|
Letter from Committee Specialist to Professor Tim Jackson, Sustainable Development Commissioner, Centre for Environmental Strategy (CES) (PBR13)
The Chairman mentioned that there were a couple of questions the Committee would have liked to ask, but ran out of time:
1. You've criticised the way in which mainstream politicians will promote sustainable consumerism, but will never urge people simply to consume less-even though this may be the single biggest thing they can do to save carbon emissions. What would a Government campaign to get people to buy less look like? And how should the Government decide what a sustainable level of consumption would be? 2. In his book, Capitalism As if the World Matters, Jonathon Porritt wrote that the affects of lower economic growth-and the lower public spending that would go with it-would be as bad for society as higher economic growth is for the environment. Do you agree with him? If so, then what is the answer? What exactly does the SDC think the Treasury should be aiming for? 3. Jonathon Porritt also argued that a capitalist economy that ceased to grow might actually "put the cause of environmental sustainability further beyond reach". In what ways might the recession be bad for the environment, and how might the Government make things better?
If you were able to email brief answers to these by 4th/5th Feb, that would be really helpful.
For reference, the passages the questions allude to are below:
Your recent New Scientist article:
[Politicians] bombard us with adverts cajoling us to insulate our homes, turn down our thermostats, drive a little less, walk a little more. The one piece of advice you will not see on a government list is "buy less stuff". Buying an energy-efficient TV is to be applauded; not buying one at all is a crime against society. Agreeing reluctantly to advertising standards is the sign of a mature society; banning advertising altogether (even to children) is condemned as "culture jamming". Consuming less may be the single biggest thing you can do to save carbon emissions, and yet no one dares to mention it. Because if we did, it would threaten economic growth, the very thing that is causing the problem in the first place.
Jonathon Porritt has written in his book Capitalism as if the World Matters:
Lower levels of economic growth (the inevitable consequence of large numbers of people opting for lower levels of economic activity) would mean lower tax revenues, which, in turn, would necessitate lower levels of public expenditure on key public services such as health and education, as well as lower levels of capital expenditure on things such as transport. The negative impact of this upon society and people's individual quality of life is as much of concern to advocates of genuine sustainable development as the negative impacts upon the environment of current levels of economic growth.
[...] capitalist economies need growth of some description if they are not to be thrown into massive social hardship. All the evidence suggests that a capitalist economy that is not growing at all may not be economically viable. Nor is it necessarily even environmentally benign. This suggests that 'no growth' under capitalism would not further the cause of environmental sustainability as such, but would, in fact, be more likely to put it further beyond reach.
Committee Specialist
|