I often find myself feeling conflicted about this idea of “sustainable growth”. The idea that Daly confronts is that, society and business in particular, think that we can continue to grow a robust global economy, extracting further resources in larger quantities (as that’s what growth implies), and still at the same time be able to do it in such a way that it does not harm the environment. To me, on the surface, these seem like very contradictory ideas. But this is also one of the difficulties with the term sustainable development. The common definition is “development that meets the needs of the present without depriving future generations of the ability to meet their own needs,” but if the earth is comprised of a finite amount of resources (which it is), and the population continues to grow, and a larger share of that population begin to expect a life equal to those in the Western world, then how is it possible to not run out of resources at some point? Additionally, we don’t know what future generations will need, what the earth’s carrying capacity is, or if the amount we take now will leave enough for those in the future. Is it all a total farce? I don’t know, and here I am in a sustainability management degree program housed in a business school.
The three articles in section five attempt to address this issue from very different perspectives, each focusing on a different point of coercion. Dauvergne and Lister point to market forces and the movement of big business toward sustainability as the answer to much of the world’s environmental problems. Because of customer demand for more earth friendly products and services, corporations are taking a more conservationist approach to doing business. On the surface this looks all well and good. The purchasing power of major corporations like GE, Walmart, and Coca-Cola is so large that they can affect change in practices on a global scale, leading to a real reduction in consumption of resources. In many cases, it is far more effective than national or international regulations can be. But this has nothing to do with being good stewards of the earth. It has everything to do with a drive for higher profits, larger market shares, and a plan to being in business 200 years from now. This is no secret, as highlighted by Beth Keck, Walmart’s senior director of sustainability, “Sustainability is a business strategy, not a charitable giving strategy.” I do believe that it can help in certain areas of environmental degradation that needs immediate addressing, but history is littered with examples of entities, organizations, countries and individuals being the causes of their own demise. And to address the most pressing issue facing humanity, climate change, a business strategy will not be enough, the must be coercion.
It’s a dirty word “coercion,” especially in a country based on the idea of personal liberty and freedom. We do not want to think of ourselves as a people coerced. But we are, every day. I’d love to drive a 125 miles per hour on an open road, or say whatever I was thinking at any given time. But I can’t, because we live in a civil society with norms, rules, and expectations that help keep our system in balance. We expect to be safe from lunatics driving two ton steel death machines and bite our tongues out of fear of being socially ostracized over breaking the rules of civility. Without some sort of coercive force, Hobbes was right, life would be nasty, and brutish, and probably short. So why is it that we think corporations, made up of those very same humans, would be any different?
Despite the unseemliness associated with the word coercion, Krugman makes a solid argument for a coercive force that allows money to be made and the environment to be protected, ensure that humanity has the opportunity to buy another pair of shoes. Cap and trade is the only way to go. We’re not going to blow up the whole global economic, political, and social system. Nor should we. This system has made more people healthy and wealthier anything else has throughout all of history. The idea of buying and selling is as humanity itself. I suspect some caveman somewhere recognized the benefits of mutual agreements and exchange to obtain some good he was lacking. Is the system perfect, no. It obviously leaves some out in the cold, and favors the advantage of others. There is much room for improvement. However, for the purposes of dealing with climate change, one must look at the alternatives and realize that using a market based approach has the potential to dramatically reduce carbon emissions. Lessons are to be learned for sure from the EU’s cap and trade system, the system just recently implemented in California, and the seven province trial system in China (soon to be nationally implemented), but the potential remains.
No comments:
Post a Comment