Reaching conclusions: government and the green transition

If only? Technocracy International was a social movement formed in the 1930s to promote
a technocratic vision for North America (Burris 1993)

Even the most neoclassical economic textbooks recognise that environmental damage cannot be solved by market mechanisms alone. The consensus, however, ends there with different economic and political philosophies disagreeing about how governments can and should address environmental problems. Throughout this blog I've engaged with some of these debates by asking how national governments can promote a green transition and so in this final post, I'm going to draw my thoughts together.

While the EKC hypothesis suggests that governments should just go for growth to improve the environment, the theory’s shaky foundations undermine its conclusions. I believe that to reduce the environmental intensity of economic activity it’s necessary for environmental considerations to be integrated into every area of economic policy. Alongside evidence that shows governments can spur innovation and even lead a new green industrial revolution, policies also have the capacity to address corporate short-termism and thereby promote private sector green investment. Furthermore, social policies are essential in order to increase the resilience of economic systems and mitigate the social consequences of seemingly unavoidable climate change, particularly in developing countries where large poor rural populations are particularly vulnerable.

Governments are clearly integral to the process of green transition and therefore the tools and methods that are used to inform policy formulation are of significant importance. Because environmental economists and their rhetoric of ‘ecosystem services’ are particularly salient within environmental policy-making, this blog has examined some key concepts and developments within environmental economics to examine whether they are conducive to progressive policy developments. In the previous two posts I concluded that, while environmental valuation seems to be more hassle than it's worth, the development of environment-economy models is promising.  Aside from this, however, I’m skeptical that governments are willing to act on the scale demanded by the potential magnitude of future climate change. As the energy price debate has highlighted, politicians operating on 5-year election cycles seem prone to short-termism and more inclined to offer piecemeal populist policy changes than the radical overhaul that a green transition would require.

It’s pretty easy to criticise political myopia, but thinking of ways to address the problem is a lot trickier. Replacing democratic government with a technocratic dictatorship would potentially work but, I must admit, it isn’t the most appealing or feasible of solutions. A more pragmatic approach would be to promote cross-parliamentary agreements, such as current carbon budgets, that tie all parties to certain environmental policy commitments or targets. However, I fear that the sclerosis of Whitehall means this approach would just result in a sort of political constipation where an awful lot of effort generates distinctly underwhelming results. Furthermore, pledges are a considerable political liability (just ask Nick Clegg), and so I doubt that cross-party agreements with ambitious targets would be able to achieve sufficient parliamentary support. 

If governments could overcome their chronic shortsightedness, I believe it would be possible to significantly reduce the environmental impact of economic activity. If not, however, I worry that the current socio-economic system – already creaking under the strain of inequality and environmental degradation – will become untenable. 

And on that cheery note, I'm going to say goodbye and leave you with a bit of Marvin Gaye. I've really enjoyed exploring a range of subjects through this blog – I just hope its been an interesting read!