The Environment: A Wicked Issue

Louis JR Connor (18/11/09)

To be honest I arrive at the subject of the environment with a very vague picture in my own mind as to the correct way to combat negative environmental change. It is clear that the human consumption of fossil fuels and the aggressive process of industrialisation and continued technological development over the past two hundred years have had a net negative impact on our environment. Furthermore, we are now at a point where seismic environmental change is inevitable unless we act now – however that is – to mitigate the effects of climate change. If we don’t, the results are pretty bleak to put it mildly; human nature will eventually cease to exist. Of course, preceding this nihilistic end, the effects of environmental change will ensue; rising sea levels, desertification, rising temperatures, and mass migration to name just a few. These events alone will be catastrophic, but the consequences of these events will also create their own problems such as starvation and conflict. My point here is that I arrive in a haphazard fashion towards the issue of the environment. We have had political targets, scientific targets, economic targets and social targets to respond to climate change, but we are yet to see a holistic approach to combating environmental change which acknowledges its ‘wicked’ nature.

Wicked issues such as climate change require a holistic and adaptive response, but their severity and complexity often force governments to make instant decisions which are then uprooted as and when the wicked issue adapts and moves across systems – such as international, national and community systems. This is all quite theoretical but provides a perfect explanation for the climate change issue, and suggests that how we tackle climate change must be holistic and adaptive.

What substantive and politically accepted environmental solutions put forward thus far have been wholly economic ones. These have centred on discussion of so called “carbon footprints”, and then attempting to work out how much these footprints “cost”. If we are to really bring about a positive reversal from harmful environmental change we must accept the issue is a wicked one with no single solution, or no single focus – such as an economic focus outlined above. Current emphasis on setting costs for carbon and then attempting to incorporate carbon emissions as a commodity into the international market fail to recognise the multi-faceted nature of environmental politics. It is also for this reason why I have no hope of a lasting remedy being decided upon during Copenhagen. Sure our world leaders wield an enormous amount of power, but again we are relying too heavily on a political focus. What will actually result will be verbal agreements and handshakes as to what the environmental problem is. Indeed, Barack Obama has even said himself that there will be no legally binding agreement out of Copenhagen, and it is unclear whether he will even attend.

The scientific target for tackling climate change is to avoid a 2 Degree increase in average temperatures, the economic target is to utilise the market and set prices on carbon as a commodity, the political target is to reach a global agreement, legally ratified,  which compels government action, the social target is to change our perceptions towards nature. Only by incorporating all these targets together and acknowledging that climate change is a wicked issue, will we be able to effectively curb negative climate change. Furthermore, certain targets have not received a fair hearing. The social target, of changing our perceptions towards nature, is certainly a gap in the environmental dialogue. Often attempts to build social impetus behind tackling negative climate change are made by referring to ‘fear-mongering’ worst case scenarios. Instead, it would be more useful to frame a debate in which we discussed how we treat nature, how we should use nature, and discuss the moral and ethical issues behind our relationship to nature – even if we weren’t compelled to do so because of climate change.

What we must avoid is the reductionism often used when attempting to ‘frame’ the environmental debate to just a security issue, or to just an issue of sustainable development, or to just an issue of resource use and development, and acknowledge that climate change is a wicked issue. The solution – of which here I have only touched upon briefly – must acknowledge the issues wickedness and be holistic and adaptive. The threat faced by environmental change is portrayed as one which could potentially destroy human existence unless we act now. For action to take place now, and for it to be effective, means that Government and individuals alike must be taking unilateral action now rather than reducing the issue to a focus on only a scientific, economic, political or social target. The issue of climate change encompasses all of these, and the issue is itself adaptive and will affect future events we can not safely predict – this makes it a wicked issue. To tackle a wicked issue, we need a holistic and adaptive approach. We need unilateral action at the same time from Government, society and individuals now.

Cheryl Brumley (08/11/09)

I was feeling guilty…very guilty. As I measured my footprint on the Carbon Calculator found on The Guardian website, I witnessed with horror an orange dot on the right grow more rotund and prominent on the page. The dot represented my average long-haul trips taken per year matched against the UK average. I never previously pondered its relevancy nor linked the actions of green campaigners to my love of antipodean commutes. I immediately got defensive. I recycle obsessively, take public transportation, turn out every light in the house before I go to sleep, unplug my phone charger when not in use, and I remain supportive of greener policies via the route of renewable energy technology – but reducing my own cultural enrichment exercises (it is a bit obvious I’m trying to find several euphemisms for my atmosphere-thinning travel habits) as a means to save the planet – I was taken aback. Wait a minute, I thought the Plane Stupid campaigns were there to make Heathrow and British Airway managers feel like worthless, polluting human beings – not me.

The suggestions made by certain environmental activists to cut back on international and domestic travel go towards increasing taxes on plane flights in order to forcibly discourage long-haul trips (or rather encourage rail travel) ideally reducing them to one per year, per person.  Ed Miliband has remained against all-encompassing cuts, instead interpreting the G8 call for an 80% emissions reduction by 2050 to exist as a give and take between sectors. Afraid that hikes in airline costs would only make travel an elite luxury, the Government, in their UK Lower Carbon Transition plan released in July, preferred instead to cut emissions by a greater percentage in areas such as the power industry to make up for airline travel.

Miliband has received criticism from more adamant green activists but he is correct in painting a “Green Future” around possibilities for job creation and not inevitable job cuts. Also, if green policies are to be sourced holistically, we should giveth and taketh away across sectors as if they are the sum of their parts. Therefore, we should be more lenient for industries that enhance the well being of the populace in ways that are not so easily quantifiable. Travel must remain egalitarian as it is an invaluable educational tool as well as a key industry for many countries including the UK (so even if a bender in Ibiza is not the former it most certainly is the latter). Yes, many places can be reached by rail, but a multiple day trek across Europe to reach one destination is far too impractical to be competitive.

Green policies must be rooted in both economic and societal advantages rather than based on reactive carbon crash dieting. In order for this to exist as something more than a fad for the masses, it must be practical and it must not marginalise those who would otherwise not be able to afford a massive hike in expenses. To take the diet analogy further, just as one can miss the point of reforming eating habits – to be healthier in the long term not just to be a few pounds lighter – the point of green living is likewise, a self-sustaining and better quality of life. At the risk of sounding like a gap-year dreamer, I think travel is life changing and an essential part of discovering who one is. There is a small section of the world that will always be able to buy their right to leisure whilst others just sit and dream. Travel should not be elitist.

A culture of moderation does need to exist and to be nurtured if we are to see long lasting changes. I have sought to make further cuts in my life in order to compensate for my multitude of travel. You may call it self-rationalisation in hopes to preserve an excessive want, but I no longer am so easily guilted.

e Copenhagen Blues: Will the UK have an impact at the Climate Change summit or is it all about Obama?

Cheryl Brumley (18/10/09)

Green has proven consistently in vogue no matter what the season. Leaders will don the colour – an accessory to their monochrome suits and stiff ties – to ramp up their “cool” factor. Fashion types, such as Chanel’s Karl Lagerfeld, have been equally enamoured by the chic hue. His most recent show in Paris was held on a mock-farm featuring organic and renewable fabrics. One must applaud their efforts but effective green tactics must be born from more than just self-interested politicians and fashion houses.

The United States (the world’s biggest producer of greenhouse gas emissions) paired with the industrialised powerhouses China and India, will determine the fate of carbon reduction. It follows that Secretary of State Ed Miliband’s presence at the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this December will mean little without the top leaders from the “Big Three” showing up and coming to a compromise. Both Miliband and Gordon Brown have admitted the legitimacy of the entire conference is subject to the presence of high-level representation (read: President Obama).

Does this say something for British leadership impotency? Yes, but only if one believes each country is entering an even playing field and each potentially has the same level of impact as the next – which is certainly not the case. Rather, it says more for British pragmatism. Developing countries cannot be held to the same standards as relatively affluent ones – and furthermore, they must receive financial support from the latter to both rapidly industrialise and be green whilst doing so. Although, America’s failure to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Accords was due mostly to the double standards held for it compared to India and China in regards to carbon emissions standards, the Copenhagen Conference must juggle the varying self-interests of key states while underlying the point that immediate action must be influenced by altruism and foresight. Sacrifice is an inherent part of any global commitment.

The recent talks in Bangkok have shown this is no easy task. The double-standards that must exist in order for a realistic agreement to come to fruition, are also causing a rift between the developed and the developing world. What will the British role be then if the crux of the Conference does not rely on their presence? Britain must engage with the United States both before and after the Conference. Gordon Brown must publicly challenge President Obama to match the European commitment to supporting the developing world at Copenhagen and also remain an active part of the bilateral and multi-lateral agreements that may take place after the Conference. The Americans feel more comfortable with agreements that are tailored to its specific wants and may purposefully hold out in December, as in the case with Kyoto, for that very reason. Though optimism is scant, in-roads can be paved and Britain can remain an active part in negotiating between countries on both sides of the industrialised tracks.

Something must be done and it must be done through a concerted global effort. Although the cynic in me knows that UN treaties are only as binding as the leading international players want them to be, it is a vital tool that keeps every country accountable to laws mutually agreed upon and reinforced. Perhaps the Conference is too big in scope but the problem at hand is equally as so.

The Feed-in-Future: Feed-in-tariffs are the answer to high electricity costs and a sustainable market

Cheryl Brumley  (11/10/09)

I once sat in a basement floor room in a Whitehall building, with sleepy fluorescent lights above me in place of windows, writing stacks of letters on behalf of ministers. The words I wrote in some of these letters, I truly believed – though I must say many I typed with angry, grudging keystrokes. These were letters I had to write defending energy companies and the extortionate and unfair prices they waged on consumers. Many were responses to shakily handwritten pieces from elderly citizens worried about their ability to pay their fuel bills on a fixed income. Surely fobbing off the “fuel poor” to Ofgem (who in turn only has the power to then fob them off to an ineffective energy Ombudsman), represents a greater issue underlying the UK energy market as it stands today – it is unsustainable in terms of expenses and supply.

Energy companies such a British Gas, Southern and EDF, are advantaged in that the service they provide will always be in demand and as a result are seemingly unaffected by changes in the market. Although the Government attributed this to the usual six-month lag it takes for the reduction in wholesale costs of oil to translate onto the market – they have been using this line for over a year.

Of course, I did write letters that encouraged me and balanced out my anger with hope; many comprised of responses to campaigns for Feed-in-Tariffs (FIT) – the quickest fix for a country like the UK, which is set on following through with the EU commitment for 20% of electricity generation to come from renewable sources by 2020 (currently, the UK is at 2%). FITs require energy companies to pay a set amount of money to companies, communities or individuals that feed electricity into the grid through micro-renewable sources (e.g. solar, wind, biowaste, hydro), and are absolutely necessary in order to make renewable energies a worthy competitor against the energy giants. Without them, renewable energy sources are merely a buzzword or ornaments on the house of eccentric inventor or wealthy environmentalists. The scheme has met great success in Germany and many hope to follow through with their exact model.

The establishment of a green culture is important, but consumer cries for lower-costs and sustainable practices do not exactly translate to the market in the same way savvy consumers were able to steer the food industry towards organic products and less wasteful packaging.  In other words, a market that has such a stronghold over our daily life, with an ongoing guarantee of demand, will not use nor invest in renewable resources without the Government requiring it to do so.

Luckily, the Government is heading in the right direction. Though it has unsuccessfully regulated energy market prices, it is prepared to ensure there are alternatives for the future. A FIT scheme was announced by Secretary of State Ed Miliband in July of this year for full implementation by April 2010. Unfortunately, it inevitably will translate into higher costs for consumers in the short-term as a means to ensure electric companies can purchase energy at the relatively high rates needed to make renewables competitive. This is a worthy sacrifice. It is better to dictate prices now rather than become victims of them later. Times of looming scarcity are ripe for innovation and allowing renewable energy to remain competitive with conventional energy will certainly lead to more efficient and cheaper technologies.

With a peak oil crisis on the horizon, ironically, there seems to be no other alternative than alternative energy. FIT is more promising for the electricity generation of the future as it matches the idealism of a green culture with a financial incentive and thus, motivating principle for companies and the closeted capitalists within or amongst us.

Green Direct Action: Tory Party Conference

Jenny Riddell

The Human Shrub – the Banksy of the gardening world, today targeted the Tory party conference in Manchester.

He, and his handful of green fingered friends (including one foliage loving gorilla) greened up Manchester’s Albert Square, outside the Party Conference,  in protest of the decline in urban planting and green spaces.

He first sprung up in February of this year, guerrilla gardening in Colchester’s forgotten flower beds and protesting against local council plans to slash the towns flower and shrub budget. Some sceptics have suggested that the Human Shrub is in fact a Tory ‘plant’, rallying against his local lib dem council.

This kind of inoffensive direct green action must surely be a good thing for urban communities? I doubt that many people out there could truly be offended by a few pansies on their footpath. Not so says the local council. Martin Hunt, the Colchester committee member for parks and gardens told a local newspaper: He could get himself injured or killed, or even worse could lead to someone else being injured or killed. At least when he was outside the town hall he was amusingly stupid. This is not funny at all.