Skip to main content

Climate change is not just about cutting back

Recently I read the book Climate Change Begins at Home by David Reay. It makes for an entertaining read and persuasively argues that every family can substantially cut its greenhouse gas emissions. I particularly liked how the book puts the focus of tackling climate change on individual behaviour. Way too much climate change debate is about governments making agreements, even though such agreements are basically worthless. Governments can do little: it's individuals that pollute, and it's individuals that need to pollute less!
        The arguments Reay put forward in his book did, however, seem a bit naïve when it came to economics. He made the case, which one often sees, that cutting back on emissions is a win-win scenario. If a family uses the car less, uses the air conditioning less, goes for a local holiday rather than flying half way around the world, buys less plastic gadgets, and so on, then they benefit the environment and save money. At the level of the family this argument is sound. The problem comes when we apply it at the level of society.
         To see the point, suppose that a family reduces its production of greenhouse gas by 50%. In doing so it spends 50% less. For example, it buys less petrol, less electricity, less plastic gadgets, less airplane tickets, etc. In isolation the family should be happy. But, if every family in the country cuts spending by 50% then something has to give. GDP would halve overnight! Or, in more practical terms, many are going to find that they are out of job - we do not need so many people refining oil, selling petrol, producing electricity, flying aeroplanes, etc.
         Tackling climate change requires more, therefore, than families cutting back on greenhouse emissions. It will require far bigger fundamental changes in the economy. This will primarily mean a shift away from the materialistic world we appear to have converged on. In particular, basic logic suggests we are going to need a 50% cut in income to go with the 50% cut in spending! This need not come at the cost of happiness, because all we need to do is cut out unnecessary things that were not needed anyway. And we know that more income does not buy more happiness. But, whatever the framing, a cut in income of 50% is not going to be very popular.
         So, tackling climate change will require a fundamental change in the economy. Does that change the individual incentives to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions? No. Popular discussion of climate change essentially seems to suggest the 50% cut in income has to proceed the 50% cut in spending. And, therefore, individuals (and governments) are reluctant to sign up to tackling climate change. But, this gets things the wrong way around! The 50% cut in spending will proceed the 50% cut in income. It is better, therefore, to be ahead of the game and reduce spending now. This way you save money in the short term and are prepared for any shift in the economy that may subsequently follow. 
   

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Revealed preference, WARP, SARP and GARP

The basic idea behind revealed preference is incredibly simple: we try to infer something useful about a person's preferences by observing the choices they make. The topic, however, confuses many a student and academic alike, particularly when we get on to WARP, SARP and GARP. So, let us see if we can make some sense of it all.           In trying to explain revealed preference I want to draw on a  study  by James Andreoni and John Miller published in Econometrica . They look at people's willingness to share money with another person. Specifically subjects were given questions like:  Q1. Divide 60 tokens: Hold _____ at $1 each and Pass _____ at $1 each.  In this case there were 60 tokens to split and each token was worth $1. So, for example, if they held 40 tokens and passed 20 then they would get $40 and the other person $20. Consider another question: Q2. D...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nash bargaining solution

Following the tragic death of John Nash in May I thought it would be good to explain some of his main contributions to game theory. Where better to start than the Nash bargaining solution. This is surely one of the most beautiful results in game theory and was completely unprecedented. All the more remarkable that Nash came up with the idea at the start of his graduate studies!          The Nash solution is a 'solution' to a two-person bargaining problem . To illustrate, suppose we have Adam and Beth bargaining over how to split some surplus. If they fail to reach agreement they get payoffs €a and €b respectively. The pair (a, b) is called the disagreement point . If they agree then they can achieve any pair of payoffs within some set F of feasible payoff points . I'll give some examples later. For the problem to be interesting we need there to be some point (A, B) in F such that A > a and B > b. In...
Post a Comment
Read more

Prisoners dilemma or stag hunt

Over Christmas I had chance to read The Stag Hunt and the Evolution of Social Structure by Brian Skyrms. A nice read, very interesting and thought provoking. There’s a couple of things in the book that prompt further discussion. The one I want to focus on in this post is the distinction between the stag hunt game and the prisoners dilemma game.    To be sure what we are talking about, here is a specific version of both type of game. Adam and Eve independently need to decide whether to cooperate or defect. The payoff matrix details their payoff for any combination of choices, where the first number is the payoff of Adam and the second number the payoff of Eve. For example, in the Prisoners Dilemma, if Adam cooperates and Eve defects then Adam gets 65 and Eve gets 165. Prisoners Dilemma Eve Cooperate Defect Adam Cooperate 140, 140 65, 165 Defect 165,...
Post a Comment
Read more