The environment and liberalism

Joe Otten recently summarised the various chapters of Reinventing the State: Social Liberalism for the 21st Century (aka. the Huhne Manifesto?). Joe has generally been sympathetic to the “Social Liberal” argument, though as a member of the Sheffield Hallam constituency party one should not take his views on any particular issue for granted.

The focus of Joe’s attentions is liberal environmentalism, so the environment chapter in that book was bound to peak his interest. I’m not going to repeat Joe’s summary here, but I am going to raise three points that I made in response to his post.

Firstly, too many environmentalists are willing to throw away progress – both material and political. This is partly because of a misguided belief that environmental degradation is an inevitable consequence of economic growth, itself an echo of long-standing Romantic critiques of the Enlightenment and the fear of progress and change. Just as population growth did not exhaust our capacity to feed the people or increase their material wellbeing, so it does not automatically have to toast us in an ever-hotter atmosphere. There are alternative means to generate energy and there are technological solutions to rising levels of CO2. Those who want to halt or reverse economic growth are usually fired by either a combination of a Romantic and a quasi-religious view of an Arcadian alternative, or by other ideologies that have found an new justification in environmental extremism.

Secondly, the critique of the focus on economic growth statistics is correct, but only so far. It is true that growth statistics are not particularly useful or enlightening, but there is no doubt that over time we live demonstrably better lives as our economy expands (Layardian happiness research not withstanding). Indeed, much economic growth new results from services rather than manufacturing, which are often (though not always) low-carbon activities. (As an interesting aside, try finding a verb to apply to economic growth that is not a metaphor for either power or transport!). One obvious except is transport, but this highlights one fundamental difference between liberal and Green environmentalism. The Greens want to discourage travel; liberals seek more environmentally friendly transport. At the core of this is the liberal belief that mankind can shape a better future and the Green nihilism that sees humanity as a negative influence upon the planet.

When Greens (which I use here to refer to authoritarian and fatalist environmentalists rather than the Green Party, though there is obviously a huge overlap) criticise modern society, they often accuse it of concentrating on the “bottom line” to the detriment of everything else. This is a critique they share with socialists. It is pure guff. Take our supposedly “Capitalist” society as an example. Taxes are inherently harmful to labour, to profits and to economic growth, yet we tax profits and labour very heavily precisely because we put short-term welfare gains above long-term welfare gains. Similarly, we burden businesses with regulation because we consider other factors (notably but not solely environmental ones) to be of importance alongside wealth creation. I have argued before that we over-regulate and over-tax, but neither I nor anyone I know suggests we should have no regulation and no tax; profit is only one driver in society.

The key is to set rules that clearly guide everybody and lead them to make sensible decisions about the environment. This is traditional liberal ground, if slightly re-emphasised. The value of the environment is not inherent but comes from the fact that it sustains us and gives us pleasure; consequently our impact upon the environment impacts upon the freedom of others (the quality of your life being reduced if I pollute the public spaces). This is classical liberal stuff, and the solutions can be equally liberal. We need clear rules that apply equally to all and do not discriminate: for example, we should tax petrol and congestion rather than cars; we should tax aircraft fuel rather than passengers; and we should tax the carbon produced in electricity generation rather than banning incandescent light bulbs.

The point is that dictating to people how must they lead their lives will inevitably lead to arbitrary decision making that will be partisan and will miss the target (e.g. penalising those who buy big cars even if they don’t drive them very much). It will also cause a huge backlash: nobody likes to be told what to do, let alone told to feel bad about what they have been doing for years, which is why there is such a strong anti-environmentalist movement. The Greens have brought it on themselves (and the rest of us).

By comparison, factoring into the price of things the ecological as well as production costs (“capturing the externalities”, as I said on Friday just one second before I lost my audience) will enable government to reduce overall emissions, while allowing individuals to decide how much emitting is worth to them. That ensures that those who value emitting most can emit at a price, while those who value it less will emit less. Economically this results in an optimal distribution of resources (in this case, the limited capacity the earth has for more greenhouse gasses); socially this creates a free society where everybody is then free to pursue a better life as long as it is not at the expense of others.

Surely that’s a liberalism on which we can all agree.

The noble savage inhabits Vanuatu

At the risk of arousing the ire of colleagues with first hand knowledge of the island paradise of Vanuatu (which to my mind was memorable as the team with which it was hardest to win FIFA 98 on the Nintendo 64), I have just seen the most stupid article on the BBC News.

As my regular reader will know, the Beeb have set a pretty high standard, but this article leapt over its rivals with the grace of a gazelle.

The general premise of the article was a romantic paean for the simple life of the primitive islander. It stems from Vanuatu’s top place on the "Happy Planet Index" drawn up by the New Economics Foundation, which ought to set alarm bells ringing (for “new” read “no understanding of”). The people of Vanuatu are happier than any other nation on Earth, apparently, and yet they are poor and consume few resources. So begins a classic BBC dream-piece about the glories of the simple life and the happiness of the noble savage.

“I have food from my garden, no war, and nothing to fear” one islander tells us, and it is hard to deny that that sounds pretty idyllic. And perhaps I am a jaded Westerner who must always look for cold hard facts to counter an old woman’s perception of her homeland. But I do not have to look far to discover that the infant mortality rate is ten times that of the United Kingdom, or that life expectancy is a fifth shorter.

Not that I am denying that she is happy; I merely wonder how carefully Andrew Harding, the reporter, chose his interviewee. I note that he did not choose the woman whose fifth child had died, or who was widowed at 34. I do not doubt that many residents of Vanuatu are superbly happy, and even I can see the apparent attraction of their life (as painted by the BBC). But I also do not doubt that the reporters have carefully chosen their subject matter to present an Arcadian view of this furthest of tiny islands to their largely metropolitan audience. The article is not about life in Vanuatu; it is about dreams in Islington.

It was also strangely discomforting. The article particularly focussed upon the use of pig tusks as currency on the island of Pentecost. But it had an awkward feel to it; one was unsure whether this being presented as highly innovative or amusingly quaint. The only thing that was clear was that Harding seemed as confused as his viewers.

His lack of understanding of economics is also apparent. In the version of the article that appeared on the 10 O’clock News (which differs from the internet version), we were told that the country is becoming wealthier because there are more pig tusks. Those of a less mercantilist bent might wonder whether this explains the 15% interest rates that the banks are offering; the last time the UK saw 15% interest rates, we were fighting run-away inflation and a currency crisis.

“It all adds up to a stable and prosperous community,” Harding narrates. “There is a sense of harmony and happiness...” On the next island, development – which seems to include building modern housing – is described as turning the place into a dump. There is an interesting – some might say a stark – lesson here. What Vanuatu appears to have is a largely homogenous community, a traditional society and wide-spread poverty. As a result, there is no ethnic tension, no social unrest and nothing of which to be jealous. Harding implies that we could all learn from Pentecost, but are we really prepared to give up multiculturalism, our freedom to live an alternative lifestyle, and the ambition to improve ourselves?

In truth I must be a jaded Westerner, because I suspect there is a wilful blindness in Harding’s report. “There is no hunger here, no unemployment, no tax, no police, no crime or conflict to speak of,” he tells us, but I cannot help thinking that for these farmers and fishermen hunger must be a hazard of life, as it has been for all subsistence farmers and fishermen throughout history; that unemployment never exists if one is prepared to hunt and gather; that crime may be merely unreported, as the usual violence and petty wickedness that afflicts every society is considered routine; and that conflict may not be international, but must surely exist between individuals, families and gangs. If not, it would have to be more than just paradise. It would have to be unique in human history.

I don’t mean to knock the islanders. I hope they are as happy as Harding and the New Economics Foundation suggest. But I despise the glorification of their lifestyle by Western news crews that fly in for a brief taxpayer-funded film shoot before returning to their London flats where they will worry about their carbon footprints over cocktails atop the OXO Tower. This report says less about the levels of happiness to be found in Britain and Vanuatu than it does about what journalists consider to be The Good Life.

I note that Andrew Harding showed no desire to live there. I doubt the people of Pentecost would want him to.