Alexander Etkind, Head of OHPA:
The answer is: it is both, nobody owns it, and this politics should be consensual. The survival of humanity is too serious a thing to entrust it to the radical or conservative politicians. All reasonable people, politicians among them, should in good faith fight for the quick, smooth and effective transition from the waste- and emissions-generating economy to the green, renewable and sustainable way of satisfying human needs within the limits of our planet. They should reach this consensus, but they have done it. It is not even close, of course. Instead of the joint, enlightened Climate Action we see wars, disinformation, open-ended debates and ever-growing emissions. Ideological differences play their role in this crisis. In this issue of our Newsletter, we are publishing two passionate essays that claim the ownership the green transition by a certain kind of politics, right or left. If our students cannot agree on this issue and are playing a tug of war about it, it means that the humanity has not grown up to the required consensus. Please read both essays, compare and contrast them, and think about the way forward.
Green Conservatives - Why the Right Should Embrace Green Policies
Stefan Stoyanov
A significant number of proponents of the Green Idea believe that climate change and human influence over nature not only affects our way of life, but also threatens it. As the most powerful beings on the planet, we seem to be engaging in the process of self-destruction if we don’t reprioritize to focus on sustainable development. If there is anyone who is particularly skilful at adapting to a changing environment, it is, paradoxically or not, conservatives. Take the evolution of conservative ideas and parties over the past two centuries for example; initially these parties espoused the interests of large capitalists, but over time they have become more inclusive, advocating for broader social policies. They have evolved from denying expanded voting rights to embracing Pride flags outside their headquarters (although we recognise that this is still quite niche). The resilience of conservatism in the face of rapid societal change can be attributed to its adaptability: therefore time for right-wing conservatives to embrace the Green Idea.
My argument will undoubtedly be controversial for some, and unrealistic for others. However, the future of the conservatism is not in denialism, but in the necessity of embracing green policies and a clean energy transition. Whether driven by genuine conviction or a desire to gain electoral support, the end result will benefit them, society at large, and most importantly the earth. A 2017 report on the attitudes of British Conservatives towards green politics indicates that this idea may not be as novel as previously assumed, but it has the potential to differentiate itself.
Historically, conservatives have been able to adapt to changing circumstances, whether through ideological evolution or a more cynical pragmatism. When change is inevitable, conservative parties have a tendency to spearhead it, limiting the damage to their electoral base while also broadening their appeal by moving closer to the centre. For example, Benjamin Disraeli backing the electoral reform or the advent of social policy in Germany under Bismarck demonstrate that by mastering change, they make the status quo more favourable to themselves.
In this sense, there are arguments to be found within the conservative tradition itself for greater attention to be paid to the natural world. For example, the father of conservatism, Edmond Burke, wrote: ‘The earth, the kind and equal mother of all ought not to be monopolised to foster the pride and luxury of any men.' From the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt to that of Ronald Reagan, and subsequently through the administrations of Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron, green initiatives have been implemented by numerous conservative governments. After all, climate change affects everyone, despite their political views. However, the extent to which environmentalism is prioritised over economic growth when right-wing conservatives are in power is a matter of debate, to say the least.
In contrast to other political movements, green conservatism prioritises the socially responsible individual and the power of the free market in addressing environmental issues. The state is viewed as playing a secondary role, with the responsibility of creating the conditions for such awareness of the need for action. It is evident that this concept is at odds with another tenet of conservatism, namely the belief in the power of human greed. It also represents the optimal outcome in an artificially created, idealistic situation. However, at this juncture, it appears to be the least challenging to achieve it without the substantial support of the state or international institutions. As Burke writes: ‘The great Error of our Nature is, not to know where to stop, not to be satisfied with any reasonable Acquirement; not to compound with our Condition; but to lose all we have gained by an insatiable Pursuit after more.’
The reasons for this ‘green pivot’ can be divided into two categories: idealistic and pragmatic. The idealistic reasons will essentially reiterate the thesis of the progressives, namely that the world cannot continue to develop unsustainably, consuming more and more resources, without regard for future generations and nature itself. However, the distinction between these two positions lies in their differing attitudes towards the concept of Christian anthropocentrism. This perspective holds that humanity is of primary importance, both in terms of its own existence and in its relationship with other living and non-living beings. Yet, it also acknowledges humanity's custodian responsibility regarding the natural world. In contrast, secular naturocentrism places nature at the centre of our understanding of the world, rather than humanity. Additionally, green conservatism advocates a profound ethical shift in our relationship with nature, because rather than being a mere trend it represents instead a fundamental shift in our understanding of the world.
At the same time, three reasons can be distinguished that may be perceived as somewhat cynical but pragmatic. The first is that climate change and its impact on the economy and our daily lives is inevitable and obvious. This leads to the necessity to alter our approach to these areas rather than blindly denying and preserving the 'old ways', whatever that may entail. Conversely, a refusal to acknowledge the evolving circumstances will not only render traditional approaches to economic, energy, and other policy areas ineffective, but may even prove detrimental to democratic countries in the context of a global confrontation between the United States and China in the international arena. In this context, green politics can be a catalyst for maintaining the competitive advantage of democracies against authoritarian states, while also becoming a product for export and influence in third countries. This could enable the West, in particular, to address historical injustices, many of which have been self-inflicted.
Secondly, the conservatives should adopt the green idea as a purely electoral strategy. It is widely acknowledged that the core constituency of any right-wing conservative party is comprised of more mature and economically stable citizens. However, younger people traditionally support more left-wing and progressive parties, in part due to their strong commitment to climate policy. Changing policies and attitudes towards environmental issues will not reverse this trend in conservative favour; however, it may attract some of the younger electorate to the right, or at least make them a possible alternative in the event of disillusionment with green or left parties. This of course brings with it other risks and alienates a traditional electorate. It is challenging to turn one's opinion 180 degrees without appearing opportunistic. The solution is to implement a gradual and strategic approach to change, capitalising on current events. For instance, the Russian aggression in Ukraine has led most Europeans to recognise the necessity of developing their own independent energy resources, rather than relying on Russian energy. Additionally, conservatives need to convince their electorate that it would be to everyone's benefit if this energy is also carbon-neutral.
The third reason is largely contingent upon the actual policy in the economic and energy sphere. Indeed, it is not uncommon for conservative parties that are aligned with certain business interests to defend them against proposals from the left or the Greens. One illustrative example is that of farmers, who historically have demonstrated a proclivity to support the conservatives, yet simultaneously are engaged in a contentious dispute with the Greens regarding the future of the agricultural sector. In addition, the green transition will not be a cost-effective measure for citizens and the state budget, given the initial investment and higher prices of traditional electricity. However, this presents an opportunity for conservatives to advocate for greater financial discipline in order to implement the green transition. Furthermore, the energy transition also presents new business opportunities, provided that there is a market for them. Moreover, as this increasingly becomes mainstream policy with strong state subsidies in the EU and US, the risks to business would be fewer. Furthermore, the incentive for environmental responsibility could serve as the basis for new protectionist legislation designed to influence the flow of cheap goods to developed countries and increase the competitive advantage of more expensive 'domestic' equivalents.
Overall, conservatism is often erroneously conflated with notions of nostalgia and denial. In fact, conservatism is not opposed to change; rather, it has consistently demonstrated an ability to adapt to and leverage the evolving landscape. In light of this, it is misguided for conservatives to oppose green policies, instead it is advantageous to contest the initiative progressives have taken on such issues. The reality, unfortunately, is that both conservatives and the more progressive segments of society have engaged into a culture war on climate change, partially fuelled by manipulative special interests and bad actors. This impacts not only the world around us, but also the ability of conservative parties to stay in big politics much longer.
Profit over Planet: Why Growth Orientated Economics will sustain the Climate Crisis
Conall Hirsch
“It is easier to imagine an end to the world than an end to capitalism.” Philosopher Mark Fisher adopted this phrase, originally attributed to Fredric Jameson and Slavoj Žižek, in his book Capitalist Realism: Is there no alternative? in which he argues that capitalism is not only the most viable economic system, but that no legitimate alternatives exist. The concept of Capitalist Realism derives from Margaret Thatcher’s slogan “There is no alternative,” which epitomizes the “end of history” attitude that encapsulated the late 1980s and 1990s. Ironically due to the rapid acceleration of anthropogenic climate change, we very well may experience the end of the world as we know it directly due to neoliberal capitalism. This essay is a response to my colleague’s argument in which he posits that conservatives should adopt climate protectionist policies, focusing specifically on his advocation for what is known as “Green-Growth” economics. I elucidate an alternative to this concept and introduce what is instead known as “Post-Growth” economics, which has become popular amongst environmental activists and some economists as unlike neoliberal capitalism it prioritizes sustainability rather than unfettered profit. I also highlight many examples in which unregulated neoliberal capitalism has undoubtedly either contributed to or outright caused ecocide, facilitating the destruction of the natural world and threatening the earth’s habitability. I posit that while capitalism itself is not an inherently evil or dysfunctional economic system, the belief that the Earth’s resources are infinite and thus unlimited economic growth is possible is both untrue and may very well lead us to our civilization’s end.
Part I: The Danger of Unregulated “Growth”
The purpose of this essay is not to argue that capitalism is an unfeasible system, but rather that the liberal nature that has characterized the last several decades of international economics coupled with the idea that resources are virtually infinite has provided the formula for anthropogenic climate change. While the free market incentivizes participants to create and sell products at the intersection between the best quality and price, this often has come at the expense of the environment as well as exploitation of vulnerable populations. The examples of companies prioritizing profit over sustainability are virtually uncountable and by no means a new phenomenon - its roots can be traced back to the era of European colonization and are simply too numerous to refer to in a single article.
In particular, the most egregious examples of such are instances in which companies have deliberately engineered their products with shorter lifespans in order to maximize profits. The most pertinent contemporary example exists in the technology market. Apple has been accused of what is known as planned obsoleteness, wherein their products are engineered to function optimally over a few years then rapidly drop in functionality, thus forcing the consumer to purchase the new version of the product. This is not unique to Apple, and has become a common practice across the technology market. It takes inspiration from the business models used by many car manufacturers throughout the 20th century: by introducing new models every single year which are virtually indistinguishable from the past year(s), but preying upon the consumerist instinct to have the newest and best products galvanizes buyers to “upgrade” sooner than is truly required, creating excessive waste. Not only does it increase the demand of the resources used to manufacture new products, but as well as creating excessive waste which is often disposed of incorrectly or at the detriment of the environment. It is not uncommon for wealthy nations to send their waste to be “recycled” in the developing world, but instead results in abhorrent pollution (Bangladesh’s shipping liner metal stripping industry is a pertinent example).
Perhaps one of the most unparalleled contemporary examples of this is the “Fast Fashion” industry. The onset of incredibly cheap manufacturing initially in China but now including Malaysia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia (among others) has allowed companies to produce clothing at ridiculously low cost to sell to consumers in the west and global north. The quality of such items is usually very low as the materials are cheap - hence the term “fast” fashion refers to such items typically only lasting a short amount of time and becoming dysfunctional far sooner than garments made with legitimate materials. The Fast Fashion industry has been linked to incredible rates of waste, emissions as well as widespread human rights abuses of workers in countries with weak or non-existent labor regulations. While this is not limited to the fashion industry, the widespread practice of creating higher volumes of cheaper goods incentivized by quick smash and grab profits has accelerated climate change as well as perpetrated horrific labor abuses across the developing world.
A final example which stands to be drastically improved is the philosophy behind global shipping. 90% of global trade is transported via cargo ships, but due to maritime tradition and economic incentive the dominant methodology of ship captains has been to the practice of Sail Fast then Wait. Captains were encouraged to race to their destination ports as fast as possible and then idle while waiting for a berth in the port to become available and offload cargo, however this practice has lead to idling outside of ports to make up a gargantuan 8% of total voyages. While this practice guaranteed captains to not miss their allocated docking windows, it expends excessive fuel and creates unnecessary emissions. Thus there has been a very recent push to reform this practice to instead reduce shipping speed in order to reduce emissions as well as increase profits for global shipping in order to waste less fuel and streamline global trade.
Part II: Green Growth vs. Post Growth
Green growth refers to the broad economic concept that the free market will create the “silver bullets” needed to conquer or mitigate climate change. There are multiple versions of this concept, which include those which favor government investment and those which rely entirely on the free market. This has been a dominating philosophy in environmental economics for decades, stemming from the very concept of liberal capitalism itself. However skeptics have repeatedly elucidated what they purport to be this system’s fatal flaw: where are the solutions?
Decarbonization is not a new concept; it has been accepted by both policy makers as well as many market participants for some time that there is a vital need to decarbonize our economies, creating a colossal incentive to develop efficient, cost-effective and scaleable renewable technologies. Unfortunately even in spite of this incentive, the free market has yet to save us. There are many factors which contribute to this limitation, namely technological limitations, logistics and most importantly scalability, however the most prevalent issue is that for the largest energy procures it is simply not profitable enough yet to commit to almost or totally decarbonized practices. Thus the immediate market reality and the need for the climate to decarbonize do not presently align, creating a disconnect that threatens the longevity of both the global economy and virtually every aspect of our society’s security. This is not to downplay the fantastic developments in renewable technologies: they have proven that most of the world will be able to mostly decarbonize even with present tech limitations. Instead it is an economic critique; as we creep closer to 2 degrees Celsius global average temperature above pre-industrial levels, it becomes increasingly dubious that a perfect solution will magically appear, as many green growth advocates often purport.
The market’s profit incentives often do not align with sustainability, even in renewable technologies. This is best exemplified by the current issues in the Electric Vehicle market (EVs), which has grown significantly at an annual rate for the last decade. The market is currently facing myriad issues, mostly stemming from technological limitation as well as most nations lacking widespread EV charging infrastructure. Thus it is imperative that governments step in to both assist in the subsidization of the EV industry as well as the infrastructure required to support it; as it stands, manufacturing gas-combustion engines is still far more profitable than converting to electric vehicles, in spite of the sustainability incentive. Additionally EV companies have shifted the focus of their sales proportionally due to countries’ commitment to developing infrastructure to support such - the U.S. for example has had limited charging infrastructure until very recently with Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act which has allocated 47$bn to EV adoption, thus EVs have been slow to adopt and cultural stigmas around electric vehicles has hindered the incentive for some American manufactures, namely Ford, to scale up EV production properly (in order to meet emissions targets). Thus we arrive at the crux of the issue; in spite of the existential threat of climate change, the unregulated free market as advocated by Thatcher and later Fisher has not solved the climate crisis but rather accelerated it. Thus it is only logical to begin to investigate alternative solutions.
Post-growth refers to the concept of economic systems which do not prioritize “growth” of GDP (among other metrics) as the be-all end-all of economic progress. In fact, it restructures the very measure of what economic “progress” means: instead of corporations and CEOs which already possess a disproportionate amount of wealth at the expense of dwindling resources and ecological decline, Post-growth models instead focus at sustainability and greater welfare for the broader population rather than the enrichment of the privileged few.
Kate Rawort’s “Doughnut Economics” model is a fantastic representation of the idea of Post-growth. The model focuses on the concept that ecological sustainability and the general social foundation of society are inextricably connected, and thus our economic models must prioritize this rather than “growth” at any cost. The metric for success in this model is not creation of wealth at the expense of natural resources but rather that the nine ecological ceilings are not breached nor manipulated, creating a sustainable model rather that which is apathetic and extractive. While this is a criminally simplistic explanation, the model in short seeks to create an equitable allocation of material and services for society as a whole without exceeding ecological boundaries.
As the climate crisis grows ever more dangerous with each passing day, it becomes ever more necessary to question the systems which have lead us to the present and necessitates radical experimentation in order to build a better tomorrow. Contrary to what Capitalist Realism posits, our ideas and economic priorities are malleable, and they are capable of evolving if we allow them to. Thus while I agree with my colleague that conservatives can and must adopt climate protectionism, it becomes more dubious whether the economic models which created the climate crisis can also solve the problem they created. Thus progressive and radical new models, such as Rawort’s Doughnut, deserve experimentation if we are to beat the climate crisis and create a more equitable future.