Lots of leadership but not from the top

Sometimes we are disappointed in the lack of leadership on climate matters by political leaders.  The former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan talked of that lack of leadership on climate change as “inexcusable” and “shocking”.  He was referring to the leaders of the larger nations of the world.

Most leaders in the world are there, democratically or not, because of a promise of economic growth.  They are so wedded to this creed that it is no wonder that they are much less bothered about cutting emissions.  The zeitgeist ensures that much of their population is very taken with economic growth, and they see things that get in the way of growth as troublesome.

To cut emissions dramatically will mean putting aside the priority of economic growth and placing more emphasis on cutting emissions.  Economic growth might well follow from cutting emissions (many “techno-optimists” believe this), but we will probably have to dig into our capital to get our emissions down.

However, to say that there is no leadership in these matters is wrong.  There is lots of leadership, but you have to look in the right place for it.

Leadership comes from campaigners such as Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, thinkers such as George Monbiot and doers such as Rob Hopkins of the Transition Towns movement.  And from tens of thousands of people around the world dedicatedly serving their communities, teaching people how to live with less, setting up small organisations or businesses which help us grow food, go vegetarian, travel less, insulate our homes and generally make less of a splash.

Blaming the lack of leadership betrays an expectation that someone at the top has to tell us what to do to live in harmony with the planet.  It is a false expectation, doomed to disappoint: the people at the top got there by being absolutely the wrong people for this job.  For real leaders we just need to look around us, locally.

Posted in Climate change policy, Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Policy goal: love nature

A comprehensive climate change policy requires, as well as carbon pricing and R&D, measures to enhance our love of nature.  An economist will splutter in his coffee at this.  But if we love and nurture nature and abhor the idea of destroying it, then we are a bit more likely not to destroy it.  If people loved nature, it might not be so hard to persuade people to take care of it.

For love of nature, I mean three things together:

(1)          Awe – we need to have great awe or reverence for nature, for its beauty, its complexity, strange mix of fragility and power

(2)          Understanding – we have to understand the connection between nature and us, how we are affected by it and how we affect it

(3)          Responsibility – we have to feel a sense of responsibility for nature, a feeling which is more likely to grow in us as we achieve the first two steps.

All three are needed in our relationship with nature.  Without awe you don’t sense humility, and you feel you don’t need nature.  Without understanding, with the best will in the world, you can make terrible mistakes.  Without a sense of responsibility, you will shrug your shoulders even in the face of your knowledge.

Policy can be used to engender these things in people.

Understanding is the easiest, since we already have a working system for imparting knowledge – the education system.  We just need to put more emphasis on helping people understand the interactions between ourselves and nature.

To experience awe of nature you have to experience nature.  National Geographic Channel can help, but real connection with nature happens through smells, through touch and through fear.  You just don’t get that on the sofa.  We must arrange for children of an impressionable age, before urban cynicism dries their hearts like brittle mud, to be out in nature: on mountainsides, in forests, by rivers, on the ocean, with animals and birds wild and domestic.

This is also a form of education.  It is absolutely feasible – building on traditions things like the Scouts and Guides or the Young Ornithologists Club, and something like this can be seen in Project Wild Thing in the UK.  With urban children currently being brought up to be afraid of the outdoors, we desperately need something like this anyway.  Making this policy means doing it on a large scale, consistently, over many years and ensuring it is well funded.

This is not a sufficient condition, and perhaps not a necessary condition of environmental concern.  But it is an important part of the mix.

A sense of responsibility for nature is a notion of a higher order.  It is partly emotional, partly intellectual.  It doesn’t have the totally subconscious character of awe, nor is it learnt like understanding.  It comes from example.  From seeing your parents and those around you act with a sense of responsibility to their community; from seeing people you respect care for nature; and then you, too, realise that nature is also part of your community and something to care for.  The most that policy can do here is to create the environment where such a sense of responsibility can be fostered.  More on this later.

This is something for everybody.  Humans across a wide range of cognitive levels can love nature and feel responsibility for it.

Posted in Climate change policy, Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Notes on dark-green capitalism

Capital is many things: security for the future, a store of value and something you aspire to own.  It is the motivation for your labours since desire for it gets you up in the morning; it is the fruit of your labours; and the store of the fruit of your labours. It is also the sign of your success.

You can have dark-green capitalism if you can create capital without damaging nature.

This means that both the embodiments of capital do not damage nature and you don’t damage nature in pursuing and creating those embodiments of capital.

Here are some examples of embodiments capital which usually do not do much damage to nature. I don’t mean necessarily in their genesis; I mean once it they exist.

– an expanse of forest (where there was previously desert)

– a store of clean water

– a state of happiness or wellbeing

– a reputation for having helped someone

– a piece of music

– a painting

– a story

– a dance

– an achievement

– a memory

– a thought

Then there are examples of capital which do a bit of damage to nature but perhaps not too much, or not irreparable damage:

– a book

– a straw hat

– a small, stone pyramid

– a football

– a well insulated house made out of mud bricks

More creative people could come up with longer lists of zero or very low impact stores of capital.

So you can store capital and can aspire to own and hoard things which don’t do too much damage to nature.

Can you get there without doing too much damage to nature? As a general rule you can if you do it slowly and use particular materials, where materials are needed.  It is best if you aspire to intangible forms of capital which don’t require physical materials.

Capitalism is good because it keeps people busy, organised and purposeful once they have got beyond the stage of having enough to eat. The key thing to achieve green capitalism is to be sure that the purposes which the capitalist adopts as his motivation and goal fit onto the above lists (which could be much, much longer).

The impact the capitalist has on nature is down to how he goes about keeping busy and what he seeks to create. And also down to how he influences other people: if he has capital he will influence other people.

Dark-green capitalism is absolutely possible.  Greenness depends on the dreams that the capitalist dreams, and the way he goes about achieving them.

You have to distinguish between necessities and luxuries, which needs some arbitrary line drawing.  There is no use aspiring to having a nice painting if you have not got clean water.  So clean-tech people can be kept busy building infrastructural capital with conventional, physical embodiment (e.g. water pipes).  But once the basic infrastructural capital goods are built – and to keep emissions down they need to be pretty basic – , most luxury capital needs to be natural or intangible.

That is, if we want capitalism and survival.

For that capital to have value, there have to be people that want it.  This is where belief comes in.  If people believe that items of dark-green capital are desirable, then they will want them.  Capitalism responds to the values that our culture and our beliefs give to things.  This is why it is so important to foster in people love of nature and desire for green things.  This provokes the benign ambitions of dark-green capitalists.

It is good if the objects of dark-green capitalist desire have some genuine usefulness.  It means that their value will not be so subject to whims of fashion.  There is a lesson from the boom and bust real-estate economy: if you believe too much in luxury apartments, too many will be built and then the market will collapse.  So it is important that the dreams of capitalists – dark-green or otherwise – are grounded in reality.

Posted in Climate change policy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Climate asymptotery

In maths I learnt that an asymptote is a line which gets closer and closer to another line but never actually reaches it.

This is happening with climate change science.

The fourth assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found “unequivocal evidence” of warming, with a 90% chance of humans being the cause.  The draft fifth IPCC assessment talks of near certainty, with a 95% change of humans being the cause.

How close can you go without being certain?

Perhaps the sixth assessment will be “for all intents and purposes certain” (98%), the seventh will be “all but certain” (99%), the eighth will refer to “tiny residual doubt” (99.5%).  As the decades pass we will struggle for phrases which steadily get closer to certainty without actually expressing certainty.

Thus scientists will never put it on a plate for politicians.  There is always a gap, a thread of uncertainty where political leadership and courage will be required.

Posted in Climate change policy, Environment, society, politics and economics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Combination of EU ETS and fee and dividend

One of the most sensible ways of putting a price on emissions is the fee and dividend scheme devised by James Hansen of Columbia University.  It is also probably the most acceptable for those on the right which would prefer a fiscally neutral approach.  I hadn’t realised that there is already a fee and dividend scheme in place in British Columbia.  This scheme is described by Dana Nuccitelli’s column in the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jul/30/climate-change-british-columbia-carbon-tax?goback=%2Egde_1140337_member_262157446.  It seems to work.  True, one swallow does not make a summer, but even one swallow is better evidence of summer than a waxwing -they visit in the winter.

It would not take much to adapt the EU ETS to a fee and dividend scheme, with all the additional benefits of being an ETS – i.e. definitive emissions targets and a market mechanism.

It just takes two steps:

(1)    To eliminate the free allocation so that all issuance of allowances is by government auction

(2)    To redistribute the auction proceeds to residents of the auctioning country.

The elimination of the free allocation is already in process.  By 2027 it will be gone even under the current rules. 2027 is too long to wait, so that should be speeded up.

Then we need to get governments to agree to give back auction proceeds to their people rather than pocket them.  You probably don’t need to change the EU ETS Directive for this – governments could make the rebate via their own annual budget legislation.

Assume 2 billion EUAs are sold annually.  Assume a price of 10 euro.  Assume 500 million EU residents.  That’s a 40 euro cheque for every woman, man and child in the EU.

So here is a system which is fiscally neutral, has a quantified emissions target, has a market mechanism, and gives everyone a little smile once a year.  Policy makers in member states and Brussels should get working on it immediately.

Posted in Climate change policy | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment