved resource efficiency); resource efficiency in existing industries (including new environmental infrastructure); environmental protection / management (including legislation and sustainability appraisal).

  8. How to turn the tide on climate change | Matthew Taylor's blog on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 6:17 pm

    9. [...] had some really good comments on my previous post about the limited potential impact of green consumerism in reducing carbon emissions and this was [...]

  9. Policy, Policy, Policy « greenopolis on Fri, 12th Feb 2010 8:43 pm

    10. [...] Taylor, has been considering the impact of economic growth on the environment. For the first time, so it would seem. This reveals a great deal about the early New Labour project. One of its leading intellectual [...]

  10. rightcharlie on Mon, 15th Feb 2010 10:27 am

    11. For Professor Tim Jackson’s views on the issue see his RSA Journal article, ‘Beyond Rhetoric’: http://www.thersa.org/fellowship/journal/features/features/beyond-rhetoric and for FT enterprise editor, Jonathan Guthrie’s critical response to the article see his RSA Comment piece, ‘Dirigiste hippy capitalism, come on down’: http://comment.rsablogs.org.uk/2010/01/18/dirigiste-hippy-capitalism/. A good example of where environmentalist/economist opinion divides.

    One of the biggest challenges in convicing people that ‘zero growth’ is the answer is that most people cannot imagine what a robust, forward-looking ‘zero growth’ economy would look like in practice. The language is intrinsically negative and backward-looking…

  11. fourcultures on Sun, 28th Feb 2010 1:33 pm

    12. Rightcharlie: not sure zero-growth is intrinsically negative and backward looking. It’s constructed as such every day. Last time I looked, I was a zero-growth person. Most adults come to terms with this eventually and even try to celebrate it by reframing height stagnation as ‘maturity’. I wonder if such talk is defeatist? In stark contrast, my children, I’ve noticed, are undergoing an unprecedented period of rapid and consistent year on year growth which amply demonstrates the stunning success of my family leadership over the last decade. On this basis alone I fully expect to be re-elected. My serious point here is not that the growth metaphor is negative or positive, but that in relation to the economy it’s misplaced.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!