Growth, inequality, and the environment – evidence from the UK

Measuring fossil resource inequality – A case study for the UK between 1968 and 2000 (Eleni Papathanasopoulou and Tim Jackson, Ecological Economics, 2009, 1213-1225)

In this paper the authors examine inequalities in fossil fuel use among different income groups in the United Kingdom between 1968 and 2000. They find that fossil fuel use inequalities have risen faster than expenditure inequalities, and conclude that policy to reduce fossil fuel use needs to pay careful attention to distributional differences. Further, I would argue, with a little unpacking evidence such as this calls into question the dominant mainstream narratives around the unquestionable desirability a) of ‘growth’ and b) of  decreasing the progressivity of income tax regimes.

Decoupling: green capitalism’s cunning plan

‘Decoupling’ is green capitalism’s cunning plan: break the link between ecological degradation and economic growth, and voila! The ecological crisis of capitalism is overcome.

If decoupling is achieved, growth can continue, profits can be taken, standards of living can be raised, and there will be no discernable ecological consequences.

In their recently published article “The emperor’s green clothes”, urban planning academics Petter Naess and Karl Georg Hoyer have reported on their search for signs of decoupling. Their conclusion is that the possibility of decoupling is  “not valid.”

Like many another cunning plan, decoupling is simply an empty promise.

Don’t frighten the horses! Emissions trading as “regulation lite”

The advocates of ‘more markets’ and ‘minimal government’ would like us to think they know the secret to efficient and effective regulation of human behaviour. But can we really apply such neoliberal thinking to the climate change crisis? Can the application of more markets possibly fix what Nicholas Stern (2006) describes as “the greatest market failure in history”?

In 2008, Robert Baldwin, professor of law at the London School of Economics, published a working paper that examines the case for and against emissions trading as effective regulation.

What I want to look at here is Baldwin’s analysis of the regulatory philosophy which underpins the current trading approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Disturbingly, he finds an erosion of democratic accountability and reduced expectations of legitimacy; this is what he calls “regulation lite.”

To deal with climate change we need social change

Your Blog Action Day post from  well sharp.

Social and Governance Dimensions of Climate Change: Implications for Policy (Policy Research Working P aper 4939) Roberto Foa, The World Bank, May 2009

This paper presents empirical evidence about some of social factors likely to be important for societies to implement effective responses to the challenges of climate change, and discusses what this suggests for policy.

The bottom line: to deal with climate change we need social change – specifically, we need a world of gender equity, with a flourishing civil society, and broad cross-cutting social ties.

Ecological citizens: do they exist?

The basic principles of a theoretical ‘ecological citizenship,’ as sketched out by Andrew Dobson, were summarised in my previous article. The obvious question to ask immediately of such a theory is whether it has any connection with the real world: do ‘ecological citizens’ actually exist?

Some social research which is able to answer this question has been published recently. Swedish political scientist Sverker Jagers (2009) has carried out a survey “to verify, identify and explain the presence of ecological citizens” (p.21).

Spread the word

Blog Action day on climate change – October 15, 2009

Ecological citizenship: the basis of a sustainable society

In his book on ‘The politics of the environment’, Neil Carter argues that, among green theorists

there is a consensus over the need for active ecological citizenship because of the recognition that the transition to a sustainable society requires more than institutional restructuring; it also needs a transformation in the beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of individuals. (Carter, 2007, p.65)

In other words, ecological citizenship is an essential prerequisite of a sustainable society.

So let’s try to understand what ‘ecological citizenship’ might actually mean.

Ecological macroeconomics: resolving the three dilemmas of transformation

Jonathan Harris, “Ecological macroeconomics: consumption, investment, and climate change”, real-world economics review, issue no. 50, 1 September 2009, pp. 34-48,

Harris (Tufts University) begins his discussion by using the charmingly mild phrase “cognitive disconnect” to decribe the yawning great chasm between “scientists’ warnings of potential catastrophe if carbon emissions continue unchecked on the one hand and the political and economic realities of steadily increasing emissions on the other” (p.34)

It is, as he says, “the outstanding economic problem of the twenty-first century. Can economic growth continue while carbon emissions are drastically reduced?” (p.34) And asking that question makes us look more closely at what, in fact, economic growth is and how we might make a successful economic and social transition to sustainability.

Go green for fiscal prudence!

Ramon Lopez, The Great Financial Crisis, Commodity Prices and Environmental Limits (WP 09-02, Revised May 31, 2009)

Professor Ramon Lopez of the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, has written an interesting working paper that draws the links between changes in the global economy, commodity prices, and the current global financial crisis. It is an argument that calls into question the viability and wisdom of efforts to resume ‘business as usual’, suggests future global economic growth will be slow at best, and (implicitly) suggests that policies of large-scale public borrowing based on the assumption that future growth will help pay it off may be highly risky.

Carbon markets stifle innovation – Traditional regulatory methods would be more effective

On its climate change information website, the New Zealand government explains how:

An emissions trading scheme (ETS) introduces a price on greenhouse gases to provide an incentive for people to reduce emissions and enhance forest sinks. Emissions trading provides flexibility in how participants comply with their obligations, enabling a least-cost response.

There are, of course, other ways to reduce emissions, such as traditional regulatory mechanisms. Pejorative phrases such as ‘command-and-control’ are usually used in the brief moment before regulation is dismissed from consideration. Indeed, the NZ Ministry for the Environment (MfE) asserts that imposing a price on greenhouse gas emissions is advantageous because:

It harnesses the market dynamic by providing automatic incentives for firms to invest in reducing emissions and to shift to lower-emissions products and services.

It provides flexibility for firms and fosters innovation and the seeking out of least-cost emission reduction strategies.

But something rather important is being glossed over here: An ETS doesn’t provide an automatic incentive for all firms to reduce emissions.

And, it turns out, this simple observation leads to some very awkward conclusions that have not been part of the carbon trading debate.