Happy Planet Index 2.0 is here

NEF have released the latest version of the “Happy Planet Index” (HPI – which, I’m afraid, just begs to be tagged as the Hippy Index…). The HPI is a composite index constructed out of three sets of data: life expectancy, life satisfaction, and ecological footprint (explanation starts p.52 of the Report Appendix, which can be found here).

Among other things there is a neat animated graphic showing countries’ performance on the index vs GDP over time (select the countries you wish to observe in the tick box menu on the right, then push the ‘play’ triangle bottom left).

Looking at New Zealand’s performance since 1961 (when the data set starts) what is striking is just how poorly we have performed on both counts: there was a steep rise in our HPI number, while GDP grew at only a modest rate.  I thought it might be interesting to look more closely at the three indicators, using the background data NEF has made available here.

Visions of progress: A surprising glimpse inside the mind of the technocrat

Progress is a powerful concept that is called on by politicians of all persuasions; indeed, we might argue that much of our everyday political debate is fundamentally about the meaning and desirability of progress. The details of what constitutes progress seem to capture the essence of  various moral and ideological divides. One person’s idea of medical advancement might well be another person’s idea of unethical meddling; where I see social progress, you may see the interference of the nanny state; in my desire for environmental regulation, you might see needless restrictions on economic growth.

The social organisation of denial: Understanding why we fail to act on climate change, and what we can do about that.

Kari Marie Norgaard has written a useful research paper for – perhaps surprisingly – the World Bank. (Cognitive and Behavioral Challenges in Responding to Climate Change)

She investigates how denial, operating as a social process, is hindering our ability to take effective action on climate change despite growing concern and awareness of the risks. It is not a complete analysis – I would recommend that readers keep in mind the insights about social change, consumerism,  and values highlighted in the WWF ‘Weathercocks & Signposts’ report discussed here, and analysis of the dynamics of consumer capitalism such as those discussed here and here.

Norgaard’s report is forty-something pages of body text and tables. The following is my attempt at an Executive Summary.

Carnegie’s Ghosts

Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) was born into a poor and politically radical artisan family in Scotland, became a ruthless and extremely successful industrialist and businessman in the United States (twice as wealthy as Bill Gates, in contemporary terms), and then, having decided it would be shameful to die that rich, retired from business to give it all away – becoming ‘the world’s leading philanthropist’ and a tireless campaigner for world peace.

Carnegie was a complex and confounding character. In many ways, his internal contradictions reflected the contradictions of capitalism, contradictions we in the world’s wealthy nations still live out, collectively, of course, but also individually – though mainly on a much smaller-scale than Carnegie! [The average yearly income at purchasing power parity of a Haitian is U.S $1,300, compared to an average yearly income at ppp for a New Zealander of U.S $27,900 -Estimates, 2008, source CIA Factbook, retrieved 16 June 2009]

Degrowth: Putting the economy back in its place

In France, where the concept originated and where it has had considerable impact, it is decroissance; in English it is degrowth, and in any language it is a significant symbolic challenge to the “tyranny of growth.”

Degrowth activists in France have formed a political party, and publish a monthly magazine; sadly for English speakers such as myself, this French language material remains largely inaccessible. Fortunately, a very useful summary of the politics of degrowth has been provided by Valerie Fournier in a paper currently available here.

Here I’ll pick up on some of the points that caught my attention.

Green politics in the era of the post-ecologist paradox

This is the era of ‘post-ecologism.’ On the one hand, we have:

“a general acceptance that the achievement of sustainability requires radical change in the most basic principles of late-modern societies.”

And yet, on the other hand, there is

“a general consensus about the non-negotiability of democratic consumer capitalism – irrespective of mounting evidence of its unsustainability” [1].

This crazy paradox is, undoubtedly, an accurate summation of the societal self-deception we live with: “a realm where the management of the inability and unwillingness to become sustainable has taken centre ground.”  And so the disturbingly ambiguous politics of unsustainability holds sway [1].

Well over a year ago now, Barry wrote about how irony is the only sane response to a world of paradox and ambiguity. But it is a response that is easier to manage at a personal level than at the level of organised politics. So how are green parties coping with this situation?

Progressive taxation – good for the economy, for society, and for the environment

In a paper that has been around since 2004, and that has not attracted, in my opinion, anywhere near the attention it deserves, Robert H. Frank makes the case that more progressive taxation benefits the economy (at least for indebted nations such as New Zealand and the United States), society, and the environment.

The reason lies in the peculiar characteristics of what he calls “positional goods” – those goods whose primary consumption benefit is that they signal ones place in the social pecking order:

Environmental issues and the limits of democratic governance

Should we dam the Mokihinui River on New Zealand’s South Island?

The state-owned enterprise behind the plan, Meridian Energy, says we should build the  proposed NZ$300million 85m high dam because it will generate around 310-360GWh per year of zero-emission electricity, and provide security of electricity supply to the South Island’s west coast. Surely that has got to be better than another generating plant running on fossil fuels.

There are, of course, other ecological issues to consider, such as biodiversity. Opponents of the scheme, such as the Green Party, argue that “The Mokihinui River is NZ’s seventh most significant river for its biodiversity values. It is home to 12 species of native fish including the chronically endangered Longfin eel. Hundreds of thousands of longfin live in this river and they will be disastrously affected by the planned construction of a 85m high dam and the drowning of 330 hectares of native podocarp rain forest.”

The Royal Forest and Bird Society notes that, because Meridian is a state-owned enterprise, “with political will” other energy options can be pursued. However, last year the Environment Minister (in the previous government) decided not to intervene because the Economic Development Ministry and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority both support the project. The Greens have urged the current Conservation Minister to take action, given his own department opposes the project.

How can a decision be made on an issue such as this? Such decisions are difficult, undoubtedly. However, looking at such problems of environmental decision-making in broader terms, Tasmanian researcher Paul E Smith argues that the representative institutions of liberal democracy are set up to fail the environment.

How to manage without growth

Human progress seems to have been boiled down, in the minds of many, to a single notion – economic growth. All human advancement is, it seems, captured in this one variable; politicians and business commentators hold their breath as they receive the latest GDP statistics and our destiny is revealed in a number. Today, growth is the “the supreme, overriding objective of policy” for every government (except one, the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan).

It might come as a surprise to learn that governments have not always had this growth obsession. In fact, economic growth only came into the policy picture 50 or 60 years ago, initially as a means to guarantee full employment in a post-war economy and avoid the horrors of the Great Depression. It quickly became the dominant policy goal in its own right. As the OECD makes clear, going for growth is now a basic assumption of economic policy and, outside the realms of green/ecological economics, it goes entirely unquestioned.

The recognition that growth has not always been the be all and end all of human endeavour is the beginning of an understanding of the damage that the obsessive pursuit of growth wreaks. We can challenge the growth imperative, unravel the assumptions behind it, and comprehend the environmental and human consequences of pursuing it with pathological desire. And with that understanding in place we can ask – is there an alternative to growth? It may be killing the planet but can we live without it?

Images of nature and the green voter

Many political columnists, editorial writers and others, informed or otherwise, seem base their expectations of support for green parties on their perceptions of public concern about the environment. Such concern undoubtedly is widepread. That the electoral success of green parties around the world falls far short of these expectations then provides a handy stick with which to beat green parties: something is wrong in the way the greens are presenting themselves. Very often the ‘analysis’ (I use the term loosely) boils down to criticism of the left orientation of green parties or of particular politicians: “If only the greens would stick to being an environmental party as they are supposed to be,” cry the commentators.

This suggestion is nonsense, as I have discussed previously. The left orientation of green parties around the world is a consistent and coherent representation of green ideology, and the ecological worldview that underpins it includes and integrates a concern for social justice.

So, what other explanation could there be for the performance of green parties in national elections?