Is the green movement too radical?
In my last blog I looked at how the green movement is very conservative about technology but in other areas the Greens are - arguably - too radical.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit µþµþ°äÌý°Â±ð²ú·É¾±²õ±ð for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
There is growing evidence that people now "get" climate change. They understand what the term means, believe it is happening and that man's activities are one cause. That's an important result for the green movement but, with respect, that's the easy bit - it doesn't cost anything to change your mind.
The difficult work starts now. If we are going to meet the targets for carbon cuts which scientists say are necessary then we need to get people to change their behaviour and begin to reduce their carbon footprints.
Here the record is much poorer. It seems people simply do not want to give up their high carbon lifestyles. Just look at the findings of Loughborough University's. Fewer than one in five people said they would be willing to cut the number of flights they take for environmental reasons.
Some critics say the Green message of self-denial and sacrifice has put people off. There may be an element of the problem but - as I discovered in my year as - the fact is cutting carbon emissions does mean sacrifice, it does mean doing less of things that most people like doing - flying, driving, heating your home.
So how can we find ways to persuade people to change their behaviour? Most economists believe the most powerful instrument for changing behaviour is the market. They argue we need a system to put a price on greenhouse gases that reflects the damage they do to the environment.
Economists say we need some system of "carbon pricing".
Yet many Greens are profoundly sceptical of market solutions. This year protesters from picketed the London Carbon Exchange in an attempt to shut it down.
There's a good reason for the green antipathy to markets. Greens argue that market capitalism is based on growth and a finite planet cannot sustain continuous growth. Check out the New Economics Foundation's .
These arguments lead Greens to say that we need to smash capitalism - or at least radically change its priorities - if we are to successfully tackle climate change.
It is not a policy that is likely to engage most mainstream politicians - or for that matter - ordinary people. What is more, spurning market solutions means ignoring one of the most powerful mechanisms for changing behaviour ever developed.
Just as with technology it seems the Greens are being ideological and impractical in the face of the global emergency of climate change.
We are told carbon emissions have to peak by around 2015 if we are to stay within the crucial 2C temperature rise after which scientists say global warming could become uncontrolled.
With just six years left, surely we should use all the weapons in our armoury to get change.
I'm Justin Rowlatt and I am the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s Ethical Man. My family and I spent a year trying to cut our carbon emissions and reporting on the exercise for . Now I’m looking again in this blog at what individuals can do to tackle climate change.
Comment number 1.
At 16th Oct 2009, jr4412 wrote:Justin Rowlatt.
"These arguments lead Greens to say that we need to smash capitalism - or at least radically change its priorities - if we are to successfully tackle climate change.
It is not a policy that is likely to engage most mainstream politicians - or for that matter - ordinary people.
...
With just six years left, surely we should use all the weapons in our armoury to get change."
don't you agree that you and the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ (as Public Service broadcasters) are ideally placed, duty-bound even, to evaluate and disseminate those radical "Green" ideas to both the politicians and the public in a way that encourages constructive debate.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 18th Oct 2009, John_from_Hendon wrote:Justin,
"Economists say we need some system of "carbon pricing". "
Economists are impractical idealists - politicians always fiddle the system so that the existing polluters are not unduly inconvenienced! It is naive to believe that any system conceived by economists will ever work!
Fifty years ago we all lived no more than half-an-hour from our work and travelled overland only when required and necessary - we were all reasonably happy and content. However apparently our species now has to have a 'lifestyle', not just a life. And our 'lifestyle' includes the right to fly everywhere all the time and destroy what we are going to see as well as the economy of the destination. Our 'lifestyle' also includes long distance commuting where we have to travel hundreds of miles/kilometres a day alone in our personal metal coffin.
I doubt anything will change sufficiently to have any impact on the climate. We may cut CO2 emissions (which I doubt) and still find that the planet is warming us and we will still have to deal with the consequences, but we have wasted our limited resources on reducing CO2 and have little left to rescue the flooded lands and those suffering from prolonged drought!
(The problem is that reducing CO2 involves the state giving large sums of money to their friends in the large utility companies and that is loved by the state whereas preventing floods and drought involves interacting with the poor which the state despises!)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 19th Oct 2009, leannedv wrote:I think the issue isn't convincing people they must have less. The issue is convincing politicians that, by a lower carbon lifestyle, ordinary people can have so much *more*.
Having more stuff does not equate with happiness, nor does spending up big on credit cards or flying 100+ miles a year in a plane.
My family and I chose the "path less travelled", and live a very low carbon lifestyle. Here's a bit about it.
We're on 100% renewables for our electricity, drive minimally and always more than one person in the car, are vegetarian and almost vegan (rarely consume dairy at all - special occasions only), hardly ever buy new products, and live in a small home.
Where we win? Our social lives revolve around our community, growing our own food and sharing that knowledge, singing in local choirs, playing piano and singing at night instead of watching TV (yes, some people really do this! And love it!), attending church, planting trees in the community, volunteering at the kids' kindy (we're not old fogeys, just in our mid 30s), and hunting down the latest secondhand bargain online and in the Op Shops.
And we win by having a LOT more free time. You wouldn't believe how much free time not watching TV, not commuting, and not cooking meat gives you. My husband works 35 hours a week, I don't work at all (don't need to, because we spend so much less), and we spend our free hours with each other and friends, not with a TV.
I feel like I live an enriched life, since "downshifting" our carbon debt. We're the winners in the transformation of our life, and are financially much better off too.
However, the problem is convincing politicians, whose purses are filled by large corporations. Those same corporations are doing their best to convince people that they MUST have the latest car, makeup, hairstyle, clothes, big house, steak for dinner, useless flowers on the useless patio etc.
People are being sold an outdated dream by vested interests, and getting those vested interests out of politics is the real issue.
Do so, and everything else will follow.
I should also mention in our "downshift" we voluntarily reduced our income by a third, and became completely debt-free.
Now that's a real dream worth having :-)
So it's just a matter of showing people that by changing the focus of their lives to themselves, their families, their communities, and themselves - instead of far-flung exotic places, people on TV that aren't real, packaged goods you never knew you needed until you were told so by an advertising exec., and junk food packaged as "healthy". Focusing on real life, instead of the stupid stuff we're sold (here's your credit card, go for it at 20% interest!) in the mass media.
Just my (rather long) 2 cents worth. And boy, am I sounding like a hippie! I'm not, I'm really not! :-)
Cheers.
Leanne.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 21st Oct 2009, Gates wrote:Your right. I think everyone, in the UK at least, understands and accepts that we must all contribute to help prevent it, but I think acceptance of this has peaked and all the talk and no action has lead some people take a more skeptical view.
The government has done well to get people to . But they have left the people waiting for the government to come out and say : right you know climate change is a big problem, here is what we are going to do about it.
That just hasn't happened, and if it doesn't soon then more and more people will loose tolerance and take a more skeptical stance.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)