When I was a child, we considered a certain saying very funny: “Teachers help us to solve the problems we wouldn’t have without them”. Can we say the same thing about technological progress, economic growth and climate change: “Technological progress and economic growth have provided us with the greenhouse problem but they will also be the ones enabling us to solve it”?
There are basically two strategies to solve the greenhouse problem: The first strategy (The “back to the roots strategy”) advises the human race to consume less, to halt and reverse economic growth and to adopt a lifestyle of sufficiency. The idea is to decrease production which (given that emissions per unit of production do not increase) decreases overall emissions.
The second strategy (the “flight forward strategy”) puts all its money on the horse of economic growth and technological progress. The idea is not to decrease production but to decrease emissions per unit of production and thereby to decrease overall emissions. In addition, economic growth and technological progress might also decrease the atmospheric emission concentration through coming up with better ways to build up up sinks, carbon sequestration, and new ways of geo-engineering; and also, importantly, by increasing adaptive capacity.
The most important problem with the first strategy (“back to the roots”) is that it is not “realistic”. The most important problem with the second strategy (“flight forward”) is that it is anything but certain that technological progress will be able to solve the greenhouse problem.
What about the objection to the first strategy of “not being realistic”? A lot of interesting points could be made about this objection using the resources of the exciting research in moral philosophy on non-ideal theory (non-ideal can mean several things, for example non-ideal epistemic conditions or – and this is the relevant case here – non-ideal compliance and motivation of the actors involved).
But I think from the perspective of an individual which (i) is willing to do whatever it takes to solve the greenhouse problem and (ii) has to decide on which policies to support, a lot of the huge and intricate discussion on the pros and cons of the two strategies and a lot of the discussion on non-ideal theory boils down to estimating four probabilities:
Then, in order to decide on whether to follow the first or second strategy (and simplifying incredibly), we have to check whether:
It is my hope that this sounds in some way trivial. It was my intention to extract the core of this huge and intricate discussion between the two strategies of “back to the roots” and “flight forward”.
It seems to me that in current debates there is a lot of focus on probability P4. Authors and commentators (rightly) point out that if we put our stakes on economic growth we are making a gigantic and very uncertain bet which could very well go dead wrong: the chances that technological progress will solve the greenhouse problem are far far below 100%. And so, a lot of people stress that P4 is much smaller than P2, i.e. it would be the much safer strategy to mitigate radically by abandoning the path of ever-increasing consumption and materialism.
It seems to me, however, that much too little focus is laid on P1, i.e. the chances of convincing humanity to commit itself to an anti-growth strategy. These chances are in my eyes so incredibly minuscule that they outweigh everything else in the equation. Just think of how much the most advanced economies groan and moan if in a certain year their economies do not grow or imagine how they wail and whine if their economies even shrink in a given year. Then imagine shrinking their economies every year not only by negligible amounts but by, say, 50% over the coming decades. And, further, imagine not only demanding something of this sort of affluent societies but of poor societies, too. The probability of convincing humanity of this strategy is incredibly small. And therefore, it does not seem wise to put much effort into policies pursuing the first strategy. (Side remark: This is not say that individuals are not under a duty to pursue the first strategy in their own lifes).
I have left incredibly much out of the simplified picture (for example that there are other considerations – such as that the first strategy is the more “natural” one – or that the decision between the two strategies is not an either-or-decision). My only goal was to break the whole big discussion down to a stylized problem. This was mainly my goal in order to point out that the discussion should shift from P4 to P1.
There are basically two strategies to solve the greenhouse problem: The first strategy (The “back to the roots strategy”) advises the human race to consume less, to halt and reverse economic growth and to adopt a lifestyle of sufficiency. The idea is to decrease production which (given that emissions per unit of production do not increase) decreases overall emissions.
The second strategy (the “flight forward strategy”) puts all its money on the horse of economic growth and technological progress. The idea is not to decrease production but to decrease emissions per unit of production and thereby to decrease overall emissions. In addition, economic growth and technological progress might also decrease the atmospheric emission concentration through coming up with better ways to build up up sinks, carbon sequestration, and new ways of geo-engineering; and also, importantly, by increasing adaptive capacity.
The most important problem with the first strategy (“back to the roots”) is that it is not “realistic”. The most important problem with the second strategy (“flight forward”) is that it is anything but certain that technological progress will be able to solve the greenhouse problem.
What about the objection to the first strategy of “not being realistic”? A lot of interesting points could be made about this objection using the resources of the exciting research in moral philosophy on non-ideal theory (non-ideal can mean several things, for example non-ideal epistemic conditions or – and this is the relevant case here – non-ideal compliance and motivation of the actors involved).
But I think from the perspective of an individual which (i) is willing to do whatever it takes to solve the greenhouse problem and (ii) has to decide on which policies to support, a lot of the huge and intricate discussion on the pros and cons of the two strategies and a lot of the discussion on non-ideal theory boils down to estimating four probabilities:
- P1: The probability of convincing humanity to implement the first strategy
- P2: The probability of the first strategy being successful if implemented
- P3: The probability of convincing humanity to implement the second strategy
- P4: The probability of the second strategy being successful if implemented
Then, in order to decide on whether to follow the first or second strategy (and simplifying incredibly), we have to check whether:
P1 x P2 smaller than P3 x P4
or whether
P1 x P2 larger than P3 x P4.
or whether
P1 x P2 larger than P3 x P4.
It is my hope that this sounds in some way trivial. It was my intention to extract the core of this huge and intricate discussion between the two strategies of “back to the roots” and “flight forward”.
It seems to me that in current debates there is a lot of focus on probability P4. Authors and commentators (rightly) point out that if we put our stakes on economic growth we are making a gigantic and very uncertain bet which could very well go dead wrong: the chances that technological progress will solve the greenhouse problem are far far below 100%. And so, a lot of people stress that P4 is much smaller than P2, i.e. it would be the much safer strategy to mitigate radically by abandoning the path of ever-increasing consumption and materialism.
It seems to me, however, that much too little focus is laid on P1, i.e. the chances of convincing humanity to commit itself to an anti-growth strategy. These chances are in my eyes so incredibly minuscule that they outweigh everything else in the equation. Just think of how much the most advanced economies groan and moan if in a certain year their economies do not grow or imagine how they wail and whine if their economies even shrink in a given year. Then imagine shrinking their economies every year not only by negligible amounts but by, say, 50% over the coming decades. And, further, imagine not only demanding something of this sort of affluent societies but of poor societies, too. The probability of convincing humanity of this strategy is incredibly small. And therefore, it does not seem wise to put much effort into policies pursuing the first strategy. (Side remark: This is not say that individuals are not under a duty to pursue the first strategy in their own lifes).
I have left incredibly much out of the simplified picture (for example that there are other considerations – such as that the first strategy is the more “natural” one – or that the decision between the two strategies is not an either-or-decision). My only goal was to break the whole big discussion down to a stylized problem. This was mainly my goal in order to point out that the discussion should shift from P4 to P1.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment