By Simone Tagliapietra, a Research fellow at Bruegel. He is also Adjunct professor of Energy, Climate and Environmental Policy at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore and at The Johns Hopkins University – School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) Europe. Originally published at Bruegel.
As a climate policy researcher, I am often asked: what is the biggest obstacle to decarbonisation? My answer has changed profoundly over the last couple of years. Before, I used to point to a complex combination of a lack of cost-competitive green technologies and an absence of political will. Today, I point to something else. Something less tangible, but possibly more challenging: the absence of a green social contract.
The green revolution is already unfolding, driven by a stunning reduction in the cost of green technologies and by a global momentum for climate neutrality by mid-century. So, one might ask: as cheaper green technology and unprecedented political green ambition rapidly converge, what could possibly go wrong? Unfortunately, the situation is not as simple as it seems. The more it advances, the more decarbonisation will reshape our economies and impact our lifestyles. Nothing will be left untouched in the process: the green world will be profoundly different from the one we know today.
Such a radical transformation will also raise questions about who should bear the cost of climate action, both within countries and between countries. This will draw attention to the necessity of ensuring that the cost of climate action does not disproportionally fall on the most vulnerable, exacerbating inequality. Climate action should, in fact, be designed in a way that improves social equality. And this is precisely what a new green social contract should be about.
The French experience with the so-called “Yellow Vests” movement represents the clearest example of the perils and political headwinds that governments worldwide may face as they try to wean their citizens off fossil fuels. Climate policies should be introduced in tandem with compensation mechanisms to cushion the blow for the most vulnerable. This is exactly what a group of economists including 28 Nobel laureates and four former Federal Reserve chairs – among them Janet Yellen – have been calling for in the United States: the introduction of a robust carbon tax, together with a compensation system to return all the revenue to citizens through equal lump-sum rebates, to ensure that the most vulnerable benefit financially by receiving more in “carbon dividends” than they pay in increased energy prices. This discussion, illustrating how equity and fairness considerations have to be built into the design of climate policies, represents the domestic dimension of the green social contract we need to develop.
Such equity and fairness considerations go well beyond national boundaries. As developed countries scale-up domestic climate actions, they will likely introduce measures – such as carbon border taxes – to ensure that their industries do not suffer uneven competition from competitors based in countries with weak climate policy. Already in the initial stages of development in the European Union, the introduction of such measures was also pledged by Joe Biden during the campaign. Boris Johnson is now considering using his G-7 presidency to try to forge an alliance on carbon border taxes. But the introduction of carbon border taxes could impact the economies of the poorest countries. As with domestic carbon taxes, this problem can be prevented by taking into consideration equity and fairness in the design of the measures. One option would be to simply exempt the poorest countries from border charges. This discussion should be at the core of the international dimension of the new green social contract.
Thanks to green tech developments and political momentum, the world finally has a chance to reverse its failure to tackle climate change. We now need to make sure that climate action is designed in a way that improves social equality. Policy solutions exist, but they require proper debate and careful implementation. At the domestic level, countries can learn from France, which reacted to the “Yellow Vests” crisis with the launch of the Citizens’ Council on Climate – an experiment in direct democracy aimed at identifying solutions to foster decarbonisation while ensuring social equity and fairness. At the international level, this can be done by putting climate equity and fairness at the core of the forthcoming U.N. climate talks in Glasgow. Such actions are fundamental to ensure long-term social support for the green transition, and to prevent its derailing – which would have catastrophic consequences for the planet. The time for a new green social contract is now.
33 comments
Comments are closed.
It was time for a green social contract in 1980, or earlier. I find it depressing that all these folks can’t look at the primary data and realize and/or communicate we are up a particular creek.
I’m sure the microbial mats in what was once permafrost will dutifully pay their carbon border taxes. I’m sure our neoliberal order will also promptly demand products that are nearly indestructible, instead of our countless planned obsolescence gadgets, cars, and even clothes. I’m wearing jeans I bought 2 years ago, they should be reasonably intact compared to what punishment I would have put them through in the 80’s (when I was a wee lad). They now have holes as if I were playing daily out in a forest, and roughhousing with the neighbor kids. I’m sure I haven’t been doing that, as science work isn’t exactly rough.
This is why we can’t have nice things
In short, gotta keep the wage-slaves busy.
Maybe it’s needlessly busy hands that are the Devil’s workshop?
Oh, 2999% thanks for this, I remember this story, and I didn’t have a real nice link for it. Great find!
The beginning of the last paragraph:
“Thanks to green tech developments and political momentum…”
Already thankful for “developments” that haven’t “developed”…like the environmental effects of all the mining to come and fresh water to be used….
Am I just not a “deep thinker” when I see the phrase “a compensation system to return all the revenue to citizens through equal lump-sum rebates” and say “what’s the point?”. You’ll be charged higher prices, but after washing the tax proceeds thru the political and financial infrastructures (each taking their vig), we’ll hand it right back to you (if we can find you).
Where I live, there’s an extra tax on electricity of about 10ct/kWh. On the same bill, you get a fixed rebate, about the average kWh consumption times 10ct
So if you use less than average, the tax lowers your power bill. If you use more than average, it raises the bill.
The compensation system may be handled similarly to the “loser” compensation that was NOT in the various “free-trade” legislative actions of the US government since the 1980’s.
The statement “should be introduced in tandem with compensation mechanisms to cushion the blow for the most vulnerable. This is exactly what a group of economists including 28 Nobel laureates and four former Federal Reserve chairs – among them Janet Yellen – have been calling for in the United States:”
One can wonder if a majority of these 28 Nobel laureates were also supporters of the prior USA Free trade actions (and maybe even for the free-trade loser compensation that did not happen).
If USA legislators were to lock in the “vulnerable compensation” mechanisms first and the decarbonizing actions second, that would be noteworthy.
But will that occur as deficit hawks soar into flight?
We live in a fossil fuel world. The author of this piece lives in a fantasy world, i.e. ‘Research fellow’ at bla, bla, bla.
We can live in a ‘Green’ world, but it will differ greatly from a fossil fuel world. This is the truth that cannot be spoken by those advocating for any ‘Green’ movements. Either they are ignorant of the truth, or willingly ignore the truth.
Whatever the reason, the truth remains, once the inevitable decline of fossil fuel availability and quality begins, we will all get to reexperience a ‘green’ world. And as noted above, it will differ greatly from the fossil fuel world we currently occupy.
The only true way to ‘decarbonise’ is the reduce the cause of said carbon, mainly eliminate human beings. One way or the other that will be the ultimate outcome, but once again cannot be spoken by a ‘Research Fellow’ at a bla, bla, bla.
Thank you! Modern cities would cease to exist for the most part – and so would most of ex-burbia. The population loss would be historic. Don’t even start talking about ‘modern’ food production (which is 98.9% dependent on fossil fuels). The great reset is coming, the only question is the timeline.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Words to live by.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Words to live by.
Sounds like words to die by. I guess the message of Easter is lost on some.
If you check out Michael Hudson’s latest interview on Australian radio, (at his website) you will hear or read his account of an experience he just had in New York City. New York is already ceasing to exist, and that rapidly. Changes are afoot, and we in the US will not be the re-setters; nature will. You break it; she fixes it, and it is already underway.
But what we can be is re-settlers!
Our imaginations have to leap ahead of carbon tax considerations. Like our green nature friends, we are going to have to adapt, and that rather swiftly. If we haven’t already started. One good start would be to phase out agribusiness and phase in land restoration. FDR restored forests with the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corp). We in the US need to restore the crop growing and animal husbandry areas -yesterday! Small holdings, organically farmed, bordered by ecosystems. Enlarged farm institutes to educate budding farmers free of charge and actually grow green! (And build blue jean factories for clothes that can actually stand the wear and tear!)
Government has shown it can mangle the Constitution almost out of existence, but it’s still there. It could do this, if it wanted to. All it takes is the political will. Isn’t survival enough incentive?
First, do no harm. Where it is possible, plant trees! Stop thinking about owning everything. I don’t own the land my house sits on — but I’m doing it. I’m investing in trees. They will be here when I’m gone. Think about it!
That’s a legacy.
If you haven’t read it already, you might enjoy Chris Smaje’s A Small Farm Future. Here’s a review.
It is almost like we need something like this : 4-H is a U.S.-based network of youth organizations whose mission is “engaging youth to reach their fullest potential while advancing the field of youth development”. Its name is a reference to the occurrence of the initial letter H four times in the organization’s original motto “head, heart, hands, and health” which was later incorporated into the fuller pledge officially adopted in 1927. In the United States, the organization is administered by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture of the United States Department of Agriculture. 4-H Canada is an independent non-profit organization overseeing the operation of branches throughout Canada. There are 4-H organizations in over 50 countries; the organization and administration varies from country to country.
I guess raising goats is not as cool as managing the cloud or working some new variation of derivative ponzi.
Maybe 4H and similar groups will be the deepest realest counterculture movement in America.
Maybe they will be able to ” uncool” cool itself. ” Cool is the new lame”.
Some time ago,when I first encountered Bernie Sanders proposal that we have a green new deal, I was so moved with its rightness
I wrote something I believe most people want. I do not know
very much about practical solutions but I place a lot of importance
on feeling.
This is it! Bernie has issued
the clarion call to every human
to feel the truth of an opportunity
to change direction and work for
humanity and all of nature.
If we can agree to implement this
transformative plan the benefits will
spill over to the rest of the world and
we may face our children and grandchildren
and the world with optimism for a future to be in.
It is what we have been wanting
to leave a better way for our children
and those who follow and
show that we can begin again and
that we can respond and learn.
I read this and my heart felt like
it would burst with joy.
I believe it is a call like this that
will bring forward the creativity
and genius and love
of our human species which will
find the way forward.
We must say yes to the big idea and
step off the cliff to endure both
physically and psychologically.
“The only true way to ‘decarbonise’ is the reduce the cause of said carbon, mainly eliminate human beings….”
Being worked on while out of the other face whines about population decline.
So read between the lines and the problem the establishment is trying to solve is how to cherry pick.
How much carbon did the 6 million Amazonian Indian terraformer-terrafarmers release ( before the Spanish-Portuguese diseases killed them all)? As against how much carbon did they suck down, reverse-emit, and sequester in their rising levels of terra preta?
How much carbon do the Old Order Amish of today emit? As against how much carbon do they suck down and bio-sequester?
Thank you NC audience. I was not disappointed by the initial responses to this nonsense. It must be nice to be able to make a living trotting out such absurd green-wash.
Do you have a suggestion for resolving resource constraints?
My belief is that there will be an astronomical number of deaths, to reduce the human population on this planet to about 500,000 humans.
And those will be the people who are know how how to survive, the current hunter gatherers.
Synoia, I love questions like this.
If Guy McPherson is correct, regardless of whatever you think of him, and that collapse is so abrupt that the nuke plants pop, anywhere in the northern hemisphere is largely doomed. Distance from radiation may allow enclaves in the far, far north in the historic Inuit regions to survive, but then the question becomes, what is edible?
Alternatively, if the plants are shut down quickly and limited in contamination scope:
How bad will the food chain get when fishing for creatures in the arctic that are not adapted to such warm temperatures? I’d suspect that freshwater areas of northern Canada and Siberia with Northern Pike populations would survive to some degree, but they need something to eat too, and there aren’t fish in all the bodies of water, especially once you get real far north. These areas will still have harsh winters and this is difficult survival without the wildlife that once provided quite furry pelts and other animal derived cold-weather fashions.
(Off topic, I’m fully aware of how to conquer Northern Pike, it is a battle I adore, and would do it daily if it was possible. The fish tastes great day 1, but after that, you gotta smoke it)
If the Northern Hemisphere is screwed, and/or in a mad-max sort of situation, will the Southern-Hemisphere tropical hunter-gatherers survive? My suspicion is no, because all of these regions will be drying up rapidly and the original food web will collapse. Heat and wet-bulb temperature may become the death of these people as well. Hunter-gather populations aren’t going to figure out how to go to Antarctica, and I suspect there won’t be much there, as it will still have either melting glaciers, or flora and fauna dying at about the same time. I don’t expect penguins to be around much longer sadly, they are cute.
It’s possible that the denizens of North Sentinel Island may be fine, though looking at the temperature graphs, they might be cooked as well.
No, I think the know-it-all Silicon Valley folk plan to come out of their doomsday bunkers as planetary pioneers, but they will be as ignorant coming out as they went into them. They believe that the seed vault will be fine, and their brilliant plans of waiting until all the deplorables shoot each other for the last can of beans will have magically worked. So many years of industrial agriculture have obliterated the soil and the forever chemicals are largely forever.
Now if aliens are coming, I hope their example of humanity isn’t the bunker-people, they are arguably the worst of the bunch.
There is no fundamental way to resolve resource constraints due to the system unfortunately.
You are sadly correct on the number of deaths. Tell people now that you love them, or strongly dislike them, either way, a clean slate is the honorable way to go down.
Also, thanks for all of your thoughtful forum posts over this time, always enjoyed your insight.
If Guy McPherson is correct, then there is nothing anyone or everyone can do about anything to make any difference now. So if he is correct, then there is nothing for it but to lie back and think of England.
Or stick our head in the freezer and kiss our ice goodbye. However you want to phrase that.
And just have fun fun fun till we die.
If Guy McPherson is correct, then there is nothing we or anyone can do. So we might as well just lie back and think of England, stick our head in the freezer and kiss our ice goodbye, and then Party Party Party till the curtain falls.
Dear C14, I too love these questions and comments. However, people don’t seem to realise this global warming trajectory is not a stable system. You mention: “I’d suspect that freshwater areas of northern Canada and Siberia with Northern Pike populations would survive to some degree”. Northern population will not survive because the temperature (and acidity) of the ocean will not warm to an extent, and then stabilise. It will continue to heat, and heat, oh, then it will get real hot. Personally, I give the oceans less than 10 years – regardless of the latitude – before we aren’t pulling anything of human worth from them.
Then G. McPherson’s idea of nuke plants “popping”. Again, I don’t think radiation floating around the globe will limit itself to a human imposed latitude limit. It will be everywhere and just add salt to the wound of hunger. With all the hoopla about going to Mars, before that, be assured of the warm, Sunny beaches of Venus coming to an Earth near you. Game over me thinks.
Sorry. No. I think first leg down we will drop to about 1-2 billion. Then while they try to figure things out we will hit the numbers you suggested. I was going to say that I hope they don’t try to get back to ‘normal’, but that won’t even be possible or desired. And while a resumption of consumerism won’t be in the cards, it is always possible the ‘strong man’ might make another go of it. My only hope is that too will be deemed undesirable.
Something less tangible, but possibly more challenging: the absence of a green social contract.
At first read i projected the bolded to mean a required Human Mentality Change about our relationship to General Material Consumption and the Waste Burden left.
But that must be off the table of Solutions, although Anonapet (thanks), above, gives us a hint why:
This is why we can’t have nice things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v8D-alAKE
The incentives to “green” the economy mean several assumptions:
Severe energy conservation/constricting GDP growth as hydrocarbon consumption is curtailed by pricing/incentives, specific tageting of energy-consumption industries to reduce their impact, subsidies for those populations that live in distant areas, curtailment of personal consumption/personal travel via pricing/incentives, emphasis on conservation or dynamic pricing for the majority of business/consumer transactions going forward.
These issues are not attractive for the majority of the population, as it would be an imposed restriction for almost the entire population (except for the very wealthy) for the non-tangible (or marginally recognized) benefit of reducing global climate catastrophe. This is a generational issue, make no mistake.
Changing the way people have been accustomed to live, its a tough sell, no matter how you cut it. Prehaps removing a huge amount (50% + ) from the military to stabilize the economy may work, but government spending is “leaky” at best, as funds will likely to be misued rather than reach the specific populations that will need it the most, absent a change in policy and agencies.
Whew! Sorry for the long winded reply
The USA military might be re-purposed domestically to preserve order.
Elevation of the military (and police) “heroes” may be part of the plan.
Shrinkage of the military footprint may not be in the cards.
Note that Biden had to get a waiver to install a former general as Defense Secretary
“WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Pentagon took a major step toward confirmation Thursday, after House and Senate lawmakers voted to waive a law blocking the recently retired general from assuming the post.”
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2021/01/21/congress-oks-waiver-for-biden-defense-secretary-pick-lloyd-austin/
I view the situation as the government elite have done an estimation of how much incremental CO2 production will be required to keep the population at bay over the next 10-20 years and seen that there is no real option other than “business as usual” with impending climate change (and species extinction)..
“These issues are not attractive for the majority of the population, as it would be an imposed restriction for almost the entire population (except for the very wealthy) for the non-tangible (or marginally recognized) benefit of reducing global climate catastrophe. This is a generational issue, make no mistake.”
But, you make this stuff sound like an option if we want to avoid environmental collapse. We are long past the need to have a real, direct conversation with people about the structural changes needed to deal with this environmental crisis. We also need to be real about the fact that many people involved in that discussion are old and will not have to deal with the consequences decades from now. Should they have the right to choose their same lifestyle if it dooms humanity, the young that they are handing the country over to?
“but government spending is “leaky” at best as funds will likely to be misused rather than reach the specific populations that will need it the most, absent a change in policy and agencies.”
How is this just an issue with government spending. Did Bill Black not write about the best way to rob a bank is to own one? Okay, we have an environmental crisis that is far beyond carbon emissions. We cannot realistically monetize most of the non-market impacts. We are reaching the limits of growth in regards to resource consumption and pollution generation, and the FIRE sector and the monetary parts of the economy can grow forever. Given this and the limits of monetization, how exactly are private banks to really deal with this crisis? How do they take non-market impacts into account? How do they know if their “green” investments aren’t negated by non-“green” investments from other banks? What informational challenges will individual banks confront when dealing with this?
I realize the informational challenges that planning authorities have to confront, but it seems beyond obvious that we need comprehensive economic planning at the state level, and we need the planning to be democratic. We know from the socialist calculation debate and the experience of centrally planned economies that when planning systems are authoritarian, the information needed to make good planning decisions becomes degraded. So, we need to deal with aggregate consumption of resources, the aggregate generation of pollutants, and we need to deal with these things in regards to physical units. That is far beyond what is possible for an individual bank to take into account, no matter how many resources they have at their disposal. If your argument is that Americans will just not accept that, fine, but all you are saying really is that Americans prefer to maintain an unsustainable system over a habitable planet. We either accept the objective reality heading for us or we don’t, but if we don’t it isn’t like us refusing to do so will put off the environmental collapse.
Correct. I perceive the “doing nothing” option is the preferred choice of our politicans and government. The Kyoto protocol, Copenhagen and Paris get-togethers did not meaningfully impact the United States approach to climate policy within my lifetime. The same people whom have choosen our current path of destruction are the same actors that we need to force to change our path going forward.
The Waxman-Merkley bill was the last serious proposal to attach a permanent cost for energy consumption, flawed as it was, to modify our path. Passed the house, died in the senate. (That could be the dirge of US policy, writ large)
I believe this is the modern scam of oligarchy. Its a attitude of tulip manias prior to the crash. Bummer that the crash isn’t a market, but our habitat.
Ah, the rub. Thank you for highlighting this contradiction. Every aspect of this problem solving needs to have public input, as it will be the public that will bear the burden of the costs/change. Capitalism is the system that has wrought this outcome, supplanting democratic will in a majority of scenarios. Can capitalism somehow be utilized to provide an incentive to slow or stop consumption? I don’t know. Thanks for the reply.
Three things:
–half the carbon currently in the atmosphere was added since 1990;
–feedback loops–barely identified much less understood, the sixty or so we now know of could each by themselves be catastrophic. A massive human die off (probably not total extinction) is inevitable, within 30 years.
–the wishful thinking around carbon offsets (see below) looks like the new iteration of “recycling”–a fig leaf to make the middle class feel good.
Chasing Carbon Unicorns
https://eos.org/articles/chasing-carbon-unicorns
So what to do? Have some fun! Party like it’s 1989……….
Hillary Clinton made a brief statement once about a ” Green Social Contract”, but in her usual warty-toad style she poisoned the well with a few ill chosen warty-toad words.
Here is a you tube of her little speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksIXqxpQNt0
At timpoint 0:15 , she says ” because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners out of business” and fails to suppress a smile at that thought. You can hear the silent cackle. Those words, and the way other words were arranged around them, poisoned the well for millions of people to ever trust government to think about ” new jobs for coal miners” before ” shutting the coal industry down”.
A more humane person might have worded that differently. Maybe talk about pre-positioning jobs for coal miners right where the miners already live before shutting down coal. ” Green Jobs at Coal Wages”.
But noooo . . . . not our Hillary.
There won’t be any Green Social Contract in this country till that well is de-poisoned.
I think providing incentives to private banks is not going to work. Since banks can create most of the money we use, how could you guarantee that environmentally friendly investments aren’t negated by environmentally destructive investments? How do banks take non-market impacts into account, especially those that are global in scale? Are there realistic limits to monetization? Seems obviously so, limits to growth too. So, how do we know if we are within the sustainable limits of resource consumption or pollution generation if we don’t have pretty comprehensive economic planning?
A poll just came out regarding what the public thinks about banks and the environmental crisis. One question was, would you support forming a green bank that would incentivize private investment? Strong majority said yes. Okay, well why not form a public green bank that would allow the government to create money and to have the bank itself make the investment? Because we refuse to operate outside of traditional capitalist norms it seems. It seems to me that MMT and public banking can provide a solution to something I just don’t see from private banks. I mean, the environmental crisis is far beyond carbon emissions. Overfishing, massive pollution in the ocean, the species extinction rate being thousands of times the natural rate, ocean acification, soil erosion, deforestation, etc. An individual private bank is going to take all of this into account? Does it not need to know what consumption and pollution generation is happening elsewhere? Just seems unworkable. We need comprehensive economic planning and since there are real limits in regards to monetization, we need to start dealing with things in regards to physical units. I don’t see how anyone thinking individual banks and financial institutions can possibly do this in isolation. I also don’t see the logic of continuing to rely on private financial capital in this context, and how we continue to allow private banks to create most of the money we use.
The vast majority of us are already bearing the enormous externalised costs of a world political/financial system that allows a wealthy few to dominate by exploiting the earth’s productivity, our own productivity included.
So if our political representatives create a means to prevent us from seeing our direct monetary costs of new (green) technologies, it may be that we will accept those technologies more readily, as the author seems to suggest, but that manoeuvre by itself wouldn’t form a social contract against inequality.
Why not? Because it wouldn’t be able to prevent company boards, officers and shareholders from passing their mandated ‘green’ costs to us in other ways, thus allowing inequality to continue to grow unchecked, just as it does now.
On the other hand, a green banking system in which we could all open an account might gain the power to forge a green social contract, IF it were phased in slowly alongside the existing banking systems, and IF it were empowered to create a global currency based on environmental models.