There are attempts to use these different measures, actually. Under the Obama administration, federal agencies were obliged to calculate the social cost of carbon. In other words, they had to estimate the price society will pay in the future, or the damage it will suffer, for every ton of carbon dioxide emissions. Because there is a cost. The idea was that agencies should consider the impact of "business as usual" on climate change, calculate the cost of that impact, and include that cost in their statements. Trump has now signed a new executive order which appears largely to counter all the measures Obama had introduced under the Clean Energy Act.
HP
FA
Yes.
BE
In some ways I understand what you’re saying, in others I’m struggling. You might think I’ve put my business hat on, but I’m not objecting in order to insist that we maintain our paradigm and keep growing. It just seems to me that we’re chasing a very tricky goal. On a philosophical level it’s impossible not to agree with you. I think you’re one hundred percent right, but if we’re setting out to avert a great danger, we must consider whether such a major paradigm shift is feasible across the world. Let’s say we prioritize studies that measure happiness, attempt to determine the social and economic development of a country beyond its GDP, and focus on living standards. How successful would we be? How much of the growth-focused model that lies at the heart of the economy could we change? Companies exist, and they want to increase their profits; entrepreneurs want to make more profit. They all have to grow in order to increase their profit. In order to grow, they create demand, demand for non-existent products, demand for brand new ideas, innovations and products; that’s what drives growth. In short, it’s impossible not to agree in principle, but I have great doubts about whether this is a workable route. I also doubt whether we have much time. Our feet are getting wet, so I fear that focusing on fundamental paradigm shifts that alter the running of every economy could divert us from our course.
FA
I’d like to add something brief here that you, too, said at the start: This effort only makes sense if there’s consensus, if everyone takes the same steps. If one country says, “This is what we’re doing; it doesn’t matter if the remaining 200-plus don’t,” of course it makes no sense. Let's translate what Professor Paker just said into technical terms: If we could replace the narrow idea of “private cost” with the broader concept of “social and environmental cost,” if we could at least include social and environmental costs in the feasibility studies for big investments, and if everyone could just shake hands on all that, we could create a significant opportunity. But we’re not there yet.
So, how do we get there? If you never look ahead ten years when you plan a project, if you’re quite short-sighted, if five or six years of profit make you say, “Wonderful, we’ve got it made, après nous le deluge,” it’s obvious that environmental problems are going to blow up in your face well before you get to the 2030s. I mean, the question here is: How short-sighted are we in this matter? What are we going to do if companies say, “The next five years is all we can manage; we’re not interested in the rest”?
HP
What about politicians?
FA
Most politicians also say, “I’m concentrating on the next three to five years, I can’t see beyond that.” The importance of concerted action is obvious. What do we need in order to establish and maintain cooperation – whether in a specific sector, neighborhood, city or worldwide? That’s why I highlighted the issue of governance. Maybe there are bottlenecks in governance. We have to solve the problem of “mutual trust.” At the end of the day, it’s not easy when it comes to international agreements; what are we going to do if someone’s failed to keep their promise. Are we going to wage war? Are we to say, “You’ve failed to keep your carbon commitment. Here, take this bomb”? What’s needed is something very different, which is why we need to have the general conditions in place for peaceful coexistence. This is equally valid for tensions within countries.
HP
You’re quite right. Take some hypothetical country’s energy minister who says, “I’m going to extract all the coal in the land and burn it all.” There’s probably no point at all in trying to reason with this person by saying, “Hold on, we were going to change the paradigm, maybe it’s best not to go that far.” Here, the most effective arguments are growth and job creation. We need to show that it’s possible to achieve growth and create jobs by pursuing sustainability and investing in renewable technologies. It’s important to increase the number of best practices of this kind.
BE
I agree with you.
HP
That’s why China, for example, is important: It hasn’t given up on economic growth. China is quite possibly the first example that pops up when anyone says economic growth. If everyone is trying to emulate China, and China is in a position to prove that growth can be achieved through renewables, this could at least constitute a starting point.
BE
Undoubtedly. I agree, but the point is that we aren’t giving up on growth. This distinction appears to me to be quite important.