the Blog

Death of environmentalism and a new social contract

Nordhaus and Shellenberger promote the Politics of Possibility and criticize traditional environmentalism in their book Break Through. The book is one of the most important contributions devoted to develop new way of thinking about environment issues. Their argument is philosophical in its nature. I like to reconstruct it in a sort way.  

The traditional environmentalism is based on politics of limits or restriction: cut the emission by law and sanctions etc. The way of restriction is going to fail, because it's without ambition, vision and incentives. Only a positive message and a vision of better future could lead a real solution to climate change. The agenda is: by creativity and innovation we can solve "wicked" problems of the world and reach a world with security and wellbeing.   

"We argue for an explicitly pro-growth agenda that defines the kind of prosperity we believe is necessary to improve the quality of life and to overcome ecological crises."  

Why is the politics of limits going to fail? Here the argument goes to deep issues of human being. What motivates people, what defines their attitude towards future? This is a question of basic values in post-material society. They are related to two aspects of life: belonging to communities and personal fulfillment. People want to be autonomous subjects with personal freedom and choice, and with control over their own life. Basically this post-materialistic value setting is positive, social and open to new possibilities.

Insecure affluence 

In present day's global economy people feel themselves insecure, but this insecurity is not related so much to job insecurity than status insecurity. Nordhaus and Shellenberger characterize this security as an insecure affluence. The crucial point here is that, this insecure affluence is directing people towards outer-directed materialistic and fatalistic survival values. This kind of attitude is leading selfishness and material consumption instead of social life and post-materialistic fulfillment.   The politics of limits is enforcing this insecure affluence. So it is working against the positive value setting and hindering the solution to global warming and other societal problems (poverty).  

 Nordhaus and Shellenberger refer to a book of Benjamin Friedman The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth. Friedman's "laws" (my term) are: 

1. During times of economic growth, people become more empathic, expansive, ands generous towards others. 

2. During times of rising insecurity people become less generous and more status conscious.  

In summary: under insecure affluence we could not hope to solve environmental problems, because people are not interesting to do that.  

A new social contract 

How to find way out of this negativity? According to Nordhaus and Shellenberger it is to have a new social contract.   

"What's needed is a postmaterial social contract that will allow the next generation … to turn away from survival values and materialistic status competitions and towards fulfillment, self-creation, and a new ecological politics."  

In my mind, a new social contract is possible only if is accepted by the middle class and if firms commit also to it. If firms are acting according to the rules of "supercapitalism" described by Robert Reich, then insecurity will increase and Friedman's laws will foil the contract.   

In the politics of possibility the starting point is people's willingness to do good and use their talent and creativity to solve wicked problems together. And in this effort technology and innovation are not enemies of environment but necessary tools. Therefore the sustainable innovation is exactly what is needed.  By sustainable innovation we can adopt a "pro-growth program" where growth means enforcing wellbeing of all people.   

Comments: antti@sustainableinnovation.fi