14 Comments on One step at a time to saving the planet

Chris Burnham on Thu, 12th Feb 2009 4:38 pm


I support your suggestion that the solution to tackling the impending and existing threat of climate change is through a mix of state intervention (regulation etc) and personal / community action. The latter being led by better choice and lifestyle change.

The argument that the green movement might be the greatest hurdle to success is where I would disagree. I suggest that uncertainty is the biggest hurdle. Changes in leaded petrol, seatbelt wearing etc. were generally implementable because a direct cause and effect were demonstrable and the action led to a measurable improvement. With climate change the science is improving, the cause is known, but the effect is still uncertain and may not be clearly demonstrable until it is too late. Any actions taken now may also not bring around this oil tanker of destruction until many many years from now. Even then will it be clear that our actions brought about a change?

We are very good in using catastrophe to bring about change, but here we are talking about changing before catastrophe and that is a very diiferent matter. The heirarchical, individualist and egalitarian approach you raise all depend on different drivers but there is an element of influencing based upon cause and effect in all of them – and this is always likely to be the missing ingredient. We need to be braver and look beyond such arguments but our current economic driven society is not set up to deal in intangibles.

In the search to overcome uncertainty we often look to other drivers such as ‘it will save you money’ to arrive at the same end, and as Lord Smith infers, the current economic gloom may lead to such an unexpected and beneficial change in attitude. It would be disappointing to think however that our own economic self interest should be the instigator of a far wider altruistic movement.

To start the process of change, despite the uncertainty of what lies ahead, I believe we must change our perception that the environment is somehow extricable from ourselves. That it is a seperate entity that needs healing. Should we think we are doing something for the environment when we turn off the light, or we are doing something for everyone? …….. or just saving a few pence?

The elements of change | School Councils UK's blog on Thu, 12th Feb 2009 6:02 pm


[...] One step at a time to saving the planet [...]

Fourcultures on Fri, 13th Feb 2009 4:25 am


Matthew, this is a really great idea. Your post exposes the ‘scattershot’ approach to global warming that has been taken so far. The One Hundred Ways to Save The Planet Right Now approach leads to information and decision overload – “a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention” (Simon 1971:40).
Your idea of fixing one policy area at a time, then moving on to the next, is inspired and inspiring. The questions begged, of course, are: Who draws up the priority list? and What should be on it? I agree that home energy efficiency is an obvious candidate, but who decides, and how, that it deserves top priority?
Perhaps in this time of electronic connectedness there is scope for a ‘people’s list’ – climate change action priorities voted directly by the public. In Australia the online pressure group Get Up! worked out its (admittedly more varied) priorities for 2009 in this way and it was a very successful process.
A shortlist of actions could then be vetted by ‘experts’ who could advise on the quantitative effectiveness of the measures proposed (eg. in tonnes of CO2 removed from atmosphere).
Perhaps then the most credible handful of contenders could go into a TV showdown, as did competitors for National Lottery Funding. It could be called ‘Britain’s Got the CO2 Factor’, or else, ‘So You Think You Can Cool’.
In some ways, perhaps ironically, your proposal is similar to that of climate change sceptic Bjorn Lomborg, who has been arguing for policies that actually fix something specific like Malaria or HIV/AIDS, rather than the too general (and, for him, spurious) Global Warming. Without agreeing in any way with Lomborg’s climate scepticism, a ranking process, or something like it may well have potential for climate change action. I’m going to put some thought to my personal desiderata.

Matt Grist on Fri, 13th Feb 2009 12:41 pm


I think these are two very important points – no single and simplified socio-political approach to complex society-wide problems will work; and no approach that is so complex as to overwhelm people wil work either.

It is a very difficult balancing act. Perhaps a public drive in one area (energy efficiency – which fits the spirit of these austere times) and Govt legislation that doesn’t require public awareness in another area could be backgrounded (such as sanctions/incentives for businesses). That way we get to tackle more than one problem at a time, but the public’s willingness to change their behaviour is not wasted.

I have blogged on the difficulty of balancing complexity and simplification here:

http://thesocialbrain.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/browns-bankers-and-fear-of-complexity/

and here:

http://thesocialbrain.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/educating-future-citizens/

matthewtaylor on Fri, 13th Feb 2009 7:15 pm


Thanks Matt – nice comments and great blogs

matthewtaylor on Fri, 13th Feb 2009 7:17 pm


Thanks 4C, great comment as always. I dont agree with Lomberg on the science but I share his concern that climate change activists too often put breast beating and point scoring ahead of practical action

matthewtaylor on Fri, 13th Feb 2009 7:21 pm


Hi Chris. I agree but in a sense it makes the point. For how do we ‘change our perception’? As I said in a blog earlier in the week about the Victoria bush fires you have to have experienced directly the moment when nature becomes frightening to have empathy with those suffering a natural catastrophe. It is very hard to think yourself into a state of urgency about something so far ahead and for which each one of has so little personal responsibility. So while I hope for a change of mind set, I fear we made need to to start with small practical measures to break through fatalism and complacency.

Thanks for the comment

News Room :: The strange shape of environmental politics on Sun, 15th Feb 2009 9:25 am


[...] CT then proposes you apply a grid to any society to try and identify those cultural loyalties. It suggests you look for four groups – the heirarchical, the egalitarian, the individualist and the fatalist. For a fuller explanation of these groups, look here. [...]

Clive Bates on Sun, 15th Feb 2009 6:49 pm


Matthew – I couldn’t agree more strongly… Here are a few reasons why the focus should switch heavily to energy efficiency:

1. It is often a ‘no-regrets’ measure in that it costs less to save energy than buy energy in order to use it inefficiently… value for money, return on investment – call it what you will, it makes economic sense.

2. Because it makes economic sense it is the obvious starting place for engaging developing countries in mitigation activity. When asked to take action to reduce emissions, developing countries rightly object that they have small per capita emission relative to US and EU. Could simply agree to undertake measures that are economically justified in their own right, then we would see the start of a global response.

3. There are energy security benefits.

4. There are benefits associated with avoiding social and non-carbon environmental externalities of energy production and use.

5. There are co-benefits associated with tackling fuel poverty and meeting legal obligations to eliminate this by 2016.

6. As an approach to ‘fiscal stimulus’, energy efficiency investment has several desirable characteristics: it is labour intensive; it is not likely to suck in too much imports (cf wind turbines); it is widely distributed and where people live – it is not a mega project in a remote place; it would be delivered mostly by SMEs; the means to deliver it can be through local government and several mechanisms already exist.

7. It offers the prospect of new firms selling ‘energy services’ entering the market. I think the government could kick start that by offering its own estate up for an energy efficiency make-over, agree a deal that would reduce overall costs and share the cost savings with the successful bidder.

8. I think a massive energy efficiency upgrade is a prerequisite for successful implementation of the other strategies – CCS, renewables etc. These are expensive and awkward technologies and whilst they will be important it would be better if our need for them was reduced in absolute terms.

Energy efficiency usually merits a footnote in NGO literature – that it is important and must be done etc etc. But it needs to become a focus.

Fourcultures on Thu, 19th Feb 2009 2:36 am


A couple of additional points, if I may:
First, efficiency gains in energy use can easily be spent on more of the same. This is the Jevons paradox:
“It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.”
There are two warnings in the Jevons Paradox: a) increasing the efficiency of technology is a losing battle for energy use reduction; b) Market-based solutions, in the absence of legislation, are unlikely to overcome the paradox. So we don’t just need better technology – we also need better social institutions that are able to keep up with the negative effects of that technology.

Second, I note that Lomborg’s latest thinking is actually closer to your’s, Matthew, than suspected (apart from his continued undertone of climate change denial, that is). He now says that top of the priority list should be:
“spending 0.05% of GDP on research and development of non-carbon-emitting energy technologies.”
This would enable ‘reasonably priced alternative energy technologies’ to come into common use ‘within the next 20 to 40 years’.
So far so good. It does appear, though, that Lomborg thinks this measure alone might ‘fix’ global warming – and do it more effectively than seeking to limit CO2 emissions by means of regulation or trading regimes. Here is where we might part company. Even a cursory glance at the figures makes it clear that massive reductions in CO2 emissions would be required, which alternative energy technologies alone would struggle to deliver – unless instead of a phase-out (of coal-fired power stations, for instance) there was a more or less instantaneous revolution in energy use. For much of this infrastructure, even a 20 to 40 year timeframe is effectively ‘overnight’. So besides the ‘pull’ measure of better, cheaper technology, we may well also need the ‘push’ measure of targets, regulation, trading and the like – and as you say, we need to prioritise.

Climate Change: time to focus « Fourcultures on Thu, 19th Feb 2009 12:20 pm


[...] Climate Change: time to focus By fourcultures Matthew Taylor at the RSA has recently argued that the Green movement is its own worst enemy. [...]

Energy Efficiency: Running to stand still? « Fourcultures on Mon, 23rd Feb 2009 12:06 pm


[...] Taylor of the RSA thinks home energy efficiency should take priority, and Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute is [...]

Elemental » Interesting links for March 7th through March 8th on Mon, 9th Mar 2009 1:13 am


[...] One step at a time to saving the planet | Matthew Taylor’s blog – Another thought provoking piece from Matthew Taylor, asking us to pick one short term priority and sticking to it: "In contrast, on climate change there seem to be hundreds of different ideas and plans covering timescales ranging from the next few years to the middle of the century. Each of us has several opportunities a day to ‘do the green thing’ so we end up overwhelmed, confused and susceptible to lapsing into the fourth of CT’s paradigms: fatalism." [...]

The elements of change | involver on Wed, 12th Aug 2009 9:49 am


[...] If we want people to help save the planet we need to start giving them clearer signals and incentives. But the biggest obstacle might be the green movement itself.  More [...]

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