Time for business to take a lead
My breakfast yesterday was at an event to mark the latest edition of the excellent Times science supplement Eureka. The event featured a fascinating but largely depressing panel discussion about the fallout of the Copenhagen Summit. It got me thinking about climate change through the prism of my old friend cultural theory.
As regular readers will know, the theory suggest there are four fundamental ways of thinking about social change; the individualistic, the egalitarian, the hierarchical and the fatalistic.
Fatalism is the default option for most people. Climate change is a huge, complex process that no individual or community can affect alone. Tackling climate change is in large part about shifting this sense of fatalism.
Copenhagen was all about the hierarchical dimension of change: top down, strategy led, enforced through rules. But it largely failed. This reflected three problems; first, the difficulty of leaders committing to definite sacrifices in the short term for possible gains in the long term; second, the failings of international governance and, in particular, the idea that 192 countries could all reach a far reaching agreement; third, the difficulty of reconciling national political pressures to the demands of global decision making. Steve Howard from the Climate Group made the important point that even if the summit had agreed legally binding targets, it is very unlikely that President Obama could have got them through Congress (remember what happened when Al Gore signed up to Kyoto).
This is why the commitment of each country to lay out its national commitments by the end of January 2010 may be a good thing. It may be easier to stitch together an international plan from national agreements than to make a global deal and then try to impose it on suspicious national populations and parliaments.
On the egalitarian front – that is change driven bottom up by shared norms and values – the debate on climate change is in danger of shifting away from those who want action. I wrote recently that more and more people I meet from the political right talk about climate change in the same way they refer to the European Union, as a kind of conspiracy dreamt up by meddling lefties looking for a way to justify state interference in our lives. This mixture of right wing belief and populist anti establishment feeling can be very powerful. Over the top language from environmentalists calling for an abandonment of Western lifestyles doesn’t help. Climate change scepticism has been growing steadily in the USA, it has become the rallying call of the right of centre Australian opposition and it will no doubt be used by leaders and oppositions in other political systems.
Individualists argue that the best way to tackle climate change it to look to markets, innovation and technology to find solutions. The story here is mixed. On the one hand we hear serious industrialists arguing that all cars could be electric within a few years; on the other hand, it is easy to be seduced into complacency by wacky schemes like piping sulphur into the atmosphere which are not only unproven but could prove on closer examination to be impossible or even counter productive.
So, overall, things look pretty grim. Going back to the European Union analogy, I think business has a major role. Back in the mid-1990s business leaders argued strongly for the UK to join the euro but as the popular backlash grew (egged on by the media and note how the Express has now become outspokenly sceptical) they were less and less willing to put their head above the parapet.
In terms of encouraging political leaders to get their act together, in relation to tackling right of centre suspicion and in relation to fostering technological innovation the global corporate sector is vital.
But will it step up to the plate? When I asked this question on Monday, James Cameron (FRSA), Vice Chair of Climate Change Capital was very upbeat about business commitment while other speakers talked about the growing market for low carbon products and services. But Times Editor James Harding introduced a note of caution. If you ask the CEOs of the FTSE 100 if they care about climate change they will all say the right thing, he suggested, but if you ask finance directors in the same firms you might get a very different response.
In the wake of Copenhagen there is a huge opportunity for international business (including investors) to take a lead in demanding and shaping global action. And they have a window of opportunity ahead of next year’s Mexico summit. This may be a job for the Climate Group, but how about a New Year declaration from ten of the world’s most powerful corporate figures: Mittal, Buffet, Brin, Voser laying out their commitment and what world leaders need to do to create the right framework for future green investment? Sadly, I don’t have their blackberry numbers but if you do feel free to forward this post.
Related posts:
- A lesson from the G20 – to save the environment, get shopping The G20 is a real reason for optimism. Not only...
- The Copenhagen leadership challenge I am brewing a post – or maybe a series...
- Global interdependence must change the way politics works Today’s the day. In terms of the G20, may it’s...
- What kind of climate change thinker are you? OK folks, I need your help. For some time I...
- Renewable energy in the South West – a role for the RSA? The independent Committee on Climate Change reports that the Government...
Comments
5 Comments on Time for business to take a lead
-
Louis Coiffait on
Wed, 23rd Dec 2009 3:26 pm
-
Livy on
Sat, 26th Dec 2009 9:12 pm
-
matthewtaylor on
Sun, 27th Dec 2009 4:58 pm
-
Livy on
Sun, 27th Dec 2009 6:23 pm
-
Time for business to take a lead – a post from Matthew Taylor, RSA's Chief Executive « mick's leadership blog on
Fri, 12th Feb 2010 9:09 am
In the context of the current economic squeeze I particularly like the idea of the big, well-respected figureheads of commerce stepping up and putting some money and clout behind climate change commitments. It’s not the kind of thing I can see happening spontaneously though, who would be the coordinating force?
Ok. Well I’ve never been convinced that Fatalism is the default option for most people, we are far more influenced by history than we like to accept. Rightly or wrongly history is something written largely by men about men, storytelling narratives that deify leaders, individuals and human ingenuity. I’ve often felt this is why people are so obsessed by personality politics; we look to innovators to either save the day or sink the world. Preferably ‘saving the day’ will come and in the same way Apple invented the iPod we’re just waiting for Honda to invent a safe, clean and affordable hydrogen powered car.
I like how you opted to use the phrase ‘hierarchical’ to describe a top down, regulatory approach to change. The complaint often heard from the right (even those who concede the crisis to be man made) is that the whole issue has been absorbed into a new form of ‘authoritarianism’. Their case is not wholly without merit.
My clumsy understanding of all this is that on a fundamental level you can’t sell science. Neither can you sell the notion that ‘scientific proof’ is a contradiction in terms; our entire understanding of the natural world is largely dependent on underlying, and sometimes problematic, theoretical assumptions. What the media like to label ‘scientific proof’ is actually a collection of models that work for the evidence and understanding we have at any given time. (Acknowledged…this obviously excludes many things like pure mathematics or Newtonian physics that we use to make things like roads and transportation systems. But even these laws fail beyond certain speeds)
On the egalitarian front I’m afraid the ‘meddling lefties’ have done this to themselves, but I wouldn’t worry about too many British Ann Coulters springing up in the near future. Europe is an interesting comparison but more often your conspiratorial right-wingers remind me of the effect political correctness has had on society and why so many people feel frustrated by it.
I’d welcome a counter argument to this and to be fair I probably deserve a bit of abuse for the following. I just came across a column written by an American hardliner and couldn’t resist. ‘Political Correctness’ has characteristics that are in some ways reminiscent of Sharia Law. One sector of the population has successfully managed to impose their cultural values, derived from political or religious ideology, onto society as a whole. What we now have is almost an extra constitutional body of law which can end careers and ruin lives – law that is not enforced by the courts but through the media and what they in turn control. Public opinion.
In a similar vein conservatives (and even apolitical people) distrust the politicisation of science. This is especially frightening when laymen and political pundits start pronouncing on such technically complex issues with a kind of authority and zeal that many PhDs aren’t brazen enough to attempt. I would tie this in with your ‘Individualist’ angle. It’s not entirely specious to point out that Galileo refuted Aristotle by disproving the notion that a heavier object falls faster than a lighter one. Or that not so long ago the broad consensus among an informed body of opinion actually centred around fears of global ‘cooling’.
Norman Borlaug developed something called ‘dwarf wheat’ which produced far heavier yields with shorter and stronger stalks, so that it wouldn’t collapse under the weight of its own grain. Due to his research and innovation, India, at the time ravaged by drought, famine and overpopulation, increased its wheat crop from 11 million tonnes to 60 million tonnes annually. He is credited with saving over a billion lives worldwide and was awarded the Nobel Peace prize in 1970.
Barack Obama has barely kept the lights on for a year.
But if human potential and innovation wasn’t what it is then we surely would have destroyed ourselves by now. The next Borlaug is out there, probably causing minor explosions in his mother’s basement and unable to have important people return his phone calls. But they will.
Livy
P.s. …I like how you felt the need to post a wikipedia link to Warren Buffet…
Thanks Louis. I guess the Climate Group might be the people to do it – but then again they might say they have done it already.
Wow, Livy. Have I been misreading you or have you lurched to the right? Of course science changes and, of course, scientific descriptions of the world are, like all descriptions, metaphors. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen to science’s best estimate of what is happening, especially when the stakes are this high.
As I wrote in an earlier post, the undisputed facts that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that we are pumping out more and more of it, plus the overwhelming nature of the scientific consensus, is enough for me.
What we need is a ‘clumsy solution’ which mobilises and reconciles hierarchical, individualistic and egalitarian power while recognising that fatalism is the rational default. Just because I think some lefties use fears of climate change to smuggle in a anti-capitalist message (just as some anti-immigrant groups do to argue against population growth) doesn’t mean I think the whole argument that we rich countries have to change the way we live is spurious.
As for political correctness. Yes maybe it does sometimes go too far, but I am old enough to remember when racism, sexism and homophobia were not only tolerated but conventional. So this is another social dialectic, from which we will hopefully emerge with a more mature way of dealing with real and imagined differences between people.
As soon as I posted that comment I cringed and wished this site had edit and delete functions…
Evening MT,
No you’ve not misread me, and I doubt I’ve lurched to the right. But fair play, I did deserve that. (Although I felt the Obama cheapshot was far too tempting once it occurred to me after writing about Borlaug)
There was interesting piece in the observer some months back, I forget who wrote it, but the crux of the article was that in order to become an extremist you need only associate with people you agree with.
I’m no Tory, but I understand why they believe what they believe. Similarly, as someone on the left I’m often embarrassed by some of the ‘meddling lefties’ you mention and am keen to distance myself. Not on policy or even ideological grounds, but for the often flatfooted and emotionally charged way they drive their point home. But regarding the consensus on CO2 emissions? Agreed.
I only meant to use political correctness to explain why the right are skeptical on climate change. Coming from an immigrant family myself I completely take your point; only I feel that it is so obvious it needn’t be said anymore as we’ve already won many of those battles. An example I can give you is that in the other language I speak its perfectly acceptable and commonplace to refer to your wife or girlfriend as (accurately translated) “my woman”. Tends not to go down too well over here…despite the term’s complete lack of sexist connotations in many other countries.
Yes, the government has a responsibility to protect the rights of minorities. However it doesn’t have the right to impose the values of the minority onto the majority (‘Winterville’ anyone?). The comparison to Sharia Law was meant to convey an all too personal belief of mine, that the laws of God should not be enforced through the laws of man.
I’ve never seen politics as the difference between left and right, but more akin to a giant chessboard. There are just too many variables, too many ways to lose. Whether we’re talking about climate change, or indeed any hotly contested policy area, it’s never really a fight of two answers to the same question. It’s a fight over the question itself.
I stand by the main thrust of what I previously said; politicising science is a mistake, and human potential is far too great to ever allow the sky to fall. Ideology is the worst thing to allow in the way of all this.
Stay with people who are seeking the truth; run from those who claim to have found it.
[...] Time for business to take a lead – a post from Matthew Taylor, RSA's Chief Executive From Matthew Taylor’s blog at the RSA (Royal Society of Arts) …. [...]
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Twitter @RSAMatthewRSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.