The Climate Movement Needs to Get Radical, but What Does that Mean?

Thanks for digging deeper and finding induecourse.ca

I liked his conclusing paragraph:

"I don’t think it’s too hard to see these tendencies at work in the modern environmental movement (generating “deep ecology” critiques, on the one hand, and environmental apocalypticism on the other). The solution to both problems is one and the same — to recognize that it is a collective action problem, that collective action problems are hard to solve, and so we need to stop freaking out and just get to work on it."

I’m not sure that I agree with the Joseph Heath’s distinction between the collective action problem and the ideological problem. To me, they are one in the same.

Let me start off by stating that I believe climate change is absolutely a collective action problem. However, much of the difficulty in addressing the problem comes from the different ideologies in the collective. (let me also mention that I’m not a fan of Klein’s – too much sensationalism and too much preaching to her own choir.)

Libertarian ideology is, in my opinion, premised around deservedness and individual liberty; the liberty to do and not do what one wants to, so long as it doesn’t infringe on the similar rights of others. This makes collective action problems extremely difficult for libertarians as it requires them to lessen their own freedoms in support of the collective good. Their individual loss may be greater than their individual gain.

On the other hand, liberal/leftist ideology is premised in maximizing the collective good (not necessarily in a utilitarian sense) even if it means restricting individual freedom. This is, almost by definition, the solution to collective action problems. So, the collective action problem is not much of a difficult to overcome for leftists – they just need to follow their ideology. This isn’t always done of course. They easily fall victim to the appeals of convenience and cheaper goods at the expense of the ideological ideal. At the other end, leftist ideology can lead to dogmatic support of what is believed to increase the collective good but actual does more harm. (Interestingly, Heath points to this in a piece centered around the argument that ideology plays no role in collective action problems…)

The ideological split becomes even more apparent in how the two groups view solutions to collective action problems. Roughly, the solution to collective action problems involve regulating actions to prevent damages and penalize those that don’t. This tends to be a combination of laws, regulations, taxes and tariffs – all of which are aimed at preventing a specific action. So long as it produces a collective good, the liberal/leftist is fine with it. However, in my opinion, for the libertarian/rightist, regardless of whether it produces a collective good, it may be seen as reduction in individual liberty.

So to claim, as Heath has done, that climate change is a collective action problem but not an ideological one appears without much support. Just look at the political split on surveys around understanding and acceptance of climate change and support for mitigation; does Heath assume this is pure coincidence? To claim ideology plays no material role is rather silly to me, both in theory and in practice.

What this really comes down to is the “carbon tax…and then what?” question. As I said, the “and then what?” almost certainly involves more regulations, laws, taxes and tariffs. I don’t think this will jive well with libertarians. I cannot see how “more free market” is the solution to a collective action problem, just as I cannot see how libertarian ideology plays no material role in collective action problems.

The "Hobbes's difficult idea" post was really interesting, but the conclusion seemed to be that by accepting that it's a collective action problem we'd suddenly know what to do and that we'd start doing something. That's not obvious to me. It's also not clear to me that it being a collective action problem is being ignored in quite the way that was being suggested. I suspect many recognise this; the problem is getting everyone/more to do so.

[I don't think that the idea is that we'd suddenly know what to do. The idea is more to point out how far away we are from getting anything like rational solutions to these problems, because people keep mis-identifying them. And so good people find the wrong things are the problem, and so naturally they fail to solve the problems. One that's very easy to see is: essentially all economists agree that import and export tariffs are bad, and the correct solution for any country is to unilaterally drop them. And yet, they persist everywhere.

Prisoners-dilemma type problems are hard to solve. Part of the answer is to train people not to fall for short-term solutions. Hayek has some nice things to say about this, which I hope to blog about when I've read more -W]

Poverty, inequality, ignorance, apathy, selfishness.

Solve those problems endemic today in many countries and answers to the climate change problem follow closely behind.

Good luck to us all. And our children. And our grandchildren.

Dornan, for instance, writes: Second, it should be noted that, at a global level, the sway of the Washington Consensus ended, depending on how you periodize these things, either in the late 1990s in the wake of the East Asian financial crisis or in the late 00s after the 2008 crash. "

What? Please go tell that to central bankers in the US and UK and numerous other countries that raised interest rates long before events warranted post 2008. And the politicians that refused, still refuse, to use fiscal policy with historically low interest rates to aid in recovery.

Rewrite Dornan's sentence replacing his "the sway of the Washington Consensus ended" with "the sway of the Washington Consensus *should have* ended" and you'll have a more accurate picture of reality.

As ATTP has recently written, We don’t even agree on the basics.

[I think that the idea that "neolib" has fallen apart is wrong; but unlike you I'm glad that is so. We need more, not less, of it. For the sake of the environment -W]

Again, what have we learned from the past twenty years of economics? Well, some people (and/or countries) haven't learned much.

Krugman studied Japan's 'lost decade' and learned. A few others listened to Krugman and learned. Larry Summers claimed to have learned, but got cold feet when push came to shove. He's all down with it now, though -- just too late to actually do anything. Lately a few of the international figures have learned (a bit too late to effect much, unfortunately). But even Abenomics -- the supposedly wild spending stimulus program in Japan -- in reality shows how little this knowledge results in effective policy.

Japan’s First Consumption Tax Hike Was a Demand Disaster. Even if the rhetoric isn't all austerity, it's no indication appropriate policies will follow. Neo-liberal, glibertarian views have contaminated the economic sphere. Ideology trumps facts.

If we had learned, we'd see 'helicopter money' and/or Keynesian hole-digging projects and/ or massive infrastructure programs, and/or central banks setting 4% inflation targets etc., etc., etc.

Instead we have an economic system that teeters precariously close to another global crisis. It is in circumstances like these that the Trumps of history flourish.

Justin Wolfers in the NY Times on the recent disappointing jobs report:

"It’s possible that the economy is slowing significantly — that Friday’s jobs report is the canary in the coal mine. Perhaps employment is slowing because of election-related anxiety, or Fed-induced fears of higher interest rates, or concerns about the world economy. Maybe the recovery has run its course.

Whatever it is, I find it hard to think of a time in recent American history when policy makers are as ill-prepared to respond.

The Federal Reserve still has interest rates set nearly as low as they’ll go. This means that it can’t use its standard tool of cutting rates to stimulate the economy.

Typically that would suggest turning to fiscal stimulus. But the odds of a timely stimulus are slim. Though it’s only early June, Washington is already gripped by election fever, and Congress has decided to punt on just about every major issue until after the election.

As a result, fiscal policy will most likely remain on hold at least until a new administration takes office in early 2017. And who knows what the priorities of the new president might be?"

Now, if the influence of neo-liberal, glibertarian economics was't so strong 1) we wouldn't find ourselves in this position, and 2) we'd be prepared to deal with another economic downturn.

Marx must finally be grinning in his grave. Perhaps capitalism's fatal flaw is a built-in, self-defeating 'feature' .....

WC -[I think that the idea that “neolib” has fallen apart is wrong; but unlike you I’m glad that is so. We need more, not less, of it. For the sake of the environment -W]

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

A carbon tax, which is what I think you have in mind here, does not require neoliberal or glibertarian policies.

[I think that if you find yourself repeatedly using phrases like "glibertarian" you're probably talking to the wrong people. That said, you are correct that a carbon tax does not require NeoLib policies - but so what? I didn't say it did. I do however think it is more in harmony with NeoLib economic thinking that anyone else's -W]

We've had gasoline taxes in the US for decades and decades passed and increased by any number of politicians of various political persuasions. It's just a policy choice - not the sole proprietary tool of neo-libs or glibs.

Jesus, get off that horse. Didn't the complete market failure of 2007-8 teach you anything? Didn't the austerity freaks and the results of austerity in the aftermath teach you anything?

[People pick up 2007-8 and use it as a cudgel to batter for their own preferred view; but it can't be used like that. That's pol-talk; if you want to talk like a politician, again, you're in the wrong place. It was a failure, but much smaller than people generally think, and do you think people will therefore abandon (free) markets? Of course not -W]

As ATTP wrote - we can't even agree on the basics. Let's just ignore the actual results and *pretend* neo-lib/glibertarian ideology actually works.

rconnor: "I cannot see how “more free market” is the solution to a collective action problem."

A free market is the purest form of collective action. Climate is, at least in part, a collective action problem. The set of climate concerned individuals are all part of potential market collective. This collective has the opportunity to participate en masse in the market as consumers of multiple kinds of emission reduction.

As we see from Kevin O'Neill, approaching climate as an ideological problem devolves in the endless arguments over ideologies rather than the problem at hand. Plus, an ideological approach requires government to act, which requires political majorities which may never materialize.

The beauty of the market solution is that it does not require majorities, only the participation of the willing.

A free market is an efficient way of solving some collective action problems. The classic commons, a common pasture, can be solved by ownership in parts or in ownership in shares. Fishing in the 200 mile economic zone of a country might be solved by enforcing fishing catch shares in some fashion. This can't be done on the high sea, as every country would have to agree. Both working examples involve seizing common property and creating ownership of the resulting private property. The example that doesn't work, fishing on the high sea, as it requires every country to agree. If just one country doesn't agree to the limit, it doesn't work.

I don't see how climate is on the list of problems solvable with a free market. Looks to me like an ideological solution that doesn't work with the problem at hand.

If a sizable minority are burning fossil fuels, the climate change still happens, just slower than if everyone was burning fossil fuels. So how does a sub-majority have a solution to the problem? Looks to me like the high sea fishing problem.

[I'm not expecting pure free markets to solve GW. But I do think that a carbon tax is the best approach, begun individually rather than through world wide negotiation. And this I think is compatible with the NeoLib agenda: government has to set parameters, but within those the free market should be left to work things out as far as possible -W]

WC -[I think that the idea that “neolib” has fallen apart is wrong; but unlike you I’m glad that is so. We need more, not less, of it. For the sake of the environment -W]

Might need to define "neolib". I would describe the Abbott government that scrapped the carbon tax in Oz as being ~neoliberal. Harper gov and the GOP too. Surely these are not the true neolibs we need for the sake of the environment? So who are then?

[I've decided to use the IMFs meaning (see Yet more misc #6). Because, as you say, not everyone agrees on its meaning. So, do the Abbott government satisfy their defn? The first is increased competition—achieved through deregulation and the opening up of domestic markets, including financial markets, to foreign competition. The second is a smaller role for the state, achieved through privatization and limits on the ability of governments to run fiscal deficits and accumulate debt -W]

PK [The set of climate concerned individuals are all part of potential market collective.]

So is everyone else. Externalities are a market failure. A free market is not the solution to a market failure.

PK [The beauty of the market solution is that it does not require majorities]

So if 40% of the population do there bit and the others dont, this will produce a reasonable outcome?

A free market might be part of the solution to a market failure. Not the whole solution. And all depending on the details of the market failure, of course.

Let's start with the well known example of the commons. One solution to this problem is to expropriate the rights of everyone to graze their livestock on the commons, then subdivide the commons into plots, and plots are given or sold to individuals. Note that the first part of this, expropriation, isn't a free market, but the sale of plots allows for the establishing of a free market for such plots, and by putting the management of each plot in private hands provides for a more efficient use of the commons, as pasture or for other uses. Note that there are many various ways to sell off the commons, such as grazing shares, that may or may not be better, depending on details.

It's hard for me to see how the atmosphere/climate as a commons can be solved in a similar way. The problems start with the fact that the atmosphere is a global commons, so a global expropriation of rights would be needed. Just exactly how could this be done? Then how would the rights be distributed? And what exactly would a right enable the owner to do? Suppose that distribution of rights, and enforcement actually managed to stabilize the climate. What if a group wanted a warmer or cooler climate, and another group didn't, how could this conflict be resolved?

> A free market is the purest form of collective action.

And banding together to build fortifications and hold off the bandits who invariably attack said free market is pretty damn pure, no?

What's a free market? One where all requirements to purchase insurance for any reason are eliminated?

In the US, even a small gas tax is a non-starter. People are going out and buying big cars fast. A few years back, in my rather liberal/progressive state of Massachusetts, which has one of the highest gas tax rates in the country (tiny by your standards) a tax of 11 cents on a gallon would have solved a big problem, and we couldn't pass 3 cents. Instead, they rolled back what we have, which was set to index (if I have the terminology right).

I don't have answers, but I spend a lot of time observing people and communication, and though I sometimes despair about the namecalling come from my part of the spectrum, it's nothing compared to the resentment and blindness in opposition.

I even found myself thinking deniers are in their own way more honest that we are: they at least are counting the cost, even if only to fight it. Just today there was an article about women having to walk to collect water in Africa, and the disbelief and resentment and victim blaming was shocking.

The idea of doing without hot and cold clean running water is so foreign to most, they just think it's a lie or a scam.

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." -- Anatole France

Paul Kelly,

The beauty of the market solution is that it does not require majorities, only the participation of the willing.

Ah yes, the magical voluntary market participation where people are willing to purchase goods based on environmental grounds, not on price, and transform the market to be near net zero emitting.

Kind of like how voluntary market participation, through mass boycotting, eliminated the practices of off-shoring production to exploit cheap labour.

Voluntary market participation, so good at addressing wide-scale societal problems!

hat tip to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/06/boomerangs-versus…

for this, which is from 2009

https://web.archive.org/web/20090331133158/http://whatmatters.mckinseyd…
_____________
Brief excerpt follows, for those who prefer reacting to my little snippets rather than reading the longer pieces by people far smarter:

----excerpt-----
what are my suggestions?

Believe in science.
Believe in government, remembering always that it is of the people, by the people, and for the people, and crucial in the current situation.
Support a really strong follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol.
Institute carbon cap-and-trade systems.
Impose a carbon tax designed to charge for the real costs of burning carbon.
Follow the full “Green New Deal” program now coming together in discussions by the Obama administration.
Structure global economic policy to reward rapid transitions from carbon-burning to carbon-neutral technologies.
Support the full slate of human rights everywhere, even in countries that claim such justice is not part of their tradition.
Support global universal education as part of human-rights advocacy.
Dispense with all magical, talismanic phrases such as “free markets” and promote a larger systems analysis that is more empirical, without fundamentalist biases.
Encourage all business schools to include foundational classes in ecology, environmental economics, biology, and history.
Start programs at these same schools in postcapitalist studies.

Does the word postcapitalism look odd to you? It should, because you hardly ever see it. We have a blank spot in our vision of the future. Perhaps we think that history has somehow gone away....."
--- end excerpt----