Much of the discussion concerning climate change in the policy world has thus far been limited to just that—conference room talks that fail to develop into concrete policy action. Despite repeated warnings of imminent changes from scientists, policymakers seem doomed to deadlock. Their lack of action has led Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies dean, Gus Speth, to describe his generation as full of “great talkers, overly fond of conferences.”

In light of this static state of affairs, Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University’s Earth Institute has proposed a number of potential solutions. On February 15, speaking at the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, Sachs offered three main opportunities for experimentation: the expansion of nuclear power (particularly in China), carbon sequestration, and hybrid/plugin automobiles. His push for innovation separates him from Speth’s generalization about the “great talkers.” Sachs’ proposals, however, are both logistically and ideologically problematic.

Because the impracticalities of Sachs’ ideas are relatively obvious, it is most constructive to take a broader viewpoint, challenging cultural assumptions rather than individual policies. Major action on climate change will require a major cultural shift no matter what. The question is whether this shift will occur within a conventional economic framework—as in Sachs’ proposals—or whether it will entail a larger ideological revolution.

It should be noted that Sachs’ proposed policies rely on two major assumptions: first, that the world’s economy will continue to depend on fossil fuels as its main source of energy; and second, that the reigning ideology of perpetual economic growth will remain unchallenged. Nuclear energy and hybrid cars would presumably reduce dependence on fossil fuels, but only insofar as they would allow unbridled economic growth. Yet much of the literature on economics and climate change in recent years has discussed the incompatibility of continued economic growth and environmental sustainability. The world economy cannot expand indefinitely when it depends on a limited throughput of natural resources. Either renewable energy sources will have to replace fossil fuels, or the classic economic growth model will have to be replaced by a model of restraint.

While Sachs’ proposals would entail major changes even in the realm of day-to-day life, they remain firmly entrenched in a classical economic framework. Conventional market analysis fails to account for the negative effects of such behaviors as depleting natural resources or burning fossil fuels until they begin to have a detrimental impact on the economy itself. In other words, market signals may occur only after it is too late for us to remedy our behavior in any meaningful way.

As climate change gains momentum, it will become increasingly more difficult to reverse the effects of our behavior after the fact. However, according to the U.S. government’s Energy Information Administration in 2006, renewable energy sources such as solar and wind accounted for only 0.067% of the U.S.’ total energy consumption. Meanwhile, uncertainties about climate change make it impossible for us to know exactly how or when our behavior could bring on major environmental changes. We cannot continue to rely on fossil fuels—or at least not at any level comparable to current consumption.

We need a culture that embraces sufficiency over efficiency, community relationships over relative financial prestige, and a sound ecological future (inextricable from a sound economic future) over an obsession with this year’s GDP. In pursuing these changes, we should push for campaign finance reform laws in order to elect candidates who are free of the political demands of corporations. In addition, policies such as a shorter workweek coupled with a living wage will give citizens the time to value their relationships both with each other and with the natural world. Policies that stress human well-being over productivity will encourage individuals to take a stake in their community, reinforcing the policy process through which citizens can call for further change. Broad changes are needed as we move beyond the conference room, reformulating our place in an integrated socio-ecological community.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites