Why Government policies on climate change are likely to fail

(Please note that the term government is used without reference to any political party but to the whole mechanism of government as practiced at the national level in the UK and many other countries.)

There is something unreal about conflicting and competing national government policies to achieve economic growth and to tackle climate change.   Economic growth is achieved through higher production and the use of ever more energy and finite resources. Tackling climate change means reducing CO2 through the use of less energy and a smaller carbon footprint for all. The two are simply incompatible.

Those who promote economic growth often say that the circle can be squared through the triple mechanisms of 'sustainable development', a concept that many politicians speak about but few seem to understand, the introduction of new or alternative technology such as wind farms and solar energy or improved efficiencies in engines and installations.   In fact in a growth economy all that these measures seem to achieve is to slow the speed of the rate of increase in the use of finite resources.   An annual economic growth rate of 3% would see a doubling of the size of our current economy by 2030, exactly when we are predicted to feel the real crunch of climate change.    We would thus need to halve our current levels of fossil fuel per unit of production to stand still.

As a very rich and technically sophisticated country we may be able to reduce emissions from their current levels but we are not alone in seeking growth. Other countries are also committed to growth - some of them way in excess of 3% per annum.   Many of the countries from which we import our vast quantities of consumer goods are poor and have neither the necessary wealth nor technical expertise to become lower carbon economies. This beggars the question - Would we not all be better off if new technology was geared to improving the quality of life rather than the quantity of output?

Whilst ever the governments of the World press for economic growth without fully understanding or recognizing the implications, then the reality is that such policies will have a disastrous effect on battle against rising CO2 levels.   There is a growing view that if climate change is our public enemy number one we have to be bold and bring a deliberate and controlled end to this quest for growth and this is the challenge we must set our politicians.   Is this a radical view?   Equilibrium was in fact first proposed by Plato in 350BC; by Aristotle in 332 BC and by many eminent economists and scientists in all generations since and best articulated in 1972 in 'The Limits to Growth' a report by The Club of Rome a group of 30 eminent individuals from 10 countries including scientists, economists and industrialists.    One of their quotes is the motto of the Sierra Club.   'Not blind opposition to progress but opposition to blind progress'! In my opinion a dogmatic and blinkered attitude to continuous economic growth is surely a worst case of blind progress.

Much of this blind growth fuels a make, break and throw away life style where it is now cheaper to buy a new suit made in Vietnam or China from a supermarket than to have one cleaned and it is as cheap to buy a new electrical appliance from Cambodia as to call out a maintenance engineer.   Consumerism is now an ingrained western disease supported by government policies which encourage its growth.   The current reduction in sales at High Street stores is seen as a disaster when in fact we should all applaud it.   Firstly the 99p labeling and more recently the 50% off (of what?) have led to a situation where cheap furniture from the far east is now the most advertised product on television. 'Shopping' has now become our number one recreational activity.   It is against this background of rampant growth in consumerism that governments' want us to reduce our carbon footprints.  

It is interesting to compare the government's action to support economic growth with their policies to encourage climate change action.   Our own experience with the proposed mechanisms, structures and policies to date has been entirely negative.  Government seems to think that the only way forward is through a 'regulatory' process which does little to change the way in which society is developing.   The lack of appreciation that climate change and increased use of fossil fuels is a result of increased consumerism seems to pass by the understanding of our politicians.

For those of us who are making a genuine attempt to influence behaviour and to engage companies and their customers in reducing their carbon dependency within a wider sustainable development lifestyle there is no government encouragement or support.   In fact we are continuously pressed to become providers of 'certified emission reductions' or to be 'kitemarked' at a ridiculous cost.   This concentration on more efficient or alternative production rather than balancing this with reduced consumption is asking us to fight with one hand tied behind our backs.

Through TICOS we are now developing over 50 sustainable development projects (politicians please take a look and see what this means) all of which achieve varying amounts of CO2 reduction alongside wider social, environmental and economic benefits.   We have expanded our TICOS user base to include a number of larger companies from the transport and services sector and we are developing new programmes to include companies outside of the UK.

To underpin our work we have developed a new Validation Standard which embraces the technical element of the Gold Standard but places emphasis on additionality and demands sustainable development benefits for local people.   We are also working hard to design methods to help to expand and protect some of our major carbon sinks such as peatlands and avoided deforestation.   These are highly complex issues and our science team is engaged in establishing new forms of best practice which we hope to announce soon.

What has the British Government done to help us?   It has now produced a new draft procedure offering a sort of kite mark for 'approved' offsets.   It will surprise no one to know that this is only intended for government backed offsets within the 'regulated' arena that politicians seem to so much enjoy.   The entry cost for TICOS would be £4,500 per project and £2,000 as a 'sign up' fee.   Expensive bits of paper.  As we are developing over 50 projects we would have annual fees of over £250,000 and need extra staff simply to do the paperwork.

It seems to me to be totally illogical for anyone working on a voluntary climate change programme to wish to 'buy' regulated offsets.   The whole basis of something being voluntary is that it is done because someone wants to do it rather than because they are forced to do it.   Voluntary action should be trail blazing and entrepreneurial; it should seek to expand horizons and bring fresh ideas to the table.   It should certainly not mirror the regulatory processes of a government process which is committed to growth as a principle without seeming to understand the adverse relationship this has to our changing climate.

There are some glimmers of hope coming from politicians in Scotland who recognize that the voluntary approach is as important as the regulatory approach and that far more encouragement should be given to encouraging sustainable development incorporating climate change action at all levels in society.

So, is it all doom and gloom?   Are we heading out of control towards the scenario envisaged by the Club of Rome 30 years ago, when they predicted that growth would eventually be limited by catastrophe if we did not plan the changes necessary in the way in which we live and consume resources?

The reality is that we are probably now at the start of the end of the consumer age.   Major consuming countries of the western world have already exported almost all of their means of production to low wage economies of the east.   As these countries develop their economies and overtake those of the west there will be a further extension to globalisations which will begin to even out the distribution of wealth.   There will still be many billionaires whilst billions still live in poverty but wage rates in developing countries will increase in relation to ours and higher prices will mean lower consumption.   Already in parts of China production is being moved to other areas and to other countries as wage rates increase.   The demand for oil and minerals is still growing to an extent where for the first time ever the growth in known reserves is only matching and sometimes less than the rate of consumption.

The upshot of this is that growth will be limited by default.   It may or may not be as the result of a climatic catastrophe but will certainly be limited by the price mechanism of ever more scarce natural resources and higher wage rates for those working in production.

Many critics of the views I express will say that this ignores new technology and man has always been inventive enough to find solutions to problems.   To depend on the unknown is a high risk strategy and most serious natural scientists would prefer a precautionary approach which used control mechanisms we already know about and are already at our disposal.

TICOS embraces the principle of precaution.   It works with those who recognize that we all need to do something at an individual level if we are to tackle climate change.   The good news is that more and more people are taking positive and voluntary action over and above that forced on them by regulation.   It is this individual and incremental action that offers hope for the future rather than that by governments around the world which give such mixed messages on growth and climate change action.

Dick Sisman
TICOS founder
25th April 2008