Transcript Changing Societies Without Changing Lifestyles?

Changing Societies Without
Changing Lifestyles?
Fritz Reusswig
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
Our Common Present 2012
23 March 2012
Charles University Prague
Challenging Climate Change
•
•
•
•
10
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
International Energy Agency
-1
Fossil Fuel Emission (GtC y )
•
CC is underway and will become more severe.
There is a serious risk that the 2 degree goal
(avoiding ‚dangerous climate change‘) is not
met.
Damage cost estimates range from 1-20% of
global GDP.
However, risks of unmitigated CC are complex,
uncertain, and potentially disastrous.
Standard economic cost-benefit analyses show
deficits and should be replaced by a different
approach: climate policy as an insurance against
high future risks of inaction (Ackerman, de
Canio, van den Bergh, Weitzman).
Effective climate policy will have to reduce
global GHG emssions by 80-90% until 2050, with
a starting point as early as possible (best before
2020).
We are thus not talking about a minor, but
about a major social change.
The Global Carbon Project 2010
•
•
9
Projection
A1B
8
A1FI
A1T
A2
7
B1
B2
6
5
1990
1995
2000
Claudia Kemfert 2009
2005
2010
2015
Possible Strategies
1.
2.
3.
Higher efficiency of machines, buildings, and infrastructures
( perspective: zero emission, energy-plus).
Eco-consistency of (energy) production and consumption
processes ( renewable energy systems, cradle-to-cradle,
green economy).
More sufficient lifestyles ( perspective: limiting the level
of consumption, sustainable limits to growth).
Some problems with these strategies
1.
More efficiency is
•
•
2.
More eco-consistency is
•
•
3.
undifferentiated with respect to technologies and structurally
conservative
prone to the rebound effect
subject to quality constraints ( biofuels, life-cycle costs)
subject to quantity constraints ( space & public acceptance for
renewable energy projects)
More sufficient lifestyles might
•
•
•
reduce growth
lack public support in a democratic consumer society
be impossible to implement in a free market economy
What Strategy?
• Economists and politicians don‘t like strategy 3 (sufficiency of lifestyles),
they build completely on the combination of strategy 1 and 2.
• One prominent way of framing this combination is ‚green growth‘.
• But only a combination of all three strategies will lead us ahead, not a
single one alone, or even only two combined.
• This implies that is is an open question whether or not more green will
lead to more growth.
• If strategies 1 and 2 are accepted, why thus is no. 3 necessary, and how is
it possible?
Some arguments in favor of
lifestyle changes
• It is not true that existing (Western) lifestyles are an unbiased social good
without any costs and downsides
– Growing consumption options with physically limited consumption time (≤ 24
h) constantly reduces the attention we can dedicate to any single option.
– Living in a modern, urban environment often goes along with all kinds of
restrictions (e.g., not to live in a noise and pollution free environment).
– Living and working in a market-centered consumer society can lead to tradeoffs between work and life.
– Growing commercialization has led to perverse incentives to gain social
recognition via consumption, not via social interaction.
– Growing globalization is leading middle classes in emerging economies to
enter a consumer culture that is both environmentally detrimental and
socially problematic.
– Western lifestyles are part of an economic model that favors economic growth
at the expense of investment in natural capital, and that has since several
years undermined social equity and cohesion.
continued
• Green lifestyles are necessary because they
– provide a feasible market size and rapid distribution of
green technologies
– use more efficient technologies in a really efficient way
– counteract the rebound effect
– keep low carbon energy options within the limits of
sustainability
– reduce the social and systems costs of these energy
options
– push the corporate sector and governments to the right
direction
Are green lifestyles possible?
• „We cannot influence individual preferences!“ Wrong:
– Only such preferences that have passed the filters of law (simple) and morality
(difficult) can enter the market
– If particular consumer choices turn out to (no longer) be ethically neutral, they
are subject to a legitimate socio-ethical discourse which can lead to new rules.
– Plenty examples in different countries (weapons, prostitution, child labor,
drugs, alcohol, tobacco…)
• „There is no lifestyle politics!“ Wrong:
– We subsidize non-sustainable ways of life in many ways (fuels, housing, ‚least
cost‘ travel…)
– Our tax system is still environmentally blind, supporting non-sustainable
choices & lifestyles
– Taxation and regulation of financial markets under neo-liberal auspices have
led people to a) invest less in the real economy instead of financial markets
with high profits, and b) to spend more for luxury consumption, weakening
investment and fuelling conspicuous consumption.
Ways ahead
• Social change has never come
about by an immediate shift of
majorities. It always started by
small changes, critical masses and
strategic alliances.
• We need an eco-reform of taxes,
subsidies and regulations in order
to support green lifestyles &
business models, and to re-direct
capital flows away from capital
markets into green investment.
• We need a social discourse on
green lifestyles within a vivid civil
society—both in order to
stimulate green lifestyles and
green politics.
• We should think about personal
carbon trading in order to reduce
carbon footprints and
conspicuous consumption.
eher positiv
neutral/gespalten
eher negativ
15 t
20 t
18 t
13 t
12 t
10 t
8t
9t
5t
7t
And elsewhere? India for example…
•
•
•
•
Botzen, Gowdy, van den Bergh 2008
25
Emissions
Cooking
20
Travel
Emissions
15
Airplane
Travel
Emissions
10
Electricity
Use
Emissions
5
0
C 11 C 7
Deprived
C 3 C 12 C 9
C6
Aspirers
C 1 C 10 C 8
C 5 C 20 C 26 C 18 C13 C 4 C 17 C 23 C 25 C 21 C 2 C 16 C 14 C 22 C15 C 24 C 19
Seekers
Income group
Strivers
Globals
Meyer-Ohlendorf 2011
•
Big and growing country (8-9% GDP
p.a.).
Very vulnerable to climate change.
The Indian CC discourse has been
dominated by the pattern „The West
has caused the problem that we
suffer from, and thus has to solve it –
e.g. by giving money to us.“
More recently things have begun to
change: Indian total emissions grow
(and harm India), and per capita
emissions too (though on a still low
level).
Still many poor people, but growing
share of middle-classes with more
consumption and higher carbon
footprints.
Lifestyle changes in India? How
ethically and socially feasible are
they?
Emissions in tonnes CO2equiv/person/year
•
India (contd.)
•
„India is too poor for greening“. Well, this
depends:
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
•
India spends a lot on its military and the
nuclear option.
India‘s science and educational potential is
substantial and can be re-directed towards a
green economy without any additional costs.
Wealthy Indians are allowed to invest heavily
in luxury consumption and financial markets
(as almost everywhere).
Most Indian cities invest billions into a
carbon locked-in public infrastructure, e.g.
roads and flyovers.
Indian citizens invest millions into
safeguarding against blackouts of an
inefficient coal-based energy system –
mostly based on diesel generators.
Resource control is often done in perverse
ways (e.g. free electricity for water pumping
combined with rationing instead of cost
effective pricing).
There is a sustainable pathway for India to
reduce GHG emissions without hampering
growth.
Sunita Narain (1991: poverty/luxury
emissions) 2010: personal carbon trading in
India
Shukla et al. 2008